President Trump has called Justice Brett Kavanaugh his “new hero” on the Supreme Court, even after the court struck down his sweeping global tariffs. Kavanaugh was the only Trump-appointed justice to side with the White House in the ruling on Friday, which prompted the praise.

“My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito,” Trump declared on Truth Social. He added, “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” On Friday, Trump also said Kavanaugh’s “stock has gone so up” and praised his “genius and his great ability.”

According to Politico, the Supreme Court’s decision blocked Trump from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his global tariffs. Three Republican-appointed justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice John Roberts, joined the court’s liberal justices in the ruling against the tariffs.

Kavanaugh’s dissent gives the White House a clear path to pursue tariffs through other legal means

Trump saved his sharpest criticism for Barrett and Gorsuch, both of whom he appointed in his first term. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” he told reporters at a press briefing on Friday, shortly after the ruling. “You want to know the truth, the two of them.” Trump’s presidency has seen several controversial moves that critics have labeled as overreach, and this ruling was no exception.

Kavanaugh’s dissent has given the White House a potential roadmap for future tariff efforts. In his minority opinion, he wrote that the majority’s decision “might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” He also listed several other federal laws the White House could use to impose tariffs.

My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

(TS: 21 Feb 09:32 ET)​​​‍​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​‌‍…

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) February 21, 2026

The White House moved quickly after the ruling. Trump signed an executive order imposing a new temporary 10 percent global tariff, citing a section of the Trade Act of 1974 that allows a president to impose tariffs when facing a “large and serious balance-of-payments deficit.” These new tariffs are set to take effect on Tuesday and are expected to face legal challenges. It is worth noting that Trump’s praise for justices has not always lasted.

In July 2021, he criticized both Kavanaugh and Barrett for siding with the court’s liberals in a challenge to Obamacare. “I was disappointed, and that’s the way it goes. Very disappointed, I fought very hard for them,” he said after that 7-2 ruling. Trump has also made headlines recently for his off-script remarks causing chaos at public meetings. So while Kavanaugh is Trump’s “new hero” today, that could change depending on future rulings.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) shocked comedian and TV host Bill Maher when she refused to clearly say that the QAnon belief about Democrats “eating babies” is false. This happened during her appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and Maher’s visible shock highlighted how some politicians engage with extreme conspiracy theories.

During the Friday night panel, Maher tried to find common ground with QAnon followers, even partly apologizing about the Epstein case. He said QAnon had “it righter” than him on some parts of the Epstein scandal, but quickly added that QAnon also believes “a lot of real batsh— nonsense.” He then directly asked Boebert: “Democrats don’t eat babies. You think they eat babies?”

Boebert’s response was not a clear denial. According to Mediaite, she said, “There is a lot of consumption talk… there is some sick stuff in here that is implying.” She added, “I’m not saying they’re eating babies. I’m saying there is talk of consumption and it ain’t pizza.” Maher replied, “You insist they might be eating babies!” Boebert wrapped up by saying, “I just think there’s some… questionable stuff.”

Boebert’s pattern of mixing unrelated topics with political controversy goes beyond just one TV moment

This is not the first time Boebert has brought the “baby” topic into a public setting. In 2023, during a congressional hearing on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), she waved graphic photos of dead babies and asked whether her colleagues “on the other side would put babies on the endangered species list.” This turned a hearing about environmental policy into a highly political moment.

Lauren Boebert Stuns Bill Maher With Bonkers Belief About 'Eating Babies' https://t.co/B0oXRc4rkJ

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) February 21, 2026

Boebert was at that hearing to push her “Trust the Science Act,” which calls for removing federal protections for wolves across the country. Other Republicans, like Matt Rosendale of Montana and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, introduced similar bills to remove protections for grizzly bears in their states. Maher has had his own political friction recently, he made headlines after Trump sent him bizarre insulting texts following a White House dinner.

Critics say these bills bypass the scientific process required by the ESA. Steve Guertin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that such proposals “would supersede ongoing scientific analysis” and “share the common thread of circumventing the scientific processes currently underway.” Rep. Jared Huffman called the agenda “a hot mess of extreme anti-science, anti-tribe, anti-wildlife bills.”

Bill Maher: "They don’t eat babies. Democrats don’t eat babies. You think they eat babies?"

Lauren Boebert: "I’m not saying they’re eating babies. I’m saying there is talk of consumption, and it ain’t pizza." pic.twitter.com/sPSGgtS5LT

— conspiracybot (@conspiracyb0t) February 22, 2026

The arguments behind these bills have also relied on questionable data. Boebert cited a statistic claiming “approximately 500 people have been attacked by wolves with nearly 30 of these attacks resulting in human deaths” since 2002, but the report showed only two cases happened in the U.S., with just one fatality.

Hageman called Northern Rockies wolves “non-native Canadian gray wolves,” echoing a conspiracy theory about “super-large strain of extra ferocious predators” placed by the federal government.

The Endangered Species Act, now 50 years old, has protected 99 percent of the species listed under it. Boebert has argued the ESA “has been weaponized by extremists, extremist environmentalists, to restrict common sense multiple use activities.” This episode is just the latest in a series of tense moments for Maher, who was also brutally mocked by Trump over Canada comments not long ago.

President Trump made an unexpected move by sharing a video on Truth Social featuring Kaitlan Collins, a reporter he has publicly criticized. In the video, Collins discusses a large new banner displaying Trump’s face at the Department of Justice. Collins argues the banner symbolizes an “erased” separation of powers between the White House and the DOJ.

Work crews used a cherry picker to hang the massive banner over the entrance to the Department of Justice. According to Mediaite, Collins noted that while similar banners with Trump’s image have appeared at other departments like Labor and Agriculture, this one at the Department of Justice carries a different meaning.

Historically, administrations have tried to maintain a clear line of independence between the White House and the Justice Department, with the idea that politics should not influence who gets prosecuted. Collins argues that this line has been blurred since Trump began his second term, pointing out that he has directly pressured the Attorney General to prosecute individuals he sees as political enemies or those who have led prosecutions against him.

The banner’s “Make America Safe Again” slogan makes Collins’ argument harder to ignore

The Justice Department stated that the banner is meant to honor America’s upcoming 250th birthday celebration. However, the banner also echoes a slogan Trump himself has used: “Make America Safe Again,” which adds weight to Collins’ interpretation. Some Republicans have also been pushing back on Trump’s use of executive power, with one GOP lawmaker breaking ranks to limit Trump’s pardon authority.

