Tuesday, February 24, 2026

The majority of Americans see Chump's age making him worse

We all see it.  Day after day, we see it taking place, Chump growing more erratic, more delusional, more demented.  Before our eyes, he rots and withers.  Waiting for the day when he's just sitting there, tongue out, completely dazed.  Jason Lange (Reuters) reports, "Six in ten Americans including a significant slice of Republicans think President Donald Trump has become erratic as he ages, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll."

Of course the majority of Americans feel that way.  We see him covering up bruises with make up.  We see him raging into the microphone.  We see him falling asleep in one meeting after another.

We know how bad he is.  And we know that there's no recovery.  At his age, each day only gets worse.  

Here's C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"


Tuesday, February 24, 2026.  More tied to Epstein face consequences, Chump is not among them and he prepares to deliver the State of the Union address, Democrats hear from a Homeland Security whistle-blower, and much more. 


AFP reports, "London police on Monday arrested former ambassador Peter Mandelson in a probe into allegations over his ties to disgraced US financier Jeffrey Epstein, only days after ex-prince Andrew was detained. Mandelson, a pivotal figure in British politics and the UK's former envoy to Washington, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations arising from the latest set of documents linked to Epstein, released by the US government last month."  Pan Pylas and Jill Lawless (AP) add, "Under U.K. law, police can hold a suspect without charge for up to 24 hours. This can be extended to a maximum of 96 hours. Mandelson could be charged, released unconditionally or released while investigations continue.Police are investigating Mandelson over claims he passed sensitive government information to Epstein a decade and a half ago."  Callum Sutherland (TIME) notes, "Once a prominent figure in the U.K.'s ruling Labour Party, Mandelson was sacked as ambassador in September, just months after his appointment, following disclosures from a former batch of Epstein files that showed his relationship with the financier extended beyond what he’d previously disclosed."


Laura Strickler (NBC NEWS) notes former prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson as two who have stepped down over revelations of their ties to Epstein and Stickler notes others stepping down include former prime minister of Norway Thorbjorn Jagland, US attorney Kathy Ruemmler, US attorney Brad Karp, former US Senator George Mitchell, Emirati business man Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, media mogul Casey Wasserman, former prince Andrew's wife Sarah Ferguson (she shut down her charity Sarah's Trust -- for more on her see Ann's many posts), Norway's Ambassador to Jordan and Iraq Mona Juul, Miroslav Lajcak who had been the national security advisor to Slovakia's prime minister, Jack Lang who resigned from The Arab World Institute, and former president of the Maldives Mohmed Waheed Hassan.

  
Alex Weprin (THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER) types, "Longevity guru Dr. Peter Attia is stepping aside as a contributor to CBS News, after correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and the researcher and health media personality came to light in the release of the Epstein Files from the Department of Justice. CBS News staff were informed of the decision Monday in a note from the network's booking department, The Hollywood Reporter has learned. Attia told CBS that he would be resigning effective immediately."  Types?  He did not step down.  That's a face saving move.  As Ava and I noted two weeks ago, he thought he could stay with CBS NEWS and Bari Weiss, who picked him, thought he could as well.  And they both tried to ride it out.  However, his crude remarks were not going to be overlooked by CBS NEWS no matter what Bari thought and wanted.  That was made clear to her Sunday and she informed Peter on Monday at which time they prepared the statement to allow him to save face.  There is no face saving for him nor should there be.  It's amazing -- and telling -- that he was removed from a protein bar company for his Epstein ties before CBS NEWS sent him packing. 




The Guardian spoke with students, employees and alumni at some of the universities implicated.
On 9 February, faculty at Barnard College, the private women’s liberal arts’ college affiliated with Columbia University, published an open letter signed by more than 70 faculty members calling on the university to “acknowledge and investigate” recently released correspondence between Epstein and Francine LeFrak, a prominent donor and member of the school’s board of trustees. LeFrak appears in the Epstein files 15 times, according to reporting from the Barnard Bulletin.

In one appearance, LeFrak asked – in 2010 – to join a close friend and Epstein during “the holidays”; in another, later that year, she invited Epstein “as her guest” to a trip to Rwanda, where she founded an initiative that provides occupational training and employment for female survivors of that country’s genocide.
The letter notes that the connection between Epstein and LeFrak is “repugnant”, particularly since the interaction took place following Epstein’s 2008 conviction of soliciting prostitution from a minor.

“We do not believe that people who maintained contact with a notorious sex trafficker and convicted sex offender express our values, nor have they behaved as proper trustees of Barnard College,” the letter states. It also calls on Barnard to remove LeFrak’s name from the newly constructed Francine A LeFrak Center for Well-Being, which houses the school’s sexual violence education, prevention and outreach program, among other initiatives.

Many faculty members expressed confusion and outrage specifically regarding LeFrak’s relationship to a program that is meant to encourage the health and wellbeing of young women.

