February 21, 2026

Trumpertantrum, Ctd. If Somebody Doesn't Give Donnie What He Wants, Everybody on Earth Pays. Tony Romm & Ana Swanson of the New York Times: Donald “Trump announced Saturday that he would raise his new, global tariff to 15 percent, a day after he took steps to replicate some of the punishing duties that had been struck down by the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump announced the change in a post on social media, and said the tariff would take effect immediately.... On Friday night, Mr. Trump had set that tariff at 10 percent, using a provision in a law that allows him to impose an across-the-board tariff for 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend it.” At 11:50 am ET, this is a breaking story. An AP story is here. ~~~

     ~~~ To the Max. Ben Johansen of Politico: “[Trump's hike in tariffs] comes less than 24 hours after he invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs up to 15 percent to address a 'large and serious balance-of-payment deficit,' which can remain in effect for no more than 150 days unless Congress authorizes an extension.” MB: You see here how incredibly childish Trump is. Obviously, the original tariffs Trump imposed were not imposed because of national security issues; otherwise, he would not have imposed tariffs on unpopulated islands. The same goes for the 10% tariffs he imposed last night; they have nothing to do with the objective of the law he invoked this time: we do not have balance-of-payments deficits with every country on Earth. Then, a few hours later, raising those same across-the-board tariffs from 10% to the maximum allowed under the law is an in-your-face "up yours" to the Supremes AND a primal scream. Clearly, this is the most unstable person who has ever had access to the nuclear codes.  

~~~ Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: “Friday was a landmark day in the Trump reign. It was refreshing to finally see someone tell this petulant man-child: 'No, you can’t do that!' And it was especially refreshing that the Supreme Court, which has been awash in its own ethics crises and acting subservient to the megalomaniac in the White House, suddenly found a spine.... And the president responded in the way he always does when he doesn’t get his way: with a Regina George hissy fit.... Trump was barking up the wrong tree [when he accused Roberts, Gorlich & Barrett of being '... lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left.'] Until now, [they] have been lap dogs for Trump, helping to upend Roe, giving him immunity for nearly all official acts, weakening the Voting Rights Act, letting DOGE get its grimy little hands on private data and allowing Elon Musk’s backpack wolf pack to slash the federal work force.” ~~~

~~~ Steve Vladeck says commentators have made way too much of the Court's decision: “I think it’s wrong to celebrate the ruling as some kind of turning point in the Court’s relationship with Trump, just as I think it’s wrong to denounce it as a cynical move by justices concerned primarily about the economy as opposed to about fidelity to neutral legal principles. This was not a case about the President’s constitutional power, but about the meaning of a 49-year-old statute that doesn’t mention tariffs and that’s never previously been used as a basis for them. And although IEEPA is triggered by the President’s declaration of an amorphously defined 'emergency,' the question before the Court wasn’t whether this was an emergency..., but rather whether, even in emergencies, the statute authorizes tariffs. Holding that the answer is 'no' doesn’t tell us anything especially important about executive power in general, or even about the President’s powers under statutes other than IEEPA. In the same vein, I think it’s wrong to hold Friday’s ruling out as somehow absolving the Court of its deeply problematic behavior on Trump-related emergency applications....” Read on. ~~~

~~~ Most Corrupt Administration in History, Ctd. Josh Marshall on the Lutnick grift (here Marshall recaps his September 2025 article [linked below], and adds content to bring his earlier post up-to-date): "... Trump insiders, especially the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have reportedly made huge, huge bets on the tariffs being tossed. They and their clients now, per a July report that prompted a Senate investigation, stand to make tens or even hundreds of billions on those refunds. Given that Lutnick is a primary player in White House tariff policy, I’m pretty confident that they’re going to find a way to issue those refunds.... Keep an eye on this. There could be crazy sums at stake." ~~~

~~~ Here again, Trump is not the only guy in his administration who lets unfounded theories & personal prejudices define policies that hurt millions of people. ~~~ 