What makes Trump’s decision to share the video particularly strange is his very public treatment of Collins earlier this month. During a press moment when Collins was trying to ask about the victims of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump cut her off and called her out directly.

“You are so bad, you know? You are the worst reporter. No wonder [her previous employer] has no ratings, because of people like you. You know, she’s a young woman. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile. I’ve known you for 10 years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face,” Trump said.

WATCH: President Trump just shared Kaitlan Collins reporting on CNN about his banner outside the Justice Department.pic.twitter.com/azfgeP7xHv

— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) February 22, 2026

Despite that exchange, Trump chose to repost her video on Truth Social, where it can still be viewed. The repost is notable given that the video contains a direct critique of his administration’s actions and the symbolism behind the DOJ banner.

Trump has also faced scrutiny on other fronts, as a new poll reveals an economic nightmare for millions of Americans despite his claims of financial progress. It is unclear why Trump shared a video from a reporter he openly criticized, especially one that raises serious questions about the independence of the Justice Department under his administration.

President Trump has announced a 15% baseline tariff on imports from every single country. The move comes directly after a major Supreme Court ruling that struck down his previous trade strategy. This is not a small adjustment; it is a significant shift that reveals deep problems in his trade agenda.

According to The Conversation, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s previous “reciprocal tariffs,” imposed under an emergency powers act, were unauthorized. This new 15% rate is an increase from a 10% global baseline tariff put in place shortly after that initial ruling. The president is now using a different law that appears to clearly allow tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days.

Speaking after the ruling, Trump called the Democratic justices who voted against his tariffs a “disgrace to the nation” and said he felt “ashamed” of the conservative members who also voted against his use of emergency powers. He admitted he had been trying to “make things simple” with the emergency powers act, and acknowledged that other options exist but would take more time.

A potential $175 billion refund bill now hangs over the administration

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that all tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawfully gathered. An estimated US$175 billion (A$247 billion) could potentially need to be refunded. Trump called the decision “terrible” and “defective,” and his emotional reaction to the Supreme Court ruling drew widespread attention beyond just the tariff debate.

The US Court of International Trade has previously stated it has the authority to order these refunds. Several large companies, including Costco, had already sued the administration proactively to recover payments if the tariffs were ruled unlawful. Trump himself suggested the dispute could keep the country “in court for the next five years.”

Donald Trump says he is raising his new global tariff from 10% to 15%, effective immediately.

This follows the Supreme Court’s ruling that most of his previous tariffs were illegal. pic.twitter.com/bcwtsdUUUG

— Pop Base (@PopBase) February 21, 2026

For longer-term solutions, Trump mentioned using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on countries that violate US rights under international trade agreements or unfairly restrict US commerce. However, it requires a detailed process including consultations with affected countries and could take years to implement at any significant scale. This section was notably used against China in 2018.

Another option is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which applies to specific economic sectors and was used to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum in 2018. However, it cannot be used for sweeping tariffs on all foreign imports and requires a national security investigation. Trump has also been making headlines for unrelated reasons, including his unusual comments about Nicki Minaj’s appearance during a recent public appearance.

For countries like Australia, the new 15% rate levels the playing field for the next 150 days, though Australian exporters may face pressure to absorb some costs. The White House did list exceptions, including beef, critical minerals, energy products, and pharmaceuticals.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism after it was revealed that the application to become an “emergency snow shoveler” for the city requires five forms of identification, far more than what is needed to vote. This has sparked a strong reaction, especially from conservatives, who see it as a contradiction given Mamdani’s ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that strongly opposes voter ID laws.

According to Mediaite, the application on the NYC government website asks for two small photos, two “original forms of ID, plus copies,” and a Social Security card, adding up to five items. Those who are hired for the job can earn up to $28.71 per hour.

The DSA’s website states that their candidates “stand firm against racist voter ID laws and secret poll taxes like the ‘SAVE America Act,'” and that they educate “working-class voters about the needless complications in our electoral system.” This stance directly clashes with the extensive ID requirements for the snow shoveling job.

The backlash reflects a deeper and ongoing debate over voter ID laws in America

Conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller was among the first to point out the application’s demands on X, calling it “Incredible.” Many other users quickly joined in, mocking Mamdani for what they saw as hypocrisy.

Comic and host Jimmy Failla quipped, “This is Jim SNOW 2.0.” One user wrote, “No joke. To register to shovel snow in Mamdani’s NYC….for the impending snowstorm, you need two types of identification. Can’t make this up.” Others directly contrasted the shoveling ID rules with the lack of voter ID requirements in New York City.

Incredible https://t.co/3X2Kw8O0K1 pic.twitter.com/2UJuL8Bcld

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 21, 2026

The criticism came after Mamdani urged New Yorkers to show up at local sanitation garages to help ahead of an impending blizzard hitting the East Coast. He reportedly told people they just needed to bring the required paperwork to “get started right away.” While Mamdani received some praise for his storm response efforts during the blizzard, the ID requirement controversy quickly dominated the conversation.

The voter ID debate has gained wider attention recently, as President Trump and other Republicans have pushed for the SAVE Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote. Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the act, saying it would “impose Jim Crow type laws.”

However, recent data suggests that most Americans, including a significant portion of Democrats, support voter ID requirements. This has made Mamdani’s snow shoveler ID policy an even bigger talking point, especially as the mayor continues to face scrutiny over the fiscal challenges he inherited in office.

President Trump has demanded that Netflix remove Susan Rice from its board, threatening the streaming company with “consequences” if it does not comply. This comes as Netflix is in the middle of a high-stakes attempt to acquire Warner Bros Discovery, a deal that would need federal regulatory approval. Trump had previously suggested he would stay out of this acquisition.

According to Financial Times, the situation was set off by MAGA influencer Laura Loomer, who holds no official role in the administration but appears to have significant influence over Trump. She urged him to “kill the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger now,” and Trump then posted about it on his Truth Social platform.

Trump wrote, “Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences. She’s got no talent or skills, Purely a political hack!” He also added, “HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what???” 

Rice’s own comments appear to have sparked the pressure campaign

Susan Rice served as national security adviser and US ambassador to the UN under Barack Obama, worked on Joe Biden’s domestic policy council, and has been on Netflix’s board from 2018 to 2020 and again since 2023.

