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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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:

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Supreme Court ruling blocking some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs is unlikely to bring down car prices in the near term, as detailed by Wired. The decision limits the president’s ability to impose certain duties under the International Emergency Economic Power Act.

New vehicles remain expensive, with the average new car price in the United States last month listed at $48,576. That is nearly a third higher than 2019, while cars priced under $20,000 have become increasingly rare.

A mix of factors has contributed to those costs, including lingering supply-chain issues from the pandemic, more expensive in-vehicle technology, higher labor expenses, and rising raw material prices. Tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and cars have also been part of that cost picture.

The ruling limits one tariff tool, not the tariffs hitting autos

The Court’s decision focuses on tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Power Act. The administration used that law to apply duties globally, citing “large and persistent” trade deficits as an emergency, and also applied tariffs to Canada, China, and Mexico tied to concerns over migrant and drug flows. The broader tariff picture has also been tracked in midsize company tariff burden.

However, many tariffs that most directly affect the auto industry come from a separate law, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. That statute allows tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security, and the duties tied to key inputs and components remain in place.

Those remaining tariffs include duties on raw materials such as steel, aluminum, and copper, as well as tariffs on imported auto parts and fully built vehicles. The report notes a 15 percent tariff on cars manufactured in Europe, Japan, and South Korea.

Jessica Caldwell, Edmunds’ head of insights, said the broader cost situation has not fundamentally shifted as a result of the ruling. She said the core cost structure facing automakers has not changed overnight.

So far, automakers have absorbed some of the added costs rather than passing them fully to consumers. Wired cited Edmunds data showing car prices are up about 1 percent over the past year, even as tariffs have been blamed for sharper price impacts in other retail categories.

Caldwell cautioned that automakers may have less room to keep absorbing those expenses if cost pressures continue to build. Businesses have also been watching related risk stories like Copilot reading confidential emails as compliance and liability costs pile up. If automakers can’t keep eating higher input costs, more of those expenses could land on shoppers, further limiting the chance of a meaningful drop in new car prices.

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.

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.

A scheduled performance at the Trump-Kennedy Center’s outdoor ice rink was abruptly canceled last Friday after what officials described as a “toxic chemical” was poured onto the ice. The incident came to light through Fox News, which reported the substance caused severe damage across the arena’s surface.

Officials said the vandalism was discovered early Friday morning, with a brown-black liquid spread widely across the rink. Images from the scene showed what appeared to be a gallon-sized milk container left behind, indicating the liquid may have been dumped from it.

Trump-Kennedy Center leadership described the incident as a calculated attack on the venue, not a protest, and said the damage forced an immediate change to that night’s programming. The center said it is focused on completing repairs quickly so scheduled events can continue.

Officials call the incident a targeted attack, not a protest

Trump-Kennedy Center leadership said the incident amounted to vandalism that destroyed the outdoor arena and left the facility with no choice but to cancel the planned performance. Roma Daravi, the center’s vice president of public relations, said the venue was working to complete repairs so programming could resume the following day, and the center has provided video footage to authorities as part of an ongoing investigation, as separate policy disputes like peace board meeting chaos have continued to draw attention.

The canceled performance was scheduled for the Montreal-based skating company Le Patin Libre. Center leadership said violence would not be tolerated and emphasized that those responsible would be held accountable.

Authorities have not publicly identified a suspect or disclosed a motive. The exact chemical has not been publicly identified, though officials said it was toxic, and the investigation remains ongoing.

The vandalism occurred as the Trump-Kennedy Center undergoes a broader transformation tied to governance and branding changes. In December 2025, the board of trustees voted unanimously to rename the facility “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts,” and Trump was subsequently elected chairman of the board.

The center is also moving toward a major restoration and modernization project. Congress appropriated $257 million for renovation work as part of President Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” funding intended to address roughly $250 million in deferred maintenance that accumulated over decades. The complex, which opened in 1971, has faced financial strain and structural deterioration, and the center has announced plans for a temporary closure beginning July 4 to begin the work, amid continuing national political flashpoints including Eileen Gu interview remarks.

Daravi said the center remains focused on pursuing accountability for the damage and restoring the outdoor rink so scheduled programming can continue. Authorities have not announced any arrests or additional details about the substance involved.

The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant setback on Friday, striking down a broad swath of his tariffs. As reported by Le Monde, the ruling invalidated many of the duties he had imposed under emergency economic powers.

In a 6-3 decision, the conservative-majority court found that Trump had exceeded his authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify what he described as “reciprocal tariffs.” The justices concluded that the law “does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” noting that Congress would have needed to clearly grant that power. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the statute “contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” affirming earlier lower court decisions.

Within hours of the ruling, Trump responded by signing a new executive order imposing a uniform 10% global tariff on all countries. The order, announced Friday, February 20, applies across the board and is set to take effect almost immediately.

Court limits emergency tariff authority as Trump pivots

The Supreme Court’s decision marks Trump’s most significant legal defeat since returning to the White House last year. Speaking to reporters, he criticized members of the court and said he would rely on separate legal authority to impose the new 10% tariff. The ruling also arrives amid affordability poll fallout.

Vice President JD Vance also criticized the court’s decision on X, arguing that Congress intended to give the president authority to regulate imports. The administration maintains that broader trade tools remain available despite the court’s ruling.

The decision does not affect sector-specific tariffs already imposed on products such as steel and aluminum. Those measures remain in place, along with any duties that could result from ongoing trade investigations. However, the ruling curtails the administration’s ability to use emergency economic powers for sweeping, across-the-board tariffs under the IEEPA framework.

The judgment also raises questions about refunds for importers who paid tariffs now deemed unlawful. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that sorting out repayment could become complicated, as businesses and federal agencies assess how to handle previously collected duties. Separate federal scrutiny has also drawn attention in the Google security system case.

Governments abroad are monitoring the developments closely. Mexico, which sends a substantial share of its exports to the United States, said it is evaluating the potential impact of the new 10% global tariff. Mexican Economic Minister Marcelo Ebrard stated that officials are reviewing possible measures and assessing how the policy shift could affect trade flows.

In Europe, EU officials said they are analyzing the ruling and seeking clarity from Washington. EU trade spokesman Olof Gill said businesses on both sides of the Atlantic require stability in their commercial relationships. France’s economy minister, Roland Lescure, said the court’s decision shows that tariffs are open to legal debate, while European lawmakers are examining how the ruling could affect a tentative agreement involving 15% US tariffs on most European goods.

The United Kingdom said it would work with the United States to determine how the new policy affects its trade arrangements. Canada’s Minister for International Trade, Dominic LeBlanc, said the ruling demonstrates that Trump’s broader tariffs were unjustified, though he acknowledged that sector-specific duties affecting Canadian industries remain in force.

The Supreme Court struck down many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Friday, handing down a decision that initially appeared to clear the way for lower prices on imported goods. As reported by The New York Times, the ruling invalidated significant portions of the administration’s trade measures.

Consumers may have hoped the decision would quickly translate into savings at the register. However, Trump responded the same day by signing new, across-the-board 10 percent tariffs on U.S. trading partners, signaling his intent to maintain broad elements of his trade policy despite the court’s intervention.

Economists say that even without the original tariffs in place, price relief is far from guaranteed. Businesses that previously raised prices to offset higher import taxes are unlikely to reduce them immediately, particularly with tariff policy still in flux and the possibility of new trade measures remaining on the table.

Businesses face uncertainty despite the court ruling

Analysts caution that the economic boost from lower tariffs could be muted by prolonged uncertainty. Michael Pearce, an economist cited in the report, said that any short-term benefit from the court’s decision would likely be offset by expectations that the administration could rebuild tariff structures through other, more durable means. Other policy news in Washington, including Meta political spend details, has kept attention on how corporate and government decisions can quickly reshape costs and incentives.

For companies that have already absorbed higher costs, the damage may already be done. Arin Schultz, chief growth officer at Naturepedic, an organic mattress and furniture manufacturer, said tariffs have disrupted his business operations. Although the company manufactures mattresses in the United States, it relies on imported furniture and raw materials, including textiles from India and Pakistan. After attempting to absorb as much of the added cost as possible, the company raised prices in November.

Schultz said he was surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision, having assumed the tariffs were permanent. Still, he does not view the ruling as an immediate turning point. Naturepedic has already imported materials at elevated costs, and those expenses cannot be undone. He indicated that price reductions would not even be considered until at least the summer, if at all, and only if tariff uncertainty subsides.

Last year, many businesses were able to delay passing higher costs on to consumers by stockpiling inventory before steeper tariffs took effect in August. That buffer has largely disappeared. As inventories shrink, companies have fewer options to shield shoppers from higher import duties, especially under the newly announced 10 percent tariffs.

Refunds for previously paid tariffs also remain uncertain. Even if businesses ultimately receive reimbursements from the federal government, there is no guarantee those funds would result in lower consumer prices. The same week also included DOJ Trump banner uproar as additional federal actions drew scrutiny. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts warned that any refunds should benefit Americans and small businesses that bore the financial burden of what she described as unlawful tariffs.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, new tariffs, ongoing uncertainty, and previously incurred costs suggest that consumers may not see immediate relief at checkout counters.

Canada has moved to approve two Gulfstream jet models after President Donald Trump publicly threatened major trade action over what he said were stalled certifications. The latest development was detailed by Bloomberg, which reported that Canada’s aviation regulator issued Type Certificates for the Gulfstream GVII-G500 and GVII-G600 on February 15.

Type Certificates are the formal sign-off that an aircraft meets Canada’s airworthiness standards, clearing the models for operation under Canadian rules. For Gulfstream, a unit of General Dynamics Corp., the approvals represent progress in a dispute that had quickly escalated into a political flashpoint. The move also signals that Transport Canada’s process is continuing even as the issue draws attention from both governments.

Trump had raised the issue in January, accusing Canada of “wrongfully, illegally, and steadfastly” refusing to certify four Gulfstream models: the G500, G600, G700, and G800. He warned that if Canada did not approve all four, he would impose a 50% tariff on Canadian-made aircraft, and he also threatened additional measures tied to the certification fight.

Canada advances approvals amid tariff threats

While the G500 and G600 now have Type Certificates, the remaining two aircraft referenced in Trump’s comments still appear unresolved. Transport Canada’s website continues to list the G700 and G800 as pending, and Canada’s Minister of Transport’s office has said discussions are still underway with the Federal Aviation Administration on those models. The dispute has played out alongside other high-profile legal and policy clashes in the U.S., including the Zuckerberg’s Meta smart glasses trial.

Trump’s threats extended beyond tariffs. He said he would “de-certify” planes made in Canada until Gulfstream was “fully certified,” language that raised the stakes for Canadian manufacturers with heavy reliance on the U.S. market. The warning specifically included aircraft produced by Bombardier Inc., a Montreal-based company whose business is closely tied to American buyers of private jets. Any disruption to certification status for Canadian-made planes would risk limiting access to the company’s largest market.

Canadian officials responded by emphasizing the independence of the country’s certification system. The day after Trump’s initial post, Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly said the certification process for Gulfstream’s jets was “well underway” and stressed that Canada does not politicize aircraft approvals. The response framed the issue as a regulatory matter rather than a concession to political pressure, even as Trump’s comments suggested he viewed certification as leverage in a broader trade fight.

For now, the approvals cover only two of the four Gulfstream models Trump highlighted, leaving the G700 and G800 to be addressed through the ongoing regulator-to-regulator discussions. The episode has also landed amid heightened tensions around Trump-related government actions, including the DOJ Trump banner dispute, but Transport Canada’s current listings indicate the remaining certifications are still in progress.

President Donald Trump has announced he is directing the US government to declassify a wealth of reports and files concerning UFOs and extraterrestrial life. This big move comes after the president publicly criticized former President Barack Obama for comments he made suggesting aliens might be real.

According to Politico, Trump shared his decision on social media, stating he would instruct the Department of Defense and other relevant agencies to start releasing this material. He specifically mentioned the Secretary of War, along with other departments, would identify and release government files related to “alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.” 

This announcement follows recent remarks from former President Obama. In a recent interview, Obama had said that aliens are “real but I haven’t seen them.” He also addressed common conspiracy theories, specifically debunking the idea that extraterrestrial life forms are kept at a government facility in Nevada. Obama firmly stated, “They’re not being kept in Area 51. There’s no underground facility unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States.”

After all, aliens are a statistical probability 

The former president later clarified his comments on social media, explaining that his intent was to suggest that “the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there.” He reiterated that during his time in office, he “saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us.” 

President Trump wasn’t too pleased with Obama’s initial statements. On February 19, he told reporters that he believes Obama had wrongly revealed classified information. This back-and-forth between the two presidents definitely ramped up interest in aliens, UFOs and extraterrestrial life – topics that are often confined to the fringes of public discussion.

Questions surrounding the U.S. government’s contact with UFOs really started gaining mainstream traction after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report in 2021 detailing dozens of encounters by U.S. Navy pilots with unexplained aerial phenomena, with incidents dating back to 2004. This report was a central point of discussion during a House Intelligence hearing in 2022, where declassified videos and descriptions of these encounters were presented.

President Donald Trump recently shared some interesting remarks about rapper Nicki Minaj, openly praising her “beautiful skin” and “long nails” during a Black History Month reception at the White House, as reported by Unilad. It seems the president is quite the fan of the Bang Bang star, expressing his admiration for her looks in front of an applauding crowd.

During his speech, President Trump really gushed over Minaj. “How about Nicki Minaj? Do we love Nicki Minaj? I love Nicki Minaj,” he said, getting a big cheer. He even mentioned that she had been there a couple of weeks prior. “She’s so beautiful, her skin is so beautiful,” he continued, adding, “I said, ‘Nicki, you’re so beautiful.’ Her nails are like that long, I said, ‘Nicki are they real?’”

He even gestured to show just how lengthy her nails were. However, it seems Minaj wasn’t quite ready to dive into that particular topic. “She didn’t want to get into that,” he noted, before concluding, “But she was so beautiful and so great and she gets it, more importantly.”

Minaj has been quite vocal about her support for President Trump

Just days before these comments, Minaj herself had shared an AI-generated image of her with President Trump. The picture, posted on Monday, January 16 to mark Presidents’ Day, showed her in a convertible car alongside the president, counting money. This particular post caused quite a stir, with some calling her tribute “tacky” and “cringe,” while many Trump supporters thanked her for her apparent backing.

Back in January, she met him at the Trump Accounts Summit in Washington, D.C., where she confidently declared herself his “number one fan.” She wasn’t shy about it either, stating, “I am probably the president’s number one fan and that’s not going to change. What people have to say, it does not affect me at all. It actually motivates me to support him more. And it’s going to motivate all of us to support him more.”

She also made it clear that she feels President Trump is being unfairly targeted. “We’re not going to let them get away with bullying him. And you know, the smear campaigns. It’s not going to work. He has a lot of force behind him and God is protecting him,” she added.

She later explained her motivation for supporting him more openly while speaking with podcaster Katie Miller. Minaj revealed that religious freedom is super important to her, but it was really President Trump’s treatment that spurred her on. “If I’m being honest, President Trump, when I saw how he was being treated, over and over and over, I just couldn’t handle it,” she confessed.

She felt a connection, seeing parallels between his experiences and her own. “I felt that same, you know, a lot of that bullying in this man’s campaign, and all of the lying,” Minaj said. “I felt that that had been done to me for so many years, and I was watching it in real time happen to someone else, and I didn’t think he deserved it. And it made me think, I can’t do this anymore.”

Her public support isn’t a new development either. In December, Minaj even made a surprise appearance at a Turning Point USA event held in Phoenix, Arizona. During her speech there, she went as far as to call President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance “role models.”