Lauren Weber, et al., of the Washington Post: “Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent years campaigning against vaccines, but with the flu shot, he’s suggested it’s personal. Kennedy has linked his strained, raspy speech to the vaccine, despite several medical experts saying there is no scientific evidence to support that claim. Federal guidance revised under Kennedy last month, while the United States is experiencing a hard-hitting flu season, no longer recommends routine flu vaccines for children and adolescents. The day after he assumed office a year ago, he ordered the end of a government ad campaign encouraging flu vaccination.... The vast majority of children who die of the flu are not vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the current season, pediatric deaths have reached 71, about a 4 percent increase from last season at this time.”

~~~~~~~~~~ 

⭐Doug Palmer, et al., of Politico: “The Supreme Court on Friday struck down ... Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs — a major repudiation of a core piece of Trump’s economic program. The 6-3 decision is a rare instance of the conservative-led court reining in Trump’s expansive use of executive power. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority. 'The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,' Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties 'falls short' of the Congressional approval that would be needed. 

“The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea. Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements. That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place.” (Also linked yesterday.) The New York Times report is here.

     ~~~ The New York Times liveblogged the Court's decision and follow-up. The liveblog has lots of background reminders. MB: This story might be titled, "Supremes Try to Save Trump from Himself." If they have failed, it's because Trump will swiftly find a way around Friday's ruling. Update: ... as he partially has already done; see stories linked below. ~~~

     ~~~ Here's the decision, concurring opinions & dissents, via the Court. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

~~~ From CNN live updates: “... Donald Trump received news of the Supreme Court ruling striking down his tariffs via a note while hosting a White House breakfast with governors and called it 'a disgrace,' according to people familiar with his remarks. He told those gathered that he has a backup plan in mind, according to one of those people. Another person familiar with his remarks said Trump became enraged at the breakfast and started attacking the court — at one point saying 'these f**king courts.'” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~ 

     ~~~ Marie: I heard Josh Dawsey, now of the Wall Street Journal, say on NPR, that when an aide handed Trump a note about the Court's ruling, Trump said, "so, it's a loss, then?" So either the note was ambiguous or Trump can't understand, "The Supreme Court ruled your tariffs are illegal." ~~~

~~~ Justin Jouvenal, et al., of the Washington Post: “Trump, who has largely been deferential to the high court’s previous decisions, lashed out at the justices in unprecedented terms a few hours after the ruling. At a White House news conference, he called the justices who sided against him a 'disgrace to our nation.'... The ruling is the most significant check to date on Trump’s bid to vastly expand executive authority in his second term and his most consequential setback before a Supreme Court that over the last year has given a green light to most of his policies in a series of emergency rulings. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion, was unsparing in dismissing most of the administration’s key arguments. The ruling was striking in its timing, landing just days before some of the justices are scheduled to attend Trump’s State of the Union address.... The stakes of the ruling are enormous: The tariffs affect trillions of dollars in trade, and the government collected nearly $134 billion in levies through Dec. 14 under the authority challenged in the case. The majority did not offer clarity, however, on whether the administration will have to enact a massive refund of the funds collected to date.” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ Ari Hawkins of Politico: “That likely leaves the U.S. Court of International Trade responsible for sorting out a thicket of legal issues related to possible repayments; under customs law, tariff refund claims are typically handled through that trade-focused, New York-based court and processed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.... In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the refund process will be a “mess” — echoing Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s description during oral arguments. Barrett, nonetheless, joined the majority ruling against Trump’s duties. 'The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,' Kavanaugh wrote, adding that 'refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.'” (See Krugman, linked below.) (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ Aaron Pellish & Gregory Svirnovskiy of Politico: “Trump sought to cast the ruling, which rejected the president’s ability to implement tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as a decision that 'made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less.' He appeared dismissive of requirements to get congressional approval for any new tariffs — a point of potential friction among Republican tariff skeptics who sided with Democrats earlier this month in overturning Trump’s tariffs against Canada. Asked about whether he plans to seek congressional authority to implement tariffs, Trump said 'I don’t need to, it’s already been approved.'” (Again, see Krugman.) (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ From yesterday's NBC News liveblog: "Trump accused the Supreme Court justices responsible for striking down his power to impose sweeping tariffs as being 'swayed by foreign interests.' 'It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,' Trump said, addressing reporters in a briefing today. 'It’s a small movement.'... Trump again, without evidence, claimed that foreign interests influenced the court's decision. 'I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence,' he said. 'They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know.... But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them,' Trump added. 'I think they’re real slimeballs.'" (You'll have to scroll down to find these entries.) (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: Trump didn't make clear who these malevolent “foreign interests” were. Aaron Parnas speculated that this claim was a dogwhistle, and that “the foreign interests” were represented by the attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, who is a “brown person” (and I just heard Katyal say on teevee that he is a son of immigrants). I'm not convinced Parnas is right inasmuch as “foreign” nations all over the globe have an “interest” in eliminating Trump's punitive tariffs. However, one data point that backs up Parnas's theory is this from a Politico story, also linked above: “'Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court,' [Trump] wrote in November on Truth Social. the only “evil, American hating Forces fighting [Trump] at the Supreme Court” were, uh, Neal Katyal. ~~~

