Tag: Politics

What to Know About Trump’s New 15% Global Tariff on Imports
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a defiant stand against judicial overreach and global trade imbalances that have hollowed out American manufacturing for decades, President Donald Trump has pivoted swiftly from the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling against his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs. Far from a defeat, this is a rallying cry for America First economics. On Friday, Trump unveiled a fresh arsenal of trade tools, starting with a 10% global tariff on imports—bumped to 15% just a day later—under the long-underutilized Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
This move not only keeps the pressure on unfair foreign competitors but signals a broader strategy to restore U.S. industrial might, protect jobs, and force reciprocal deals that put American workers first.
The high court’s 6-3 decision, handed down Friday, struck down Trump’s innovative use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on nearly all countries. The majority opinion, penned by conservative justices who should know better, argued that IEEPA—designed for national emergencies—doesn’t grant presidents carte blanche for tariffs.
Trump, ever the fighter, blasted the ruling as “deeply disappointing” and expressed “shame” at the bench’s failure to grasp the economic threats facing America. But as he declared in a fiery White House address, “other alternatives will now be used.” And use them he did.

This isn’t retreat; it’s reload. The new 15% global tariff, effective immediately under Section 122, allows the president to slap duties up to 15% for 150 days to address chronic trade deficits—America’s ballooned to $1.1 trillion in 2025, per U.S. Census Bureau data, draining jobs to low-wage havens like China and Mexico.
Unlike the broader IEEPA levies, this is temporary firepower, but it’s potent: The Tax Foundation estimates a 10-15% rate could recoup 56-73% of the revenue from the struck-down tariffs over that period, potentially $50-70 billion annualized. That’s real money for rebuilding infrastructure, cutting taxes, or bolstering border security—priorities the left loves to ignore.
Trade experts applaud the agility. Patrick Childress, a former counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, told Forbes: “The U.S. Government has the authority it needs to try to recreate the IEEPA tariff regime if it chooses to do so.” Sure, it might “take some time,” but Trump’s team is already moving: Probes under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act—targeting unfair practices like subsidies and IP theft—are launching, potentially hitting Chinese tech and European autos.
Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which Trump wielded masterfully for steel and aluminum (still in place, unaffected by the ruling), will expand to more sectors deemed national security risks—think semiconductors, rare earths, and EVs flooding from Beijing.
Then there’s the nuclear option: Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, untapped for nearly a century, empowers up to 50% duties on nations discriminating against U.S. businesses. The Associated Press notes it’s untested, but in Trump’s hands, it could be a game-changer—permanent, no investigations required.
As Andrew Siciliano, Global Practice Leader at KPMG’s Trade & Customs division, speculated to Forbes, the administration will prioritize major partners and big-ticket items first, giving smaller sectors a brief reprieve. Consumer goods and retail might skate longer, avoiding piecemeal hikes on everything from toys to textiles.

US President Donald Trump during a news conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Feb. 20, 2026.
Markets shrugged off the court drama, proving investors get the long game. The Dow dipped just 0.8% Friday but rebounded 1.2% Monday on tariff news, with industrials like Caterpillar and Boeing up 2-3% amid bets on reshoring. S&P futures signal resilience, pricing in modest inflation bumps (0.5-1% annual CPI rise, per Moody’s Analytics) offset by manufacturing booms.
Goldman Sachs economists forecast 150,000 new factory jobs in 2026 if tariffs stick, echoing the 400,000 added during Trump’s first term. Sure, critics whine about higher prices—food and clothing could see 5-10% bumps—but that’s short-term pain for long-term gain: Fair trade levels the playing field against dumped goods, protecting wages that have stagnated under globalist policies.
Refunds for duties already paid? Likely, say legal eagles. Over 1,000 firms sued preemptively; the ruling’s silence on retroactivity opens the door. Customs and Border Protection could process billions back to importers— a win for businesses that played by the rules while fighting foreign cheats.
Flashback: Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, rolled out in April 2025 and fully effective by August after a market-jolting pause, were the boldest trade reset since Smoot-Hawley. They targeted imbalances sucking $900 billion annually from U.S. shores, per Commerce Department figures. Lower courts smacked them down; the Supremes followed suit. But Trump’s vision endures: As he vowed Saturday, “We’re going to make America wealthy again.”