She recently appeared on a podcast and warned that it “would not end well” for companies that “take a knee to Trump” if Democrats were to regain power in Washington. She predicted that Democrats would implement an “accountability agenda,” telling companies to “preserve their documents” and “be ready for subpoenas.”

Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences. She’s got no talent or skills – Purely a political hack! HER POWER IS GONE, AND WILL NEVER BE BACK. How much is she being paid, and for what??? Thank you for your attention to this… pic.twitter.com/4Mem2zd503

— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) February 21, 2026

Rice stated, “If these corporations think that Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules, I think they’ve got another thing coming.” This kind of political tension is not unlike the high-stakes diplomatic standoffs Trump is navigating on other fronts as well.

Loomer then expanded on her reasoning in a lengthy social media post, questioning whether Netflix supports a board member who she claims is “threatening half of the country with weaponized government and political retribution.” She labeled Netflix an “anti-American, WOKE company” and suggested the Warner Bros Discovery acquisition would benefit the Obamas by filling the service with “positive messaging” for Democrats.

Trump Says Netflix Should Fire Board Member Susan Rice "Immediately, or Pay the Consequences" https://t.co/1Pi4PrSP8I

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) February 22, 2026

Netflix currently has an agreed $83 billion takeover deal with Warner Bros Discovery. However, Paramount Skydance is attempting a hostile bid, backed by Oracle founder and known Trump donor Larry Ellison, with a $108 billion offer that recently cleared a key US antitrust hurdle. Warner Bros Discovery’s board has repeatedly rejected Paramount’s approach and is sticking with Netflix’s offer.

Both deals are under scrutiny from federal regulators. Netflix’s proposed acquisition is currently going through an early-stage review by Trump’s Justice Department to determine whether it would be anti-competitive. Trump has also made headlines recently for his unusual remarks about a celebrity’s appearance, showing a pattern of unconventional public behavior.

President Trump gave an unexpected compliment to the mainstream media at a White House event during the National Governors Association dinner. He opened his speech by acknowledging the journalists in the room, saying, “Now we’re with some very special reporters tonight.” He then added, “I often say the fake news, but I will not say that tonight. Even though I’m on live television, I will not call you fake news!”

According to Mediaite, Trump went on to explain his rare praise shortly after. “I said to myself the press has been relatively fair to me over the last year, meaning they’ve been bad, but not horrible,” he said, which got a few laughs from the crowd. For a president who regularly criticizes the media, even “bad, but not horrible” is a notable shift in tone.

The evening also featured entertainment, including a performance by violinist Rusanda Panfili, whom Trump called the “greatest violinist in the world.” Trump put it to a vote among the governors whether the press should be allowed to stay and watch the performance, then raised his own hand, saying, “I’m in favor.” The crowd cheered, and Trump gave the media members the green light to stay.

Trump’s history with the media makes this moment all the more striking

This moment stands out because Trump’s relationship with the media has been highly contentious for over a decade. He has frequently criticized major news organizations and has been involved in several high-profile legal battles with them. His comments at the dinner were a clear departure from his usual stance.

Trump has also been making bold moves on the global stage lately, including giving Iran a tight deadline to reach a deal, which experts say may carry more complexity than it appears.

Currently, Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal over a story claiming he sent Jeffrey Epstein a “bawdy” birthday letter in 2003. The lawsuit shows how seriously he takes media reports and his willingness to pursue legal action over them.

LMAO! President Trump just had the room DYING at the Governors Dinner!

“We’re with some very special reporters tonight. I often say the FAKE NEWS! But I will not say it tonight even though I’m on live television.”

“I will NOT call you fake news, OK?! As the cameras are… pic.twitter.com/ri5hoOJGeS

— Gunther Eagleman (@GuntherEagleman) February 22, 2026

Trump is also suing the BBC for $10 billion, alleging the network “doctored” footage to make it appear as though he urged supporters to “fight” before the January 6 Capitol Riot. The BBC program Panorama, which aired in October 2024, reportedly showed Trump saying, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

However, Trump maintains that his actual words were, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” He argues this is a significant difference in how his words were presented to the public. Beyond legal battles, Trump has also been pledging billions toward Middle East peace efforts, though the broader details of those plans remain uncertain.

More recently, Trump publicly supported the merger of Nexstar and Tegna, explaining, “We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks.” Given this ongoing hostility toward the press, his “bad, but not horrible” remark at the National Governors Association dinner was a genuinely rare moment.

The Department of Justice has quietly removed records of four separate FBI interviews with a woman who accused President Trump of sexual assault when she was underage. These records were part of the Jeffrey Epstein files and are supposed to be publicly available under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The woman, identified as one of Epstein’s victims, accused President Trump of forcing her to engage in oral sex sometime between 1983 and 1985, when she was in her early teens. She described a violent encounter where she bit Trump’s exposed penis, after which he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. She also told the DOJ that Jeffrey Epstein first introduced her to President Trump in 1984.

Independent journalists Roger Sollenberger and Nina Burleigh brought this to light, noting that DOJ records clearly showed the FBI spoke to this woman at least four separate times. According to The New Republic, Sollenberger found records of these interviews, which took place in the summer and fall of 2019, in a separate document database that was originally provided to Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers for her trial.

The timeline of these disappearing records raises serious questions about accountability

The interview records spanned from July 24, 2019, to October 16, 2019, and have since been removed from public access. The first interview took place on July 24, 2019, but was not entered into the FBI’s case files until August 9, 2019, a 16-day gap. This is unusual, as FBI agents typically have a five-day deadline to file interview write-ups. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell just one day after that first interview was finally filed.

Despite these documented interviews and the allegations, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently stated there was “no evidence” President Trump had committed any crime. Lawmakers have also accused the DOJ of failing its final obligation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, adding to concerns that the department is not being fully transparent. Many see this as part of a broader effort to shield the president from scrutiny connected to the Epstein scandal.

The FBI interviewed one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims four times over her allegation that Donald Trump assaulted her when she was underage—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government’s documents. https://t.co/jmRc4QZylS pic.twitter.com/bnrXMI1WgT

— The New Republic (@newrepublic) February 21, 2026

In the U.K., Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former British prince, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, directly tied to the Epstein files. This development has drawn attention to the question of whether equally powerful figures connected to Epstein in the U.S. are being held to the same standard.