“I just feel a real, deep disappointment, because I think, as a women’s college, our mission is directly antithetical to every revelation of those files,” a Barnard professor, who asked to remain anonymous, said.
“It is some very privileged, powerful, in many cases secretive and nefarious men controlling the lives and narratives around a wide swath of women. How can a women’s college – with its stated commitments to women’s health, wellbeing, excellence – have a prominent name on campus that is now associated with a sex offender?”

A Barnard spokesperson the school has “retained independent counsel to review the facts and advise the college accordingly”, and noted that “Barnard is a place where women’s education is championed and where women are supported, uplifted and given the tools to become the best versions of themselves. Barnard has never accepted money from Jeffrey Epstein, and we are not aware of any connection to the college.”

Elsewhere, Columbia University disciplined two people affiliated with its dental college after documents revealed that they helped Epstein’s girlfriend get into the school. Dr Letty Moss-Salentijn was stripped of her title as vice-dean of the dental college while Dr Thomas Magnani was removed from the school’s admissions review committee and volunteer leadership roles.

The university also noted that they will be making a donation of $210,000, the same amount it received from Epstein and related entities, to two New York-based non-profit organizations supporting survivors of sexual abuse and human trafficking.


Across the world, people are paying for their questionable relationship with a convicted pedophile and a sex trafficker.  All over except in the White House where you have so many people who've had relationships with Epstein.  Dareh Gregorian (NBC NEWS) noted earlier this month:

During a testy oversight hearing on Wednesday. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi on whether any current administration officials have been questioned by the Justice Department about their ties to Epstein.

"I'm stunned that you want to continue talking about Epstein," Bondi replied while sidestepping the question.

Gregorian notes Robert Kennedy Jr., Howard Lutnick, Doctor Oz, Stephen Feinberg, John Phelan, Kevin Warsh, Tom Barrack, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon and Donald Chump all had ties to Epstein. 

David Bauder (AP) writes about the journalists, citizen journalists and activists working on the released pages of The Epstein Files.  That could include people like Ryan Goodman.  Who?  Alexander Willis (RAW STORY) reports:


A bombshell report revealed Monday that under the first Trump administration, the FBI appeared to have issued a “stand down” order to New York Police Department investigators regarding their criminal probe into Jeffrey Epstein, an order that came just five days after the disgraced financier’s arrest in 2019.
The existence of the supposed directive was revealed by law professor and legal scholar Ryan Goodman, who found it buried within the Justice Department's recent release of around 3.5 million files on Epstein.
“The directive applied to NYPD’s Special Victims Unit – the group specially trained and equipped to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases,” Goodman wrote in a report published Monday in Just Security, a non-partisan law and policy journal.

“At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DANY) had an ongoing investigation involving Epstein’s victims, the documents reveal, but the FBI assumed that would come to a halt as well following the Bureau’s directive.”
The relevant file is an email dated July 11, 2019, sent just five days after Epstein was arrested on sex-trafficking charges.

“[Redacted] just called – FBI reached out to NYPD leadership already and they were told that SVU has been directed to stand down and that all Epstein stuff needs to go to and through us,” reads the email, of which both the sender and recipient’s names had been redacted.

In another email, this one dated Jan. 29, 2020, apparent FBI agents seem to confirm the existence of the supposed “stand down” order, with one noting that the NYPD’s investigation was likely closed after the directive was issued.





Tonight, Chump offers some form of State of the Union address.  MEIDASTOUCH NEWS and MOVEON.ORG will be highlighting an alternative featuring Democrats while Chump stumbles through whatever he has planned. Katie Phang and Joy Reid will host.  It will kick off 8:00 pm EST and you can stream it here.



Ariel Edwards-Levy and Jennifer Agiesta (CNN) note that Chump is doing poorly in the lead up to the speech:



When President Donald Trump gives his State of the Union address Tuesday, he will face a public that increasingly questions his priorities and expresses broad doubts about whether his proposed policies are helping the nation, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Adding to the pile of alarming indicators for the president’s party heading into this year’s midterms, Trump’s approval rating among political independents has dipped to a new low in CNN polling.

Just 32% of Americans now say that Trump has had the right priorities, while 68% say he hasn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems. That’s the president’s most negative reading on that question to date during either of his terms in office. At the same time, Americans say, 61% to 38%, that Trump’s policies will move the country in the wrong direction rather than the right one. And Trump’s job approval rating among all adults remains mired at 36%.
[. . .]
Some of the steepest declines include a 19-point drop in approval among Latino Americans and an 18-point drop among Americans younger than 45. Among political independents, Trump’s approval rating has dropped 15 points over the past year to 26%, the lowest it’s been in either of his terms.


Courtney Subramanian and Hadriana Lowenkron (BLOOMBERG NEWS) cover some of the topics that have resulted in Chump losing support:

His second year, however, is already suffering from many of the same problems that plagued the first term — erratic messaging, policy reversals, plummeting poll numbers and intraparty tussles.
The president’s crackdown on immigration was met with bipartisan blowback. He posted a racist depiction of former President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, prompting several Republicans to condemn the post and to demand an apology that didn’t happen. Six House Republicans defied him to join Democrats in overturning his Canada tariffs. Then the Supreme Court struck down his preferred method of imposing global tariffs as unconstitutional, throwing his economic agenda into chaos. 