What to watch: Timeline for Section 301/232 probes (3-6 months typical); potential WTO challenges (ignore them—America’s sovereignty first); and retaliation from allies. Europe and Canada might counterpunch, but Trump’s leverage—U.S. market access—is unmatched. China, nursing a 4% growth slump per IMF, can’t afford escalation.
This isn’t protectionism; it’s patriotism. Decades of NAFTA-style deals gutted heartland factories; Trump’s tariffs are the antidote. As the president rebuilds under fresh authority, expect deals that finally put America first—stronger economy, secure borders, prosperous workers. The court may have clipped one wing, but Trump’s flying higher than ever.
February 21, 2026
High Court Rules Trump Exceeded Authority With Worldwide Tariff Plan
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 decision that dealt a temporary blow to President Donald Trump’s bold trade agenda, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that the administration overstepped its bounds by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners. Chief Justice John Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not grant the president “unbounded” authority to levy peacetime tariffs at will, labeling it a “transformative expansion” of executive power.
Yet, in a display of unyielding resolve, Trump swiftly unveiled a robust backup plan, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative legal authorities and vowing to restore—and potentially exceed—the original rates that have already delivered billions in revenue and narrowed key trade deficits.
The ruling, which invalidated about 75% of the tariffs imposed in 2025—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemmed from a lawsuit by Learning Resources Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials. Justices sided with the company, emphasizing that Congress must explicitly delegate such broad tariff powers.
Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the administration’s IEEPA interpretation, though the liberal justices diverged on the application of the “major questions” doctrine. Dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito warned of chaos, including potential refunds of billions in collected duties—a “mess” that could burden taxpayers.
Trump, undeterred, wasted no time in countering the decision. At a White House press conference hours later, he declared the imposition of a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties to address trade imbalances for up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives,” Trump asserted. “We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it.” He also directed the U.S. Trade Representative to launch Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by several nations, paving the way for targeted tariffs post-probe—a process that could take months but ensures compliance with the ruling.

This nimble pivot highlights the enduring strength of Trump’s pro-America trade strategy, which has already yielded tangible wins. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday, U.S. tariffs narrowed the goods trade deficit with China by 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while slashing imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%). Overall, the U.S. trade deficit dipped 0.2% despite a surge in high-tech imports for AI investments, with tariffs generating $216 billion in revenue that helped shrink the federal budget deficit from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping global flows in America’s favor.
Critics, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Maya MacGuineas, decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in the debt fight, but proponents argue tariffs have revitalized manufacturing and jobs. The immediate post-ruling drop in effective tariff rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief for importers, but Trump’s plan aims to reclaim that ground. “The administration retains the ability to re-impose tariffs,” economists at Morgan Stanley observed, suggesting a “lighter-touch” recalibration could balance affordability with protectionism.
The decision injects uncertainty into global markets, with the S&P 500 dipping 0.8% Friday amid fears of refund lawsuits—potentially chaotic, as Justice Kavanaugh warned. Yet, Trump’s tariff threats have historically spurred deals, like those easing duties with allies.
As he eyes higher rates, the move reaffirms his commitment to fair trade, countering what he calls decades of exploitation. “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month—a sentiment echoed by supporters who see tariffs as essential for American sovereignty.
This ruling, while a setback, may ultimately fortify Trump’s legacy: proving tariffs’ efficacy in deficit reduction and revenue generation, even as legal hurdles force creative enforcement. As the administration ramps up investigations, the world watches—America first, tariffs intact.
February 21, 2026
Inside the Supreme Court’s Decision to Strike Down Trump’s Global Tariffs
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 ruling that exposed the limits of even a strong executive’s reach, the Supreme Court on Friday invalidated the bulk of President Donald Trump’s innovative global tariffs, deeming his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) an overstep without explicit congressional backing. Chief Justice John Roberts, penning the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not confer “unbounded” peacetime tariff authority, framing it as a potential “transformative expansion” of presidential power.
Yet, in a testament to Trump’s unyielding commitment to American economic sovereignty, the president swiftly pivoted, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative statutes and vowing to restore the protective measures that have already slashed trade deficits, generated billions in revenue, and revitalized U.S. manufacturing.