~~~ Paul Krugman: "In his press conference Trump ... asserted both that the Court’s ruling against his tariffs was disastrous and that the Court had affirmed his right to do whatever he wants on tariffs. Not sure where the second part came from. The ruling was in fact scathing and said clearly that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was a usurpation of taxation authority that belongs to Congress[.]... In that press conference Trump announced that he would immediately use another little-known legal route — Section 122 — to impose immediate 10 percent tariffs across the board. Section 122 tariffs can only last 150 days, but he claimed that during that stretch he would find ways to use other authorities to maintain high tariffs. And it’s just possible that this will be enough to keep average tariffs and tariff revenue where they would have been if the Supremes had ruled in his favor. I don’t see, by the way, how such alternatives would obviate the need to refund the tariffs already collected. If you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal.” MB: That last bit was my assumption. too. That doesn't mean I think you and I will be getting refunds. We won't. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~

     ~~~ Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC describes Trump's press conference as a person going through the seven stages of grief on-air. ~~~

Before the entire world, it was the president’s most spectacular display yet of his utter disrespect for the Constitution and his contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States. -- Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, in an interview ~~~

~~~ Luke Broadwater & Tyler Pager of the New York Times: Donald “Trump's furious response on Friday to the Supreme Court’s tariffs decision underscored his insistence that he should be granted expansive powers to carry out his agenda as he wishes.... [Among other things, h]e suggested that Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated during his first term, were 'an embarrassment to their families' because they sided with the majority against him.... Mr. Trump’s bitingly personal attacks on the highest court in the land on Friday appeared intended to undercut the authority of the justices to rein him in and highlighted his lack of deference to the constitutional separation of powers.... The president’s remarks on Friday were revealing about how he views Supreme Court justices, not as independent legal thinkers appointed for their expertise or as a constitutional check on his administration, but as appointees who should be loyal to him.” ~~~  