And as Trump readies his State of the Union message on Tuesday, Republicans facing disappointed voters in the midterms fear the White House isn’t sufficiently focused on the economic message that could allow them to keep control of Congress. A Democratic takeover of either chamber or both could halt any legislation Trump tried to pass and invite aggressive oversight and investigations. 
“Things are starting to unravel a little bit, and I think it gives Republicans an opportunity to step away from the Trump world and really kind of take back the messaging to voters, because they’re going to need to, if they want to not get completely blown out of the water come midterms,” Republican strategist Maura Gillespie said.




When President Trump gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, more than a dozen Democratic congresswomen plan to again make a sartorial political statement by wearing white, according to the Democratic Women's Caucus. 

Democratic congresswomen have used fashion as a form of protest against Mr. Trump since his first address to a joint session of Congress in 2017, then donning suffragist white in support of women's rights. 
In the years since, they've mostly stuck with that choice, with the exception of 2018, when some wore black in support of the #MeToo movement. They also broke tradition during last year's speech, which wasn't technically a State of the Union, wearing pink to highlight their opposition to Mr. Trump's policies. 

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, who leads the 96-member Democratic Women's Caucus, told CBS News that the color choice "depends on where we're at in the moment." 

"This year, there are specific attacks on women's ability to vote," she said. "The Democratic Women's Caucus is wearing white both to honor that fight that women have always had and to signal we are still in the fight." 

Leger Fernández will skip the State of the Union address itself, but other members of the caucus are expected to be in attendance. Members who have alternate plans will still wear white, according to a spokesperson for the group. A number of Democrats in Congress plan to attend a rally organized by the group MoveOn, dubbed the "People's State of the Union," on the National Mall during Mr. Trump's speech. 




And then there are the mid-terms.  Adam Lynch notes:

The White House's plan to dispatch members of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet to competitive districts for the midterm elections to aid Republican efforts is the best thing Democrats could hope for, said MS NOW Producer Steve Benen.

“[President Donald Trump’s] first-term Cabinet was a mess,” said Benen. “… But a month into the sixth year of Trump’s presidency, it’s probably fair to say that his second-term Cabinet is worse.”
Eleven months ago, New York Times’ Frank Bruni criticized Trump’s fledgling Cabinet in a scathing report, outlining the fact that Trump was not hiring for aptitude or intelligence. Trump, Bruni said, wanted bootlicks.

“Trump chose people for senior administration positions not because they had demonstrated the skills and disposition that those jobs required, not because they had paid their dues, not because they had proved their mettle. He wanted provocateurs. He wanted sycophants. … Competence didn’t enter the equation, so competence isn’t among the results. He got exactly what he paid for, and now a nation is paying the price," Bruni wrote.

One year later Benen said the results are clear.
“Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is at the center of a variety of ongoing controversies and faces bipartisan calls for her ouster,” said Benen. “Attorney General Pam Bondi recently humiliated herself during a congressional hearing. Around the same time, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talked about his past history of snorting cocaine off toilet seats against a backdrop of systemic problems at the federal department he ostensibly leads


Rachel Maddow noted the corrupt administration last night on her MS NOW program.




Yesterday, a hearing took place. 


Christopher Vondracek (MINNESOTA STAR TRIBUNE) reports:

A former ICE teacher at a Georgia training center told congressional Democrats on Feb. 23 that new agents are trained to run roughshod over constitutional rights, including the right against a home invasion, and that the federal agency is “broken.”

Ryan Schwank, who resigned from Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Feb. 13, told the forum that ICE is training new agents to violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“ICE is lying to Congress and the American people about the steps it is taking to ensure its 10,000 new officers faithfully uphold the Constitution,” Schwank, who joined ICE as legal counsel in 2021, said in the draft.

The DHS on Monday denied his allegations.

But Schwank said one two-hour program was cut to 10 minutes, “shoe-horned into a lesson [on the Fourth Amendment,” Schwank said, answering a question from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat.

Klobuchar asked Schwank to go over what programs had been skipped or condensed, noting, “It’s been my constituents that have been dragged out of their homes.”

The Department of Homeland Security, which runs ICE, has said all of its officers were following federal law throughout Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis and other widespread escalations such as in Chicago.

Schwank said he was told to teach officer candidates they could apprehend individuals with only an administrative removal order, not a judge’s warrant — a practice used in Minneapolis.


Rebecca Beitsch (THE HILL) adds:

Schwank countered administration claims that it has maintained training standards even as it has condensed some aspects of its program.

“For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program, cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584 hour program, classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority,” said Schwank, who recently trained cadets at the ICE academy in Georgia.