The decision, a rare check on Trump’s pro-America trade revolution, overturned about 75% of the 2025 tariffs—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemming from a lawsuit by educational materials maker Learning Resources Inc. Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized that Congress must clearly delegate such sweeping powers.
The liberal justices concurred but split on the “major questions” doctrine’s application, while dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito highlighted potential chaos from billions in refunds—a “mess” that could undermine fiscal gains.
Trump, ever the fighter, didn’t miss a beat. Emerging from a truncated meeting with governors—where he confided his inner fury at the “disgraceful” ruling—he held a defiant 45-minute White House press conference, dimming the lights for dramatic effect.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth—the two of them,” he said of Gorsuch and Barrett, two of his own appointees who sided against him. Praising the dissenters for their “strength and wisdom and love of our country,” Trump singled out Kavanaugh as a “genius.” He even quipped that the six majority justices were “barely invited” to the State of the Union, underscoring his frustration with a court he helped solidify as conservative.
Undaunted, Trump signed an executive order Friday night imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties for trade imbalances up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he declared.
The administration also launched Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by key partners, enabling targeted tariffs post-probe—a more deliberate but equally potent tool. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump affirmed, spinning the setback as a clarifying win that bolsters his arsenal.
This resilience highlights why tariffs remain a cornerstone of Trump’s America First doctrine. Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday showed the policy’s triumphs: The U.S. goods trade deficit with China plunged 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%) narrowed sharply.
Overall, the deficit dipped 0.2% despite AI-driven high-tech import surges, with tariffs raking in $216 billion—slashing the federal budget gap from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping flows in America’s favor and boosting domestic jobs.
Critics like Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in debt reduction, but proponents argue tariffs have been a fiscal boon, funding infrastructure without tax hikes. The immediate drop in effective rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief, but Trump’s plan promises restoration.
Morgan Stanley strategists Ariana Salvatore and Bradley Tian predict a “lighter-touch” approach could balance affordability with protectionism, reducing sudden shocks while concentrating on strategic sectors.
The ruling injects procedural hurdles—Section 301 probes take months—but economists at State Street Investment Management see it shifting risk to targeted, non-tariff measures like sanctions, enhancing precision in geopolitical contests. For Trump, facing midterms, it’s a chance to rally his base: “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” he posted on Truth Social last month. As the White House eyes congressional tweaks to IEEPA or new statutes, the decision may fortify tariffs’ legacy—proving their efficacy in deficit slashing and revenue generation, even amid legal battles.
Trump’s morning woes—Q4 2025 GDP growth slowed by shutdowns and spending dips—only amplified his defiance. “I’ve been waiting forever,” he lamented in Georgia Thursday, confident in his authority. With refunds looming but barriers high, the economic impulse leans positive: lower duties boost margins for import-heavy sectors, softening the dollar modestly. Yet, Trump’s vow for “higher” tariffs reaffirms his vision: a stronger, fairer America through bold trade action.
February 20, 2026
Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Throws $133 Billion Into Uncertainty, Strikes Down Key Trump Trade Policies
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a swath of President Trump’s tariffs, paving the way for businesses to try to reclaim billions of dollars.
The decision was a major blow for the Trump administration, which had said the money could be used to help pay down federal debt, fund rebate checks to Americans and bail out farmers hurt by tariffs. Trump even claimed that tariff revenues would be large enough to replace the need for income taxes.
On Friday, Trump panned the decision and said he would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under a different authority, “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”

Source: Treasury Department
Through mid-December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had brought in about $133.5 billion worth of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law that was struck down. Such tariffs accounted for about 67% of the tariffs collected in the 2025 fiscal year, which runs through September, and 57% of the tariffs collected between the end of September and Dec 14.
Altogether, including a host of miscellaneous duties not related to trade measures by the president, customs collected fees of about $202 billion in the 2025 fiscal year, about 2.4 times the total amount collected the previous year.

The Supreme Court didn’t provide guidance on whether, or how, tariffs would be refunded, likely leaving those issues to lower courts. Still, trade lawyers say that hundreds of firms have already filed lawsuits to increase their chances of clawing back money.
