The United States is warning Peru that China’s growing control over a major Pacific port could threaten the country’s sovereignty, escalating tensions over Beijing’s expanding footprint in Latin America.

The concern centers on the $1.3 billion deep-water port in Chancay, north of Lima, which has become a flashpoint between Washington and Beijing after a Peruvian court ruling limited government regulatory oversight of the project.

The State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs said on social media that it was ‘concerned about latest reports that Peru could be powerless to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports, which is under the jurisdiction of predatory Chinese owners,’ adding: ‘We support Peru’s sovereign right to oversee critical infrastructure in its own territory. Let this be a cautionary tale for the region and the world: cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty.’

China’s foreign ministry rejected the comments as ‘rumor-mongering and smearing’ and insisted the project remains under Peruvian authority, according to the Associate Press report.

Asia analyst Gordon Chang told Fox News Digital: ‘Chancay is so central that analysts say it will redirect trade across the South Pacific. We know Beijing considers ports to be dual-use and strategic. China, held up the BlackRock deal to acquire the CK Hutchinson port operations in the Panama Canal Zone even though the ports are nowhere near China itself.’

‘In times of war, China will not allow its port operations to load, unload, or service American ships or ships coming from or going to U.S. ports,’ he warned.

Jack Burnham, senior analyst in the China Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the port reflects a broader strategic push by Beijing in the region.

‘The Chancay port is a keystone in China’s investment in Latin America — its size and proximity provide a bridge across the Pacific and access to another market to fuel Beijing’s export-driven economic engine,’ Burnham said.

‘China’s investment in Peru is predicated on Beijing grasping the sinews of Lima’s critical infrastructure to gain influence. With effective control over the port cemented for now by a lower Peruvian court ruling, China gains access to one of the largest critical infrastructure projects in the region, a position from which it could exercise significant control.’

The dispute comes as Washington and Beijing compete for influence across Latin America, where China has expanded investment through infrastructure projects and trade, analysts say.

China’s state-owned shipping giant COSCO, which holds a majority stake in the project, dismissed U.S. concerns and said the court ruling ‘in no way involves aspects of sovereignty,’ adding that Peruvian authorities still oversee security, environmental compliance and customs, according to the Associated Press.

Peru’s transport infrastructure regulator, Ositran, has said it plans to appeal the ruling, arguing the port should not be exempt from the same oversight applied to other major facilities.

China’s Embassy in Washington DC did not provide a comment in time for publication.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A partial government shutdown affecting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is all but guaranteed unless the Senate rams through a short-term extension of current funding levels sometime on Thursday.

But avoiding a DHS shutdown means the same measure must also pass the House of Representatives, where success will depend on delicate political maneuvering by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to persuade a House Republican Conference with varying ideas of what a path forward should look like.

‘It would have to be for 60 or 90 days, I would think,’ said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. ‘I don’t know what’s going to happen in 30 days, I don’t know what’s going to change.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is expected to unveil a stopgap funding measure for DHS called a continuing resolution (CR), which would extend the department’s current budget for a yet-unknown amount of time.

It comes after Democrats walked away en masse from a bipartisan deal to fund DHS through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026 over what they saw as insufficient guardrails on agencies responsible for President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

Congress has funded 97% of the federal government through FY2026 at this point. But DHS is a vast department with a broad jurisdiction that includes the U.S. Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — all of which will see varying levels of disruptions if a shutdown happens.

Republicans largely want to avoid such a situation but have made clear they believe that its effects would fall squarely on Democrats’ shoulders.

Conservatives like Norman favor an extended CR, arguing that it would fund Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a higher level than the initial bipartisan funding deal would have while removing Democrats’ negotiating leverage for more guardrails on those agents.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital last week that he would support a full-year CR for DHS to ‘make sure that FEMA is funded and TSA is funded, and stop the drama.’

Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., similarly said on Wednesday, ‘I think we’d like to push it out as far as we can so we can avoid the constant uncertainty for the agency.’