~~~ Cat Zakrzewski, et al., of the Washington Post: “... Donald Trump and his aides have celebrated his tariffs as a foreign policy innovation, wielding the import taxes to extract concessions from other governments on issues that extend far beyond traditional trade negotiations.... He has threatened tariffs to advance his foreign policy goals in disputes over Greenland, Gaza and an influx of fentanyl ingredients from China. In a news conference Friday, Trump said that he had used tariffs to settle five of the eight wars that he has claimed credit for ending, including a 10-day conflict between India and Pakistan.... The ruling significantly restricts Trump’s ability to dial threats up and down on a whim, targeting leaders and nations that displease him or from whom he wants a quick concession.” MB: And in his own eyes as well as in the eyes of his fellow dictators, obedience to the Supreme Court probably makes him look weak. So the reporters write, “The court decision could unsettle Trump’s upcoming negotiations with world leaders, including in a visit to Beijing next month.” ~~~

~~~ Heather Cox Richardson: “... Trump’s reliance on tariffs was mostly about seizing power. Trump’s advisors appear to be using the strategy of Nazi political theorist Carl Schmitt, who opposed liberal democracy.... Much of Schmitt’s philosophy centered around the idea that ... power belongs to the man who can exploit emergencies that create exceptions to the constitutional order, enabling him to exercise power without regard to the law. Trump — who almost certainly has not read Schmitt himself — asserted this view on August 26, 2025: 'I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States. If I think our country’s in danger..., I can do it.'... Trump used [tariffs] for his own ends in both foreign policy and economics, punishing countries for enforcing the law against his allies — like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil..., — or strong-arming countries like Vietnam into giving real estate deals to his family.” Read on. ~~~

     ~~~ Richardson writes that “Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted that 'today’s decision is … an indictment of the Court.' In August 2025, almost six months ago, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court decision striking down the tariffs as illegal. Now '[t]hese tariffs have been in effect for almost a year. They have upended whole sectors of the U.S. and global economies. The fact that a president can illegally exercise such powers for so long and with such great consequences for almost a year means we’re not living in a functional constitutional system. If the Constitution allows untrammeled and dictatorial powers for almost one year, massive dictator mulligans, then there is no Constitution.' Marshall said there is no future for the American republic without thoroughly reforming the court of its current corruption.” Marshall's editorial, which is here, is firewalled. ~~~

~~~ Tyler Pager of the New York Times: Donald “Trump moved swiftly on Friday to resurrect his punishing tariffs and circumvent a stunning loss at the Supreme Court, ordering a new 10 percent tax on all imports along with other trade actions in a bid to preserve his primary source of economic leverage around the world. Striking a defiant tone in the face of a legal defeat, Mr. Trump asserted at a news conference that he remained unbowed in a global trade war that has come to define his second term in office. The president even signaled that the tariffs he is now pursuing may yet prove more painful and lasting than those they are meant to replace. 'I can charge much more than I was charging,' Mr. Trump declared as he brandished his remaining trade powers, contending at one point that he could still 'destroy foreign countries' by other means. Mr. Trump said he would revive his tariffs using a series of authorities provided under the 1974 Trade Act. He took his first steps late Friday, invoking a provision of the law known as Section 122 to impose a 10 percent tariff starting on February 24. No president before him had invoked that provision.” Politico's story is here. ~~~

~~~ Shane Goldmacher & Katie Glueck of the New York Times: “... the painful political reality for Republicans, even those allied with the president, is that his tariff regime has proved deeply unpopular. Some privately lamented that Mr. Trump had missed a chance to walk them back ahead of a midterm election expected to turn heavily on the economy, instead recommitting to a policy that divides his party.... A Fox News poll last month showed that tariffs ranked among Mr. Trump’s worst-performing issues.... Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois, two Democrats considered potential 2028 presidential candidates, both demanded refund checks for families in their states who had to pay more for imported goods in recent months after the court ruled Mr. Trump’s tariffs were unconstitutional.” ~~~

     ~~~ Sophie Brams of the Hill: “Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) on Thursday called on ... [Donald] Trump to 'cut the check' and issue refunds to American taxpayers after the Supreme Court struck down a cornerstone of his economic agenda, tariffs.... He claimed Trump 'illegally took $1,700 from every American family,' a figure that falls within the range cited in Yale Budget Lab research from March of last year, which projected an average household loss of between $1,600 and $2,000 due to the tariffs.'... The governor ... demanded in an accompanying letter that the president issue refunds of that amount to more than 5.1 million households in Illinois, totaling nearly $8.7 billion.... The letter also included an invoice addressed to the White House, dated Feb. 20, with a line‑item description of the request and the phrase 'PAST DUE – DELINQUENT' printed in bold red letters.” ~~~