The president declared 10% across-the-board tariffs on all imports back in April, and imposed even higher rates on a slew of nations. His team branded these “reciprocal” tariffs, saying they were intended to ensure fair treatment for American companies and goods.
Trump walked back or delayed some of the threatened reciprocal tariffs. But the government was still able to collect significant sums from major trading partners using different tariffs also imposed under IEEPA. In regard to China, the president at one point slapped the nation with 125% “reciprocal” duties and added another 20% for the country’s alleged role in the fentanyl trade. The two tariffs were each lowered to 10% under a trade agreement later.
February 20, 2026
US Grants Two Licences Allowing Oil Majors to Restart Operations in Venezuela
he US has relaxed its sanctions on Venezuela’s energy sector by granting two general licences and allowing several global energy companies to resume operations and negotiate new contracts in the South American country. This decision follows the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces in early January 2026, reported Reuters.
The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued general licences to companies such as Chevron, bp, Eni, Shell and Repsol, enabling them to operate oil and gas projects in Venezuela. These companies are major partners of Venezuela’s state-run company PDVSA and maintain offices and stakes in Venezuelan projects.
The licences require payments for royalties and taxes to be routed through a US-controlled fund.
A separate licence allows international companies to engage with PDVSA for new investments.
However, these agreements necessitate additional permits from the OFAC and exclude transactions with entities in Russia, Iran or China.
A spokesperson of Chevron was quoted by the news agency as saying: “The new General Licenses, coupled with recent changes in Venezuela’s Hydrocarbons Law, are important steps towards enabling the further development of Venezuela’s resources for its people and for advancing regional energy security.”
Additionally, in a separate development, as reported by Reuters, India’s Reliance Industries has secured a general licence from the US, allowing it to purchase Venezuelan oil directly without breaching sanctions.

(Photograph: Reuters)
This move is expected to expedite Venezuela’s oil exports while helping Reliance replace Russian crude with discounted Venezuelan oil.
The issuance comes amid reports that India is shifting away from Russian oil purchases following President Donald Trump’s removal of a 25% tariff on Indian imports.
Earlier this year, Reliance acquired two million barrels of Venezuelan oil from trader Vitol, which also received US licences alongside Trafigura.
The relaxation of sanctions is part of a broader strategy to support economic recovery in Venezuela and foster responsible investment.
The US aims to revitalise Venezuela’s oil industry through a $100bn reconstruction plan and strengthen ties between Caracas and Washington.
The proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales are directed through a fund in Qatar before reaching the interim Venezuelan Government.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are currently evaluating potential re-entry into Venezuela after having their assets expropriated in 2007 under then-President Hugo Chavez.
While ExxonMobil considers Venezuela “uninvestable” at present, talks with the government continue while data is being gathered on the sector.
Last month, Venezuela reached an agreement with the US to export up to $2.8bn (1.1tn bolivars) worth of oil, according to President Trump.
February 16, 2026
Pentagon Flags Alibaba and BYD Over Alleged Chinese Military Links
The Pentagon has concluded that Alibaba and BYD should be added to a list of companies with alleged connections to the Chinese military, two months before Donald Trump is expected to meet Xi Jinping in Beijing.
The defence department posted an updated “Chinese Military Companies” list to the Federal Register on Friday morning. However, in a move that has led to confusion, the PDF was abruptly removed from the site following a request from the Pentagon, which did not provide any explanation. A defence official said the Pentagon would release the new list next week.
The decision to include Alibaba on what is formally known as the 1260H list comes three months after The Financial Times reported that US intelligence agencies believed the ecommerce giant posed a threat to national security.
The Pentagon will also add BYD, the world’s biggest electric-car maker, and Baidu, the search engine, to the 1260H list, which is mandated by Congress. While US-China trade tensions have eased since Trump and Xi met in South Korea in October, the addition of the marquee Chinese groups to the list will trigger fresh tension ahead of their summit in April.
In another point of friction, The Financial Times reported last week that the Trump administration is compiling a package of arms sales for Taiwan which could total $20bn after announcing a record $11.1bn package in November. Craig Singleton, an expert on US-China relations at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank, said the addition of the Chinese companies to the list was “mutually assured disruption in practice”.
