A Canadian “human rights” tribunal just exposed the Orwellian strategy of the transgender movement—it seeks to weaponize “empathy” to demand allegiance to the absurd and dangerous idea that men can become women and vice versa. Barry Neufeld, a brave school board member in the city of Chilliwack, British Columbia, dared to speak out against a school program encouraging sexual orientation and gender identity called SOGI 1 2 3. Two teachers unions, the British Columbia Teachers Federation and the Chilliwack Teachers Association, sued Neufeld on behalf of members who identify as two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer for statements he made from 2017 to 2022. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found Neufeld liable for “hate speech” and discrimination in a ruling Wednesday. The tribunal ordered him to pay 750,000 Canadian dollars for violating the Human Rights Code, and it ordered him to pay another CA$10,000 in damages for violating the tribunal’s rules during the proceeding against him. Neufeld, who did not oversee any of the 2SLGBTQ+ employees represented by the teachers unions, argued that he could not be held liable for discrimination against them, but the tribunal found that “his conduct permeated, and adversely impacted, [the teachers’] work environment.” The Most Revealing Statement The ruling is 112 pages, but one particular statement most reveals the threat of transgender orthodoxy. “The denial of trans identities is the theme underlying all of Mr. Neufeld’s impugned publications,” the tribunal writes. “Mr. Neufeld believes that gender is static, binary, and determined by a person’s genitals at birth. He calls modern understandings of gender – including that it is socially constructed, may be fluid, and may be different from sex assigned at birth – an ideology that must be resisted.” The tribunal includes a long quote from Neufeld defining gender ideology as “the belief system that everybody has a gender identity; that this gender identity is not determined by the biological sex of a person; that this gender identity therefore may be one of any number of gender identities … that anyone may assume any gender identity simply by self-identifying; and that a person actually is whatever gender identity that person thinks, regardless of biological sex.” Astutely, Neufeld notes that “believers of this ideology do not regard it as a belief system at all, but rather as an accurate and true account of the world.” “We can think of no better example for how transpeople are denied than this passage,” the tribunal writes. “Transpeople are, by definition, people ‘whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned to them at birth.’ If a person elects not to ‘believe’ that gender identity is separate from sex assigned at birth, then they do not ‘believe’ in transpeople.” “This is a form of existential denial,” the tribunal added. “It is not, as Mr. Neufeld argues, akin to religious beliefs. A person does not need to believe in Christianity to accept that another person is Christian. However, to accept that a person is transgender, one must accept that their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth.” Smuggling in a Belief Requirement The tribunal cited one of its previous rulings finding that “the question of whether transgender people exist and are entitled to dignity in this province is as valuable to ongoing public debate as whether one race is superior to another.” Then it gave this remarkable statement: “People can and do live beyond the binary. People can and do decide that they were assigned the incorrect gender at birth. Trans people are here, existing in schools and homes and workplaces.” This isn’t just a piece of flashy rhetoric—it’s a truth claim, and it subtly twists Neufeld’s disagreement with transgender ideology into a desire for violence. Neufeld was never denying that people exist who claim to identify as the gender opposite their sex—he merely contested the claim that this gender identity is definitional for them, and that it overrides their biological sex. He expressed concern that enforcing the idea that it is healthy for someone to identify as the gender opposite their sex leads to confusion and self-harm. He rejects this ideology, not the existence of the people who believe it. But the tribunal’s interpretation of his statements smuggles in the idea that he is denying these people’s existence, that he is wishing harm upon them. The tribunal goes on to state that “calling transness ‘gender ideology’ allows anti-trans activists to hide behind a veneer of reasonableness. It allows them to say… that they are not attacking human beings.” “But behind this insidious veneer is the proposition that transness is not real,” the tribunal adds. “Such phrasing can make it easier to ignore that trans people are human beings. Referring to ‘gender ideology’ or ‘transgenderism’ … pushes the idea that trans people have an agenda rather than being just another demographic group. As this decision illustrates, such terms can create the conditions for discrimination and hatred to flourish.” Chilliwack Teachers Association v NeufeldDownload This isn’t an argument claiming that transgender ideology is true so much as an insinuation that disagreeing with transgender ideology is dangerous. The tribunal doesn’t bother to prove that a man can become a woman or vice versa—it