Some observers have noted that the rule of law should apply equally to everyone, and that justice should not stop with one imprisoned accomplice while others with more influence avoid scrutiny. The truth, no matter how “politically explosive,” needs to be fully examined.

The disappearance of these interview records, given the broader context of the Epstein case, has added to concerns that certain powerful individuals are not being treated the same way as others under investigation. This comes alongside other controversies involving the department, including reports of the DOJ displaying a pro-Trump banner inside its offices after Trump had previously sued the department for $230 million.

President Trump has given Iran a 10 to 15-day window to come to the negotiating table, or face significant consequences. This tight timeline has put nuclear diplomacy in the spotlight, but experts say this deadline may not be as simple as Tehran believes.

Trump’s deadlines have historically worked as both a warning and a strategic tool. Back in June, he said he would decide on a strike against Iran “within the next two weeks,” but made that decision just two days later. According to Fox News, Jason Brodsky, policy director at United Against Nuclear Iran, points out that the Iranian regime has been “deluding itself, thinking they can treat President Trump like President Obama.”

There is also significant skepticism within the administration that these talks will lead to any real breakthrough. Brodsky believes the talks may serve a dual purpose, sharpening the choices for Iranian leadership while buying time for the U.S. to position military assets in the region. The presence of the USS Gerald R. Ford in the Mediterranean Sea supports this idea of strategic positioning.

Iran’s red lines and stalling tactics make a genuine deal look unlikely

From Iran’s side, a Middle Eastern source familiar with the negotiations says Tehran understands how close the risk of war feels right now and is unlikely to deliberately provoke Trump. As Iran firmly rules out any submission in ongoing talks, Iran cannot accept limitations on its short-range missile program, a firm red line set by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. For Iranian negotiators, conceding on missiles would be seen internally as the equivalent of losing a war.

Brodsky believes Iran’s core positions have not changed much. He thinks they are throwing out “shiny objects” and distractions to avoid making the concessions Trump is demanding, including zero enrichment, dismantling nuclear infrastructure, limiting missiles, and ending support for terror groups.

A senior administration official told USA Today that Trump could decide to strike Iran as soon as this weekend. He could also strike Iran next weekend or never. – USA Today

— WW3 Monitor (@WW3_Monitor) February 21, 2026

Behnam Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warns that Tehran may be preparing a proposal that simply puts the current situation on paper, making the U.S. “pay for something it already achieved.” He says Iran wants three things: to prevent a strike, to use negotiations to undermine Iranian dissidents, and to secure sanctions relief and financial stabilization.

Taleblu also notes that while the administration clearly does not want a nuclear Iran or a prolonged war in the Middle East, the military assets being moved into the region signal they are prepared for one anyway. Reports show that a second carrier strike group is already moving into position as diplomacy continues.

BREAKING: Iran says US officials have accepted their red line of continuing to enrich uranium and both sides are seeking a “fast deal," per Bloomberg.

After recent talks in Geneva:

1. Idea that Iran would completely stop nuclear enrichment was dismissed

2. Negotiations are…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) February 21, 2026

Jacob Olidort, chief research officer at the America First Policy Institute, adds that the scope of any potential military action remains unpredictable, whether it would serve as a new layer of diplomatic pressure or achieve what diplomacy could not.

On the ground in Iran, public sentiment is deeply divided. Many Iranians view a foreign military invasion as unacceptable, but widespread anger over the killing of young protesters continues to fuel domestic tensions and uncertainty inside the country.

President Donald Trump recently made an unusual claim at a press conference, saying a “very powerful” man wanted to kiss him. The story came up while Trump was lashing out at the Supreme Court, calling the justices a “disgrace to our nation” and “lap dogs,” after they struck down his tariff policies.

According to The Daily Beast, while venting about the ruling, Trump suddenly shifted to an unrelated story about Andrew Seville, the president of Kusa Steel in Rome, Georgia. Trump claimed Seville expressed a desire to kiss him during a visit to the factory.

“We were in Georgia, and I said to the owner, I made a speech at a factory that makes steel products, and I said, ‘How are you, nice to meet you, how’s business?'” Trump recalled. He then claimed Seville responded with, “President, I’d love to kiss you.”

Trump’s unusual kissing anecdote points to a pattern of strange comments in recent days

Trump told the press, “This is a very powerful man. I don’t want to be kissed by that man.” He added that Seville is “a very powerful, strong man” who has been in the steel business for many years. He then quoted Seville again, saying, “Sir, I want to kiss you so badly.’ And I said, ‘No thank you.'” The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Trump’s tariff policies was clearly the trigger for the press conference outburst.

According to Trump, Seville’s unusual expression of gratitude came because Trump had helped the factory boost production from just one hour a day to nearly 24 hours a day. When asked about the comments, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said that “it’s no secret that President Trump is the most loved and admired figure in American politics, and it should not come as a surprise that people want to show their appreciation for him.”

Trump shared that a steel magnate wanted to kiss him over the tariffs

“They produce steel products, and I said, 'How’s it going? Nice to meet you. How’s it going, Mr. President?' He said, 'I’d like to kiss you.'

This is a very influential man — a very strong man. I don’t want… pic.twitter.com/X2IcM0Q4ih

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) February 21, 2026

This was not the first time Trump shared this story. He told a similar version the day before to a crowd at the same Georgia factory. On that occasion, Trump quoted Seville saying, “President, if I didn’t have all these cameras running, I would grab you and start kissing you violently.”

Earlier that same Thursday, Trump also paused his “Board of Peace” meeting to comment on Paraguayan President Santiago Peña’s appearance. This meeting came amid broader foreign policy developments, including reports on Trump’s ongoing Iran nuclear negotiations.

As he welcomed the 47-year-old leader, Trump said, “It’s always nice to be young and handsome,” before quickly adding, “It doesn’t mean we have to like you. I don’t like young, handsome men. Women, I like. Men, I don’t have any interest.”

A massive banner featuring President Donald Trump’s face and the slogan “Make America Safe Again” appeared on the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C.. The display immediately sparked strong criticism from Democrats, who called it an unprecedented move that threatens the independence of federal law enforcement.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called the display “beyond parody” and questioned how many “dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards Americans have to endure.” Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey was equally direct, saying, “The Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him,” pointing to concerns that the DOJ’s loyalty is shifting away from the public.