‘As long as this hangs up in the air, let’s say you do it for three, four months, the Democrats are gonna want a pound of flesh to help pass whatever it is. And I think that’s gonna weaken the efforts of … immigration enforcement,’ Crane told Fox News Digital.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., told reporters earlier this week that he would favor a mid-length CR over something shorter.

‘If we do two weeks and they leave for a week, it’s really a one-week CR. Nothing’s going to happen when that many important people are gone. So I think four weeks makes a lot more sense,’ Cole said.

But committee member Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., panned the idea of a CR altogether.

‘CRs don’t work. CRs are not without pain. It disrupts a lot of your supply chain and purchasing and acquisition,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘I can’t believe they’re even thinking about it.’

Rutherford, a former sheriff, argued that a shutdown or CR would harm critical national security operations during a year that’s expected to see a host of high-security events in the U.S. like America’s 250th anniversary celebration, the FIFA World Cup and others.

Johnson declined to share his thoughts on CR length when asked by Fox News Digital on Tuesday, but emphasized the House GOP’s position that the Senate should take up the bipartisan bill that Democrats initially walked away from.

‘I’m not going to prejudge the length of it or what it should be. I’m very hopeful. I mean, we still have time on the clock. When there’s a will, there’s a way. And if they can come to an agreement on this and get it done, that will behoove the whole country,’ Johnson said.

House GOP leaders will likely need nearly all Republicans on board to pass a CR for DHS, with many Democrats warning they will not support any funding for the department without seeing proof of critical reform.

Jeffries would not go into specifics about what he would support or oppose in terms of DHS funding during his weekly press conference on Monday, but he suggested to reporters that a simple stopgap funding bill with no changes to ICE funding was out of the question. 

‘ICE is out of control right now. The American people know it, and ICE clearly needs to be reined in,’ Jeffries said. ‘Our position has been clear. Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward. Period. Full stop.’

A new report from Alliance for Consumers (AFC) argues that progressive, often climate-change-related, activism and aligned trial lawyers are increasingly using lawsuits not to win big dollars but big changes.

Since the waning years of the Obama administration, AFC said that courtrooms have become the ‘battleground’ for the political left’s campaign to ‘reshape American society’ through ‘strategic litigation.’ 

AFC analyzed employment discrimination cases, environmental suits and corporate governance litigation and found that the outcomes, or sought-after outcomes, demonstrated a pattern of courtroom strategy meant to deliver policy changes that the left has been unable to achieve through state or federal legislation — particularly regarding DEI and climate.

‘If you really want to understand a substantial portion of why corporate America went really woke, there’s a story that can be told,’ O.H. Skinner, AFC’s executive director, told Fox News Digital.

Skinner said that corporate America believed President Barack Obama would be followed by ‘President Hillary Clinton’ — demonstrating continuity in many of these policy fields — leading to people leaving civil service jobs to join corporate HR and legal departments and bring their policy goals with them.

He alleged that officials in Washington signaled companies could face scrutiny if they did not align with emerging DEI priorities.

‘That’s describing a world where through government lawsuits, but also through private lawsuits, a lot of pressure was being brought on corporate America,’ said Skinner, whose previous work included time with the Arizona attorney general’s office under Mark Brnovich, who led the state’s largest consumer-protection lawsuit against Google over location tracking.

Skinner compared the strategy to ‘plaintiff-shopping’ in class-action litigation, where a firm may be paid millions in settlement while it ‘negotiates a coupon for you’ for the applicant-plaintiffs.

One of the firms cited in the study — which Skinner noted as alleged proof of its political persuasions — had filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani on behalf of Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., citing the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 after Jan. 6.

AFC’s report cited a 2019 shareholder-derivative suit brought by Cohen-Milstein against Alphabet — Google’s parent — on behalf of New York union pensioners, alleging it breached fiduciary duties and covered up a data breach and sexual harassment allegations.

The statement from Cohen-Milstein on the suit alleged Alphabet ‘fostered’ a misogynistic ‘‘brogrammer’ culture,’ and later celebrated the settlement ‘fundamentally altering Alphabet’s workforce policies,’ including a $310 million ‘financial commitment to DEI initiatives’ and its position toward ‘workplace equity.’