simply states the ideology as a matter of fact and then tries to make dissent unthinkable. By postulating that transgender ideology is not up for debate, and penalizing its mere definition as a form of discrimination, the tribunal has carried out a verbal jiu jitsu worthy of George Orwell. A Cross-Border Threat Unfortunately, this isn’t new or unique to Canada—it’s just the most obvious articulation of the transgender movement’s longtime attempt to dominate the conversation. The Southern Poverty Law Center, for instance, puts conservatives and Christians who disagree with transgender ideology on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The Human Rights Campaign, the Trevor Project, and other LGBTQ activist groups have repeatedly suggested that mere disagreement with the ideology is a form of violence. This ruling in Canada is merely the logical extension of the rhetoric we see in the U.S., and it should serve as a wakeup call that we must firmly reject this ideology. The post ORWELLIAN: How a Canadian ‘Human Rights’ Tribunal Tries to Make Opposition to Transgender Ideology Unthinkable appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court sent shockwaves across Capitol Hill on Friday when it struck down one of the methods President Donald Trump has used to implement tariffs. The decision immediately exposed divisions among Republicans, some criticizing the court for judicial overreach while others praised the ruling as a check on executive overreach. A 6-3 ruling determined the president could not authorize the tariffs, deemed an emergency, under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. “Today the Supreme Court did not meaningfully address this problem. If anything, it made matters much worse,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. “In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”Kavanaugh, J., dissenting— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) February 20, 2026 “Congress, for its part, carries a lot of blame for enacting obscenely vague laws—IEEPA being one of many examples of this—and then leaving it up to the other two branches to ‘iron out the details,’ which often means the executive and judicial branches then have to decide what the law should be,” continued Lee.  “That’s not their job; the executive is there to enforce the law and the courts exist to resolve disputes over what the law means,” Lee concluded.   Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., echoed Lee’s criticism. “But the underlying mess is created by sloppy congressional language in bills that are not adequately thought through,” Johnson said, which is part of the “unprofessional process that I witness daily.” GOP Calls Thomas ‘A National Treasure’  Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh were the three justices who declared Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were protected by the constitution.   During a press conference Friday afternoon, Trump praised Thomas for his dissent on the ruling.   ? BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas dropped straight TRUTH BOMBS in his dissent on the tariffsHe nailed it."NEITHER the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President." ?"Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . .… pic.twitter.com/nhKtBQ669Y— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 20, 2026 “Neither the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President,” said Thomas.   “Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports,” Thomas continued.   In response to Thomas’ dissent, Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, called Thomas a “national treasure.” The majority opinion, however, Self views as an act of “judicial activism,” comparing the decision to Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Paper 78.   “He argued that judges are bound to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land—laying the foundation for judicial review,” said Self.   “What we saw today was a blatant disregard for our Constitution and precedent,” Self concluded.   Some of the GOP is Celebrating   Other Republicans welcomed the court’s decision. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said shortly after the ruling that he feels “vindicated.”  “The checks and balances our Constitution puts in place works,” said Bacon.   Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., is also praising SCOTUS’s decision. “SCOTUS made the right decision on tariffs. Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts chose the Constitution over politics,” Massie said. SCOTUS made the right decision on tariffs. Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts chose the Constitution over politics.The House voted last week, but only six Republicans sided with the Constitution:Thomas MassieDon BaconKevin KileyJeff HurdDan NewhouseBrian Fitzpatrick— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 20, 2026 Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the decision was in “defense of the Republic,” adding it will also “prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism.”  Following the decision, Trump announced a short term 10% global tariff which, under Section 122, will be in place for 150 days.   