According to Time, the core issue, critics say, is that the DOJ is meant to operate independently from the White House, serving the rule of law rather than any individual president’s political agenda. The banner has reinforced fears that this separation is breaking down.

The DOJ’s independence has been under serious scrutiny long before this banner went up

Those concerns are not new. During Attorney General Pam Bondi’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, lawmakers questioned her loyalty to President Trump, particularly over the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files. Rep. Jamie Raskin stated bluntly, “Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza, and you deliver every time.”

Bondi defended herself, saying she came into office to refocus the DOJ on its “core mission” after what she described as “years of bloated bureaucracy and political weaponization.” But a former federal prosecutor noted that she couldn’t recall similar political imagery for past presidents like George W.

The flag, which features the slogan ‘MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN’, is a stark symbol of the US president’s influence over a body that historically maintained some distance from the White House. https://t.co/TcVVNYRBmd pic.twitter.com/04bh38Avd6

— Financial Times (@FT) February 20, 2026

Bush or Barack Obama on federal buildings, adding that political activity is not supposed to take place within the Department of Justice. Trump has also made waves on other fronts, including ordering a major declassification of alien-related files that has drawn widespread attention.

This is also not the first time Trump’s image has appeared on federal buildings. Last May, banners featuring him alongside President Abraham Lincoln were displayed at the Department of Agriculture. In August, a banner with Trump’s second inaugural portrait alongside President Theodore Roosevelt, with the words “American Workers First,” appeared at the Department of Labor.

Beyond banners, Trump has also added his name to major Washington landmarks. In December, his name was added to the Kennedy Center, a board he personally chairs. That same month, the U.S. Institute of Peace building also received his name after the Department of State rebranded the organization.

These actions, along with Trump’s past calls for Bondi to prosecute political opponents, have raised serious concerns. Federal prosecutors have recently brought charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, though both cases were later dismissed.

The DOJ is also currently investigating Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Democratic officials in Minnesota over whether they obstructed federal immigration enforcement through public statements. Meanwhile, Trump’s broader policy moves continue to face legal challenges, including a recent case where the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s tariff policy. Former FBI Director Comey summed up the reaction to the banner in one word: “sickening.”

Hours after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping tariffs, President Trump held a press conference where he openly attacked the justices who voted against him. He called the liberal justices who joined three conservatives a “disgrace to our nation” and also went after his own appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, for ruling against him.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said. The decision was a 6-3 split, with Justices Barrett and Gorsuch joining Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices in blocking the tariffs.

According to Politico, Trump also suggested the justices hated the country and were influenced by foreign powers. When reporters pressed him for evidence to back up his claims, he simply replied, “you’re going to find out.”

Trump responded by announcing new tariffs and defending his authority to impose them

In response to the Supreme Court’s major tariff defeat, Trump quickly announced a new 10 percent global tariff and said he would keep many existing tariffs in place under new laws. The court had rejected his ability to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. When asked if he planned to seek approval from Congress for any new tariffs, he said, “I don’t need to, it’s already been approved.”

Trump was especially critical of Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, both of whom he appointed during his first term. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” he said, referring to the two justices. He later wrote on his social media:

Trump: The court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement far smaller than people would ever think. It is a small movement. I won by millions of votes. We won in a landslide. With all of the cheating that went on. pic.twitter.com/h4BtutQbV1

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 20, 2026

“What happened today with the two United States Supreme Court Justices that I appointed against great opposition, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whether people like it or not, never seems to happen with Democrats. They vote against the Republicans, and never against themselves, almost every single time, no matter how good a case we have.”

Donald J. Trump Truth Social Post 07:46 PM EST 02.20.26 pic.twitter.com/ofHDLi0B9s

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) February 21, 2026

This is not the first time Trump has spoken strongly about the court and tariffs. In November, he wrote on Truth Social, “Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court. Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!”

Tariffs have been a major part of Trump’s political and economic message. He often calls “tariff” one of his “favorite words” and uses the threat of them in talks with foreign leaders. Last April, he declared “Liberation Day” from international trade deals, imposing sweeping tariffs on countries around the world in what was the largest act of protectionism since the Great Depression.

He has since used these tariff threats to pressure allies on issues like Greenland and oil dealings with Russia, and to push for “most favored nation” drug pricing deals. Trump has also been vocal on other global matters lately, including his comments on the Prince Andrew arrest and its ties to the Epstein case.

The day before the ruling, Trump spoke at a steel factory in Georgia and credited tariffs with recent growth in domestic production. “Without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now,” he said. “Without tariffs, this country would be like your company was two years ago.” Despite his harsh words, Trump told reporters that the justices who ruled against him are still invited to his State of the Union address next week, though he added, “barely.”

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Trump’s tariffs on Friday, dealing a major blow to his economic policies. The decision quickly drew strong reactions from the White House and beyond.

According to The Hill, Vice President Vance was quick to condemn the ruling, calling it “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple” in a post on X. He argued the decision would make it harder for the president to protect American industries and ensure supply chain resiliency, though he noted that a “wide range of other tariff powers” are still available to the president.

President Trump also spoke out at the White House, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court.” Notably, two of the six justices who formed the majority opinion, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, were appointed by Trump himself. He did not spare them from criticism, saying, “I don’t want to say whether I regret nominating them. I think their decision was terrible. I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

The ruling reflects broader concerns about executive overreach on trade policy

The court’s majority ruled against the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose steep tariffs on various countries. This law is meant to give the president power to regulate imports in response to “unusual and extraordinary” threats, but the court found its use here went beyond its intended scope.

Lawmakers from both parties had already raised concerns about using IEEPA for tariffs, pointing to Congress’s constitutional authority over federal taxation. This tension is part of a wider pattern of GOP lawmakers breaking ranks with Trump on key executive power issues.

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

A Senate resolution calling for an end to Trump’s tariffs passed last fall with strong bipartisan support. A February poll also found that 67 percent of Americans supported the Supreme Court overturning these tariff policies.

From an economic standpoint, a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that U.S. businesses and consumers ended up paying about 90 percent of the costs of these tariffs. This directly contradicted the White House’s earlier claims that foreign countries would bear most of the financial burden.

Several prominent Republican lawmakers also came out in support of the ruling. Kentucky’s Republican Senators Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, both of whom voted for the Senate resolution last October, praised the decision. Senator Paul, who sponsored that resolution, called the ruling a “defense of our Republic” in a post on X.