“Even as tariff threats have cooled, tech, capital and security frictions keep heating up,” he said. “Releasing the list weeks before a leader-level summit shows deliberate compartmentalisation: stabilising trade talks while sustaining pressure in national security lanes.” Henrietta Levin, a US-China expert at the CSIS think-tank, said Beijing would be upset but the move was unlikely to derail the Trump-Xi summit.

“Chinese officials may lament how the administration is not doing enough to foster a ‘positive atmosphere’ ahead of the anticipated summit between Trump and Xi this spring,” Levin said. “But ultimately, Beijing is confident the results of this summit will favour Chinese interests, and they will not want to miss the opportunity to extract concessions from Trump.”
When the Pentagon makes a “Chinese Military Companies” designation, it signals that the US believes the groups have direct ties to the People’s Liberation Army or are involved in China’s military-civil fusion programme, which requires them to share technology with the Chinese military.
Inclusion on the Pentagon list does not have legal implications for most of the companies. But it creates reputational risk for them, particularly because it signals that the US may take punitive action in the future.
However, the Pentagon also put Chinese biotechnology company WuXi AppTec on the list, which will affect its operations in the US. Under the Biosecure Act, which was passed in December, the federal government is restricted from doing business with “biotechnology companies of concern”, which includes any entity on the 1260H list. But the act gives the government a five-year window to complete existing contracts and wind down arrangements with designated companies. The Pentagon does not publicly disclose many details about why a company has been added to the list.
But the China committee in the House of Representatives last year called for WuXi to be added, saying its management committee included members of the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences and PLA-run hospitals. WuXi AppTec contested its inclusion on the list. “We are not owned, controlled, or affiliated with any Chinese government agency or military institution. None of our board members or senior executive team has Chinese military or political party affiliation either,” the company said.
The Pentagon also added RoboSense, which makes AI-powered robotic technology, saying the Shenzhen-based group is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defence industrial base. It also included BOE Technology, a maker of display panels for computers and smartphones. John Moolenaar, the chair of the House China committee, in 2024 urged the Pentagon to add BOE to the list.
The defence department also removed two memory chipmakers — CXMT and YMTC — in an unexpected move. Michael Sobolik, a US-China expert at the Hudson Institute, said that given China’s commitment to military-civil fusion, it was unclear what would have changed to justify their removal.
“The reputational windfall for these companies could increase their chances of selling memory chips to American customers,” he said. “The administration is trying to break the nation’s reliance on China for critical minerals. Why would we risk opening up more dependencies?”
Alibaba is one of the highest-profile changes to the list. The NY Budgets reported in November that US intelligence believed it was providing technical support for Chinese military “operations” against targets in America.
According to a White House security memo, Alibaba also allegedly provides the Chinese government and PLA with access to customer data. Alibaba strongly rejected the allegations in the memo.
On Friday, Alibaba said there was “no basis” to conclude that it should be added to the list. “Alibaba is not a Chinese military company nor part of any military-civil fusion strategy. We will take all available legal action against attempts to misrepresent our company.”

Baidu said the Pentagon claim was “entirely baseless and no evidence has been produced that would prove otherwise”. It said it would “not hesitate to use all options available” to be removed from the list. BYD said any proposal to put it on the list was “completely unfounded”.
“BYD is not a Chinese military company, nor has it participated in any military-civil fusion strategy.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about why the Pentagon list was abruptly removed from the Federal Register.
February 14, 2026
Skeptical Researcher Tests Microwave Device on Himself, Develops Havana Syndrome–Like Symptoms
Working in strict secrecy, a government scientist in Norway built a machine capable of emitting powerful pulses of microwave energy and, in an effort to prove such devices are harmless to humans, in 2024 tested it on himself. He suffered neurological symptoms similar to those of “Havana syndrome,” the unexplained malady that has struck hundreds of U.S. spies and diplomats around the world.
The bizarre story, described by four people familiar with the events, is the latest wrinkle in the decade-long quest to find the causes of Havana syndrome, whose sufferers experience long-lasting effects including cognitive challenges, dizziness and nausea. The U.S. government calls the events Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs).