The post ‘Judicial Activism’ Struck Down Trumps Tariffs, GOP Supporters of Trump’s Tariffs Say After Divided SCOTUS Decision appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Presidents have historically used the State of the Union address to set the stage for major public policies and campaign shifts, and reflect on the mood of the country.  As President Donald Trump prepares to give his first State of the Union address of his second term on Tuesday, here is a look back at seven significant moments from past addresses.  1.  Monroe Doctrine President James Monroe’s 1823 State of the Union address delivered to Congress in writing–as was customary for more than 100 years–established a core element of American foreign policy in modern times.  The Monroe Doctrine today asserts a national interest over the Western Hemisphere. The Trump administration recently touted an updated Monroe Doctrine to work with countries in North and South America to combat international criminal organizations. The doctrine was cited with regard to the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.  In Monroe’s day, it asserted the Western Hemisphere was closed to further European colonization. For its part, the United States pledged not to interfere in European affairs.  Monroe wrote to Congress, “as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” 2. ‘Last Best Hope’  In the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s written State of the Union on Dec. 1, 1862, made the case that saving the union meant abolishing slavery.  “Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery it could not continue,” Lincoln asserted about two months after signing the Emancipation Proclamation.  Lincoln called for a gradual and compensated emancipation.  “In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free, honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve,” Lincoln said. “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.” 3. ‘Not Good’ No matter who is in the White House, the most common description the president gives of the country is “strong.”  In 1975, President Gerald Ford, having assumed the office the previous August after the resignation of Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal, was more frank with the country.  On top of disenchantment with government over both the scandal and the Vietnam War, the public was also facing economic hardship. “I must say to you that the state of the Union is not good,” Ford said on Jan. 15 before the joint session of Congress. “Millions of Americans are out of work. Recession and inflation are eroding the money of millions more.”  But he concluded the speech on a positive note, saying America was taking a new direction to “put the unemployed back to work; increase real income and production; restrain the growth of federal government spending; achieve energy independence; and advance the cause of world understanding.” 4. ‘Seven Challenger Heroes’ President Ronald Reagan was scheduled to deliver his 1986 State of the Union address on Jan. 28, but earlier that day, the space shuttle Challenger exploded after takeoff, killing seven. Reagan instead delivered an Oval Office address that evening. The State of the Union was moved to Feb. 4, 1986, where Reagan opened saying, “Thank you for allowing me to delay my address until this evening.”  “We paused together to mourn and honor the valor of our seven Challenger heroes, and I hope that we are now ready to do what they would want us to do,” Reagan said. “Go forward, America, and reach for the stars.” 5. ‘Era of Big Government Is Over’ Democrats had celebrated big government since the days of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. So, it was a little surprising when Bill Clinton–running for re-election–declared an end to big government.  “We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington, and we have to give the American people one that lives within its means,” said Clinton before Congress and the American public on Jan. 23, 1996. “The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves.” 6. ‘Axis of Evil’ On Jan. 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address, months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack and in the lead up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush discussed Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.  “North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens,” Bush said. “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror. … Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.” Bush added, “States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” 7. Alito Fact-Checks Obama  On Jan. 27, 2010, President Barack Obama scolded the Supreme Court for its ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission campaign finance case. Justices ruled that corporations, unions, and advocacy groups could make independent political expenditures in support of or in opposition to candidates under the First Amendment.  “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said.  Justice Samuel Alito, who sided with the majority, was seen mouthing the words, “Not true.” The post 7 Historic Moments From State of the Union Addresses appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Conservative lawmakers are attempting to end the practice of illegal immigrants obtaining commercial driver licenses after a Kyrgyzstani national released on parole by former President Joe Biden’s administration in 2024 killed four Indiana natives in a massive crash this month. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., recently unveiled the “Truckside Tipline” online portal to allow drivers to share concerns about illegal immigrants operating commercial trucks. The National Conference of State Legislatures noted that approximately 1 million CDLs have been administered to illegal immigrants since 2013. Currently, around 130,000 illegal immigrant drivers operate in the United States, the Migration Policy Institute estimated. A spokesperson from the senator’s office confirmed to Fox News Digital that reports submitted to the portal will be reviewed by the senator’s staff and shared with the U.S. Department of Transportation and its Office of Inspector General. ? @SenatorBanks is absolutely right!Too many lives have been lost and this must stop. ? We will crack down on these shady trucking companies and get to the bottom of the crash that killed four members of the Amish community in Indiana. Stay tuned for more to come on… https://t.co/qP1Zli3RK2— Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) February 12, 2026 The Danger of Illegal Immigrant Truck Drivers Director of Government Affairs at the Federation for American Immigration Reform Joe Chatman told The Daily Signal that FAIR “is proud to support” Banks’ initiative, as well as other legislative efforts “to crack down on policies that undermine our laws and make our roadways unsafe.” “The policy is an outgrowth of the radical sanctuary movement that has already produced devastating consequences for communities across the country and cost American citizens their lives,” Chatman added. While the initiative also garnered applause from The Center for Immigration Studies, the organization’s executive director, Mark Krikorian, told The Daily Signal that the federal government should go a step further. As stated by Krikorian, “truck drivers are atomized individuals,” which means that “there isn’t a lobby for truck drivers.” This absence creates a vacancy that the executive branch could fill. Due to the interstate commerce that is created through the trucking business, Krikorian asserted that this creates grounds for the federal government to withhold highway funds from states that issue the CDLs to illegal immigrants. “This is a legitimate area for federal supremacy. This is the kind of thing where the federal government should exercise authority over the states,” Krikorian said. “The federal government can tie highway funds. And that should be in statute, not just in regulation.” Krikorian noted that the federal oversight over a state’s issuance of CDLs wouldn’t be unprecedented, given that this is how the federal government managed to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1984. “This is how the federal government was able to raise the drinking age,” Krikorian stated. “The federal government withheld highway funds from states who refused to comply with the federal drinking age because drunk drivers operated interstate roads.” Banks’ initiative is one of several efforts from conservative lawmakers to end the practice of giving CDLs to illegal immigrants. In 2025, Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., introduced the WEIGH Act, which would require all weigh stations along interstate highways to review a driver’s CDL and verify the English language proficiency of truckers. Donalds’ bill would also direct the Department of Transportation to revoke the CDL program authority and federal highway dollars of states that do not comply with the enforcement protocols set by the Secretary of Transportation. Financial Toll Policy experts, lawmakers, and trucker industry veterans alike have noted that administering CDLs to illegal immigrants could be a strategic business decision. Employers turn to illegal immigrant drivers for cheap labor, which in turn displaces Americans from the trucking industry. “The financial interest are all behind importing more drivers and giving them lower wages,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal. Krikorian also pointed out that many of the CDLs administered in blue states do not come directly from state governments. Instead, the state government outsources the vetting and licensing process to private driving schools, which he has said are incentivized to certify “unqualified” illegal immigrant drivers who work for lower wages. “States issue CDLs based on the say-so of driving schools. Many drivers have never had a representative from Department of Motor Vehicles with them in the vehicle during a driving test,” Krikorian said. “There’s a lot of real incentive in a lot of state to pass a truck driver that would not pass in a more confectious state.” Krikorian added that the absence of illegal immigrant truck drivers in the trucking industry could provide Americans with employment. “The idea that truck driving is a job Americans won’t do is laughable.” Other legislative activists, like White Collar Workers of America, a “grassroots movement of American graduates, professionals, and patriots fighting to protect U.S. jobs from the harmful effects of worker visas,” estimated that 3.5 million American truckers are at risk of being replaced by illegal immigrant drivers. Gordon Magill, a 28-year veteran trucker turned advocate for the revival of the American trucking industry echoed Krikorian’s remarks and claimed that the Biden administration, during the