Donald Trump has sweeping plans for a second administration. Here’s what he’s proposed

[phkrause]

More Options (Illustration by Ben Kothe / The Atlantic. Source: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty.)

View in browser The Trump tariffs are dead. Long live the Trump tariffs? This morning, in a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of the president’s sweeping global tariffs. The majority ruled that the law Donald Trump had used to carry out most of his trade policies does not, in fact, allow the president to impose tariffs at all. This is a major setback for Trump’s trade agenda, but it is far from a fatal one. The president has several alternatives that he can use to reconstruct his tariff regime, and his administration has spent months putting a plan in place to do so. Those efforts, too, may eventually be challenged in court, but fully litigating them would take years. Unless the president suddenly has a change of heart, Trump’s tariff adventure is far from over. The case before the court centered on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which authorizes the president to “regulate” the importation of goods in a national emergency that arises from an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The Trump administration had interpreted this vague statute, which had never been used to justify tariffs, to mean that the president can issue tariffs of whatever kind he wants, whenever he wants, on any country he wants, so long as he says an emergency exists, all without getting congressional approval. IEEPA was the basis of Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China last February, the “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on almost every country in the world on Liberation Day, and most of the one-off tariffs he has issued or threatened to impose on trade partners such as Brazil, India, and, more recently, Europe and Canada. (Industry-specific tariffs on goods such as steel and aluminum have been imposed under separate, more legally sound authorities, and are not affected by the ruling.) Last year, the lower courts ruled that although IEEPA might allow some tariffs, it certainly didn’t allow these tariffs—many of which were set at arbitrary levels, on an arbitrary set of countries, using justifications that could hardly be thought of as a true national emergency (such as the existence of a trade deficit or an imaginary surge of fentanyl shipments from Canada). The Supreme Court went even further. “We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts declared. But even as it insisted that the law was on its side, the administration spent much of the past year preparing a backup plan to rebuild Trump’s tariff wall in case the courts ruled against them. Because, as the president observed on Truth Social a few hours after the ruling, “the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS.” According to top Trump-administration officials such as National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the administration’s plan draws on two main authorities. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15 percent on any country for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payment deficits,” a term that refers to more money leaving the country than coming into it. After the initial window, the tariff must be reauthorized by Congress. According to estimates by Clark Packard and Stan Vueger, trade experts at the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, respectively, this technique alone would allow Trump to reinstate 70 percent of the tariff revenue struck down by the Supreme Court. This would be a temporary solution, and overbroad use of Section 122 could also be invalidated by the courts. It would most likely be intended only as a stopgap measure to buy time while the administration begins work on the second part of its plan. Phase two would draw on Section 301 of the same law. Section 301 allows a presidential administration to levy essentially permanent tariffs of any kind on any country in response to “unfair” trade practices. The catch is that the tariffs can come into effect only after the federal government has navigated several layers of bureaucratic process, including launching an official investigation into the unfair practices of the country in question, compiling a report detailing those practices, and offering a public notice-and-comment period. That’s where the 150 days comes in. The administration could use that time to launch investigations into the U.S.’s major trading partners so that once the five months are expired, the paperwork is already in place to switch to indefinite tariffs under Section 301. This authority rests on stronger constitutional grounds. The first Trump administration and the Biden administration both used section 301 to impose or raise tariffs on Chinese goods. Courts have generally been deferential to how presidents use the authority as long as the proper process has been followed. Trump has already signaled that he plans to use all the legal authorities at his disposal. “Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect,” he wrote in his Truth Social post. “Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices.” Most experts I spoke with think that this one-two combination will allow Trump to functionally rebuild most of the current tariff regime in a way that could survive in court. “Nearly 90 percent of U.S. trade comes from our 20 largest trading partners,” Peter Harell, who served as a top trade adviser in the Biden administration, told me before the ruling came down. “I don’t think it would be too difficult to reconstitute tariffs on most of them in 150 days.” Less clear is the degree to which the Court’s ruling will restrain Trump’s ability to impose new tariffs. The president is not really a notice-and-comment kind of guy. He prefers to use the threat of sudden, unpredictable tariffs to coerce other countries to do his bidding or punish them for crossing him. So far this year, he has threatened 25 percent tariffs on Europe over their unwillingness to hand Greenland over to him and100 percent tariffs on Canada for making a deal with China; he has also threated to “raise tariffs very quickly” on India for buying Russian oil. Such threats will be less intimidating if they have an upper bound of 15 percent (Section 122) or require a drawn-out bureaucratic process before implementation (Section 301). “They will lose quite a bit of flexibility,” Vueger told me. “Trump loves to threaten higher and higher tariffs on whatever country for whatever reason—and these tools just weren’t designed to do that.” The administration appears to acknowledge this reality. Part of its legal argument for upholding IEEPA was that the alternatives would deny the president flexibility and immediacy. As Howard Lutnick, Trump’s commerce secretary, has noted in previous testimony, “other tools” are “procedurally time-consuming and do not allow for immediate action.” Perhaps Trump will simply make a mockery of the procedural requirements under Section 301. He could threaten Canada on Monday morning, have his trade representative launch an “investigation” into Canadian trade practices that afternoon, and issue a “report” by Tuesday detailing why those tariffs are justified. Or he might try to rely on an even older legal provision: Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any country if the president determines that it has discriminatory trade practices toward the United States. Either of these options would be vulnerable to court challenges. Courts are likely to strike down Section 301 tariffs on purely procedural grounds if the administration rushes them through without proper process. Section 338 of Smoot-Hawley, meanwhile, has never been used, and some question exists as to whether it still applies as law at all or whether it was superseded entirely by the 1974 bill. Even if it’s still good law, courts may rule that its use requires approval from the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent agency that conducts investigations into trade disputes, or that the “discriminatory acts” justification doesn’t apply to countries with which the U.S. has “most favored nation” trading status—every country except Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Belarus. But those legal challenges, even if successful, might not constrain Trump all that much. The president could simply keep pushing the boundaries of different authorities to keep some version of tariffs in place while litigation takes its sweet time to resolve. The courts already took a year to decide on IEEPA. Who knows how long it would take them to overturn each one of these potential alternative efforts? “If you’re issuing separate country-by-country tariffs, then it’s likely they will have to be litigated one by one,” Vueger said. But this type of strategic legal brinkmanship would create a logistical nightmare for businesses, with potentially painful economic consequences. Tariffs would constantly be overturned and refunded. Businesses would have no certainty to make investments. Companies would probably raise prices preemptively. “It would be total, complete chaos,” Harrell told me. One institution could put an end to all of this at any time: Congress. The Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to regulate international trade; the only reason Trump is able to levy tariffs at all is because of previous laws passed by Congress that have given him that authority. Congress could decide to take that authority away. So far, a handful of Republicans have complained loudly about tariffs, but almost none have been willing to actually do anything about them. If Trump were behaving purely rationally, he probably wouldn’t try any more tariff workarounds, given how unpopular his tariffs are and how much the cost of living dominates voter sentiment. He would simply accept a loss at the Supreme Court and move on. Without the tariffs in place, prices would likely come down, and the Federal Reserve might be more confident about lowering interest rates. But for Trump, the tariff power is about a lot more than tariffs. It’s the primary way he exerts dominance over American companies and foreign countries. And he has shown little indication that he would ever be willing to give that up. Related: A conservative court refused to be a rubber stamp. What tariffs did, by Annie Lowrey

[phkrause]

Furious Trump signs global 10% duty after supreme court issues tariff blow

Donald Trump on Friday railed against the supreme court justices who blocked his use of tariffs, calling them a “disgrace to the nation”, and later signing documents imposing a 10% tariff on all countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/trump-tariff-scotus-response?