“They ceased all of the legal instructions regarding use of force. This means that cadets are not taught what it means to be objectively reasonable, the very standard which the law requires them to meet when deciding whether or not to use deadly force. Our jobs as instructors are to teach them so well that they can make split second decisions about what they can and cannot do in life or death situations,” he added.

“Yet, in the name of churning out an endless stream of officers, DHS leadership has dismantled the academic and practical tests that we need to know if cadets can safely and lawfully perform their job, all to satisfy an administration demanding they train thousands of new officers before the end of the year.”

 Michael Kaplan and Camilo Montoya-Galvez (CBS NEWS) note:

Schwank is an attorney and former career ICE employee who resigned from the immigration agency less than two weeks ago. A spokesperson for Whistleblower Aid, the legal group representing Schwank, said he quit the agency in protest. It stands as one of the first instances of an ICE official who has served under the second Trump administration publicly rebuking the agency and the adequacy of its training. Schwank resigned from ICE on Feb. 13, according to congressional aides.

The hearing, organized by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Rep. Robert Garcia of California, comes as calls for accountability grow in the wake of several incidents where federal immigration officers have deployed deadly force, including the January killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Schwank's testimony will likely fuel Democrats' refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security until the Trump administration agrees to a number of reforms for ICE, including a prohibition on agents wearing masks.

"I am duty bound to tell you the ICE Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program is now deficient, defective, and broken," Schwank said Monday. He alleged ICE officials are lying about the amount of training new recruits receive. 


Nicholas Nehamas and Hamed Aleaziz (NEW YORK TIMES) note:


Some of the previously unreported documents released on Monday indicate that ICE officers are now training for significantly fewer hours than they did before President Trump’s hiring surge. Others suggest that several training classes appear to have been cut from the required syllabus, including one titled “Use of Force Simulation Training” and others on immigration law and ICE’s legal authorities.

Together, the new disclosures underscore concerns about the conduct and preparedness of Homeland Security Department agents, who have shot and killed at least three American citizens over the last year. Mr. Trump’s decision to order immigration officers into major American cities has led to a rise in violent encounters with members of the public, leading to fears that poor training for new agents will produce more chaos.

We'll wind down with this from Senator Richard Blumenthal:


[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) released a memorandum and previously undisclosed documents revealing new details about drastic cuts the Trump Administration is making to the training and testing of new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO) officers.

The documents were produced to Blumenthal via a disclosure from two Department of Homeland Security whistleblowers who have requested that they not be identified. Specifically, these documents provide new evidence regarding: (1) the aggressive graduation targets that ICE aims to achieve for new ERO officers in fiscal 2026; (2) cuts of more than a dozen significant practical examinations which potential ICE ERO officers no longer must undergo; (3) numerous classes which appear to have been wholly cut from the training curriculum for ICE ERO officers; and (4) the drastic reduction in the hours of training for potential ICE ERO officers.

These documents appear to directly contradict representations made under oath to Congress by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons.

“We know about the Trump Administration’s decimation of training for immigration officers and its secret policy to shred your Constitutional rights because of the brave Americans who are speaking out today,” Blumenthal said. “They are coming to Congress because we have the responsibility to not only bear witness to these crimes, but to do something to make sure they don’t happen again.”

“To anyone else who is repulsed by what you’re seeing or what authorities are asking you to do, please know that you can make a real difference by coming forward. You’ll meet a moral imperative. Our door is open, we are here for you when you are ready, and we will do everything within our power to protect your rights.”

Blumenthal released the documents ahead of a bicameral public forum he is hosting with U.S. Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on constitutional violations and abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The forum will feature testimony from Ryan Schwank, a whistleblower who is speaking publicly for the first time about his experience as an Instructor for the incoming “surge” of new ICE recruits at the ICE Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (“FLETC”) in Glynco, Georgia.

Teyana Gibson Brown, a U.S. citizen and resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, will also testify about ICE agents forcefully entering her home without a judicial warrant, breaking down her door and pointing guns at her family. Stevan Bunnell, the General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security from 2013 to 2017, will testify as well.

A link to the memorandum and attachments is available here.

-30-



The following sites updated:

  • Monday, February 23, 2026

    They know how to use his ego

    We may be going to war with Iran.  What could cinch it?  How much razzing Chump can take by people comparing him to Barack.  Raw Story reports:

    As President Donald Trump appears poised to “pull the trigger” on launching a full-scale war with Iran at any moment, some of his top officials have been working behind the scenes to push the president into launching an attack by drawing comparisons to former President Barack Obama, Zeteo reported Monday.
    The Trump administration has mobilized a colossal military force near Iran, the largest since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, all in the hopes of pressuring its leaders into making a deal on reducing its weapon capabilities. According to Vice President JD Vance, however, peace talks have reached an impasse over Iranian leadership’s refusal to "acknowledge" some of Trump’s “red lines.”
    Now, as U.S. aircraft carriers and fighter jets swarm the Middle East, “warmongers” around Trump are hoping to manipulate the president by stoking fears that he may be inferior to Obama, Rolling Stone reporter Asawin ‘Swin’ Suebsaeng told Zeteo, based on his discussions with a Trump advisor.
    “Trump advisers who want a war with Iran have been stressing to the president that Tehran has made a mockery of Trump’s ‘red lines’ for weeks now,” wrote Zeteo reporter Andrew Perez in the outlet’s report Monday.