AFC found the lawsuit ‘functioned as a tool for advocacy groups to push a comprehensive expansion of the DEI agenda at one of the biggest companies with a massive budgetary commitment, all through litigation rather than legislative action or shareholder demand.’

Cohen-Milstein did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Skinner’s team also cited a case in which the Obama Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) allegedly did an end run around legislators and established new DEI practices at another major company through aggressive litigation.

Bass Pro/Outdoor World agreed to pay $10.5 million and provide ‘other significant relief’ to settle a hiring discrimination suit brought by Obama’s EEOC, according to the agency.

The administration claimed Bass Pro Shops discriminated against minority applicants, but instead of a strictly cash settlement, it reached agreements to mandate EEO training, affirmative diversity outreach and the appointment of a DEI director, according to AFC’s research.

In an ongoing climate-related suit — in which Honolulu is suing Sunoco via the Sher-Edling firm — the Hawaiian capital reportedly alleged public nuisance claims and sought to hold oil companies responsible for climate damages.

AFC’s report found the suit seeks not only monetary damages for ‘climate-related infrastructure costs,’ but also disgorgement of profits, climate-mitigation actions and other corporate reforms.

‘These cases attempt to use courts to impose climate policy, effectively putting judges in charge of energy and climate regulation rather than elected legislatures and administrative agencies with technical expertise,’ the report said. Fox News Digital reached out to Sher-Edling.

In another case, red-state government employees were granted access to transgender health care after a staff accountant surnamed Rich and other plaintiffs sued over a health plan that denied coverage of transgender care.

A $365,000 settlement was lodged and split among the defendants and an LGBTQ-rights group, while Georgia agreed to make sweeping policy changes to cover transgender care — something that would have typically gone through the legislature and likely failed with a Republican majority in charge.

The main litigant in that case was the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) — which has now merged into Advocates for Trans Equality (ATE).

‘Strategic litigation by advocacy organizations successfully bypassed Georgia’s legislative process to impose highly contested healthcare policy through judicial decree, demonstrating how activist organizations achieve policy goals through courts rather than democratic processes,’ AFC found in its reporting analysis.

ATE did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. 

Impact litigation has long been used by advocacy groups across the political spectrum to advance policy goals through the courts. Right-leaning groups have also been successful in forging settlement agreements that secure policy-related outcomes rather than strictly cash settlements.

In CRPA v. LASD, a district court ruled that members of a Second Amendment advocacy group may apply for non-resident concealed-carry permits in California.

The 2025 case saw a judge rule in favor of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, requiring Sacramento to accept permit applications from any out-of-state resident who is a member of a number of Second Amendment organizations.

Skinner told Fox News Digital that the tide, at least at the EEOC, has changed, citing recent remarks by new Trump-appointed Chairwoman Andrea Lucas, saying that her tack instead will be to probe corporate diversity programs and enforce against DEI.

‘That’s the crucial part about each of [the report’s] cases, it’s not, oh, some company allegedly discriminated against women or minorities — they might have, right. The problem with those cases and something that I think you would want to highlight is it’s not that somebody allegedly was mistreated and got money. It’s that the lawsuit was used to unlock all sorts of other bells and whistles that were not directly about anybody who was hurt, if they were hurt.’

In Lucas’ comments to Reuters in December, she said she would ‘shift [EEOC] to a conservative view of civil rights.’

AFC’s report concluded by summarizing that ‘lawsuits are increasingly used not to resolve disputes or compensate victims, but to impose policy changes that advocates have been unable to achieve through democratic processes.’

‘This transformation represents a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. When lawyers and activists can impose sweeping policy changes without having to go to the ballot box, or even after having been denied at the ballot box, the everyday consumers stop having a direct say in the products and choices that are before them on a daily basis.’

Russia will temporarily suspend flights to Cuba after airlines reported difficulties refueling aircraft on the island, aviation authorities said Wednesday.

Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency Rosaviatsia said in a statement posted on Telegram that the airlines Rossiya, part of the Aeroflot Group, and Nordwind were forced to adjust their flight programs due to problems securing fuel in Cuba.

In the coming days, Rossiya will operate several outbound-only flights from Havana and Varadero to Moscow to return Russian tourists home before halting service.

After those repatriation flights are completed, the airline’s Cuba program will be suspended until the situation improves, the agency said, calling the decision one made ‘in the interests of passengers.’

The Transport Ministry and Rosaviatsia said they are maintaining close contact with Cuban aviation authorities and are exploring alternative options to restore two-way service.

The announcement comes two weeks after President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over Cuba and authorized new measures aimed at choking off the island’s oil supplies.

In a Jan. 29 executive order, Trump said Cuba poses an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to U.S. national security and empowered his administration to impose tariffs on goods from any country that ‘directly or indirectly sells or otherwise provides any oil to Cuba.’

The order, which took effect Jan. 30, allows additional duties on imports from countries found to be supplying oil to Havana, part of what Trump described as a ‘zero tolerance’ policy toward the Cuban government.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s website shows a Notice to Airmen, or NOTAM, an official alert issued to pilots about hazards or operational disruptions, was posted Feb. 10 for nine Cuban airports warning that Jet A-1 fuel is not available.

The advisory covers Havana (MUHA), Varadero (MUVR), Cienfuegos (MUCF), Santa Clara (MUSC), Camagüey (MUCM), Cayo Coco (MUCC), Holguín (MUHG), Santiago de Cuba (MUCU) and Manzanillo (MUMZ), and remains in effect through March 11.

Since President Trump resumed office, leftists have run to the courts in a desperate attempt to stop — or, at the very least, stall — his agenda. To defeat this lawfare, President Trump needs the Senate’s help to put constitutionalists on the bench. Democrat senators’ obstruction is unsurprising; not even one has voted for one of President Trump’s appellate court nominees. Many Republican senators, however, are lagging in streamlining nominations. The most serious breakdown is in filling district court vacancies in deep-red states, especially Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. With the midterms rapidly approaching, this glacial pace must accelerate in short order.

District courts are the engines of the federal judiciary, and vacancies there create immediate and tangible harm. These courts handle the bulk of federal litigation, from immigration to criminal prosecutions to constitutional challenges. Yet confirming district judges often proves harder than confirming Supreme Court justices. The problem lies in the blue-slip process. Home-state senators have a de facto veto on district court nominees, U.S. attorney nominees and U.S. marshal nominees.

For over a century, U.S. senators have had the power to hand-select the U.S. attorneys who could prosecute them, U.S. district judges who could oversee their trials, and U.S. marshals who could escort them to prison. Senators will never give up this veto power. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a lame-duck Republican who sits on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, made it crystal clear that he will oppose any nominee who lacks support from both home-state senators. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley can do nothing about blue-slip obstruction when even one committee Republican can team up with Democrats to block any nominee.

There are roughly 15 district court vacancies in states with at least one Democrat senator. Because the blue slip is not going anywhere, it is unlikely that President Trump can fill many of these vacancies. Democrats are more obstructionist than ever. They caused the longest government shutdown in our history just a few months ago.

The far more troubling problem is the sheer number of vacancies in states represented by two Republican senators. Staggeringly, there are nearly two dozen district court vacancies in red states (i.e., states with two Republican senators). The most dire vacancy crises lie in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. There are seven vacancies throughout Texas’ several judicial districts, for example. Texas deals with a massive amount of immigration litigation because it is a border state. There is no excuse for a deep-red state like Texas, which President Trump won by 14%, to have seven vacancies.

Texas sadly is not alone when it comes to an unacceptably slow pace in filling vacancies. Other deep-red states combined have over a dozen: one each in South Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska and Alabama; two each in Ohio, Oklahoma and Florida; and three in Kansas. President Trump won each of these states by double digits and most by over 20%. These states deserve judges who are strong constitutionalists in line with President Trump’s vision of the law.

If Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reassumes the position of majority leader next year, he will grind the Trump judicial-confirmations train to a screeching halt. Grassley is a workhorse, so it is certain that he will expeditiously streamline President Trump’s nominees through the process this year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has demonstrated remarkable efficiency in getting nominees swiftly confirmed. No judicial nominees remain on the Senate Executive Calendar. Only four remain in the Judiciary Committee, and they just had their confirmation hearing last week, meaning they will be on the floor and ready for a vote by the end of the month. Leader Thune and Grassley cannot process nominations if there are no nominees.

Republican home-state senators need to focus on this crucial task and understand the urgency of the moment. Since the Senate sits only 3.5 days a week in most weeks, floor time is limited. Should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, Judiciary Committee time and resources must be invested overwhelmingly in confirming President Trump’s nominee. Delay is a recipe for disastrous defeat, and it must end instantly.

Republican senators must get moving in filling judicial vacancies.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she was ending the work of a task force that sought to reform the U.S. intelligence community, including rooting out what she described as the politicization of intelligence gathering, after less than a year since its creation.

Gabbard established the group in April, when it was also tasked with probing ways to reduce spending on intelligence and whether reports on high-profile topics such as COVID-19 should be declassified.

In a statement on Wednesday, Gabbard said the task force’s work was always intended to be temporary after she was tapped to oversee coordination of the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies.

‘In less than one year, we’ve brought a historic level of transparency to the intelligence community,’ Gabbard said in her statement. ‘My commitment to transparency, truth, and eliminating politicization and weaponization within the intelligence community remains central to all that we do.’

The number of officers assigned to the task force, as well as their identities, are classified, according to Gabbard’s office.

The officers will now return to other intelligence agencies to continue the work the group started, her office added.

The group sparked criticism against Gabbard after its creation, with Democrats and some intelligence insiders raising questions about whether it would be used to undermine intelligence agencies and bring them under tighter control of President Donald Trump.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last year that the group appeared to be a ‘pass for a witch hunt’ designed to target intelligence officers deemed disloyal to Trump.

‘This seems to be just a pass for a witch hunt and that’s going to further undermine our national security,’ Warner told Reuters at the time.

Gabbard has implemented significant changes to the country’s intelligence gathering in the last year, including by using agencies to back up Trump’s claims about alleged interference in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

In August, she revealed plans to cut her office’s workforce and slash more than $700 million from its annual budget. She also fired two top intelligence officials in May after concluding that they opposed Trump.

Since Gabbard took over as director, the federal government has revoked the security clearances of dozens of former and current officials, including high-profile political opponents of the president, which critics have panned as being a punishment for siding against Trump rather than posing security risks.

Gabbard’s presence for a recent FBI search of a Georgia election office in connection to the 2020 election has led to criticism from Democrats who argue she is blurring the traditional lines between foreign intelligence collection and domestic law enforcement.

The CIA has also released additional information about its investigations into the origins of COVID-19, such as an assessment released last year that affirmed the position that it most likely originated in a lab in China.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is threatening to back election challengers against the six House Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to reverse his tariffs on Canada.

The president sent out an ominous warning to GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate just before his agenda suffered a blow on Capitol Hill Wednesday evening.

‘Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!’ Trump posted on Truth Social.

He argued that the trade deficit was reduced significantly while U.S. financial markets hit significant high points because of his tariff policies.

‘In addition, TARIFFS have given us Great National Security because the mere mention of the word has Countries agreeing to our strongest wishes,’ Trump continued. 

‘TARIFFS have given us Economic and National Security, and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege.’

Democrats successfully got a vote on a measure to reverse Trump’s national emergency at the northern border using a mechanism for forcing votes over the objections of House majority leadership called a privileged resolution.

The six Republicans who voted in favor of the measure are Reps. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa. 

One Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, voted with the majority of Republicans on the matter. It passed 219-211.

It’s not clear how much impact Trump’s threat will have, however.

Both Newhouse and Bacon are not running for re-election in the 2026 midterms, and Trump is already endorsing a primary challenger against Massie.