In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes.

This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism. https://t.co/M55CZgz4By

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) February 20, 2026

Senator McConnell said the court’s decision leaves “no room for doubt” about Congress’s constitutional authority over tariffs, adding that “Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid.”

He made clear that if the executive branch wants to enact trade policies affecting American producers and consumers, its path forward is “crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1.” Meanwhile, Trump has faced scrutiny on other fronts too, including Trump’s comments on Prince Andrew’s arrest drawing widespread attention this week.

Congressman Don Bacon (R-NE) is predicting that Congress will vote down President Trump’s recently announced 10% global tariff. This comes after Bacon celebrated a Supreme Court decision that struck down President Trump’s previous emergency tariffs, which he sees as a win for the legislative branch.

According to Mediaite, Bacon has been pushing legislation to give tariff power back to Congress. He took to X to write that “the Constitution’s checks and balances still work” and that “Article One gives tariff authority to Congress.” He called the Supreme Court’s ruling “common-sense and straightforward,” and stressed that Congress needs to defend its own authorities rather than always relying on the Supreme Court.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump announced he intends to maintain his tariffs and raise them globally by 10%, citing a different statute. Bacon appeared on CNN to counter this, stating that “any tariff has to be approved by Congress.” He pointed out that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, is now the law, not the dissenting views President Trump has been quoting.

Congress looks set to block Trump’s 10% global tariff, with even Republicans turning against it

CNN’s Brianna Keilar pressed Bacon on President Trump’s claim that he doesn’t need Congress, saying the tariff is “already been approved” under Section 122, a section that expires in 150 days unless Congress extends it.

Bacon was firm, saying he had read Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which is the current law. He believes that if President Trump pushes ahead with the 10% global tariff, “it will be brought up for a vote in Congress and it will be defeated.”

Scumbag RINO Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) just went on CNN to BASH President Trump’s tariffs — the exact policies that have supercharged the US economy to levels we haven’t seen in generations!
Economy booming, wages rising, jobs exploding — and this clown calls it bad?
Traitorous… pic.twitter.com/TyAHHovyxd

— Greg Madden (@GregMaddenUSMC) February 20, 2026

Bacon is confident that even without a veto-proof majority, there will still be enough votes to block the 10% global tariff. He believes President Trump is making a mistake by relying on dissenting opinions that are not law. This tariff dispute is just one of several controversies surrounding Trump’s recent public appearances, which have drawn widespread attention.

Bacon also argued that the 10% global tariff undermines President Trump’s earlier defense of tariffs as being “reciprocal.” He admits that many, including himself, never really accepted that argument, and believes President Trump has supported tariffs since the 1980s.

The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its…

— Rep. Don Bacon (@RepDonBacon) February 20, 2026

He reminded fellow Republicans of their historical stance, noting that conservatives have opposed tariffs since World War II. Bacon drew a direct historical comparison, stating that the last Republican president to support tariffs was Herbert Hoover, and that move made the Great Depression worse.

Meanwhile, Trump has faced other distractions, including a disruption at the Kennedy Center Trump ice rink that forced a performance to be cancelled. For Bacon, the position is clear: tariffs are bad economics and bad politics, and that is a stance he is not changing.

Jury selection for the investor class action trial against Elon Musk, linked to his 2022 acquisition of X, has wrapped up in San Francisco federal court. After more than five hours of questioning, nine jurors were seated, all claiming they can be fair and impartial despite holding strong opinions about Musk. Judge Charles R. Breyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of California acknowledged that finding jurors with no views on Musk would be nearly impossible.

According to Bloomberg Law, he compared Musk to the President of the United States, saying, “As a public figure he will excite strong views, and for him in particular, people have strong views.” The real question, Breyer explained, is whether jurors can set those feelings aside and focus on the facts.

Musk’s attorney, Stephen Broome of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, objected to several prospective jurors who claimed impartiality despite expressing negative views. Broome said, “We have so many people in the venire who hate him so much that we’re becoming desensitized,” adding that in any other case, a juror who admitted hating the defendant would be dismissed immediately.

Strong public sentiment made it unusually difficult to seat a fair jury

Nearly 40 prospective jurors were dismissed after admitting they could not set aside their biases. One man stated in his questionnaire that he would have a “moral obligation” to convict Musk and send him to prison if it were a criminal trial.

Judge Breyer also dismissed a juror who had written they disagreed “with the existence of billionaires,” and another woman was let go after her questionnaire revealed she hated how Musk fired content moderators after taking over X. Musk has also been at the center of other legal controversies lately, including promising to cover lawsuit costs for Epstein truth-tellers after his name appeared in recent document releases.

Elon Musk’s $44 billion Twitter drama is finally headed to trial—but first came the harder task: finding jurors who don’t loathe the world’s richest man.https://t.co/mdyNoio42Q

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) February 21, 2026

Not all the strong feelings were negative. One woman who was eliminated called Musk a “brilliant scientist” and believed he had done a lot to help humanity. However, even her positive bias was considered a problem by the investors’ attorney, Aaron Arnzen, and she herself admitted she would be nervous if she were representing the investors with her on the jury.

Nine jurors, claiming they can be fair and impartial to Elon Musk and his controversial purchase of Twitter in 2022, were seated in San Francisco federal court Thursday, whittled down from a pool of 93. https://t.co/C0gfdjcH7S

— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) February 20, 2026

The trial centers on claims that Musk violated securities law. Investors allege he publicly went back and forth on his decision to purchase X as a tactic to drive down the company’s stock price and gain more leverage in negotiations. Musk first became X’s largest shareholder in early 2022, then offered to buy the entire company for $54.20 per share, totaling $44 billion, in April. He later tried to back out, which sparked lawsuits, before completing the acquisition in October 2022.

This is not the first time Musk has faced an investor lawsuit over his public statements. In 2018, he faced a similar case in the same San Francisco federal court over a tweet claiming he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private.

That case went to trial in 2023, and a jury cleared him of all claims. Beyond legal battles, Musk’s business decisions have also drawn global attention, such as his controversial Starlink access cut affecting Russian forces on the battlefield. Opening statements are set for March 2, and the trial is expected to last about three weeks. Live testimony from Musk himself, as well as former X CEO Parag Agrawal, is anticipated.