US envoy Mike Huckabee says it would be ‘fine’ if Israel took all Middle East land

The US’s ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has contended to the podcaster Tucker Carlson that Israel has a biblical right to take over the entire Middle East – or at least the lion’s share of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/20/mike-huckabee-israel-middle-east-tucker-carlson?

Trump's Tariffs Terminated

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from nearly every US trading partner. Trump responded by ordering a global 10% tariff under a statue that lets presidents impose duties for up to 150 days.  Last year, Trump was the first president to invoke the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on imported goods from over 100 countries. While the statute empowers the president to regulate imports to address extraordinary threats, it does not explicitly mention tariffs. Previous presidents have used it to place sanctions and embargoes on other countries, such as after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Citing historical precedent and the letter of the law, the justices ruled 6-3 that Trump exceeded his authority; only Congress can impose tariffs under the 1977 act.  The majority did not address whether companies would be refunded the over $175B reportedly collected under the tariffs, leaving that question to lower courts. In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would be complicated, particularly since many importers have passed on the costs to consumers.

Want to understand how the Supreme Court became powerful enough to override the president? Our editor-in-chief takes you inside the high court in our latest "1440 Explores" episode. Listen here or watch here.    Trump administration revokes Biden-era limits on toxic power plant pollution.  The White House yesterday reverted standards regulating mercury, arsenic, and other toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants back to those set in 2012. The move comes after industry groups said the Biden-era rules were prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, environmental groups supported the stricter limits, citing that pollutants can harm brain development and contribute to health problems. As of 2022, burning coal also accounted for roughly 19% of US energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. ps:Why?? This is a good thing!!

[phkrause]

Trump’s Unhinged Tantrum Is Just the Beginning. Buckle Up

Be prepared: Next he will go after free and fair elections.

Donald Trump on Friday attacked the Supreme Court majority that ruled against him in a landmark decision on tariffs with a venom and ferocity he has never directed against America’s foreign enemies. He suggested they were disloyal to the country, under the sway of other nations. The entire performance was unhinged, an old man’s tantrum about an affront to his manhood. He called the three Republican appointed justices who voted against him “fools and lapdogs.”

Just imagine him using that kind of language about, say, a war criminal like Vladimir Putin.

The president seemed to miss the entire point of the Supreme Court ruling—that the power to levy tariffs lay with the Congress—as well as the nuance in the majority opinion, such as a footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts that suggested while there were may be other ways by which he could seek to put tariffs in place, those “contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations and limits on the duration, amount and scope of the tariffs they authorize.”

In other words, he could not behave like a king. He could no longer go around the world threatening other leaders whenever it suited him. He could no longer ignore the law, existing U.S. treaties, or the role Congress is assigned by the Constitution. He said he could—he said he didn’t need Congress to impose the new types of tariffs he mentioned during his press conference. But that was either denial or ignorance or a special Trumpian combination of both.

Because it will be very difficult for Trump to recreate the tariffs of the past year. Should he attempt to put some in place, and should he get the Congress and government agencies to work with him on this, the process is going to be more complex, require periodic renewals, and be far more limited in scope.

But watching Trump, it was clear that the thrust of his remarks had nothing to do with the letter of the law. With him, it seldom does. His feelings were hurt. Someone told him “no.” And he was going to lash out until he felt better.

The outburst was notable, then, because it revealed just how battered, exhausted, and at wits’ end the president is after weeks and weeks of similar experiences, of serial defeats and embarrassments, and of the prospect of many more such humiliations in the months ahead in a world that is finally learning how to say “no” to him.

With pressure building on him because of a soft economy, public anger at his immigration policies, fears of spiking healthcare costs for millions of Americans, the Epstein scandal and a looming massive defeat in the November midterms, Trump has returned regularly to the authoritarian playbook in the hopes that it would make him feel more powerful, less enfeebled by age, more like the kind of leader the slavering courtiers in his daily retinue say he is.

But the results have not been good.

He tried to deflect attention from Epstein with a “wag the dog” foray into Venezuela. But once the brief operation was completed, it was clear he had no next steps towards stability. Oil would be stolen and revenue pumped into his accounts, yes, but he could not force changes in Venezuela.

At Davos, he said he would take over Greenland, but America’s allies united in opposition to him, forcing him to back off. He left the Swiss ski village with his tail between his legs.

He sent his Gestapo into Minnesota to round up illegal aliens and to intimidate his opponents. The people rose up—even as his thugs gunned innocent Americans down in the streets—and he was forced to withdraw again. He put up banners with his face on them and attempted to deface everything in sight with a blank wall long enough to fit his last name. But his takeover of the Kennedy Center became another catastrophe, and he had to shut it down. He launched legal cases against his opponents, but they were rejected by grand juries who saw them for the shams they were.

New scandals have been cropping up across his administration, from DHS to the Department of Labor. The “bribeumentary” that Jeff Bezos conjured up about his wife was a flop. Major allies rejected his “Board of Peace.” He can’t stay awake in meetings. People keep talking about him slurring his words, about his bruised hands and ballooning cankles.

And now the Supreme Court, which has treated him oh-so-gently in the past, has slapped him down for overreach. He’s had a big tantrum, but it is already clear that it is not going to help. It may make matters even worse. Trump is going to face further legal challenges as he tries to sidestep the constraints placed on his role by the Constitution, the law, and the country’s highest court.

He is losing.

And he is losing it.

As he denounced the court and its decision and its members in his rager of a press conference, he dodged questions from real journalists and took only softballs from potted plants in the crowd. Now he’s talking about another distraction, a strike on Iran. But he also knows he tried that before, and it didn’t have the results he asserted it did. His threats now appear fairly hollow as the Iranian’s have announced they are ready if that is the path he chooses to take. And Trump knows he cannot achieve what he wants to by attacking Iran. It won’t make Epstein go away. It won’t make him younger. It won’t hide the fact that he is failing as president.

That’s no way to lay the groundwork for next week’s State of the Union. Nor is it a good start to a year that could end calamitously with massive defeats for the GOP. He will try more distractions during the address. He will try more lies. Indeed, smart money is betting he will break his own world records for lying during such a speech. He will announce more good news is just around the corner.

But 2026 will only get worse for him. And while some may take some satisfaction from seeing him humbled by the Supreme Court, we should all recognize that his anger and frustration and flailing about should also be seen as a warning.

Wounded, he will be more dangerous. Unable to play within the rules, he will work harder to cheat come election time. And, worryingly, the Supreme Court and the Congress may both give him more power to do so through pending decisions and the possibility of passing the extremely dangerous and misleadingly named “SAVE Act”—the most pernicious voter suppression legislation this country has seen in the modern era.