    They're telling him he'll be like Barack with Syria and the red lines there. 

    They know how to play on his preening ego.

    Here's C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"


    Monday, February 23, 2026.  Chump's buddy Musk is polluting, Chump's raging at the Supreme Court, Ka$h Patel goes to the Olympics on the tax payers' dime, and much more.


    Starting with Sunday's LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER.




    John notes Alien Musk in the video above and some of the problems Musk has created.  One problem not noted is Musk's pollution.  Samantha Hindman (THE COOL DOWN) notes:


    According to KRIS 6 News, Tesla holds a state-issued permit allowing it to discharge up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day into an unnamed ditch that eventually flows into Petronila Creek.

    But drainage district officials said they were never notified that a pipeline had been installed across their easement. When workers encountered the discharge, they were alarmed by what they saw.

    "It was very dark and murky," drainage district consultant Steve Ray said. "I would say it was actually black. We're used to seeing good running water, and so we didn't know exactly what it was."

    The lithium refinery, which began operations in December 2024, produces battery-grade lithium for electric vehicle batteries. 

    While Tesla's permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality allows wastewater discharge, it specifically notes that it does not grant the right to use private or public property for conveyance.

    Petronila Creek flows into Baffin Bay, a sensitive coastal ecosystem that supports tourism and local livelihoods. 

    If large volumes of water — even treated water — were to overwhelm the ditch or carry unexpected pollutants downstream, it could threaten water quality and wildlife.

    Musk is a threat as is his former buddy Donald Chump.  This morning, Mattathias Schwartz, Zach Montague and Ernesto Londoño (NEW YORK TIMES) notes:

    The judge was angry. She had ordered a detained immigrant to be released in Minnesota, but instead he was let go in El Paso, where he had to spend the night in a shelter. All his property was supposed to have been returned, but the government was still holding his identity papers.

    “Why should I not hold you in contempt?” the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer at a hearing last week. Instead of answers, she got excuses.

    “I don’t think there was ever any intention to defy the court orders,” said the lawyer, Matthew Isihara, a military judge advocate on temporary assignment to the Justice Department. “We were doing our best and things, unfortunately, slipped — slipped through the cracks.”

    That explanation was not enough for Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. Last Wednesday, she found Mr. Isihara in civil contempt of court.

    Legal experts said her ruling marked the first time during President Trump’s second term that a judge had attempted to assert authority by issuing a civil contempt ruling, which enforces a judicial order by imposing a penalty until the offending party complies. In this case, Judge Provinzino ordered Mr. Ishiara to pay $500 a day until the identity documents were returned.

    But the anger Judge Provinzino flashed at Mr. Isihara has been repeated in courtrooms across the country amid Mr. Trump’s drive to deport large numbers of immigrants. A New York Times review of federal dockets found at least 35 instances since August in which federal district court or magistrate judges issued an order requiring the government to explain why it should not be similarly punished for violating court orders, essentially giving officials one last chance to explain themselves.


    Moving up to the Supreme Court, for any who missed it, the Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday clarifying that only Congress has the power over tariffs -- like the Constitution says. Josh Marshall (TPM) points out, "We say the Court 'struck down' these tariffs. But that wording is inadequate and misleading. These tariffs were always transparently illegal. Saying the actions were 'struck down' suggests at least a notional logic which the Court disagreed with, or perhaps one form of standing practice and constitutional understanding away from which the Court decided to chart another course. Neither is remotely the case. There's no ambiguity in the law in question. Trump assumed a unilateral power to 'find' a national emergency and then used this (transparently fraudulent) national emergency to exercise powers the law in question doesn’t even delegate."  Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) notes, "President Donald Trump was dealt a huge blow by the Supreme Court on Friday as they eliminated his ability to impose tariffs under economic emergency powers — but he almost at once declared he will continue to charge global tariffs, using a number of alternative statutes. During his rant, he claimed under the ruling, he can't charge tariffs to foreign countries but can 'destroy the country' by cutting off all trade to it instead."  

    What does this mean?


    In the immediate term, Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes Chump's empty promises are revealed and exposed as empty, "Promises to fund sweeping tax cuts, bridge payments to farmers, deficit reduction, and phony $2,000 rebate checks all went up in smoke—because they weren’t his promises to make." In the long term?  Greg Sargent (TNR) points out, "The loss before the high court is also another sign that the pillars of Trump’s right-wing nationalist agenda are crumbling in a much broader and deeper sense—so much so that it’s posing a serious threat to the long-term durability of the ideology known as Trumpism."  At THE NEW YORK TIMES, Ana Swanson also covers Chump:

     

    The Supreme Court may have ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s use of an international emergency law to impose tariffs. But Mr. Trump seems intent on continuing the experiment he has run with the U.S. economy over the past year, in which he has raised tariffs to levels not seen since the 1930s.