Covid-19 shutdown, doubled the amount of CDLs to meet the demand of online shopping. However, instead of filling these CDLs with qualified, well paid and well-trained American drivers, Magill claims the Biden administration outsourced the increased number of CDLs to “unqualified illegals” who settled for a decreased wage, displacing American truckers from employment. “They’re just letting everybody get CDLs, mainly immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers,” Magill stated. These new truckers, Magill stated, were employed by fraudulent companies known in the trucking world as “chameleon carriers.” Chameleon carriers, as stated by Magill, are based in foreign countries like India, which allows them to register with the Department of Transportation without adequate verification, pay their truckers lower wages, evade responsibility when accidents occur since they are out of the jurisdiction of prosecution, avoid being checked by the department for standard qualification, and “close up shop when busted by the feds and then register as a new company.” Big Business Profits From Lower Wages of Immigrant Truck Drivers Magill added that major companies like Amazon, chose to subcontract these fraudulent entities because “they charge a lower wage, and when an accident happens, Amazon can wipe their hands and get off the hook.” Magill added that Amazon “farms out” their delivery driving jobs to “chameleon carrier” companies through “Amazon Relay,” their “internal load contracting system” “Imagine an app-based service like uber, except it’s for trucks,” Magill said about Amazon relay, adding that “they hire carriers pretty much out of the street.” “They’re not very good at picking the good carriers,” Magill added. “Anyone can sign up with Amazon relay, if you have the paperwork and a truck. The barrier to entry is pretty low.” In 2022, the Wall Street Journal found that between February 2020 and early August 2022, “more than 1,300 Amazon trucking contractors received scores worse than the level at which DOT officials typically take action.” Amazon did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. The presence of chameleon carriers, like those allegedly hired by Amazon Relay, Magill concluded, has displaced American trucking companies from the industry. “I got laid off in July of 2023. And I can’t get another job in the industry to save my life,” the third-generation trucker said. “Thousands of American companies have gone out of business in the last 4 years.” The post Conservatives Look to Protect Truckers From ‘Unqualified’ Illegal Immigrant Drivers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump must obtain congressional approval before imposing new tariffs, a decision that significantly reshapes U.S. trade policy.   The 6–3 ruling is expected to have political and economic repercussions heading into the midterm elections—and might ultimately work to the Republican Party’s advantage, according to a veteran pollster.  Scott Rasmussen, founder of the Napolitan Institute, said the court’s decision aligns with public sentiment.   “We polled this consistently over the year, and six out of 10 voters tell us that of course congressional approval should be required for tariffs. That’s part of our system of checks and balances,” Rasmussen said Friday. “So, while many of the Trump base will be outraged, I think most of the voters will be comfortable with this decision.”  Voter Attitudes and Economic Concerns  Rasmussen’s polling also highlights mixed public perceptions of tariffs even before the court’s ruling.   “Before this ruling came down, 41% were saying these tariffs were good for the economy. , 50% were saying they were bad,” he explained. “And six out of 10 were saying they raised prices and that they were adding to the immigration problem. We will obviously be following the fallout from the decision and polling next week.”  The decision effectively curtails one of Trump’s tools for shaping trade policy—a power he used to reshape U.S. trade relations with China, the European Union, and Mexico.  Political Fallout Ahead of the Midterms  When asked whether the ruling helps or hurts Republicans heading into the midterm elections, Rasmussen said the answer depends largely on the economic impact.  “It depends on what it does to the economy,” Rasmussen said. “If the economy does better, with tariffs off, that would be good news for the Republicans in two ways. First, as the economy does better, it’s better for the GOP. Second, the Supreme Court ruling is likely to enrage the Trump base and encourage their turnout at even higher levels. If you assume adjustment and provide good news for the economy, this could be a big plus for the GOP.”  What Comes Next  The Supreme Court ruling puts new pressure on Congress to take a more active role in trade policy—a task likely to be contentious given divisions within both parties.   Economists are watching closely to see whether easing tariffs will curb inflationary pressures or affect domestic industries that benefited from tariff protections.  Rasmussen and other analysts are expected to release new polling data next week measuring public reaction to the court’s decision and its potential influence on the political landscape.  The post Pollster: Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Could Help GOP in Midterm Elections  appeared first on The Daily Signal.