~~~ Phil Wiseman of the AP: “What’s going to happen to the money the government has already collected in import taxes now declared unlawful? Companies have been lining up for refunds. But the way forward could prove chaotic. When the smoke clears, trade lawyers say, importers are likely to get money back — eventually.... The refund process is likely to be hashed out by a mix of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York and other lower courts, according to a note to clients by lawyers at the legal firm Clark Hill.... But consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated for the higher prices they paid when companies passed along the cost of the tariffs; that’s more likely to go to the companies themselves..” ~~~

~~~ Marie: I heard about this grift yesterday, but I didn't really understand how it worked. Here's a September 2025 essay by Josh Marshall of TPM (via LG&$, via RAS) that explains it: "... the idea is that a Wall Street firm goes to an importer and says, you’ve now paid $10 million in tariffs. I’ll pay you $2 million right now for the right to collect the refund if courts ever end up deciding the tariffs were illegal.... One of the most aggressive buyers was Cantor Fitzgerald, the firm until recently headed by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and now run by Lutnick’s sons. Twenty-something Brandon Lutnick ... is the current chairman of Cantor Fitzgerald.... In mid-July [2025], according to Wired, Cantor was buying up the rights to your potential tariff refund at between 20 and 30 cents per dollar....

"[Howard Lutnick will] have lots of visibility into what the government’s lawyers think, how they rate their odds of success, what their arguments will be. On top of that, given the immense corruption of the current Supreme Court, I would say there’s at least a 50%-50% shot that Trump and thus Lutnick will gets signals from one or more of the justices about how the Court will rule. Any way you look at this it’s corrupt as hell. And on a more metaphoric level it typifies the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose rules that the billionaire class and their sub-billionaire toadies live by. ~~~ 

     ~~~ As RAS wrote, "The legal corruption is out of control." And that, I think, is what most "expert" pundits and others don't get. They contend that the Epstein files represent, you know, the most massive exposé of corruption in modern times, blah-blah. But I continue to think the Epstein sex & child abuse scandal is a sideshow to the much broader picture of international intrigue that RAS points to. The good news is that I suspect some of the wiser commentators will catch on. I've noticed over the past few weeks, for instance, that time and again, Heather Cox Richardson will highlight either in writing or on her podcast a critical issue that you or I have raised (or settled) here.      

~~~ This is how the big crooks work. No shopping bags full of cash change hands: ~~~ 

~~~ Most Corrupt Administration in History, Ctd. Kenneth Vogel & Matina Stevis-Gridneff of the New York Times: “Less than one month before meeting with a top administration official to lobby against a new bridge connecting Michigan with Canada, the billionaire owner of an existing bridge donated $1 million to a super PAC devoted to ... [Donald] Trump. Matthew Moroun, a Detroit-based trucking magnate whose family has operated the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, for decades, made the donation to MAGA Inc. on Jan. 16, according to a campaign finance report filed on Friday evening. On Feb. 9, Mr. Moroun met in Washington with Howard Lutnick, the secretary of commerce, who called Mr. Trump after the meeting, The New York Times reported. Hours after the meeting, Mr. Trump lambasted the competing span.... While Mr. Moroun had donated to Mr. Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, the $1 million to MAGA Inc. is larger than any previous federal political donation on record by the Michigan businessman.... Spokesmen for the White House and MAGA Inc. dismissed suggestions of any connection between the donation and Mr. Trump’s stance.” Update: the link has been changed to one that appears to be a gift link. ~~~

~~~ Marie: Then there's this, which Akhilleus linked yesterday. I don't know who the woman is who is making the accusations, so bear in mind that she could be a complete crackpot. But I don't think so. She documents her assertions with legitimate, mostly local, news outlet stories, and the bits of her assertions we already knew about also comport with legitimate reporting. So I think it's fair to assume that her numbers are correct. And they sure as hell point to corruption AND gross mismanagement of federal monies. (Yo, Congress, where are you?):

Maegan Vazquez & Jeremy Roebuck of the Washington Post: “...  Democrats said that the decision to install [a banner portraying Donald Trump] at the Justice Department symbolizes the influence Trump has wielded over the agency during his second term and that the display is comparable to the imagery deployed by authoritarian regimes.... 'The irony of a twice-impeached, convicted felon putting his own picture on the wall of the Department of Justice,' Sen. Ben Ray Luján (New Mexico) wrote on X. 'President Trump is weaponizing the DOJ as his own personal law firm.'... 'Ok Kim Jong Un,' Rep. Jim McGovern (Massachusetts) wrote.... To Trump’s critics, the banner is also striking given his status as a felon.... [Former FBI Director James] Comey[, whom Trump ordered AG Pam Bondi to prosecute], in a social media post Thursday, called the installation of the banner ... 'sickening.... But they forgot to cover the inscription on the Pennsylvania Avenue side: “WHERE LAW ENDS TYRANNY BEGINS,’” he wrote.” ~~~

~~~ In the Company of Murderous Thugs. Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post: “... the Justice Department building ... is a four-sided polygon with corners beveled flat. It is on one of these short, angled planes of the building’s Pennsylvania Avenue facade, that the Justice Department has hung a long, blue-gray banner featuring a gigantic portrait of ... Donald Trump. The department, which by long-standing precedent has functioned independently of direct political or presidential control, now joins the Agriculture Department and the Labor Department buildings as a venue for grandly scaled images of the 47th president.... The Justice Department signals ... that it is now wholly loyal to the current president.... A movie director looking to shoot a dystopian vision of American authoritarian fascism could hardly find a better spot to stage a speech or rally led by the great leader. This looks like Evita’s balcony.... By positioning it for maximum visibility, the Justice Department has also oriented it to suggest maximum oversight or supervision of the city, and by extension, the people and the country at large. The blue-gray color scheme makes the president seem like a shadowy presence, or omnipresence, in contrast to the sunlight associated with fundamental democratic values: transparency, openness and enlightenment.” Kennicott also likens the Trump banners to those of notorious Romanian autocrat Nicolae Ceausescu & Syria's “murderous and brutal thug” Bashar al-Assad. 

DOJ Has Trouble Finding Voter Fraud Trump Makes Up. Perry Stein, et al., of the Washington Post: “The Justice Department has struggled to meet White House demands to prosecute noncitizen voters as conspiracy theories that ... Donald Trump and his allies have pushed in public fail to hold up legally. The president has grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of results, advisers said, leading to his public pronouncements about nationalizing elections and requiring voter ID, which he lacks the authority to do unilaterally. Top Justice Department officials regularly meet with officials from Homeland Security Investigations — the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security that works with prosecutors to bring cases against undocumented immigrants — about tracking down instances of voter fraud.... The efforts so far haven’t yielded results, in large part because the types of rampant voter fraud that the Trump administration describes have never been found.”

Trump isn't the only guy who gave federal judges a one-finger salute yesterday. His still-attorney but also deputy DOJ director did, too. ~~~

~~~ Alan Feuer of the New York Times: “The federal bench in the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday chose James W. Hundley, a veteran defense lawyer, to serve as the interim U.S. attorney in the district, replacing the Trump loyalist who resigned last month after a judge ruled that she had been put into her post unlawfully. But a mere two hours after Mr. Hundley was appointed to the job, he was abruptly fired in a social media post by Todd Blanche, the No. 2 official in the Justice Department. It was the second time this month that Mr. Blanche, the deputy attorney general who once served as a defense lawyer to the president, had gotten rid of a top federal prosecutor appointed by federal judges. 

“'Here we go again, Mr. Blanche wrote in a post that offered a slanted interpretation of the law and slavishly echoed a line that the president was famous for using during his days as a reality TV star. 'EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!' The law does in fact permit federal judges to appoint interim U.S. attorneys when their predecessors are forced to leave their post or come to the end of their 120-day terms.” The NBC News story is here.

Charlie Savage & Erik Wemple of the New York Times: “A magistrate judge on Friday sharply admonished the Justice Department for failing to tell him about a rarely invoked law that restricts searches for reporting material when it applied last month for a warrant to search a Washington Post reporter’s home. 'Why didn’t you raise it?' Judge William B. Porter of the Eastern District of Virginia asked during a heated stretch of a hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va. 'It’s a threshold question in this case.' The assistant U.S. attorney who submitted the warrant application, Gordon D. Kromberg, later conceded that he had known about the law, but also said he had been following department policy in not bringing it to the judge’s attention. 'I apologize to you,' Mr. Kromberg said. First Amendment scholars say the search of the home of the Post reporter, Hannah Natanson, was unprecedented. It was part of a broader investigation into a government contractor’s handling of classified material.”

More Murder at Sea, Ctd. Eric Schmitt of the New York Times: “The U.S. military said on Friday that it blew up a boat in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing three people. The strike raised the death toll in the American campaign against people it accuses of drug smuggling at sea to at least 147. The United States Southern Command announced the strike on social media with a 16-second video clip that showed a stationary boat floating in the water suddenly exploding. Legal specialists on the use of lethal force have said the strikes are illegal, extrajudicial killings because the military cannot deliberately target civilians who do not pose an imminent threat of violence, even if they are suspected of engaging in criminal acts. The Southern Command, which oversees military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean from its headquarters near Miami, cited unspecified intelligence in its announcement.”

More Murder on Land, Ctd. Pooja Salhotra & Edgar Sandoval of the New York Times: “Months before Renee Good’s killing at the hands of an immigration agent in Minneapolis set off nationwide protests, a federal officer shot and killed another American citizen in his car in South Texas, according to internal reports made public this week. The victim, Ruben Ray Martinez, 23, was shot multiple times in South Padre Island by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer after he did not follow commands to exit his vehicle, according to internal ICE documents reviewed by The New York Times. ICE’s connection to the shooting was first reported by Newsweek this week.... In a statement..., [lawyers for Mr. Martinez' family] said that eyewitness accounts were not consistent with the government’s report and called for accountability.... The shooting of Mr. Martinez is under investigation by the Texas Rangers....” Thanks to RAS for the lead. The AP report is here.

Fire ICE Barbie. Rachel Dobkin of the Independent: "Secret Service members will get tailored suits at the expense of taxpayers after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem disliked how a protective detail was dressed, according to a new report. Graduates from protective detail training will get two navy blue suits with their name embroidered on the inside of the jacket, according to a public contract solicitation from the Department of Homeland Security.... The suits must be entirely made in the United States, the solicitation published last week states. Two people familiar with the matter told CNN Noem didn’t like the suits a protective detail had bought for themselves, prompting the new suit solicitation.” ~~~

     ~~~ Marie: The agents on protective duty obviously are ones who may be pictured in photos with ICE Barbie. She demands they look sharp, according to her own taste. (This makes me certain she is charging the cost of all of her cosplay outfits to us, too.) Buying special agents tailored suits to wear while on duty is antithetical to the tax code. Americans can take tax deductions for uniforms or safety gear they wear on the job, but we cannot take deductions for clothes that are "suitable for daily, personal use" -- like business suits. This is part & parcel of the $70MM jet, the blankey incident, the waterfront residence, etc. Basta!

John Hendel of Politico:  “FCC Chair Brendan Carr wants broadcasters to air 'patriotic, pro-America content' to support the White House’s plans to celebrate the nation’s 250th anniversary.... 'I am calling on broadcasters to pledge to provide programming that promotes civic education, national pride, and our shared history.' But Carr’s message to broadcasters comes as his critics are already uncomfortable with the agency’s incursion into policing media content, which they say is an attempt to please ... Donald Trump while infringing on the First Amendment. Several broadcasters also have pending mergers and regulatory requests before the FCC, which could influence their response to Carr’s request.”