    In a news conference at the White House on Friday, Mr. Trump made a series of false claims about the economic impact of tariffs and he promised to replace, or even increase, them using laws other than the one the court rejected.

    “It’s ridiculous but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.”

    “We broke every record in the book, and we are continuing to do so,” the president said about his tariffs.

    By the end of Friday, he said he would impose a new set of levies, including a 10 percent across-the-board tariff. Then on Saturday, Mr. Trump suddenly raised the tariffs to 15 percent, the limit allowed by the new legal provision he was using. “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” he said in a post on Truth Social.

    To the president, tariffs are the antidote to globalization, a way to force more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce America’s reliance on foreign products and lower the trade deficit. But the economic evidence so far has not been in his favor. Instead of shifting manufacturing back into the United States, Mr. Trump’s tariffs mostly appear to have reshuffled trade, at great cost to U.S. companies.

    Just the day before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the government reported annual trade data for last year, including several metrics that controverted Mr. Trump’s claims. The data showed that the trade deficit — the gap between what America imports from other countries and what it exports — continued to widen in December, and that the annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high.  


    The verdict was a huge defeat for Chump.  How the justices got there?  Matt Ford (THE NEW REPUBLIC) observes:


    The Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow to President Donald Trump’s policy agenda on Friday, ruling that a Cold War–era law for economic emergencies does not give the executive branch a blank check to impose trillions of dollars in tariffs without congressional approval.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that Trump had exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, also known as IEEPA. “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts concluded. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

    The six-justice majority brought together the court’s three liberal members and three of their conservative colleagues: Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. But while they agreed on the outcome, they differed widely on the reasoning that led them there.

    Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberals, argued that Trump’s invocation of IEEPA failed under the “ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.”

    “Usual text-in-context interpretation dooms the tariffs the President has imposed,” she explained. “The crucial provision of IEEPA, when viewed in light of the broader statutory scheme and with a practical awareness of how Congress delegates tariff authority, does not give the President the power he wants.”

    Roberts, on the other hand, argued alongside the other two conservatives that the tariffs were invalid under the “major questions doctrine.” Under that doctrine, the executive branch cannot invoke congressionally delegated powers in novel ways on matters of “vast economic and political significance” unless the courts decide that Congress has “spoken clearly” enough to authorize it.


    Robert Kuttner offers his take at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT:

    The ruling is a sharp rejection of one of the president’s primary policy tools, but it was telegraphed enough that the administration has some possible contingencies in place. Under a different authority, tariffs of 15 percent can be imposed to deal with trade deficits for 150 days. In that time, the administration can impose Section 301 and Section 232 investigations to extend tariffs on select goods or against select countries further. But Trump would have to justify these with data. And the days of unilaterally announcing tariffs that take immediate effect are dead and buried.

    The president does have somewhat more open-ended general authority to impose tariffs against countries that discriminate against U.S. exports, but to invoke that now would be a poke in the eye of the Supreme Court and would invite more litigation.

    The bigger problem for Trump is the thousands of companies that will ask for refunds from the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. That will be a huge mess, and the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how to proceed with it.

    With the unilateral tariff regime over, we can assess its value, and there really wasn’t any. Yesterday, the latest U.S. trade deficit numbers came in well above expectations. The merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion in 2025, according to Thursday’s Commerce Department report.

    Basically, imports of Chinese goods fell by nearly 30 percent, but imports from other nations more than made up the difference. The deficit in manufacturing was especially severe, as U.S. production jobs fell by 88,000 in 2025.

    So despite constant pronouncements of tariffs allegedly designed to boost domestic production, create jobs, and lower the trade deficit, the entire effort amounted to nothing.

    Some questions remain.  Some are wondering about companies that paid tariffs -- will they be able to seek refunds?  Josh Marshall (TALKING POINTS MEMO) notes:

    Almost every article on today’s tariff decision includes, somewhere two or three paragraphs down, a note which explains that it’s unclear how or whether the federal government will issue refunds for illegally collected tariffs. The Court’s decision doesn’t address this. I’m not sure why it would really need to address this. The tariffs were illegal. The government had no legal authority to collect them. So it should be a simple matter for importers to go to court and compel the government to refund their money. But set all that aside. Is it really so uncertain? I’ll bet the White House is going to find a way to issue those refunds. Why? Because Trump insiders, especially the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have reportedly made huge, huge bets on the tariffs being tossed. They and their clients now, per a July report that prompted a Senate investigation, stand to make tens or even hundreds of billions on those refunds. Given that Lutnick is a primary player in White House tariff policy, I’m pretty confident that they’re going to find a way to issue those refunds.