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down many of President Trump’s tariffs has set off a massive scramble, with companies racing to get billions of dollars back. But there is a big catch: the path to these refunds is very unclear, and consumers are angry.

The court’s opinion did not offer any clear steps on how these refunds would actually happen. Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted this lack of clarity in his dissenting opinion, writing that the court said “nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” He even acknowledged that the process is likely to be a “mess.”

According to NBC News, the amount of money involved is enormous. According to December data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, about $130 billion has been collected from tariffs implemented under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Some estimates, including one from the University of Pennsylvania, suggest that total could now be more than $175 billion.

The refund battle is shaping up to favour big corporations over ordinary consumers

Hundreds of companies, including major players like Costco, have already filed lawsuits to get their money back. But economists point out that the process for companies to get refunds on duties paid is far from clear.

Meanwhile, an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that almost 90% of the “economic burden” of these tariffs actually fell on consumers and other businesses. Shoppers hoping for quick price relief may want to read about how long consumers could wait for prices to drop.

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down President Trump’s tariffs could potentially require the U.S. government to refund as much as an estimated $175 billion. pic.twitter.com/a5MBM2ECFC

— Yahoo Finance (@YahooFinance) February 20, 2026

Senator Elizabeth Warren stated that there is no “legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid.” She added that “giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.”

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sent a letter to President Trump demanding a refund of $1,700 “for every family in Illinois,” which he said would total more than $8 billion for his state. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who had previously sued over the tariffs, stated that “every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately, with interest.”

Companies that hedged their bets by selling potential tariff refund claims to investors celebrated on Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. https://t.co/pnchvUPYan

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) February 21, 2026

President Trump called the court’s decision “defective” during a White House news conference. When asked about refunds, he pointed back at the court, saying “they take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point.” He predicted the issue would likely be “litigated for the next two years,” and possibly even “five years” if companies push for refunds.

Some are pushing for a clearer path forward. A group of small businesses called We Pay the Tariffs called for “full, fast and automatic refunds.” Representatives Steven Horsford of Nevada and Janelle Bynum of Oregon introduced a bill that would require Customs and Border Protection to “automatically refund tariffs and customs duties collected under IEEPA since January 1, 2025.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier that refunding the money “won’t be a problem” if the court ruled against the tariffs. But it raised concerns it could become a “corporate boondoggle,” questioning whether companies like Costco would actually return the money to their customers.

He also noted refunds could take anywhere from weeks to over a year to process. Adding to the uncertainty, Trump’s surprise move targeting every country with new tariffs after the ruling has made the overall trade situation even more complicated.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee made striking comments about Israel’s potential borders during an interview with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson. Carlson was pressing Huckabee on Israel’s geographical boundaries, which the ambassador believes are rooted in biblical texts.

According to Al Jazeera, Carlson brought up a biblical verse that promises land to the descendants of Abraham, covering the vast area between the Euphrates River in Iraq and the Nile River in Egypt. Such a territory would include modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia. Huckabee, appointed by President Donald Trump last year, responded directly: “It would be fine if they took it all.”

The comment visibly caught Carlson off guard, and he asked Huckabee to clarify whether he truly supported Israel expanding across the entire region. Huckabee walked it back, saying, “They don’t want to take it over. They’re not asking to take it over.” He later admitted his initial remark was “somewhat of a hyperbolic statement,” but still left the door open, adding, “If they end up getting attacked by all these places, and they win that war, and they take that land, OK, that’s a whole other discussion.”

Huckabee’s remarks put him at odds with international law and legal institutions

These comments conflict with a core principle of international law established after World War II, which prohibits acquiring territory by force. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 2024 that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and must end immediately.

Israel currently occupies the Golan Heights in Syria, a territory it illegally annexed in 1981, with the US being the only country that recognizes Israel’s claim there. These border tensions are also playing out across the wider region, as Iran’s stance on US negotiations in the Middle East continues to shape diplomatic dynamics.

BREAKING: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson that Israel has the Biblical right to take over all of the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all.” pic.twitter.com/BN4fXh03ga

— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 20, 2026

The idea of a “Greater Israel” is not new, Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians have openly supported it. In 2023, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich caused an international outcry when he spoke at an event featuring a map that showed Palestinian territories and portions of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan as part of Israel, displayed against the Israeli flag.

In the same interview, Huckabee argued that Israel’s right to exist is grounded in international law, while also criticizing the legal institutions that govern it. He said, “One of the reasons I’m so grateful President Trump and Secretary Rubio are pushing hard, trying to get rid of the ICC [International Criminal Court] and the ICJ is because they have become rogue organizations that are no longer really about an equal application of law.”

Huckabee has also faced criticism for not standing up for US citizens killed and imprisoned by Israeli forces. He drew further backlash after meeting with Jonathan Pollard, a former US Navy analyst who sold intelligence secrets to Israel.

As the Trump administration faces scrutiny on multiple fronts, Trump’s handling of key economic concerns has also drawn significant public attention. Huckabee clarified he held a pre-approved meeting with Pollard at the US embassy in Jerusalem, stating, “He was able to come to the US embassy to have a meeting at his request. I did, and frankly, I don’t regret it.”

The Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to President Trump’s economic powers, stripping him of his sweeping emergency tariff authority. But the president is already fuming and working on a new plan, which has experts raising serious concerns.

Trump made a hastily organized 45-minute appearance at the White House briefing room on Friday. He declared his shame for “certain members of the court” for “not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.” Despite being “deeply disappointed,” he insisted that “other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” claiming the US would emerge “stronger for it.”

According to CNN, the White House is moving quickly, planning to impose a new 10% across-the-board tariff for up to five months under a separate legal authority. He admitted the new process is “a little more complicated” and “takes a little more time,” but stated that “the end result is going to get us more money” and that he could “charge much more than I was charging” under the new system.

The ruling creates financial chaos and strips Trump of a key foreign policy tool

The ruling immediately sent financial uncertainty through companies and consumers already on edge from Trump’s aggressive tariff policies. The Supreme Court also didn’t clarify how the government should handle billions of dollars in refunds owed to companies, creating what aides and trade experts have called “a mess.” 

Trump declined to commit to paying back that money, suggesting it would likely get tied up in years of legal battles. Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, called the ruling “a huge blow to the president,” adding that it “does take away a major foreign policy tool.” This comes as Trump’s broader foreign policy agenda faces scrutiny, including his Gaza peace funding commitments, raising questions about whether allies and adversaries might feel more emboldened to challenge the US globally.