Kiley, whose district was severely impacted by California Democrats’ new congressional map, has not yet said whether he will run for re-election or where he will do it.

Fitzpatrick and Hurd are both well-liked incumbents in their districts, which are top targets for Democrats come November.

Trump signed an executive order in February 2025, enacting an additional 25% tariff on most goods from Canada and Mexico. Energy from Canada was subject to an additional 15% tariff.

At the time, the White House said it was punishment for those countries’ unwillingness to do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit drugs into the U.S.

Opponents of Trump’s tariff strategy have criticized his moves against Canada in particular, arguing it was unjustly harming one of the closest allies of the U.S. and trading partners to the detriment of Americans themselves.

But Republicans who voted against the legislation pointed out that Trump said the fentanyl crisis was the reason for issuing the emergency in the first place, and said the drug was still killing Americans.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where Republicans have voted to rebuke Trump’s tariff strategy in the past despite similar warnings from the president.

The House of Representatives passed a massive election integrity overhaul bill on Wednesday despite opposition from the vast majority of Democrats.

The House passed Rep. Chip Roy’s SAVE America Act, legislation that’s aimed at keeping non-citizens from voting in U.S. federal elections. 

It is an updated version of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, also led by Roy, R-Texas, which passed the House in April 2025 but was never taken up in the Senate.

Whereas the SAVE Act would create a new federal proof of citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and impose requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal elections.

It would also require information-sharing between state election officials and federal authorities in verifying citizenship on current voter rolls and enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to pursue immigration cases if non-citizens were found to be listed as eligible to vote.

Democrats have attacked the bill as tantamount to voter suppression, while Republicans argue that it’s necessary after the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. during the four years of the Biden administration.

‘If we want to rebuild confidence again in American elections, we need to pass the SAVE Act,’ Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital. ‘What better way to eliminate that distrust than to make sure that whoever votes in an American citizen who is truly eligible to vote?’

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., accused Republicans of trying to make it harder for women to vote. She argued that the legislation would make it more difficult for married women to cast ballots if their surname is different from their maiden name on their birth certificate.

‘Republicans aren’t worried about non-citizens voting. They’re afraid of actual American citizens voting. Why? Because they’re losing among women,’ Clark said during debate on the House floor. ‘This is a minefield of red tape that you have put in front of women and American citizens and their right to vote.’

But House GOP Policy Committee Chairman Kevin Hern, R-Okla., emphasized that it was about keeping illegal immigrants from voting in U.S. elections.

‘This really is about feeding the narrative that Democrats want illegally from all over the world to come here to support them,’ Hern said of Democrats’ opposition.

If implemented, the bill could see new requirements imposed on voters in this year’s November midterm elections.

But it would have to pass the Senate, where current rules dictate that at least several Democrats are needed to meet the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster.

The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday aimed at reversing President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada after several Republicans joined Democrats for a rare rebuke of the GOP commander-in-chief.

Democrats successfully got a vote on a measure to reverse Trump’s national emergency at the northern border using a mechanism for forcing votes over the objections of House majority leadership, called a privileged resolution.

Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 implementing an additional 25% tariff on most goods from Canada and Mexico. Energy from Canada was subject to an additional 15% tariff.

At the time, the White House said it was punishment for those countries’ unwillingness to do more to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and illicit drugs into the U.S.

Opponents of Trump’s tariff strategy have criticized his moves against Canada in particular, arguing it was unjustly harming one of the U.S.’s closest allies and trading partners to the detriment of Americans themselves.

‘In the last year, tariffs have cost American families nearly $1,700. And that cost is expected to increase in 2026,’ Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., who is leading the legislation, said during debate on Wednesday.

‘And since these tariffs were imposed, U.S. exports to Canada have fallen by more than 21%. When I go home, my constituents aren’t telling me that they have an extra $1,700 to spare. They’re asking me to lower grocery prices, lower the price of healthcare, and make life more affordable.’

Meeks also said, ‘Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan, where 165 Canadians gave their lives after our country was attacked. There is no national emergency, there is no national security threat underpinning these threats.’