    How does this work? I discussed this in a post from Sept. 1 of last year. The gist is this: When he became commerce secretary, Lutnick gifted his sons his Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. (In the link above I explained how they structured this handoff — which as a bonus allowed Lutnick to pay zero capital gains on the entire transaction.) Twenty-something failson Brandon Lutnick is now chairman of the firm. Brother Kyle, apparently another business prodigy from the same family, is vice chairman. Soon after Trump’s tariffs were announced last fall, Brandon Lutnick — no doubt in a totally, totally arms-length way — started buying up the rights to tariff refunds at about 25% of their sticker value.

    I base this on reports of these trades from last summer; Wired broke the story in July. A day after the original publication of that article, Wired updated the story with a less-than-denial denial from Cantor Fitzgerald. Erica Chase, a spokesperson for Cantor, said: “Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk or taking views in litigation claims including tariffs.”

    Of course, the true tax paid was paid by the American people.  At The Tax Foundation, Erica York and  Alex Durante offer:


    • President Trump has imposed International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs on US trading partners, including China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU. In addition, he has threatened and imposed Section 232 tariffs on autos, heavy trucks, steel, aluminum, lumber, furniture, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and copper, among others.
    • On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”  
    • The Trump tariffs amounted to an average tax increase per US household of $1,000 in 2025. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the President’s remaining new tariffs under Section 232 amount to average tax increase per US household of $400 in 2026.
    • The average effective tariff rate in 2025 was 7.7 percent, this highest rate since 1947. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 increase the weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports to 6.7 percent in 2026, and the average effective tariff rate, reflecting behavioral responses, rises to 4.5 percent—the highest since 1973.
    • With the IEEPA being ruled illegal, we estimate that the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 will raise $635 billion in revenue from 2026-2035 on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.2 percent, all before foreign retaliation. Accounting for negative economic effects, the revenue raised by the tariffs falls to $490 billion over the next decade. We estimate that the Section 232 tariffs raised $36 billion in net tax revenue in 2025.
    • The tariffs have not meaningfully altered the trade balance. The total trade deficit fell by only $2.1 billion in 2025, driven by an increase in the trade surplus of services.
    • Historical evidence and recent studies show that tariffs are taxes that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, resulting in lower income, reduced employment, and lower economic output.

     A $1,000 increase per US household in 2025.  How is that going to be made right for the American people?   Sharon Zhang  (TRUTHOUT) notes:


    Up until the ruling, Trump’s tariff policies generated an estimated $195 billion for the government. Researchers have estimated that 90 percent of the extra costs will fall on consumers, and Yale University researchers have said that previous tariff policies have led to 100 percent of costs to companies to be passed onto consumers.

    Analyses show that the tariffs would have cost American households roughly $1,000 to $2,000 over the course of a year. This burden would have come on top of skyrocketing inequality, as landlords impose unaffordable rents, federal subsidies for health care disappear, and corporations cut tens of thousands of jobs (instead of CEO pay) in response to cost increases.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom called on the Trump administration to “immediately issue refund checks — with interest” to Americans and businesses.

    “Time to pay the piper, Donald. These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them,” Newsom said in a statement. 


    Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following yesterday:


    Senator Murray has been outspoken about the harm Trump’s tariffs are causing in WA—one of the most trade-dependent states in the country; Murray has held numerous events in every corner of the state to hear from businessesfarmers, and border communities about effects of Trump’s trade war

    Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) issued the following statement in response to the 6-3 Supreme Court decision ruling against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs.

    “No doubt the President is somewhere throwing a tantrum over this Supreme Court Decision, but the law is clear and the law won. Small businesses across Washington state are breathing a sigh of relief thanks to this decision. Trump’s erratic tariff regime was nothing short of economic arson. On a whim, the President would upend entire industries and drastically drive up costs or block our small businesses from markets they depended on—it was sheer stupidity that cost us jobs and drove up prices for just about everyone.

    “While this decision puts an important leash on an out-of-control White House, we have to recognize that so much damage has already been done. And all year, Republicans blocked Democrats from simply repealing Trump’s destructive tariffs out of pure cowardice and a slovenly deference to a President determined to set our economy on fire. Good riddance.

    “Undoubtedly, Trump will look for new ways to impose tariffs and hurt American small businesses—he should just give it up and Republicans should work with us to make sure he does. In Congress, I’ll keep fighting back against Trump and Republicans’ anti-small business, anti-consumer policies—Democrats are fighting for commonsense policies that grow the economy for everyone, support the middle-class, and make life more affordable.”

    Washington state has one of the most trade-dependent economies of any state in the country, with 40 percent of jobs in the state tied to international commerce. In 2024, Washington exported $57.8 billion of goods, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), making Washington state the 9th-largest state exporter of goods last year. Washington state is also the top U.S. producer of apples, blueberries, hops, pears, spearmint oil, and sweet cherries—all of which risk losing vital export markets due to retaliatory tariffs from key trading partners including Canada.