Supreme Court rules that Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal.https://t.co/D4cEdbZsCH pic.twitter.com/vPD8OGa99V

— CNN (@CNN) February 20, 2026

Before the verdict, Trump had described his tariff regime as a matter of “LIFE OR DEATH,” warning that its invalidation “would literally destroy” the country. He tried to downplay the impact, saying he’d go in “a different direction, probably the direction that I should’ve gone the first time.” Economic experts from both sides argue that tariffs mostly lead to higher prices for Americans.

The political fallout was immediate, with the ruling arriving just as aides were preparing a State of the Union speech ahead of midterm elections. Vice President JD Vance posted on X, stating, “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple.” This is notable given that Trump appointed two of the justices who voted against his tariff authority.

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

Administration officials had spent months mapping out fallback options. Reports on the true cost of Trump’s deportation program add further questions about the administration’s fiscal direction. One aggressive option, charging “licensing” fees instead of tariffs, is considered highly risky and likely to face new legal challenges. As for the six justices who ruled against him, Trump simply stated, “they’re barely invited,” adding, “Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come.”

A debate over Israel’s land claims unfolded on “The Tucker Carlson Show” podcast, where U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said “it would be fine if they took it all,” referring to the Jewish state’s biblical claim to land in the Middle East, as reported by The Washington Post. The remark came during a two-hour episode and quickly drew attention across conservative political circles.

During the discussion, Tucker Carlson referenced the Book of Genesis and God’s covenant with Abraham, promising land “from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates.” Interpretations of the “river of Egypt” vary, ranging from a riverbed in Sinai to the Nile, which could encompass parts of modern-day Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey. When pressed on what land that would include, Huckabee responded that it would be fine if Israel took it all.

Huckabee then clarified that he did not believe Israel was seeking to claim such a vast area and said that was not what was currently under discussion. Still, the initial statement became a focal point given his position as U.S. ambassador and the sensitivity surrounding territorial claims in the region.

Comments spotlight conservative divisions over Israel policy

Carlson, a prominent voice in the Make America Great Again movement, has faced criticism for his stance on Israel and U.S. foreign policy. He has promoted an “America First” approach, arguing that U.S. policy should not be overly influenced by foreign governments, including Israel, as broader political attention also lands on the Trump UFO declassification order.

BREAKING: US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson that Israel has the Biblical right to take over all of the Middle East.

“It would be fine if they took it all.” pic.twitter.com/BN4fXh03ga

— Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) February 20, 2026

The episode also renewed scrutiny over past guests on Carlson’s platform, including figures who have made controversial statements about Jews and Israel. Those appearances have intensified debate within conservative circles about rhetoric, foreign policy, and the direction of the Republican Party’s approach to the Middle East.

Huckabee has a record of strong public support for Israel that has reportedly caused discomfort within parts of the Trump administration. The Post noted that he previously hosted Jonathan Pollard, who spied for Israel, at the U.S. Embassy, a move some U.S. officials viewed as inappropriate for a diplomat.

He has also signaled openness to Israel applying sovereignty in the West Bank, territory widely regarded internationally as occupied Palestinian land. Those remarks added to internal discussions within the White House and State Department about how far U.S. officials should go in endorsing Israeli territorial claims.

The broader debate comes as some evangelical leaders express concern about younger conservatives growing more skeptical of Israel. More than 1,000 evangelical religious leaders traveled to Israel last month in an effort to reaffirm support and strengthen ties, as lawmakers have also pushed for answers in the Epstein Zorro Ranch probe.

Former Fox host Melissa Francis, who helped organize the Carlson-Huckabee episode, said President Trump asked Carlson to “rein in the fight” within the Republican Party over Israel. According to Francis, Trump was concerned that internal disputes over the issue could politically benefit Democrats.

New satellite images and flight tracking data show a sharp surge in U.S. military aircraft at a base in central Jordan, according to The New York Times. The buildup is turning the base into a key hub as the United States weighs options tied to ongoing talks with Iran over its nuclear program.

Imagery captured on Friday shows more than 60 attack aircraft parked at the Muwaffaq Salti base, roughly triple the number typically stationed there. Flight tracking data also indicates that at least 68 cargo planes have landed at the base since Sunday, underscoring what appears to be a sustained logistical operation rather than a temporary adjustment.

The satellite photos show a visible shift in the types of aircraft present. Among them are F-35 stealth fighters, along with drones and helicopters, signaling an emphasis on advanced strike and surveillance capabilities. The report also notes that soldiers have installed additional air defense systems designed to shield the base from potential Iranian missile attacks.

The buildup signals a wider regional deployment as talks continue

The activity at Muwaffaq Salti is described as part of a broader U.S. deployment across the Middle East as diplomatic negotiations with Iran continue. President Trump told reporters on Friday that he is considering a limited military strike intended to pressure Iran into reaching a deal, amid Trump’s 10-day Iran warning.

New York Times: Muafak Salti Air Base in eastern Jordan has become a major hub for U.S. air assets that have been part of the buildup. At least two waves of strike aircraft arrived at the base between mid-January and mid-February, bringing the number there to nearly 30

Flight…

— מנדי אצרף Mandy Azraf (@8gzMGsCAUl51201) February 19, 2026

Officials familiar with the matter have characterized the aircraft movement as precautionary, but the scale of the buildup has drawn attention from analysts tracking regional military activity. The combination of increased strike aircraft, cargo flights, and newly installed defensive systems suggests preparation for multiple contingencies while talks remain ongoing.

Jordanian officials, speaking anonymously about operational matters, confirmed that the American planes and equipment are deployed under an existing defense agreement between Jordan and the United States. While hosting the expanded U.S. presence, those officials also expressed hope that negotiations between Washington and Tehran will produce an agreement that prevents a broader conflict.

The report adds that officials from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates have publicly praised the diplomatic discussions in recent weeks. At the same time, they have stated they would bar attacks on Iran from being launched from their territory, reinforcing the delicate balance regional governments are attempting to maintain.

The developments unfold as political tensions involving the administration remain under scrutiny at home, including a DOJ Trump banner dispute. The Aircraft movements in Jordan now stand as one of the most visible signs of how seriously the United States is preparing for potential escalation, even as diplomatic channels remain open.