The secret test in Norway has not been previously reported. The Norwegian government told the CIA about the results, two of the people said, prompting at least two visits in 2024 to Norway by Pentagon and White House officials.
Those aware of the test say it does not prove AHIs are the work of a foreign adversary wielding a secret weapon similar to the prototype tested in Norway. One of them noted that the effects suffered by the Norwegian researcher, whose identity was not disclosed by the people familiar, were not the same as in a “classic” AHI case. All spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject’s sensitivity.
But the events bolstered the case of those who argue that “pulsed-energy devices” — machines that deliver powerful beams of electromagnetic energy such as microwaves in short bursts — can affect human biology and are probably being developed by U.S. adversaries.

“I think there’s compelling evidence that we should be concerned about the ability to build a directed-energy weapon that can cause a variety of risk to humans,” said Paul Friedrichs, a retired military surgeon and Air Force general who oversaw biological threats on the White House National Security Council under President Joe Biden. Friedrichs declined to comment on the Norway experiment.
The Trump administration took office promising to pursue the AHI issue aggressively. But there has been little apparent movement. A review ordered by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is expected to focus mostly on the Biden administration’s handling of the issue, and its release has been delayed, people familiar with the issue said.
In a separate development that has become public in recent weeks, the U.S. government covertly purchased at the end of the Biden administration a different foreign-made device that produces pulsed radio waves and which some experts suspect could be linked to AHI incidents, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The device is being tested by the Defense Department. It has some Russian-origin components, but the U.S. government still has not determined conclusively who built it, said one of the people.
The U.S. acquisition of the device was first reported last month by independent journalist Sasha Ingber and CNN, which said it had been purchased for millions of dollars by Homeland Security Investigations, part of the Department of Homeland Security.
The device that the scientist constructed in Norway was not identical to the one that the U.S. government covertly acquired, one of the people familiar with the events said. The Norwegian device was built based on “classified information,” suggesting it was derived from blueprints or other materials stolen from a foreign government, this person said.
At about the same time the U.S. became aware of the two pulsed-energy machines, two spy agencies altered their previous judgment and concluded that some of the incidents involving AHIs could be the work of a foreign adversary, delivering that verdict in an updated U.S. intelligence assessment issued in January 2025 during the Biden administration’s final weeks.
“New reporting,” the assessment said, led the two agencies “to shift their assessments about whether a foreign actor has a capability that could cause biological effects consistent with some of the symptoms reported as possible AHIs.”
One was the National Security Agency, which intercepts and decodes foreign electronic communications, several people familiar with the issue said. The other, said two of those people, was the National Ground Intelligence Center, a U.S. Army intelligence agency in Charlottesville that produces intelligence on foreign adversaries’ scientific, technical and military capabilities.
The majority of U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and four others, said they continued to judge it “very unlikely” that the attacks were the result of a foreign adversary or that a foreign actor had developed a novel weapon. In conversations intercepted by U.S. spy agencies, American adversaries were heard expressing their own surprise at the AHI incidents and denying involvement, U.S. officials have said.
The CIA declined to comment on the Norwegian test or how it impacted the agency’s analysis. Norway’s embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.
Some former officials and AHI victims have pointed to Russia as the prime suspect in the AHI incidents because of its decades of work in directed-energy devices. So far, no conclusive proof has publicly emerged, and Moscow has denied involvement.
Taken together, the two known directed-energy devices along with other research appear to have prompted a reconsideration by some of the causes of Havana syndrome, so named because of the mysterious 2016 outbreak of symptoms reported by personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Havana.

The U.S. Embassy in Havana, in February 2022. (Yamil Lage/AFP/Getty Images)
In subsequent years, U.S. personnel reported hundreds of cases globally, in China, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. A top aide to then-CIA Director William J. Burns reported symptoms while traveling in India in 2021.
At a Foreign Policy Research Institute conference in Philadelphia earlier this month, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Chris Schlagheck, at times his voice breaking, said he was hit five times in 2020 in his home in Northern Virginia, where a Russian family lived across the street. It was not until last year that a doctor told him his symptoms were the same as those reported from Havana a decade earlier.
Much about the Norway test remains obscured by its highly classified nature. People familiar with the events declined to identify the scientist or the Norwegian government agency he worked for.