    ###


    Chump had a meltdown Friday when he heard the news of the Court's finding.  Chump attacked and cursed out the Court over the verdict.  Does that mean anything?  David McAfee (RAW STORY) offers:


    Donald Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court smacking down his signature initiative upset "all nine" justices and will give the conservative high court "more freedom" to defy the president's wishes in upcoming cases, according to a Republican strategist.

    Appearing on MS NOW's PoliticsNation this weekend, Republican strategist Susan del Percio, who has a history of working with Republican candidates and in Rudy Giuliani's administration, was asked if Trump's response to the Supreme Court would fly with the nation's highest jurists. Trump said he was ashamed and disappointed with Republicans who ruled against him, and said they lacked courage and loyalty.

    Asked, "Will this pass with them?" the GOP insider replied, "I don't think so."


    Today on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe noted Chump's personal attacks on the justices. 


    The polls continue to note that the American people are tired of Donald Chump and his self-created drama. Kathryn Palmer (USA TODAY) reports:

    Ahead of President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address of his second term, a new poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of his job performance, especially on inflation, tariffs and foreign policy.

    In a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released on Sunday, Feb. 22 − just two days before Trump's highly anticipated address to Congress − six in ten Americans, 60%, said they disapprove of the way he is handling his role. Of that number, 47% indicated a strong disapproval. Another 39% said they approve of the president's performance.


    His performance has been lackluster and threatening at the same time.  Currently, he's raging at NETFLIX to fire a member of the board (Susan Rice) and it's that sort of nonsense -- unethical and beyond the pale -- that really reveals him to be an immature cry baby incapable of stewarding the US economy.  His meltdown on Friday following the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs didn't win him any glowing reviews.



    Chump continues to struggle as does FBI Director Ka$h Patel.  Alan Feuer, Glenn Thrush, Motoko Rich and Tariq Panja (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

     

    The F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, criticized for blurring the lines between personal recreation and professional responsibility, spent Sunday celebrating the American hockey team’s Olympic victory in Milan as the bureau grappled with multiple, fast-developing crises at home.

    A video of a euphoric Mr. Patel, a devoted hockey fan who plays the sport himself, was posted on social media, showing him giving a gleeful shaka sign — the thumb-and-pinky salute — in the gold-winning team’s locker room as he stood next to Dylan Larkin, the team’s center.

    “Congratulations, Team USA!” Mr. Patel shouted while wearing a white jersey and craning his head to get into the frame of a cellphone video with Mr. Larkin, who flashed his gold medal at the camera.

    Another video clip showed Mr. Patel chugging most of a beer and splashing the remnants into the air as the hockey players around him cheered. Then one of players, the video showed, draped a gold medal around his neck and he raised his arms in triumph.


    Ka$h's presence came as a bit of a surprise due to a spokesperson disputing that Ka$h would be there.  Jennifer Bowers Bahney (MEDIAITE) notes:


    FBI Spokesman Ben Williamson spent days trashing reports by MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian and others who reported Patel would be attending the event.

    “Your rag outlet wrote that [Patel] went to hang out at the Olympics on the taxpayer dime – even when provided information that your theory was false. When you’re ready to correct that let me know. Won’t hold my breath,” Williamson wrote.

    This morning, Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) noted Ka$h's trip was on the taxpayer dime. 


    Let's wind down with this from Senator Mazie Hirono's office:

    ~Hirono has long championed the small businesses and working families who have been severely impacted by Trump’s illegal tariffs~

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), a senior member of the Senate Committees on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Judiciary, released the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s global tariffs.

    “For the past year, Trump’s tariffs have wreaked havoc on small businesses and driven up costs for consumers, while doing nothing to help the U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs were never meant to help the American people. They were conceived as another lever for Trump to consolidate power and intimidate our global partners—including some of our closest allies. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we’ve known all along, these tariffs are not only reckless, they are illegal. Today’s ruling is an important step forward for American consumers and businesses, and also for the rule of law. Now that the Court has ruled, this regime needs to expeditiously reimburse the businesses who have borne the cost for Trump’s disastrous trade war and lay out a plan to actually address the affordability crisis facing millions of Americans. The President must not seek to reimpose these tariffs using the pretext of some other authority.”

    As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, Senator Hirono has consistently fought to support the small businesses in Hawaii and throughout the country who have been impacted by the Trump Administration’s global tariffs. For the past year, she has fought for small businesses and families to get relief for the losses they have accrued as a result of the tariffs. In May, she introduced the Small Business Liberation Act, legislation that would exempt the more than 34 million U.S. small businesses from the overly broad, reckless global tariffs imposed by President Trump. In September, she also introduced the Small Business RELIEF Act, which would reimburse those businesses for costs incurred due to the tariffs. In addition to legislation, Hirono has stood with plaintiffs suing the Administration for losses they’ve accrued because of the tariffs and signed onto multiple amicus briefs advocating for relief.

    ###


    Kat's "Kat's Korner: U2's DAYS OF ASH" went up yesterday and the following sites updated: