Watch the stupid brain damaged turd shit his pants live on TV...

What you need to know about tonight's State of the Union address

Elena Moore

President Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for his first State of the Union address since returning to the White House just over one year ago.

It's an opportunity for the president to tout his agenda and shape his party's messaging ahead of this year's midterm elections.

But the prime-time address comes at a moment when the president has seen his agenda complicated on multiple fronts. That includes trade, where his tariff policies were dealt a rebuke last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, and immigration, where Trump and congressional Democrats are deadlocked over funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Plus, Americans are divided on whether Trump's first year has been a success. Six in 10 believe the country is worse off than last year, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, and a majority think the state of the union is not strong.

Here's what you need to know ahead of tonight's speech.

What time is the address?

The president is expected to begin at 9 p.m. ET., and if history is any indication, prepare for a long night. Last year, in what was technically not a State of the Union speech, Trump addressed Congress for over 90 minutes, breaking records as the longest joint address in at least 60 years.

NPR will be covering all of it with live special coverage and analysis. You can listen on NPR.org, on many public radio stations, in the NPR app or by telling your Alexa device to "Ask NPR to play Special Coverage" starting at 9 p.m.

Why does this happen every year? 

This is part of the gig for every president. The Constitution requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union." It's intended to be a recap of sorts of their previous year in office.

So it's a formality, yes, but there are political stakes. Trump's speech comes at the start of a crucial election year, and his party is on the defensive. GOP lawmakers are fighting to maintain control of the Senate, where they currently hold a 53 to 47 majority, and the House, where their margin is even smaller, 218 to 214. Trump is battling low approval numbers, which are often seen as a warning sign, given that since World War II the party controlling the White House historically loses an average of 27 House seats in the midterms and four in the Senate.

What will Trump talk about?

Expect a big focus on immigration, which has been a key pillar of Trump's second term. The administration has defended its enforcement agenda, arguing it's aimed at removing people living in the country illegally who have committed dangerous crimes. However, lawmakers have raised concerns about the tactics used by federal immigration agents in cities around the country, especially after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about tariffs. He has long defended imposing import taxes on foreign goods as a way to strengthen American manufacturing, but in a major ruling last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down the main lever the president has used to carry out this policy.

The tariff ruling is part of a broader economic messaging challenge facing the White House. A majority of Americans already say they think tariffs are more likely to hurt than help the economy. Trump has also dismissed affordability concerns as a Democratic "hoax," even though voters report struggling to keep up with the cost of living.

Tonight's address is also happening at a crucial moment in U.S. foreign policy. Trump is pressuring Iran to disband its nuclear program, and he has not ruled out using force to make that happen. In recent days, the American military has expanded its presence in the Middle East, sending additional fighter jets and a second aircraft carrier to the region.

It's the latest move by Trump in what has been a more muscular approach to foreign policy compared to his first term. The president has approved strikes on countries around the world, announced the U.S. will "run" Venezuela after arresting the country's leader and has threatened to buy Greenland. At the same time, Trump has repeatedly labeled himself a peacemaker, despite facing steep challenges in achieving his goals of rebuilding Gaza and brokering an end to Russia's war in Ukraine.

What will the response from Democrats look like?

Newly sworn-in Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is slated to provide the party's official rebuttal. Spanberger was one of several Democrats who won their races last November, delivering some of the most high-profile victories since the party's bruising losses across the country in 2024.

She may also provide a potential preview of how Democrats may approach their own midterm messaging. On the campaign trail, Spanberger centered her message on affordability concerns and criticized the administration's treatment of federal workers through mass layoffs and the longest government shutdown in history.

California Sen. Alex Padilla is tapped to deliver the Spanish-language response for Democrats. It's another notable pick for Democrats as they refine their election message, particularly on immigration. Padilla has been an outspoken critic of Trump's immigration agenda and was forcibly removed from a Homeland Security press conference over the summer.

There's also a group of roughly a dozen House and Senate Democrats who plan to boycott Trump's speech and instead hold a counter-rally dubbed the "People's State of the Union." It comes as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has urged lawmakers to either "attend with silent defiance" or skip the event.

New low, again...

FBI director invites fresh scrutiny over travels with appearance at US men's hockey team celebration

By The Associated Press

When the American men's hockey team retreated to their locker room to celebrate their Winter Olympics gold medal win, they were joined by a special guest from the United States: FBI Director Kash Patel.

For some supporters of the embattled law enforcement official, it was a patriotic, good-natured show of support for a team bringing home the first gold medal in the sport since 1980. For Patel's critics, though, it was yet another questionable use of government resources by an FBI chief already facing scrutiny over his personal travels aboard a government plane.

An FBI spokesman had said in the days leading up to the game that Patel's trip to Milan during the Olympics was primarily for professional purposes, with the director posting on social media work-related photographs of his meetings with European security officials. But the trip took a more jocular turn Sunday when videos circulating online showed a pumped-up Patel, a hockey fan, drinking beer from a bottle and spraying the rest around the locker room. After one of the players draped his gold medal around Patel's neck, he joined the players as they jumped up and down in celebration.

The episode deepened questions about Patel's personal travels, a persistent storyline from the first year of his tenure not only because of their frequency but also because he had chastised his predecessor, Chris Wray, for his use of the FBI plane. In this instance, the Olympics celebration took place as FBI officials were investigating an armed man who was shot and killed by the U.S. Secret Service after he breached the secure perimeter of President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

"The grift & corruption is unreal," Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado posted on X. "Your taxpayer dollars funding the FBI Director's Italian vacation."

Patel responded to the criticism by posting on his personal X account that "yes, I love America and was extremely humbled when my friends, the newly minted Gold Medal winners on Team USA, invited me into the locker room to celebrate this historic moment with the boys."

The White House signaled its backing for Patel, with communications director Steven Cheung writing on X that "Kash was also in Italy meeting with regional partners and security teams" and telling a reporter "don't be mad because America won."

An ongoing source of criticism

Patel is not the only Trump administration figure to face questions about his use of government resources, with congressional Democrats also demanding answers from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about her department's contract for upgraded jets.

But the FBI in particular has struggled to shake questions about Patel's travels on the government Gulfstream G550 for flights around the country that have no known or apparent law enforcement purpose. One example came in October when it emerged that Patel had traveled to State College, Pennsylvania, for a pro wrestling event, where his longtime girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins, had performed the national anthem. Photos posted to social media by Wilkins show the couple side-by-side and smiling for the camera and her holding an oversized golden championship belt.

The trips have come even though as a bombastic podcaster during the Biden administration, Patel had repeatedly lambasted Wray for using the FBI plane for personal travels and even suggested that the jet be grounded.

"I'm just saying Chris Wray doesn't need a government-funded G5 jet to go to vacations. Maybe we ground that plane. $15,000 every time it takes off. Just a thought," Patel said in one podcast interview.

FBI spokesman Ben Williamson has defended Patel, noting that he is required for security purposes to use the bureau jet even for personal trips and consistently reimburses the government for private travels.

"Kash himself has significantly limited personal travel — but he's allowed to take personal time on occasion to see family, friends or his longtime girlfriend. He doesn't do it often," Williamson posted on X in November. "He works far more full weekends than he does otherwise. And maybe most importantly — ask anyone who works for him, he's on duty 24/7 regardless."

Even so, it's long been a sensitive issue for the FBI and Justice Department. The department's inspector general, for instance, last year faulted a since-retired FBI assistant director for taking government-paid trips to the official's "bucket list" countries — travel that the watchdog said did include some professional meetings but also consisted of days of beach resort stays.

And in 1993, President Bill Clinton fired then-FBI Director William Sessions after a harshly critical report alleged that he had "abused government travel for personal purposes."

Patel, for his part, has said he complies with all policies, saying in a podcast interview in December that he travels "under the rules that have been established by the prior 20 years of Congress, DOJ and FBI."

A raucous celebration

The latest kerfuffle started last week with media coverage indicating that Patel would be in Italy for the final days of the Olympics.

Williamson responded to the reports by saying on social media that the trip was not personal in nature, had been planned months ago, would include meetings with a cross-section of officials and was consistent with the FBI's "major role" in Olympics security.

Once in Italy, Patel posted pictures of his visit to the Milan Joint Operations Center, which he said was charged with protecting the security of American athletes and all those who traveled to Milan for the Winter Games. He also posted a photo of his meeting with the U.S. ambassador to Italy.

He was in Italy on Sunday as the FBI, in the United States, was investigating the intrusion at Mar-a-Lago and continuing its search for Nancy Guthrie, kidnapped from her Arizona home weeks ago. Other concerns confronting American officials that day included an eruption of violence in Mexico and the potential of a Trump administration attack on Iran.

While the hockey game was still underway, Patel posted on X that the FBI was dedicating all necessary resources to the Mar-a-Lago investigation.

Later in the day, videos surfaced showing the FBI director, in a long-sleeve white USA shirt, partaking in the festive locker room celebration and holding out a cell phone as Trump speaks to the exuberant team. Patel, meanwhile, posted on his X account pictures of himself with the team, including one showing him holding an unfurled American flag and another in the locker room.

By Monday, he resumed more of his standard work-related content, sharing posts on social media about falling crime numbers.

Ha Ha

 

Declines? They mean FUCK YOU ORANGE TURD!

US women’s hockey team declines Trump’s State of the Union invite, citing scheduling

By Betsy Klein

The gold medal-winning US Olympic women’s hockey team has declined an invitation to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, citing scheduling issues.

The invite came after Trump regaled the US men’s team by phone Sunday as the players celebrated their historic Olympic victory, even offering to send a military plane to bring them to Washington, DC.

“We’re giving the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. I could send a military plane or something, if you would like to. It’s the coolest night. It’s the biggest speech,” the president — over a speakerphone held by FBI Director Kash Patel in the locker room — said to raucous cheers and shouts of “we’re in.”

Trump added: “I must tell you, we’re gonna have to bring the women’s team — you do know that.” If they weren’t invited, the president said, “I do believe I probably would be impeached, OK?”

Members of the team laughed. The moment — and the players’ response —prompted significant backlash on social media.

Both the men’s and women’s hockey teams were formally invited to attend Trump’s address Tuesday, according to a spokesperson for the women’s team. It is not clear whether the male athletes will follow through on the plans, but the women have declined the invitation.

“We are sincerely grateful for the invitation extended to our gold medal-winning U.S. Women’s Hockey Team and deeply appreciate the recognition of their extraordinary achievement,” the team spokesperson said in a statement.

“Due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games, the athletes are unable to participate. They were honored to be included and are grateful for the acknowledgment.”

The men’s team, which was traveling back to the US from Italy, did not immediately respond to CNN’s inquiry on whether they would attend the speech. The White House did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

Both American teams secured Olympic gold in extraordinary games against Canada, the women 2-1 in overtime on Thursday and the men in their own 2-1 overtime win Sunday.

Jack Hughes, who scored the men’s game-winning goal, said one of his first thoughts was women’s team star Megan Keller.

“The first person I thought of was Megan Keller, who had the gold medal goal the other night,” the New Jersey Devils center said in an interview moments after his win, recalling running into Keller in the Olympic cafeteria after the women’s victory.

“I saw her in the (cafeteria), and I just said how happy and proud I am of their group and that was one of my first thoughts, was her.”

Neither Olympic team has much time to soak in their victories as they return to their professional and college-level hockey teams. The Professional Women’s Hockey League resumes its season Thursday, and the National Hockey League resumes on Wednesday.

The women’s team most recently won gold in PyeongChang during Trump’s first term. They were among the athletes invited to the White House in April 2018 as part of a broader Olympic celebration. The men’s win was the first since the 1980 “Miracle on Ice.”

Won’t Be as Tacky?

Trump Business Partner Promises New Tower Won’t Be as Tacky as Australians Fear

“It’s tasteful and expensive.”

Russ Choma

Donald Trump’s newest business partner is assuring Australians that the Trump Tower he’s building Down Under won’t be nearly as tacky as they fear.

On Monday, David Young—who runs the Queensland-based Altus Property Group—announced that the $1 billion Gold Coast development would contain 91 floors, 270 apartments, and a “6-star” resort. It will briefly be the continent’s tallest building, though a neighboring property, already approved for construction, will quickly surpass it. Young said his deal with the Trump Organization was signed earlier this month at Mar-a-Lago.

It’s just the latest foreign business entanglement from the Trump Organization, which is run by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. but is still owned by the president. Recently, the Trump brand has launched real estate projects in Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

Importantly, Young wants to make clear that the Australian development won’t actually be ugly. In a statement trumpeting the deal, he noted there were certain “misconceptions” about Trump properties.

“Firstly, the file footage that Australians see, of Trump hotels and resorts with gaudy gold-plated bathrooms fixtures, mirrors and heavy chandeliers, is old footage from the 1980s and 90s,” Young said. “The modern Trump package is high-end design and fit outs, with a premium feel. It’s tasteful and expensive – when you walk into a modern Trump property, the impression is ‘quality’ and ’boutique.'”

According to Young, the new property “will follow the same Trump design manual” as the ongoing Trump projects in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Based on renderings in an Instagram post from Eric Trump, it will also be very large and gold-colored.

The terms of the deal are not clear. Trump has historically licensed his brand to foreign partners, with upfront payments for the use of his name, followed by years of royalties and a management deal, under which the Trump Organization gets paid to run properties. In his statement, Young specified that the project would be Australian-owned and built. “It is an Altus subsidiary, Altus Resorts Pty Ltd, that makes the decisions on the fit-out, within the Trump design requirements,” he said. “It will be an Australian, not American, project. It won’t have a Four Seasons or Ritz Carlton brand above the front door, but it will say ‘Trump.'”

Still, the magnates involved in the deal hail from places far beyond Australia and Florida. Young disclosed in his statement that the financing would come from unnamed investors in Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE, and the United States. Meanwhile, it appears that the property the building will be built on is currently owned by a casino titan from Macau.

Neither the Trump Organization nor Altus responded to requests for comment on the terms of the deal or the identity of the investors.

Epstein Files Reveal Lutnick Had Years-Long Business Tie

New Details From Epstein Files Reveal Lutnick Had Years-Long Business Tie With Sex Offender

The commerce secretary apparently still hasn’t come clean on his connection with Epstein.

Noah Lanard

There’s more bad news for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the Epstein files: Previously unreported documents show he hasn’t been accurate—or, perhaps, honest—about the extent of his business ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Lutnick has had a big problem since the trove was released last month. He previously insisted he and his wife cut ties with Epstein in 2005, after they moved next door to Epstein’s mansion in New York City. In an interview last year, Lutnick said that Epstein had given them an unsettling tour of his home and that he vowed he would “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.”

But the files showed that Lutnick and his family visited Epstein on his private island in 2012, that Epstein in 2017 donated $50,000 to a charity dinner honoring Lutnick, and that the following year the two communicated about countering an expansion of a neighboring museum.

Earlier this month, CBS News revealed more on their connection by reporting that Lutnick and Epstein each signed a contract in 2012—four years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes—to invest in a digital ad technology company called AdFin Solutions Inc. The deal was dated just five days after Lutnick and his family visited Epstein on his private island. Lutnick signed on behalf of a limited liability company controlled by Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment firm where he served as CEO.

Lutnick’s camp has tried to minimize his involvement with Epstein through their shared investment in AdFin. A spokesperson for the Commerce Department told CBS News, “Secretary Lutnick had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing.” And a source close to Lutnick told the network that Cantor was “a small minority investor” in the venture. This source added that at “the time of doing the deal, as a minority investor, Mr. Lutnick would not have any knowledge of who the other investors were.”  

That is misleading. Emails and documents in the massive Epstein release not yet reported reveal that Lutnick went on to become a prominent figure in AdFin—not merely a minority investor—and that he and his company were financially interconnected with Epstein in the venture for at least six years. They also show that Cantor essentially took over AdFin, as Epstein played a role as an investor in the struggling firm. It is highly improbable that Lutnick did not know Epstein was a key shareholder.

The Department of Commerce did not respond to a request for comment. Cantor Fitzgerald did not respond to a request for comment.

An email exchange from May 28, 2018, shows “HWL” (Lutnick’s middle name is William) discussing AdFin with Epstein—an apparent sign that Lutnick was aware of Epstein’s involvement in the company and that he maintained a business relationship with Epstein far longer than he has acknowledged.

In this exchange, the two discussed AdFin’s status. Epstein asked HWL, “what do you think the prospects for adfin are?” In an email marked “confidential” and “the sole property of Cantor Fitzgerald LP and its affiliates,” HWL replied, “Producing revenue finally. This is their year. Next 12 months they need to become economically self sufficient.”

HWL and Epstein in these emails also had a friendly discussion about real estate, including a reference to a property HWL called “pierre.” (Lutnick bought the penthouse in the Pierre Hotel in 2017.) Epstein asked, “i can buy my guest house?” HWL responded, “Haven’t even picked an architect/designer yet.”

The documents in the Epstein files about the AdFin deal were uncovered by a British whistleblower who has asked to remain unidentified. He is a former managing director at BGC Financial, an affiliate of Cantor Fitzgerald, who has been in an employment dispute with BGC in the United States, claiming he faced retaliation for reporting to financial regulators wrongdoing at the firm. After he filed whistleblower reports with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding BGC Financial, the CFTC imposed a $3 million sanction in 2019 on BGC for “numerous supervision, reporting, and recordkeeping violations.”

The AdFin deal started at the end of 2012 with a stock purchase agreement for the firm that both Lutnick and Epstein signed on behalf of corporate entities they controlled. It included a schedule of purchases for each of the eight investors in the coming year. In April 2013, Epstein, through his Southern Trust Company, put in $500,000. In July, he invested another $125,000. As part of that investment round, Lutnick invested $350,000 through CVAFH I LLC. The parent company for this firm was Cantor Fitzgerald. By March 2017, Epstein’s investment in AdFin would be up to $875,000, according to his own records.

At the end of 2013, Lutnick’s company became more deeply involved in AdFin when it loaned the company $2 million. Epstein was one of the three non-Cantor shareholders who had to approve the loan—and he did, signing an agreement that was also signed by a Cantor official who served as the CFO of CVAFH I.

In January 2014, David Mitchell, a real estate developer and another investor in the company, emailed Epstein to share additional details about the funding from Cantor. Because of the loan, Cantor was now in a position to gain a board seat at AdFin, Mitchell wrote. But Mitchell also reminded Epstein that he, Epstein, and a founder of AdFin could work together as a group that “could block certain actions of the Company.” In short, Lutnick’s company was gaining a larger stake in AdFin, but Epstein would remain an influential investor in the firm. (Mitchell did not respond to a request for comment.)

Epstein continued to keep an eye on the investment. In one 2014 email to an unidentified recipient, he called the firm, which was offering technology to track digital ads, “very tomorw” and noted it would be a “great internship.”

By July 2015, according to an archived page of AdFin’s website, Lutnick was listed as one of five “board members/investors” at the company. Epstein was not cited on this list—though he had retained his shares in the firm.

In February 2016, Mitchell sent a letter to AdFin investors informing them that Cantor was investing another $1,750,000 in the company and that “the shares that you purchased a number of years ago will be diluted.” He wrote, “Personally, I feel very badly that this happened as I introduced you to this investment to co-invest alongside me.” A chart accompanying the letter noted that Epstein’s holdings in the firm would decrease from 8.8 percent of the shares to 5.6 percent.

An addendum to the letter from Mitchell said that Cantor would control the board of directors, and Lutnick would join the board. “Cantor will effectively control decision-making power at the Board and stockholder level,” it noted, adding that AdFin “will be majority owned by Cantor.”

In February 2018, AdFin asked if Epstein’s Southern Trust would be interested in an additional investment in the firm alongside a new injection of funds from Cantor. But Epstein wanted out. He emailed his accountant, Richard Kahn, and said, “you can tell them we are a seller at cost. 875 and we are out”—a reference to his investment of $875,000 in the firm. At that time, Epstein was the third largest investor in AdFin.

Kahn expressed Epstein’s interest in selling his AdFin shares in an email to the company’s CEO. He added, “can you please communicate [this] to existing investors”—which would have included Lutnick and Cantor.

Nothing happened right away. Six weeks later, AdFin’s CEO wrote Kahn, “sorry for the delay. We were trying to get a response from Howard and Jonathan on your ask, but there is apparently no interest at this time on the sale of your interest.” After that, Mitchell told Epstein there was an offer of $100,000 for Epstein’s shares. He added, “I need to get him up to a rational number that at least gets you back your investment.” Epstein replied, “ok i can wait, we have 875 in.”

On May 2o, 2018, Lutnick contacted Epstein to ask if he was aware that a renovation of the Frick Collection on the Upper East Side would “block our park views.” He added, “What should we do about it? Time is of the essence.” Epstein’s assistant wrote back that Epstein “was not aware…thank you for letting us know.”

A week later, Lutnick asked Epstein to “Write a letter and send a lawyer” to delay or stop the Frick expansion. Epstein responded through an intermediary, “WILL DO!”

The same day, Epstein wrote an email saying, “tell your lawyer that darren my lawyer will contact him.” In response, the HWL account replied, “Meeting is tomorrow morning,” presumably referring to a meeting about the proposed museum renovation.

That was the day Epstein directly asked HWL about the “prospects for adfin,” and HWL provided an optimistic assessment, noting it was finally producing revenue, adding, “This is their year.”

That was not to be. AdFin shut down in October 2019, three months after Epstein was arrested on federal sex crime charges and two months after he died in prison.

Supreme Court checks Trump

‘I feel vindicated’: Anti-tariff Republicans cheer as Supreme Court checks Trump

Speaker Mike Johnson and other key GOP leaders did not immediately weigh in on the ruling Friday.

By Meredith Lee Hill

Republican tariff skeptics on Capitol Hill celebrated Friday after the Supreme Court struck down the core authority behind President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs — dealing a blow to a major plank of the president’s agenda but offering a welcome off-ramp to GOP lawmakers who viewed the levies as a political loser.

Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) broke with Trump and GOP leaders a week ago to help overturn Trump’s Canada tariffs. On Friday, he hailed the “common sense ruling” by the high court that essentially invalidates those and many other tariffs.

“The checks and balances our Constitution puts in place works,” Bacon said in an interview Friday morning shortly after the decision, adding, “I feel vindicated.”

Another Republican who backed the effort to overturn the Canada tariffs, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, also praised the ruling.

“On its face, this case was obvious, because the Constitution vests the power to tax with the legislative branch, not the Executive branch,” Massie said in a text message. “No contrived emergency can undo that.”

Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped any praise or criticism of the ruling, saying that Trump’s tariffs had “brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” he said in a statement.

Johnson later Friday postponed a trade briefing for a group of House Republicans, including tariff skeptics, that he had scheduled for Monday evening, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private plans.

The lawmakers were set to meet in the speaker’s office with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who has played a lead role in assuaging wary Republicans about Trump’s sweeping tariff regime as Democrats push to bring the matter to the House floor. A staffer in the speaker’s office said a new date and time for the discussion would be set “soon.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) in a statement said his members would “continue working with the administration and our colleagues in the House to advance our shared goal to strengthen rural America, including South Dakota’s farm and ranch communities, and the broader U.S. economy.”

But Trump, during a news conference Friday afternoon, made clear he had no interest in engaging Congress further on the matter. In announcing his plans to slap a new “10% global tariff” on goods coming into the U.S., Trump said he would not ask lawmakers to take additional action: “I don’t need to. It’s already been approved. I mean — I would ask Congress and probably get it.”

He added, “I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs.”

In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump appeared visibly upset at the decision, according to two people in the room granted anonymity to describe the private event, cutting short remarks he was delivering to governors upon hearing the news at a White House breakfast Friday morning.

“He was not happy. He got the info in real time,” one of the people said.

The ruling comes just four days before Trump is set to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and an audience that will include the Supreme Court justices who rebuffed the cornerstone of his economic and foreign policy agendas. Trump said during his Friday news conference that the six justices who ruled against his tariffs were “barely” invited to the address and “I couldn’t care less if they come.”

A few GOP backers of the tariffs quickly spoke out, with Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio decrying the ruling as “outrageous” and saying it “handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades.”

“These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win,” Moreno added in a social media post Friday.

The ruling also prompted tough questions for both parties about what comes next. Bacon indicated the decision could put an end to a flood of additional tariff disapproval votes headed to the House floor in the coming weeks.

“We’ll see if it’s necessary,” he said.

But House Democrats could keep hammering Republicans on the topic in the weeks ahead. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Foreign Affairs Committee Democrat who has orchestrated the tariff disapproval votes, said he would “continue to review the SCOTUS ruling to assess future legislative steps,” though there are no plans at the moment to force additional disapproval votes next week, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy.

Senate Democrats, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss private strategy, are waiting to see how Trump responds to the decision before determining whether to force more votes disapproving of individual emergency declarations.

Democrats in the Senate had hoped to put up the House-passed Canada resolution for a vote in the coming weeks, but there are ongoing internal conversations over whether it qualifies for special fast-track procedures allowing for a quick simple-majority vote, according to a second person granted anonymity to describe the matter.

Other Democrats said further action was needed to forestall the Trump administration from sidestepping the ruling, possibly by invoking separate national security powers. Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs the House Democratic campaign arm and sits on the chamber’s main trade panel, noted that the White House “has promised to use other avenues to maintain these illegal tariffs.”

“Congress must step up to put an end to this chaos and protect our economy,” she added.

Asked about the prospect of Trump trying to implement his tariffs through other avenues, Bacon said, “I think they’ll try, but it would not be advisable.” Friday’s ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts broadly defended Congress’ sole power under the Constitution to levy taxes.

Congress might also end up having to wrangle with the question of whether refunds are due to businesses or consumers who paid levies now found to be illegal.

“The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted in a statement. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.”

Some Republicans are also urging congressional action in response to the ruling, with Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, who chairs the Select Committee on China, pressing for a revocation of Beijing’s permanent normal trade relations status.

But to the handful of GOP lawmakers who stuck to their free-trade guns as Trump unleashed his global tariff campaign, the overwhelming sentiment has been relief and praise for the high court.

Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), who joined Bacon and Massie in opposing the Canada tariffs last week, said in an interview that the ruling was “an example of our institution working” and called on Congress to set trade policy in concert with Trump.

“We need to make sure that when it comes to trade policy that we have stability and predictability,” he said. “And the way that we get that predictability and stability is through congressional action.”

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated the confirmations of several justices who participated in the ruling in his former role as Republican leader, said the justices “reaffirmed authority that has rested with Congress for centuries.”

“If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear,” he said in a statement. “Convince their representatives under Article 1” of the Constitution.

Later died by suicide??? Don't think so.....

Tony Gonzales faces mounting pressure from GOP women over affair allegations

Speaker Mike Johnson is also pressing the Texas Republican to address his relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide.

By Meredith Lee Hill

Three prominent House Republican women called on GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales to step down Monday, applying major new pressure on the Texas lawmaker to address accusations that he had an affair with his staffer who later died by suicide.

Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado became the first Republican lawmaker to call for Gonzales’ resignation, followed by Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who were both prompted to speak out by the release of new alleged text messages between the lawmaker and his subordinate.

Separately Monday, in his first comments on the matter, Speaker Mike Johnson called the allegations “very serious” but declined to call for further action as investigations into Gonzales play out. Rep. Brandon Gill, a fellow Texas Republican, also called for Gonzales to end his reelection bid.

Gonzales, who is in his third term representing a potentially competitive south Texas district, has previously denied having an improper relationship with the staffer, Regina Santos-Aviles, who died after lighting herself on fire in September.

The sordid allegations have come under intense public scrutiny in recent weeks as Gonzales faces a heated primary election, fueling widespread speculation about his future in politics as he faces a potential ethics investigation.

Gonzales’ office did not respond to messages seeking comment Monday on the recent comments from his colleagues.

Boebert told POLITICO that newly released text messages published in media outlets underscore the need for Gonzales to resign, saying they “seemingly show a perverted boss drunkenly coercing a vulnerable staffer into explicit conversations, pressing her for ‘sexy pics,’ asking about her favorite sexual positions.”

POLITICO has not independently reviewed the messages.

“This kind of abuse of power has no place anywhere, let alone in Congress, and Tony Gonzales should be ashamed and RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!” Boebert said.

Luna said on X that “every single other Member of Congress … should be condemning a sitting Member of Congress asking for explicit photos of their staff.”

“As a woman, this is really disgusting to see. Not to mention, it brings dishonor on the House of Representatives. I am so sick of people not calling this crap out,” Luna added.

Mace called the texts “disgusting and inexcusable” and said Congress should “have ZERO tolerance for those who abuse their power over others.”

In comments to reporters Monday, Johnson said Gonzales must “address” the allegations with his constituents. But the speaker, who is struggling to maintain a razor-thin GOP majority, did not pull his endorsement of the Texas Republican with the primary just eight days away — in keeping with handling of other personal controversies faced by his members.

“I endorsed Tony before all these allegations came out — they’re obviously very serious,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “And I’ve spoken with him and told him he’s got to address that in the appropriate way with his constituents, and all of that.”

Luna and Boebert were among a group of House Republican women who have criticized how top House GOP leaders, mostly men, have approached allegations of sexual misconduct — including, for Boebert and Mace, the effort to keep the Justice Department’s Jeffrey Epstein files under wraps.

Both were outraged at how Johnson and other GOP leaders handled an unsuccessful Democratic effort recently to censure Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) over now-retracted allegations of domestic assault and improper dealings with his arms company. Mills has denied the allegations, which remain under Ethics Committee review.

Johnson told reporters Monday he is handling the Gonzales matter in line with other allegations of misconduct, including those surrounding then Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), who was expelled from the House over Johnson’s objections in 2023 ahead of a formal ethics trial.

“You have to let the system play out,” he said. “If the accusation of something is going to be the litmus test for someone being able to continue to serve in the House, we’ll have a lot of people who would have to resign or be removed or expelled from Congress.”

More House Republican women are reading the purported text messages between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles, and two women lawmakers granted anonymity to comment on the sensitive situation said it’s likely Johnson will come under more internal pressure to take action against Gonzales.

Johnson said he understood that the Office of Congressional Conduct is investigating Gonzales as well as Texas state authorities. Mills also remains subject to a House ethics investigation.

More recently, he has accused Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, of engaging in a blackmail effort as he has given interviews criticizing Gonzales and released text messages between the lawmaker, who is a 45-year-old married father of six, and Santos-Aviles, who was 35.

An attorney for Aviles, Bobby Barrera, did not immediately return a call for comment. Barrera has publicly denied the blackmail accusation, explaining that he was attempting to recover damages through a potential lawsuit on behalf of Aviles.

One key player who has not weighed in on Gonzales is President Donald Trump, who endorsed him in December as Republicans face pressure to hold on to his must-win seat. Trump this weekend withdrew his endorsement for one House Republican — Rep. Jeff Hurd of Colorado, who voted down Trump’s Canada tariffs last week — but has stayed silent as the Gonzales scandal swirls.

Another issue facing Gonzales: GOP hardliners in Congress have been trying to replace him with a more hard-right Republican on immigration for years now. And Monday, the Freedom Caucus’ campaign arm officially endorsed his GOP primary challenger, Brandon Herrera, for a second time.

Herrera only lost to Gonzales by several hundred votes in 2022. He is now calling on Gonzales to step down and for congressional Republicans to rescind their support for the incumbent. Gonzales has countered that his opponent is fueling what he says are false allegations.

Trump, meanwhile, is facing intraparty pressure to distance himself from Gonzales, with far-right influencer Laura Loomer recently calling on social media for Trump to rescind his endorsement of Gonzales.

Refuse to make 2024 mistakes

Dems refuse to make 2024 mistakes in the wake of tariff ruling

The party is betting that a strong economic message will resonate better than emphasizing that the president is violating the law with his trade agenda.

By Samuel Benson and Alec Hernandez

The Supreme Court’s tariff decision left the door wide open for Democrats to hammer President Donald Trump for violating the law. This time, they’re not taking the bait.

Instead, Democratic campaigns are leaning into an argument they have been making for months: Trump’s tariffs are coming out of voters’ pockets. Some Democrats can’t help but hit the tariffs as “unlawful,” but they’re pivoting quickly back to affordability.

“The decision is a significant development, but prices are still high for folks across the country, and the administration is determined to keep them high,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.,) chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We are laser focused on affordability and holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families across the country.”

She said Democrats’ message would have been the same, regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

It’s a striking shift from the party’s strategy in 2024, when candidates took every opportunity to warn voters that a second Trump term would create lawlessness and threaten America’s democracy. Even after the nation’s highest court struck down a key plank in the president’s policy agenda, Democrats are eschewing talk of legal intricacies or executive overreach for a focus on the cost of living.

In Washington and in battlegrounds around the country, Democratic lawmakers, governors and candidates are folding the Court’s check of Trump’s executive authority into their continued argument that tariffs are raising the price of groceries and household expenses. Congress is newly considering legislation on refunding tariff revenue to American small businesses, though Speaker Mike Johnson threw cold water on its chances of advancing.

Even Democrats who are pushing a more aggressive message — that Trump “stole” from voters’ pockets — are tying it to affordability for American households, not abuse of power from the White House.

“Donald Trump stole your money with his illegal tariffs — and you paid higher prices on everything from housing to groceries,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

Voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, even as job growth and inflation numbers improve. Democrats targeting vulnerable incumbent Republicans from Colorado to Minnesota think they’ve found a winning message: Tariffs are making your life unaffordable, whether they’re legal or not.

“People aren’t going to care whether that’s under an IEEPA regulation or Section 122,” said Gabe Horwitz, senior vice president at center-left group Third Way. “The fact is, the Trump administration continues to push tariffs that hurt consumers.”

Democratic operatives point to a series of off-cycle victories late last year in New Jersey, Virginia and elsewhere, where candidates made cost-of-living central to their pitch. And a torrent of polling suggests Trump’s tariffs are unpopular with the electorate. In a November POLITICO Poll, a 45 percent plurality of Americans said higher tariffs are damaging the U.S. economy — in both the short and long term.

“Prices are increasing, and any time Trump gives us an opportunity to say something happened in the news today — and that is another point of proof that he’s making things more expensive — is a good day for Democrats,” said Andrew Mamo, a Democratic strategist involved in 2026 congressional races, including the Texas Democratic Senate primary. “Every time there is an event that we can bring back to affordability is good.”

There’s also a growing push to send tariff revenue back to consumers, which Democrats believe plays perfectly into their affordability message.

Reps. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) and Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), who both represent battleground districts, introduced legislation Friday that would require Customs and Border Patrol to refund tariffs collected over the past year to small and independent businesses. A group of Democratic senators — led by Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire — introduced a similar bill Monday with the backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The legislation is likely a nonstarter in the GOP-controlled Congress, but gives Democrats a way to put pressure on Republicans.

“When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you, they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year,” Horsford said in an interview.

It follows calls from several Democratic governors — and 2028 contenders — who quickly seized on the debate about refunds in their responses to last week’s court decision.

Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois demanded the federal government refund families $1,700 per household. California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters that Trump has an “obligation” to return the money to consumers who paid more for goods as a result of the tariffs.

“He took hundreds of billions of dollars from working folks — from the ag community, from small businesses — for this vanity play, this illegal action,” Newsom said Friday.

At least one Democrat in a key Senate race is also embracing the demand for a tariff refund. Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is trying to unseat Jon Husted, said on X that he wanted a refund for every Ohio household and that Husted supported the tariffs “at every turn.”

Providing direct relief to consumers is resonating beyond highly engaged Democratic online circles more so than pointing out the illegality of Trump’s tariffs, said Parker Butler, a Democratic digital strategist and managing partner at Luminary Strategies.

“Pointing out the fact that, ‘See, look, Trump did something illegal’ — obviously that’s worth doing, because he did do something illegal,” said Butler, who ran KamalaHQ in 2024 and now leads digital for James Talarico’s Senate campaign in Texas. “But unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to permeate outside these sort of online political bubbles. If you want to actually break through beyond that bubble, which is what Democrats need to be doing, you can say, ‘Trump owes you money. He’s been illegally taxing you for nearly a year.’”

Trump has only doubled down on his tariff plans in the wake of the court decision, saying Friday that he would use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 15 percent global tariff. But that would expire after 150 days unless Congress extends it — a vote that could squeeze vulnerable members just months before the November midterm.

Vulnerable Republicans and GOP strategists who quietly cheered the Friday court decision are worried that they’re heading into a heated, economy-focused election on their back foot.

Meanwhile, Democrats see the president’s insistence on keeping his tariff program alive as fuel for their affordability message.

“We can’t communicate episodically. We need to be communicating constantly,” said Will Robinson, a Democratic consultant and ad-maker. “I think the theoretical thing about the Supreme Court and tariffs is less impactful than what’s actually going on in the grocery basket.”

Americans sour?

Americans sour on Trump ahead of State of the Union, polls find

New polls show the president’s approval rating falling among Democrats and independents, though it remains strong among Republicans.

By Cheyanne M. Daniels

President Donald Trump is facing abysmal approval ratings as he prepares to address the nation on Tuesday, according to a series of new polling released this week.

Only 39 percent of Americans approve of the way Trump is handling the job of president, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released on Sunday. The poll also found that 47 percent of Americans “strongly disapprove” of Trump.

His disapproval is rising among independents, in particular. In a separate CNN survey released on Monday, only 26 percent of independents surveyed approve of his handling of the presidency — a 15 point drop from a February 2025 poll.

When it comes to some of the administration’s key priorities, respondents also disapprove of Trump’s approach.

Fifty-eight percent of adults in the Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll said they disapprove of the way Trump is handling immigration — once his signature issue — while 57 percent said they disapprove of the way Trump is managing the economy. Sixty-five percent said they disapprove of the way he is handling inflation and 64 percent said they disapprove of the way he is dealing with tariffs.

Only 38 percent of adults said Trump’s policies are moving the country in the right direction, according to the CNN poll.

In a statement, White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle said the “ultimate poll” was on Election Day in 2024.

“The ultimate poll was November 5th 2024 when nearly 80 million Americans overwhelmingly elected President Trump to deliver on his popular and commonsense agenda,” Ingle said. “The President has already made historic progress not only in America but around the world. It is not surprising that President Trump remains the most dominant figure in American politics.”

Trump on Monday also appeared to dismiss recent polling showing Americans’ disapproval.

“I had polls for the election that showed I was going to get swamped, and I won in a landslide,” Trump said during a ceremony at the White House. “They were fake polls. I saw [a fake poll] today, that I’m at 40 percent. I’m not at 40 percent. I’m at much higher than that. I mean I’d love to run against anybody. The real polls say you’d kill anybody, it wouldn’t even be close.”

Trump’s low approval ratings come as he is set to address the nation from the Capitol on Tuesday in his State of the Union address. Polling from NPR/PBS/Marist University released on Monday shows that 57 percent of Americans think the state of the union is not very strong or not strong at all.

The disapproval is split along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats saying the state of the union is not strong and 77 percent of Republicans saying it is “on solid ground.”

Democrats and independents also agree that the nation is worse off today than it was last year. The NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that six-in-ten respondents — including 90 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents — say the nation is worse off than it was a year ago. Conversely, 82 percent of Republicans think the country is better off now than it was last year.

More than half of the respondents told CNN that they would like Trump to address the economy or cost of living during his speech on Tuesday.

While Trump’s approval rating among Republicans remains strong, there has been a bit of a dip. In the CNN survey, 82 percent of Republicans approved of the job he was doing, down 8 points from a year ago. And the Washington Post survey found that 48 percent of Republicans “approve strongly” of his performance, down from 63 percent a year ago.

The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll was conducted Feb. 12-17 among 2,589 adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The CNN poll of 2,496 adults was conducted by SSRS from February 17-20, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll of 1,462 adults was conducted January 27-30, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

For each survey, smaller subgroups would have a larger margin of error.