The tension between the fact that the public and foreign leaders and some of our own institutions are learning how to stand up to Trump and his fury at their success in doing so will be defining for us in the year ahead.

Challenged as he has been, Trump is now likely to see his only path forward is to seek to effectively end free and fair elections in America. For the voters of the U.S., the only hope is to maintain the resolve and clarity of all those worldwide who have finally, belatedly, but increasingly effectively, learned how to say “no” to America’s man who would be king.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-world-is-learning-to-say-no-to-donald-trump/?

[phkrause]

🚫 Trump hits SCOTUS red line

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Supreme Court's 6-3 tariff ruling is the first time the high court has clearly slammed the door on one of President Trump's policies, Axios' Emily Peck writes. Three conservative justices — John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — joined the court's three liberals in finding Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. The court ruled that Trump can't use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose tariffs on imports. 🥊 An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal calls the ruling "arguably the worst moment of his Presidency." Gorsuch, a Trump nominee, wrote in a blunt concurring opinion: "[M]ost major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. ... But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design." 💵 Stunning stat: Last year, the court issued 26 rulings on challenges to Trump policies and actions — and sided with the administration 21 times, almost entirely on the "shadow docket," where justices don't have to explain their reasoning, the Financial Times' Brooke Masters notes. 🏛️ What to watch: The ruling sets up an awkward tableau for the president's State of the Union on Tuesday night. The justices sit up front, in his line of sight. New business uncertainty. Today's New York Post, New York Times What's next: President Trump quickly pivoted to what he called "great alternatives" that could "take in more money" in tariffs, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Axios' Herb Scribner and Courtenay Brown write. "Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ... dancing in the streets, but they won't be dancing for long," Trump said in the White House press room. "The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision ... that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs." 🔭 The big picture: Section 122, designed for short-term emergencies, will allow Trump to reimpose some tariffs, at least temporarily. The section has never been invoked. So it's a historic moment for presidential economic policy. Trump said he'll sign an executive order to impose 10% tariffs on all nations. Trump pointed to other measures to impose tariffs, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — the statute that underpins the administration's levies on aluminum and steel. Trump's other levers.

[phkrause]

☢️ Exclusive: Trump's new Iran option

Photo illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios. Photo: Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

The Trump administration is prepared to consider a proposal that allows Iran "token" nuclear enrichment if it leaves no possible path to a bomb, a senior U.S. official told Axios' Barak Ravid and Marc Caputo. Why it matters: This suggests an opening, if only a small one, for a deal to constrain Iran's nuclear capabilities and prevent war. 🪖 At the same time, Trump has been presented with military options that involve directly targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Between the lines: Some of Trump's advisers have counseled patience. They argue that as time passes and the U.S. military build-up grows, Trump's leverage will grow along with it. But even some of Trump's closest advisers admit they don't know what he will decide to do, or when. 🚨 Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Joe Scarborough on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" yesterday that an Iranian proposal would be finalized in the next two or three days. U.S. and Israeli officials have told Axios that Trump could strike as soon as this weekend. A senior U.S. official said Trump's envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner told Araghchi that Trump's position was "zero enrichment" on Iranian soil. But the official said that if the proposal includes "small, token enrichment," and if the Iranians offer detailed proof that it poses no threat, the U.S. will study it. ⏳ The U.S. and Iranian public positions on enrichment seem incompatible. But comments from Araghchi and the senior U.S. official suggest there may still be some room for a deal. Go deeper. Data: Congressional Research Service, IEJ Media, Axios research. Map: Jacque Schrag/Axios ⛴ An incredible amount of U.S. firepower is amassing in the Middle East, suggesting the U.S. is readying for a prolonged fight, Axios' Colin Demarest writes: The USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike groups. A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 warplanes, plus surveillance, communications, refueling and transport aircraft. Hundreds of Tomahawk missiles. 👀 What we're watching: The role Israel would play, both offensively (with strikes) and defensively (with missile countermeasures). The latest: Ford carrier group arrives in Mediterranean.

[phkrause]

📷 Time-capsule photo

Photo: Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images A long banner featuring President Trump's face was hung on the exterior of Justice Department headquarters on Thursday, in a physical display of his power over the law enforcement agency that once investigated him. Trump banners have been hung outside other agencies across Washington, including the departments of Agriculture and Labor, AP notes. The Justice Department said when asked about the banner: "We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country and our historic work to make America safe again at President Trump's direction." ps:How petty can one person be??

[phkrause]

Trump says he’ll raise tariffs to 15 percent after Supreme Court ruling

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Saturday that he wants a global tariff of 15%, up from 10% he had announced a day earlier after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of the far-reaching taxes on imports that he had imposed over the last year.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariff-truth-social-872c8f04112a8991d8aa6ae5005767b6?

[phkrause]

Why Cornered Trump Is Turning On His Own Justices: Wolff

The president’s upcoming State of the Union address will likely only be about his emotions, and nothing of substance for the American public, Michael Wolff argues.

The president’s State of the Union address next week will focus on theatrics, not on political substance, his biographer says, following a perceived betrayal from the nation’s top court.

President Donald Trump, who was once considered to have the Supreme Court in his back pocket, had warmly greeted conservative justices on the high court ahead of his speech before a joint session of Congress last year. On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, shut down Trump’s signature economic policy.

This will guide Trump’s SOTU address, author Michael Wolff argued on the latest episode of the Daily Beast’s Inside Trump’s Head.

“The important point is that it will no longer be about the Supreme Court basically humiliating him. It will then be about his theatrics in responding to this and his emotions. It’s incredibly effective,” Wolff explained.

The top court ruled Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs based on a “national emergency.” The president has been filled with rage since. He instituted a global 10 percent tariff immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday and then raised it to 15 percent on Saturday. Two of the justices who ruled against Trump—Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—were appointed by the president during his first term.

He lashed out at the two specifically, on Friday, by saying their “families would be ashamed.”

“He wears it all on his sleeve,” Wolff noted of Trump. “He has done that for years now.”

“The reason I’m on the edge of my seat about State of the Union, which is on Tuesday, is that at last year’s State of the Union, Donald Trump caused much Sturm und Drang. When he walked past Roberts, he shook his hand, he said ‘thank you,’” co-host Joanna Coles recounted. “Sturm und Drang” is German for “storm and stress.”

“He sort of murmured into his ear, and everybody was like, my goodness, my goodness. The two of them are working together. There was so much online drama about it,” she continued.

“He’s got a new enemy in John Roberts. And I’m sure during his speech, he’ll go after them, right?” Coles said.

Trump was seen visibly fuming during a press conference in which he called the justices who ruled against him “lap dogs,” a “disgrace to our nation,” and “disloyal to the Constitution.”

Coles said watching Trump’s angry press conference was like “watching a child.”

“‘I’m going to do tariffs anyway, 10 percent on all of them,’” Coles said, adding, “It absolutely is the mad queen from Alice in Wonderland. ‘Off with their heads, off with their heads.’”

Wolff noted that Trump’s erratic media strategy can he hard for the opposition to combat.

“It’s incredibly difficult if you’re a Democrat…how do you counter this?” Wolff said.

“Democrats have spent their whole life in politics know that caution is their, the chief virtue of a political life and a political career,” Wolff said. “That every word you say you want to hone, craft.”

Coles responded, “And here is a man who doesn’t hone anything. He doesn’t craft anything.”

Ahead of Trump’s Tuesday address, Wolff argued that there should be a distinction made between “boring and can’t stop watching.”

“Just think of those two things. Reduce the political world to boring, can’t stop watching,” Wolff said. “What does that get you? Well, it gets you Donald Trump.”

The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s request for comment.

White House communications director Steven Cheung, whose weight the president has repeatedly highlighted and whom Trump outed as being on “the fat drugs,” has previously told the Beast, “Michael Wolff is a lying sack of s--t and has been proven to be a fraud.”

“He routinely fabricates stories originating from his sick and warped imagination, only possible because he has a severe and debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has rotted his peanut-sized brain,” Cheung said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-cornered-trump-is-turning-on-his-own-justices-wolff/?

[phkrause]

Lutnick’s Firm Forced to Address Cynical Tariffs Move

Trump’s Commerce Secretary was reportedly attempting to profit from the SCOTUS tariff slapdown.

The financial firm once run by Trump’s commerce secretary has been forced to clarify that it did not seek to profit from the tariff rollbacks announced on Friday.

After the Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 judgment that President Donald Trump did not have the right to impose his global tariff policy, financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald denied claims that it was attempting to cash in on the decision.

Speaking with Semafor, a spokesman said that the company “has never executed any transactions or taken risk on the legality of tariffs.”

“Any report suggesting otherwise is completely false,” he noted.

The claims stem from reporting in WIRED and elsewhere that Cantor was offering to buy rights to businesses’ tariff refunds, essentially betting that Trump’s economic ploy would be overturned, as it was on Friday.

“We’ve already put a trade through representing about ~$10 million of IEEPA Rights and anticipate that number will balloon in the coming weeks,” a Cantor representative told WIRED in July 2025.

However, the spokesperson stated recently that the sales representative “erroneously” believed the financial product was something the company would soon offer and was simply trying to drum up interest from buyers.

“The fact that Cantor didn’t [offer the product] suggests it’s keenly sensitive to the optics of Lutnick’s role,” Semafor’s Business and Finance editor Liz Hoffman wrote.

Lutnick ran the investment bank for 30 years before he was appointed to his current position in Trump’s administration. He transferred his ownership to his sons, Brandon and Kyle, in May of last year.

Though he has previously claimed to be completely independent of the financial services institution and not privy to their products and services, he has also long faced scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest.

While running Trump’s transitional operations, whistleblowers within the MAGA team claimed that Lutnick was attempting to stuff the ranks of aides and advisers with those who would personally benefit him.

A specific allegation at the time was made that Lutnick took meetings on Capitol Hill in his capacity as transition co-chair and then used those meetings to discuss issues that Cantor Fitzgerald might profit from.

“The onus is on him not to use the power in an abusive manner, and that has not been the case,” a senior Republican official told Politico at the time.

Lutnick, 63, has been a longtime personal friend of Trump and one of his closest ties to Wall Street. He personally celebrated the tariffs imposed by his boss, claiming that they would rake in “hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars” and eventually eliminate the need for most people to pay tax.

On Friday, Lutnick stood beside Trump as he threw a major tantrum over not getting his way with his key economic policy, describing the Supreme Court Justices as “fools” and “lapdogs,” and suggesting they had been bought by foreign interests.

While Trump’s original tariff strategy was deemed illegal, the president stressed he would find other ways to implement his economic plan. He has since declared a 15 percent tariff on global trade with all nations.

Lutnick recently made headlines after it was revealed that he visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island in 2012.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lutnicks-firm-forced-to-address-cynical-tariffs-move/?

[phkrause]

Trump, 79, Delivers Deranged Threat to Netflix

As Netflix fights for a blockbuster merger, Trump demands a boardroom purge.

President Donald Trump just inserted himself into Hollywood’s biggest corporate showdown—with an all-caps ultimatum.The 79-year-old president demanded that Netflix boot former national security adviser Susan Rice from its board or face retaliation, escalating pressure on the streaming giant as it chases a $72 billion takeover deal.

“Netflix should fire racist, Trump Deranged Susan Rice, IMMEDIATELY, or pay the consequences,” Trump wrote Saturday on Truth Social.

“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 matter. President DJT.”

The extraordinary demand lands at a precarious moment for Netflix, which is seeking Justice Department approval to acquire key entertainment assets from Warner Bros. Discovery, including its movie and television studios and the HBO Max streaming platform.

Regulators are already scrutinizing whether the tie-up would further cement Netflix’s dominance in the streaming market, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Trump’s threat now injects politics into what was already one of the year’s most closely watched media deals.

The president’s post came after far-right activist Laura Loomer urged him to block the transaction and singled out Rice as a reason to intervene. Loomer has previously campaigned against officials she claims are insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Rice, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later as national security adviser under President Barack Obama, first joined Netflix’s board in 2018, stepped down in 2021, and rejoined in 2023.

In a recent interview on former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s podcast, Rice said Democrats should not “forgive or forget” corporations that “bent the knee” to Trump when they return to power.

She argued that companies—from law firms to media outlets and tech giants—needed to “play a long game” rather than make short-term concessions.

Meanwhile, the corporate battle is intensifying.

Paramount launched a $77.9 billion bid for the Warner empire, from blockbuster studios to cable staples like CNN. Warner handed Paramount a brief deadline to submit its best offer—after that, Netflix can step in and match it.

Hovering over the boardroom drama is the Justice Department, which must decide whether Netflix’s expansion would further concentrate power in an industry it already dominates. As part of the executive branch, it has the authority to block or impose conditions on major mergers, giving the administration significant leverage over the outcome.

With regulators weighing the fate of the deal, Trump has now publicly targeted a sitting board member—effectively turning a merger review into a loyalty test.

For Netflix, the calculus just got more complicated—win the bidding war or risk crossing the White House.

The White House and Netflix did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-79-delivers-deranged-threat-to-netflix/?

[phkrause]

Conservative Justice Declares War on SCOTUS MAGA Hypocrites

Neil Gorsuch had choice words for his fellow Supreme Court justices.

Neil Gorsuch wrote a scathing concurring opinion calling out his fellow conservative justices following the Supreme Court ruling striking down the president’s tariffs.

The court’s decision was made based on the “major questions doctrine,” which states that a policy of major national significance must be enacted with clear congressional support. Gorsuch criticized the court on Friday for its lack of consistency in its application.

Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, was one of six justices to rule against the signature economic policy.

Gorsuch asserted that the other justices apply the major questions doctrine differently depending on who is in charge. For example, it was used to justify striking down former President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plans, a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines.

This time, half of the conservative justices split from the majority opinion to support Trump and his tariffs.

“Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he said, referring to dissenting justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.

He also had pointed criticism toward Thomas, who he said “submits that Congress may hand over to the President most of its powers, including the tariff power, without limit.”

“It is an interesting turn of events,” Gorsuch said.

Gorsuch also addressed liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom he similarly believes were inconsistent about the doctrine.

Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, wrote a concurring opinion saying the ruling could be reached without the use of the doctrine, which they have historically been critical of. Gorsuch noted that they did not object to the doctrine’s use.

“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case, and they even join much of today’s principal opinion,” he wrote. “But, they insist, they can reach the same result by employing only routine tools of statutory interpretation.”

Gorsuch’s opinion spoke to growing fears about the politicization of the court, which, despite ideological splits, has typically been regarded as politically insulated.

Trump insulted the justices who ruled against him, including his first-term appointees Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. He called them “lap dogs,” a “disgrace to our nation,” and “disloyal to the Constitution.” The president also reportedly went on a tirade against the court during a meeting with the nation’s governors.

Despite the court’s ruling, Trump announced on Friday that he was rolling out a 10 percent global tariff, which he said would be “effective almost immediately” in a Truth Social post. By Saturday morning, the president said the global tariff would actually be 15 percent.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-justice-launches-civil-war-on-scotus-maga-hypocrites/?

[phkrause]

Trump Goon Stops Sex Assault Probe of Other Goon’s Spouse

The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed its investigation is over.

An investigation into a Trump Cabinet member’s husband for sexual assault has been closed following a joint review of evidence between the Metropolitan Police Department and the United States Attorney’s Office.

Washington D.C.’s MPD reportedly searched Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s office on Feb. 5 amid an investigation into sexual assault allegations against her husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, an anesthesiologist and the secretary’s husband of three decades. DeRemer, 57, was accused of inappropriately touching two female staffers at the Department of Labor.

The police department confirmed in a statement to the Daily Beast that the investigation ended after the District of Columbia’s USAO “found no evidence of a crime.”

President Donald Trump, 79, appointed Jeanine Pirro as the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in 2025.

“Detectives from MPD’s Sexual Assault Unit conducted a review of evidence in this case with the United States Attorney’s Office,” an MPD spokesperson told the beast. “Following that review, USAO determined that there was no evidence of a crime. Based on that finding, MPD’s investigation into this matter has concluded.”

Before being confirmed in August, Jeanine Pirro, 74, served as an assistant district attorney and then a judge until 2005. From 2011 until her 2025 appointment, she was employed as a Fox News host. This month, she tried to clear Steve Bannon’s criminal record.

In the case that has been brewing against Trump’s Labor Secretary, the USAO and the Federal Protective Service declined to pursue charges against DeRemer. The husband was banned from entering the agency’s headquarters after local police received reports about his alleged misconduct.MPD filed a report on Jan. 24 about an incident that occurred at the Labor Department headquarters on Dec. 18, according to a copy previously reviewed by the Daily Beast.

“The complainant reported a sexual contact against her will,” it read.

The alleged incident was caught on internal security cameras. DeRemer has “categorically” denied the allegations.

Anonymous Labor Department officials told Politico that Chavez-DeRemer’s office was searched. Authorities also looked through the work stations for her aides. Sources told the outlet that the Labor Secretary was aware of the search but not the reason.“The allegations are a complete fabrication manufactured by Labor Department insiders vying for the Secretary of Labor’s position,” James Bell, DeRemer’s attorney, said in a statement to Politico.The Daily Beast reached out to the Labor Department for comment. The investigation into DeRemer arose after the Labor Department’s inspector general launched a probe into the Labor Secretary and some of her closest aides. Secretary Chavez-DeRemer has been the subject of an internal investigation into her alleged affair with a member of her security detail. She faced allegations of “abusing her position” after a complaint accused her of sleeping with a subordinate and drinking on the job. Two of her staffers, including her Chief of Staff Jihun Han, and his deputy, Rebecca Wright, were placed on leave in January. A complaint alleged they were “involved and have knowledge” regarding Chavez-DeRemer’s actions. The secretary has denied allegations of inappropriate behavior.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-goon-jeanine-pirro-stops-sex-assault-probe-of-goon-lori-chavez-deremers-spouse/?

ps:Of course he did! So real crimes we let go but made up ones we'll pursue!!!!!

[phkrause]

Trump's 2028 straw poll

Photo illustration: Lindsey Bailey/Axios. Photos: Getty Images

President Trump has a new parlor game he's springing on advisers and guests: JD Vance or Marco Rubio? That is, do people favor the VP or SecState to sit atop the ticket to succeed him in 2028? He does it casually, but increasingly, several sources tell Axios' Marc Caputo. 🗳️ Why it matters: Trump is focused on his legacy as his last midterm elections approach, and he believes there are no better standard bearers for it than Vance and Rubio. Trump favors Vance. It's why he chose him as a running mate. But Trump has notably and increasingly praised Rubio, in public and private, for his rising profile as secretary of state and national security adviser. 🎲 Trump enjoys gossiping, revels in playing people off of one another, and freely airs private musings. All five of our sources cautioned against interpreting this as Trump souring on Vance. "Vance-Rubio is the president's dream ticket" for 2028 — "and to be clear, that's Vance on top," said a Trump adviser whom the president recently asked to share opinions about the top of the ticket. "But would Trump be happy with a Rubio-Vance ticket? Absolutely," the source said. President Trump, with Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, at his inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington on Thursday. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Vance has political advisers who, if he runs as widely expected, would form the backbone of a 2028 presidential campaign. Rubio lacks that infrastructure — and has made clear he's fine with Vance being the guy. The men are close friends and served together in the Senate. Their chiefs of staff are also friends. 📺 Between the lines: Vance has a major disadvantage compared to Rubio when it comes to Trump's style of thinking — their jobs, which place Rubio in the news far more than Vance. And Trump consumes news ravenously. 🔮 What's next: Expect to see more of Vance as midterms heat up. He's finance chair of the Republican National Committee, and he's planning to barnstorm the country to help the GOP keep the House. "Marco is my closest friend in the administration," Vance told Fox News' Martha MacCallum on "The Story" on Tuesday. "I think it's so interesting the media wants to create this conflict where there just isn't any conflict."

[phkrause]

⚖️ Trump doubles down on tariffs

Photo illustration: Lindsey Bailey/Axios. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

President Trump said he'll hike global tariffs to 15% a day, upping the ante on new duties after the Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to the bulk of his import taxes, Axios' Courtenay Brown reports. Trump is quickly recalibrating, not retreating, after the court's tariff ruling, keeping trade escalation at the center of his economic agenda. 📈 Trump posted yesterday that he'd raise the 10% global tariff previously announced to the "fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level." That's the maximum allowed under a separate trade law. Keep reading.

[phkrause]

JPMorgan discloses Trump account closures

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

JPMorgan Chase acknowledged, in a court filing responding to a $5 billion suit by President Trump last month, that it closed 50+ Trump-related accounts after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The shuttered accounts included those for Trump hotels, housing developments and retail properties in Illinois, Florida and New York, "as well as Mr. Trump's personal private banking relationship that handled his inheritance from his father," the N.Y. Times reports (gift link). 🖊️ A two-page letter from JPMorgan to Trump on Feb. 19, 2021 — filed in court and reviewed by Axios — said the bank wanted to "respectfully inform you that we will need to end our current relationship." The letter ends with a Trumpian flourish: "Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter." The bank said in a statement to Axios after Trump filed his suit: "JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to this." "We have been asking both this Administration and prior administrations to change the rules and regulations that put us in this position, and we support the Administration's efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector."

[phkrause]

US Secret Service shot and killed armed man who entered the secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago The U.S. Secret Service announced Sunday that an armed man was shot and killed after entering the secure perimeter of Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Fla. Although Trump often spends weekends at his resort, he was at the White House during this incident. Read more.

RELATED COVERAGE ➤ TSA says PreCheck still operational after previous announcement of suspension during funding fight US military airlifts small reactor as Trump pushes to quickly deploy nuclear power Ruling against Trump’s tariffs creates new uncertainty in US trade relations with China

[phkrause]

She was an orphan adopted from Iran by a US veteran. The Trump administration wants to deport her

A woman adopted as a toddler by an American war veteran, who he found in the 1970s in an Iranian orphanage and raised as a Christian, is being threatened with deportation to Iran, a country notoriously dangerous for Christians and now on the brink of war with the United States. She is one of thousands adopted from abroad who were never granted citizenship because of a fracture at the intersection of adoption and immigration law. Read more.

RELATED COVERAGE ➤

The US deported a gay asylum-seeker to a third country where homosexuality is illegal ICE’s purchases for big detention centers are marked by secrecy, frustrating towns

[phkrause]

EU says US must honor a trade deal after Supreme Court blocks Trump tariffs The European Commission requested “full clarity” from the United States and asked its trade partner to fulfill its commitments after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some of President Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs. Read more.

Why this matters: Trump has lashed out at the court decision and said Saturday that he wants a global tariff of 15%, up from the 10% he announced a day earlier. The European Union’s executive arm said the current situation is not conducive to delivering “fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial” trans-Atlantic trade and investment, as agreed to by both sides and spelled out in the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of August 2025.   American and EU officials sealed a trade deal last year that imposes a 15% import tax on 70% of European goods exported to the U.S. The European Commission handles trade for the 27 EU member countries. “A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”   Jamieson Greer, Trump’s top trade negotiator, said in a CBS News interview Sunday morning that the U.S. plans to stand by its trade deals and expects its partners to do the same.

RELATED COVERAGE ➤ Ruling against Trump’s tariffs raises uncertainty, but markets stay calm   The Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs. Now comes the hard work of issuing refunds   FBI director joins US men’s hockey team in locker room celebration of Olympic gold medal   How Trump will use his State of the Union address to sell skeptical midterm voters on his plans   Never Trump Republicans are still issuing dire warnings. Is anyone listening?   Josh Shapiro, in his own words, on political violence and antisemitism   EU diplomats to meet Board of Peace director over Gaza’s future   Trump’s Board of Peace painted a rosy picture of Gaza’s future. On the ground, there is only despair   Why Texas’ redistricting plan isn’t a sure bet   Trump has stocked his administration with people who have backed his false 2020 election claims   New law puts Kansas at vanguard of denying trans identities on drivers licenses, birth certificates   Thanks but no thanks: Trump’s hospital ship plan provokes defense of Greenland health care system   What to know about the Florida bill to rename Palm Beach International Airport for Trump

[phkrause]

Trump’s Disapproval Rating Hits Five-Year High

A new poll shows Trump’s numbers at a level not seen since the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Disapproval of Donald Trump has reached its highest level since the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, according to a new national poll released this week.

The Washington Post–ABC News poll, conducted between Feb. 12-17 among 2,589 U.S. adults, puts Trump’s approval rating at 39 percent positive and 60 percent negative among adults nationwide. Notably, nearly half of all respondents—47 percent—say they strongly disapprove of the president.

The last time Trump’s disapproval rating hit 60 percent was in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The new poll has a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points.

The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment.

Trump’s disapproval ratings have slowly crept up since the beginning of his second term, hitting 53 percent in the Washington Post/ABC News poll in Feb. 2025, before reaching 59 percent in October.

But disapproval seems to have hit a new high this month amid the backlash over his administration’s policies. The poll shows that Trump’s net approval is deep in negative territory on several key issues: border security is at -3, the economy -16, immigration -18, tariffs -30, and inflation -33.

His weakest score is on inflation, where just 32 percent of respondents approve of how he has handled the issue.

Meanwhile, immigration, a critical issue in Trump’s political strategy, shows mixed results but is trending negative. While 50 percent of Americans support Trump’s call to deport the estimated 14 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 58 percent say he is going too far in trying to deport them—up 10 points over the past 10 months.

Recent events, such as ICE operations in Minnesota, appear to have shifted public opinion further: roughly 60 percent oppose the tactics U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has used, and a majority oppose expanded enforcement to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

Beyond specific policies, broad swaths of the public express concerns about Trump’s approach to power and leadership. Nearly two in three Americans (65 percent) say he has exceeded his authority in exercising presidential powers, up from earlier in his term, and a majority—56 percent—believe he is not committed to protecting Americans’ rights and freedoms.

Six in ten (62 percent) also say he is using the presidency to enrich himself, and more than half say his administration has not been transparent in releasing government files related to the investigation of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

On foreign policy and military use, a majority (54 percent) say they oppose his use of the U.S. military to force changes abroad, while just 20 percent support such actions.

But despite this overall negative sentiment, Trump’s general approval rating has held at 39 percent, effectively unchanged from October.

And the new poll showed that 85 percent of Republicans approve of his job performance, while 94 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of independents disapprove—nearly identical to the partisan breakdown from a similar Post-ABC-Ipsos poll late last year, suggesting that opinions on both side of the aisle have remained stable.

But the polls still show some warning signs for the president. Recent surveys have shown him losing support among key voter groups that propelled him into the White House in 2024, like young men, Hispanics, and non-college-educated Americans.

And the latest Marist poll, conducted between Jan 27-30 found that 55 percent of residents nationally say the direction in which President Trump is moving the country is change for the worse, up from 51 percent in April 2025.

A trio of surveys released this month also showed that Americans think Biden did a better job in the White House than Trump so far.

As a result, two Republican strategists told Axios earlier this month that they believe the Republican majority in the Senate may be difficult to hold on to in the midterms in November.

“A year ago, I would have told you we were almost guaranteed to win the Senate,” one of the GOP operatives said. “Today, I would have to tell you it’s far less certain.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-disapproval-rating-hits-five-year-high/?

[phkrause]

Trump Supporter Learns Hard Way ICE Doesn’t Just Target ‘Worst of the Worst’

A New Jersey couple can’t believe “we were MAGA” after their immigration ordeal.

A Donald Trump supporter is regretting voting for the president after her husband was swept up in the administration’s immigration clampdown.

Sandra Hafraoui’s husband, Abdellatif Hafraoui, spent 108 days in custody after being detained by ICE at Newark Liberty International Airport as the couple attempted to fly out on vacation.

Abdellatif, a Moroccan national who has lived in the U.S. for nearly 40 years, was detained despite having no criminal record. He was caught up in the crackdown because of a missed immigration court date more than a decade ago that he was not even aware he was scheduled to attend, NJ.com reported.

Sandra, who voted for Trump in the last three elections, said she is now reconsidering her MAGA allegiance and the president’s mass deportation plans due to the treatment her husband endured.

“To think we were MAGA!” she told NJ.com. “You [Trump] said you were going after the worst of the worst, but instead you ruined our life.”

Trump’s vow to carry out the largest mass deportation of undocumented migrants in U.S. history was one of his central campaign promises in 2024.

Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi “ICE Barbie” Noem have frequently defended the aggressive tactics of masked federal immigration agents by insisting they are targeting only the “worst of the worst,” such as murderers, rapists, and gang members.

However, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to apologize last week for a “glitch” on its website documenting the supposed “worst of the worst,” which included hundreds of people accused only of minor offenses.

A December 2025 report by the Daily Beast also found that multiple immigrants labeled on a DHS website as the “worst criminal aliens arrested” were accused only of minor infractions, such as traffic violations or marijuana possession, offenses that are not even crimes in many states.

Elsewhere, a review of ICE data by the Cato Institute found that, as of October 2025, 73 percent of people booked into ICE custody had no criminal conviction, while nearly half had neither a conviction nor a pending charge.

Abdellatif Hafraoui is another immigrant with longstanding ties to the U.S. and no criminal record who has been ensnared by Trump’s hardline deportation policies.

He was detained at the New Jersey airport on Aug. 11 and spent more than 100 days in custody before he and his wife were able to post a $15,000 bond for his release on Nov. 26. His Moroccan passport remains in government custody as he fights his case.

Abdellatif said he was also placed in solitary confinement for 10 days as punishment for refusing to board a commercial flight and sign away his rights roughly two and a half weeks into his detention.Following his release, Abdellatif is now required to wear an electronic ankle monitor after a judge deemed him a potential flight risk, and he must attend regular ICE check-ins. The couple estimate they have spent around $50,000 in legal fees fighting his immigration case.The Daily Beast has contacted the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-supporter-learns-hard-way-ice-doesnt-just-target-worst-of-the-worst/?

[phkrause]

Mar-a-Lago Gunman’s Real Politics Revealed as Leavitt Blames Dems

Trump goon Karoline Leavitt tried to blame Democrats for the attempted incursion in Florida, but the dead man was reportedly obsessed with the Epstein files.

The armed man who was shot dead outside Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence was a troubled Trump supporter who was fixated on the Epstein files, according to friends and family.

Austin Tucker Martin, 21, was shot and killed by Secret Service agents at around 1:30 a.m Sunday. He was holding what appeared to be a shotgun and a can of fuel. Trump, 79, was in Washington, D.C., at the time of the shooting.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Secret Service “acted quickly and decisively to neutralize a crazy person, armed with a gun and a gas canister, who intruded President Trump’s home.”

Praising federal law enforcement, Leavitt used her social media post to take a dig at her political opponents, adding, “It’s shameful and reckless that Democrats have chosen to shut down their Department.”

Now those close to him have revealed Martin’s political views skewed right, and revealed he was suspicious about how the Trump administration was handling the Epstein files.

His cousin, Braeden Fields, 19, said Martin came from a MAGA-friendly family.

“We are big Trump supporters, all of us. Everybody,” Fields said, noting his cousin was “real quiet, never really talked about anything.”

“I wouldn’t believe he would do something like this. It’s mind-blowing,” Fields told The Sun. Public records show Martin is from Cameron, North Carolina, where he was designated missing on Saturday.

Martin sent a text message to a co-worker at Pine Needles Lodge & Golf Club in North Carolina that demonstrated he had become obsessed with the Trump administration’s handling of the files relating to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

TMZ reported that Martin’s message, sent on Feb. 15, read, “I don’t know if you read up on the Epstein Files, but evil is real and unmistakable.”

He continued, “The best people like you and I can do is use what little influence we have. Tell other people about what you hear about the Epstein files and what the government is doing about it. Raise awareness.”

The site said co-workers told them Martin was “deeply disturbed” by what he felt was a “government cover-up” over Epstein and had repeatedly talked about powerful people “getting away with it.”

He was “outspoken” about his Christian faith, and TMZ said he had told his colleagues as recently as late last year that he felt Trump was a strong leader.

People close to Martin also said he was “increasingly frustrated, particularly about the economy,” and still lived with his parents, as he believed young people need two jobs or roommates to afford moving out of home.

Three of Martin’s high school friends confirmed that he had expressed conservative viewpoints to his classmates.

“He is from a very pro-Trump family and fit into that narrative,” Clarice Bonillo, who was his officer in the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, told The New York Times.

“But he wouldn’t go out of his way to bash anybody from the left side or start arguments or anything like that. He had his opinion, and he mostly kept it to himself.”

The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment.

The thwarted attack on Trump’s Florida mansion follows the Department of Justice releasing over 3 million files related to Epstein last month, leaving an estimated 3 million documents in the FBI vaults.

Trump has insisted the latest dump of files absolves him of any wrongdoing.

“I’m the expert in a way because I’ve been totally exonerated,” the president claimed after the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. “It’s very nice. So I can actually speak about it very nicely.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mar-a-lago-gunmans-real-politics-revealed-as-leavitt-blames-dems/?

[phkrause]

Greenland PM Eviscerates Trump Over His Latest Bonkers Plot

“Please speak with us instead of making more or less random statements on social media,” the prime minister told Trump.

Greenland’s prime minister publicly rejected Donald Trump with a scathing takedown after the president announced he was sending a “hospital boat” to the Arctic island to care for its “sick” people.

“It’s a no thank you from here,” Jens Frederik-Nielsen said in a statement on Sunday.

“President Trump’s idea of sending an American hospital ship here to Greenland has been noted,” the 34-year-old prime minister continued. “But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. That is a deliberate choice—and a fundamental part of our society. That is not how it works in the USA, where it costs money to go to the doctor.”

Frederik-Nielsen followed up his blistering jab at the U.S. healthcare system by saying that Greenland is open to dialogue and cooperation.

“But please talk to us instead of just making more or less random statements on social media,” he added.

The biting reply came after 79-year-old Trump, who is obsessed with acquiring Greenland, issued a bizarre Truth Social post on Saturday suggesting the island’s residents are in need of help.

“Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump wrote alongside what appeared to be an AI illustration of the USNS Mercy hospital ship sailing into the sunset.

The Washington Post reported that maritime tracking data doesn’t show any U.S. hospital ships currently lined up to sail to Greenland. The U.S. Navy’s two hospital ships, the Mercy and USNS Comfort, were reportedly at a maintenance facility in Alabama on Sunday.

Trump appointed Landry as his new envoy to Greenland in December last year, shortly before threatening to take over the island, an autonomous territory of Denmark, by military force.

But he backtracked dramatically at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month, saying he would not use force to obtain the island, even while claiming that the U.S. needed Greenland for national security.