Christopher Rugaber & Matt Ott of the AP: “U.S. economic growth slowed in the final three months of last year, dragged down by the six-week shutdown of the federal government and a pullback in consumer spending. The nation’s gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — increased at a 1.4% annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday, down from 4.4% in the July-September quarter and 3.8% in the quarter before that. The figures point to what could be a more modest pace of growth in the coming quarters, as consumers have taken on more debt and saved less to maintain their spending.... Business investment, other than data centers and equipment dedicated to artificial intelligence, grew at only a moderate pace. Still, a measure of underlying growth that focuses on consumer and business spending was mostly healthy at 2.4%, economists said.” A New York Times story is here.

Rick Rojas of the New York Times: “A federal appeals court cleared the way on Friday for Louisiana to require the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, allowing the state to enforce a law that was passed in 2024 but that a lower court blocked before it could take effect. A majority of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided to lift a preliminary injunction on the law. The judges discarded previous decisions, including one that had deemed the law to be 'plainly unconstitutional.' Louisiana was the first state to enact such a law since the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law in 1980 that had a similar directive, ruling that it had 'no secular legislative purpose' and was 'plainly religious in nature.'... The legislation was part of a broader campaign by conservative Christian groups to amplify public expressions of faith and provoke lawsuits that could reach the Supreme Court, where they now expect a friendlier reception than in past years.”

~~~~~~~~~~ 

Connecticut. Hurubie Meko of the New York Times: “The former police chief of New Haven, Conn., was arrested on Friday and accused of embezzling money from city coffers as he placed millions of dollars of bets through two online gambling sites. The former chief, Karl R. Jacobson, was charged with two counts of larceny on Friday, accused of embezzling as much as $85,500, investigators said. The majority of money came from a fund to pay confidential informants in drug cases, according to prosecutors.... Between January 2025 and January 2026, Mr. Jacobson’s accounts on DraftKings and FanDuel show that he wagered about $4.46 million, according to prosecutors. Over that period, Mr. Jacobson recorded a net loss of $214,365, investigators said.... The mayor of New Haven, Justin Elicker, said in January that Mr. Jacobson had admitted to misusing public funds and stealing from the city. The mayor said he had placed Mr. Jacobson on administrative leave. Instead, the police chief retired that day. News of Mr. Jacobson’s resignation triggered interest from investigators with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection Gaming Division....”

New Mexico. Andrew Hay of Reuters (Feb. 19): "New Mexico's Department of Justice said on Wednesday the state was investigating an allegation, which emerged from documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice, that the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ordered the bodies of two foreign girls buried outside his remote New Mexico ranch. New Mexico Department of Justice spokesperson Lauren Rodriguez said it had requested from the U.S. Justice Department an unredacted copy of an email in 2019 containing the allegation.... A day earlier, New Mexico's legislature launched the first comprehensive investigation into accusations that Epstein sexually abused girls and women at the Zorro Ranch 30 miles (48 km) south of Santa Fe for more than two decades." Thanks to RAS for the link.

~~~~~~~~~~ 

Cuba. Marco's Folly Is Killing People. Andrea Rodriguez & Milexsy Duran of the AP: “Cuba’s debilitated health care system has been pushed to the brink of collapse by the U.S. blockading the country’s oil supply, a Cuban official said Friday. The country’s medical system was already perpetually crisis-stricken along with the island’s economy, with lack of supplies, staff and medicine long being the norm. But the turmoil has reached a new extreme in recent weeks. Ambulances are struggling to find fuel to respond to emergencies. Persistent outages have plagued deteriorated hospitals. Flights bringing vital supplies have been suspended as Cuba’s government says it’s now unable to refuel airplanes in its airports. Experts and some leaders of other countries have warned that the island could be on the verge of a humanitarian crisis.”

U.K. Peter Walker of the Guardian: “The government will consider passing legislation to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of his right to inherit the throne once any police investigation has concluded, it is understood. Several politicians have called for the former prince to be removed from the line of succession after he was arrested and questioned by detectives on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne after Princes William and Harry and their children, despite him having relinquished his royal titles in October after new information came to light about his links to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and child sex offender. This means Andrew is still a counsellor of state, the group of adult royals who could be named to fill in for King Charles if he was ill or abroad, even if in practice this would never happen for him, as only working royals are used.”