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., argued the text of the resolution itself would end a national emergency related to fentanyl.

‘The gentleman over here, 5,000 people per year die in his state alone from fentanyl,’ Mast said of Meeks. ‘So if he wants to beg the question of who’s going to pay the price of him trying to end an emergency, that actually, for the first time, has Canada dealing with fentanyl because of the pressure being put on them — who’s going to pay the price? It’s going to be 5,000 more of his state’s residents. That’s who’s going to pay the price.’

He said the resolution was ‘not a debate about tariffs’ but rather Democrats trying to ‘ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis.’

The resolution was filed by Democrats months ago but was put on hold by an active measure by House GOP leaders that blocked the House from reversing Trump’s emergency declarations.

The president has used emergency declarations to bypass Congress on the subject of tariffs, a move that has drawn mixed reviews from Capitol Hill.

But that measure expired last month, and House GOP leaders’ bid to extend it through July 31 crashed and burned on Tuesday night when three Republicans joined Democrats to oppose it.

‘It is time for Congress to make its voice heard on tariffs,’ Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., one of the Republicans who voted in opposition to the Trump policy both on Tuesday and Wednesday, told Fox News Digital.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, which has voted in the past to restrict Trump’s tariff authority.

Even if it succeeds there, however, it’s likely to be hit with a veto from the president.

Legendary boxer Mike Tyson found himself in a new arena on Wednesday as he stood with Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, partnering with the Trump administration to fight obesity.

‘I had a sister that died at 25 from obesity. And where I come from, Brownsville, Brooklyn, is the most violent, poverty-stricken neighborhood in the city of New York and ultra-processed food was just the norm,’ Tyson said. ‘We didn’t have much money, but we had food stamps, and food stamps can buy you the candy, the sugar and all that soda and all that rotten stuff.’

Kennedy and Rollins were providing updates on the rollout of the government’s new dietary guidelines, which were unveiled in January. During the event on Wednesday, several speakers, including Tyson, spoke about the dangers of ultra-processed food and the need to get Americans to shift their diets toward real food.

‘We were able to reduce hundreds of pages of dietary guidelines… to about six pages, but it’s just three words: Eat real food,’ Kennedy said to the crowd as he closed the event. ‘I ask you all to start doing that today if you’re not already doing it.’

Tyson said that when he went to work with a trainer in upstate New York, he was given the tools to keep his health in check. While he admits that he can ‘fool around’ and get ‘lazy,’ leading to gaining 20-40 pounds, he says the tools he learned have allowed him to lose weight fast.

‘This is the biggest fight of my life,’ Tyson added. ‘I want to be a hero in this particular field because it affects my life.’

The event comes just days after the airing of an ad during the Super Bowl in which Tyson speaks about the importance of tackling the U.S.’s reliance on processed food. In the ad, Tyson also speaks about his sister, Denise, who died at the age of 25 from an obesity-linked heart attack.

The legendary boxer posted the video on his Facebook page, and said it was ‘the most important fight of my life.’

‘The most important fight of my life isn’t in the ring. I’m not fighting for a belt. I’m fighting for our health. Processed foods are killing us. We have been lied to, and we need to eat real food again,’ Tyson wrote.

Kennedy’s focus, even during his own 2024 presidential campaign, has been the rise of chronic illness in the U.S., which he believes is linked to an increased consumption of ultra-processed foods. The guidelines that he and Rollins unveiled in January effectively flip the already outdated food pyramid, moving protein, dairy, health fats, fruits and vegetables to the wide top of the inverted triangle, while relegating whole grains to the narrow bottom.

‘Better health begins on your plate — not in your medicine cabinet. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 put real, whole, nutrient-dense foods back where they belong: at the center of health,’ the government website on the guidelines, RealFood.gov, reads.

The protein target in the new guidelines is ‘1.2–1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.’ Additionally, the guidance recommends Americans consume three servings of vegetables and two servings of fruits every day. Meanwhile, it is recommended that Americans eat two to four servings of whole grains daily, although it specifies that refined carbohydrates are not recommended.