In a Sunday TV appearance, Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen noted that “Trump is constantly tweeting about Greenland” and called it an “expression of the new normal that has taken hold in international politics.”

Like Frederik-Nielsen, he noted, “The Greenlandic population receives the healthcare it needs.”

The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/greenland-pm-jens-frederik-nielsen-eviscerates-trump-over-his-latest-bonkers-plot/?

ps:What is the matter with this guy?

[phkrause]

John Oliver Hammers Trump-Coded CBS News’ Shockingly ‘Low Standards’

The talk show host highlighted the fallout from the Epstein files.

John Oliver has savaged CBS for refusing to fire longevity expert Peter Attia despite his multiple cringeworthy appearances in the Epstein files.

Attia, 52, is mentioned in the files more than 1,800 times. One email to the child sex offender’s assistant in 2016 read, “I go into JE withdrawal when I don’t see him.”

In another revolting message from 2016, he told Epstein, who was jailed on child sex charges in 2008, “P---y is, indeed, low carb. Still awaiting results on gluten content, though.”

In Sunday’s episode of Last Week Tonight, Oliver pointed out that Attia is still employed by CBS News, having been recruited by MAGA-curious News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss.

Oliver said that the details about Attia in the Epstein files “aren’t great,” but that he had apologized for them.

He also referenced Attia losing his side hustle as chief science officer for protein bar company David, after the emails were released by the Department of Justice.

“Incredibly, as of taping, CBS News still seems to be keeping him on as a contributor,” Oliver said of Attia.“It is wild that CBS News somehow has lower standards than a protein bar company that markets their products like this, and also like this,” before sharing some of the company’s sexually charged advertising.

“And I’m not sure who, at that company, thought their bars needed to be ’80s horny, but I hope they’re gone, too.”

The Daily Beast has reached out to CBS for comment.

Oliver also took aim at Trump’s Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who makes several appearances in the Epstein files.

The talk show host called out Lutnick, saying he had only met Epstein once, in 2005, and called him “disgusting,” and stated he never wanted to be in a room with him again.

However, the latest tranche of documents reveals that Lutnick actually visited Epstein’s island with his wife, four children, and nannies as part of a family vacation, seven years after he claimed they had met only once.

“To be clear, there was a lot untoward about meeting Epstein in 2012,” Oliver said. “He left jail three years earlier, as a sex offender, and it was widely known what kind of guy he was at that time, and it’s not a great look, that it seems the end of Lutnick’s sentence, ‘I will never be in the room with that disgusting person again’ was ‘unless, that is, I can bring mah kids!’”

Oliver stated that while he was not accusing Lutnick or Attia of committing crimes, he was happy to call out “just how comfortable far too many people were” in looking beyond Epstein’s “heinous actions.”

“To give her the lack of accountability in all this, there’s at least some satisfaction in knowing just how nervous some powerful men must be feeling right now,” the host said. “A nervousness that’s kind of hard to put into words, but luckily, I think this picture sums it up pretty well.”

Oliver then screened the infamous photo of former Prince Andrew in the back of a police car after being arrested.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/john-oliver-hammers-trump-coded-cbs-news-shockingly-low-standards/?

[phkrause]

Spiraling Trump Delivers Wild Threat After Supreme Court Loss

The president raged in a posting spree over his sweeping tariffs being struck down.

President Donald Trump lashed out at countries with a threat of much higher tariffs if they try to take advantage after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping tariffs.

The president’s Truth Social threat was one in a posting rampage as he raged over the country’s highest court delivering a stinging blow to his chief economic policy with its ruling released Friday.

“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to,” Trump wrote. “BUYER BEWARE!!!”

It was the president’s second post early Monday as his administration grapples with how to proceed with his tariffs being struck down in the 6 to 3 decision by the conservative court.

On Saturday, the president announced on social media he would instead impose global tariffs of 15 percent immediately, initially saying he would replace the struck-down tariffs with 10 percent global levies he had invoked less than 24 hours before.

He did so by invoking a provision of the law never before used by a president that allows for across-the-board tariffs for 150 days, but Congress would need to act to extend them.

The move puts vulnerable Republicans in a complicated position as Democrats push to put them on the record on the president’s top policy in a midterm year.

The Tax Foundation estimated the president’s tariff amounted to a $1,000 tax on U.S. households last year. The new tariffs would amount to a $700 tax on households in 2026.

However, the president instead insisted on Monday in a separate post that he did not need Congress to act.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!” Trump wrote in another post.

He also wrote earlier in the morning that he could charge fees for licenses instead of imposing tariffs, as he complained about the court.

“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling,” Trump ranted.

“For one thing, I can use Licenses to do absolutely ‘terrible’ things to foreign countries, especially those countries that have been RIPPING US OFF for many decades, but incomprehensibly, according to the ruling, can’t charge them a License fee - BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so?” Trump wrote. “You do a license to get a fee! The opinion doesn’t explain that, but I know the answer!”

The president went on in the post to attack the six justices on the Supreme Court who ruled against him, writing, “They should be ashamed of themselves.”

Trump suggested they would also rule against him in a looming landmark decision that would address his push to end birthright citizenship.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/spiraling-trump-delivers-wild-threat-after-supreme-court-loss/?

[phkrause]

Humiliated Pentagon Pete Makes Desperate Last-Ditch Threat

The defense secretary has so far failed miserably to get AI giant Anthropic, a top Pentagon contractor, to do what he wants.

Pete Hegseth wants a top Pentagon contractor to know he really, really means it when he demands they abandon their cautious approach to the Defense Department’s AI systems.

The defense secretary is set to host Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei on Tuesday morning for what Axios reports is “likely to be tense meeting” on the military’s use of the company’s Claude software.

“Anthropic knows this is not a get-to-know-you meeting,” as one defense official described it. “This is not a friendly meeting. This is a s--t-or-get-off-the-pot-meeting.”

Amodei, who’s often warned of AI’s potential for misuse, has consistently pushed to frame his firm as a safety-conscious leader in the sector.

He has so far resisted pressure from Hegseth to remove safeguards on the Pentagon’s Claude-enabled programs unless the department agrees to wall off mass surveillance of citizens and research into weapons capable of firing without a human operator.

Their feud is understood to have escalated amid reports that Claude was used by the Pentagon in the Trump administration’s lightning invasion of Venezuela earlier in January.

Critics decried that mission—which secured the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, who now faces narcoterrorism charges in New York federal court—as an all-out assault on the rules-based international order.

Anthropic told Axios that “we are having productive conversations, in good faith,” with the Pentagon.

Defense officials instead say “negotiations have shown no progress,” and are now “on the verge of breaking down.”

Earlier this month, Hegseth warned he would consider certifying Anthropic as a “supply chain risk” if it did not yield to his demands.

Officials said that at the Tuesday meeting, the secretary now plans on issuing Amodei with an “ultimatum.”

“The problem with Dario is, with him, it’s ideological,” one senior Defense Department source said. “We know who we’re dealing with.”

The Daily Beast has contacted the Defense Department and Anthropic for comment on this story.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/humiliated-pentagon-pete-hegseth-makes-desperate-last-ditch-threat-against-ai-contractor-anthropic/?