The results were all the more shocking because the Norwegian researcher had earned a reputation as a leading opponent of the theory that directed-energy weapons can cause the type of symptoms associated with AHIs, those familiar with the events said. Trying to dramatically prove his point, with himself as a human guinea pig, he achieved the opposite.
“I don’t know what possessed him to go and do this,” one of the people said. “He was a bit of an eccentric.”
A delegation of Pentagon officials traveled to Norway in 2024 to examine the device. In December of that year, a group of intelligence and White House officials also went to Norway to discuss the issue, those familiar with the events said.
In January 2022, the CIA produced an interim assessment that concluded a foreign country was probably not behind Havana syndrome. It emerged weeks before a major panel of government and nongovernment experts produced a report commissioned by the director of national intelligence and deputy CIA director that came to a markedly different conclusion.
That panel concluded in February 2022 that pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in the radio-frequency range, ‘‘plausibly explains the core characteristics of reported AHIs,” although it acknowledged many unknowns. “Information gaps exist,” it reported.
The conclusion marked the first time a report issued publicly by the U.S. government acknowledged that the symptoms could be caused by man-made, external events.
The IC Experts Panel, as it was known, interviewed several people who had suffered accidental exposure to electromagnetic energy, said David Relman, a Stanford University microbiologist who chaired the panel.
But the CIA interim assessment overshadowed the expert panel’s report. Then, in March 2023, the full intelligence community issued an assessment that unanimously concluded that it was unlikely that a foreign adversary was behind the incidents. “There is no credible evidence that a foreign adversary has a weapon or (intelligence) collection device that is causing AHIs,” the unclassified version of their report said, citing secret intelligence data and open-source information about foreign weapons and research programs.
U.S. intelligence agencies “essentially ignored” the experts panel’s work, Relman told the conference in Philadelphia. The agencies, particularly the CIA, “had developed a very firm set of conclusions, world view that caused them I think to become dug in,” he said.
By late 2024, senior White House officials in the Biden administration had come to question the absolutist position taken by U.S. intelligence agencies in their 2023 assessment.
There were some officials, including within the intelligence community, who insisted that “there was nothing here” — that every reported case could be explained by some environmental or medical factor, said one person familiar with the administration’s views.
The more “responsible” view, the person said, was to admit “we don’t know the answers” and that it was “plausible that pulsed electromagnetic energy could account for some subset of cases.”
After the November 2024 election, White House officials who were working on an AHI brief for the incoming Trump administration invited several victims to a meeting to offer their input. The officials also wanted to reassure the victims that they realized the intelligence community assessment called into question the very real health issues they experienced and what caused them.
At one point, an official turned to the victims who were gathered in the Situation Room and said, “We believe you.” The White House wasn’t yet certain it was a foreign actor but believed it was plausible that the symptoms had been caused by external factors, said the person familiar with the administration’s views.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former CIA officer and AHI victim who attended the unclassified meeting, said, “It was clear to the victims, but also unsaid, that new information had come into the NSC that had caused them to make such a statement.”
February 13, 2026
Ghislaine Maxwell Refuses to Answer Lawmakers’ Questions During Closed-Door Testimony
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted enabler in Jeffrey Epstein’s web of exploitation, stonewalled the House Oversight Committee on Monday, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to utter a word beyond prepared deflections. Appearing via videoconference from her Texas prison camp in a khaki jumpsuit, Maxwell’s deposition lasted under an hour, leaving lawmakers fuming and the public no closer to unraveling the full scope of Epstein’s elite circle—a network heavy with rich-rooted influencers whose shadows still loom over American power structures.
Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) called it “very disappointing,” lamenting missed chances to probe Epstein’s crimes and “potential co-conspirators.” Democrats like Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) accused her of “protecting” unnamed figures, but their outrage rings hollow amid their party’s own ties to the scandal-plagued Clintons.

Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, teased a bombshell: full testimony if President Donald Trump grants clemency. “Only she can provide the complete account,” Markus said, hinting it could clear Trump and Bill Clinton—both denying involvement—while noting “some may not like what they hear.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R, Ariz.) and House Oversight Committee chair Rep. James Comer (R, Ky.) speak to members of the media after a closed-door virtual deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026. (Nathan Howard—Bloomberg/Getty Images)
This dangle feeds into the “nation under blackmail” theory: Epstein’s operation, with its high-society lures, may have ensnared leaders in compromising positions, holding America hostage to hidden leverage. Trump, who once wished Maxwell “well” and hasn’t ruled out a pardon, draws mixed views—pro for pushing file releases, anti for flirting with leniency that could whitewash the mess.
Republicans like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) blasted the idea: “No clemency and no mercy for child predators.” Democrats, meanwhile, cry foul over Maxwell’s prison transfer after a DOJ interview clearing Trump, ignoring Clinton’s deeper Epstein links.
The session followed the Justice Department’s unredacted file release to lawmakers, mandated by the Epstein Files Transparency Act from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) accused a “cover-up,” but heavy redactions persist, fueling suspicions of elite protection. Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 amid sex trafficking charges, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting a minor. Maxwell, convicted in 2021, appeals her 20-year sentence.
Upcoming Clintons’ testimonies on Feb. 26-27 could expose more, but expect partisan theater—Republicans dodging internal rifts, Democrats shielding their icons. In a nation possibly blackmailed by such scandals, Maxwell’s silence speaks volumes.
February 11, 2026
Trump Pushes for Lower Mortgage Rates, but Fed Pick Kevin Warsh Could Tighten Policy
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a move that reeks of the same old establishment maneuvering, President Donald Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor with deep ties to Wall Street and neoconservative circles, to replace Jerome Powell as Fed Chair. Trump, ever the populist showman, has been pounding the drum for lower mortgage rates to ease the burden on everyday Americans squeezed by skyrocketing housing costs. Yet, his pick—Warsh, a vocal critic of the Fed’s bloated $6.6 trillion balance sheet—could very well steer policy in the opposite direction, tightening the screws on borrowers and inflating risks for the broader economy. This nomination, announced Friday amid Trump’s ongoing feud with Powell, highlights the president’s contradictory impulses: championing the working class while cozying up to financial elites whose agendas often prioritize globalist interests over Main Street relief.
Trump’s announcement came via his Truth Social platform, where he gushed over Warsh as “one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” describing him as “central casting” who “will never let you down.” It’s classic Trump hyperbole, but beneath the bluster lies a potential policy clash. The president has made housing affordability a cornerstone of his economic agenda, repeatedly vowing to slash interest rates to make homeownership accessible again. “We can drop interest rates to a level, and that’s one thing we do want to do,” Trump declared last month. “That’s natural. That’s good for everybody.” Mortgage rates, which hovered above 7% in early 2025, have become a political lightning rod, locking out first-time buyers and fueling resentment toward the elite-driven housing bubble.

But Warsh, with his history of hawkish stances on inflation and skepticism toward easy money policies, isn’t the dovish ally Trump might imagine. As a former Fed governor from 2006 to 2011, Warsh was knee-deep in the Bush administration’s response to the 2008 financial crisis, collaborating closely with Ben Bernanke on bailouts that propped up Wall Street at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. Critics, including those wary of neoconservative overreach, argue that era’s interventions—rooted in endless wars and deficit spending—set the stage for today’s economic distortions. Warsh has lambasted the Fed’s quantitative easing programs, which ballooned the balance sheet from $900 billion in 2008 to a peak of $9 trillion by 2022, before a modest rollback to $6.6 trillion today. In an April speech, he warned that such expansions “encroach further on other macroeconomic domains,” leading to “more debt accumulated… more capital misallocated… risks of future shocks magnified.”
Shrinking that balance sheet—holding $4.3 trillion in Treasuries and $2 trillion in mortgage-backed securities—could directly counteract Trump’s rate-cutting dreams. By unloading these assets or letting them mature without reinvestment, the Fed would flood the market with supply, pushing up long-term yields and, consequently, mortgage rates. As Yale professor and former Fed official Bill English noted, “If all he does is move to a smaller Fed balance sheet, it’s hard to see how that would be consistent with lower mortgage rates, and that creates some tension with the president.” This isn’t just academic jargon; it’s a recipe for higher borrowing costs that could exacerbate the housing crisis Trump claims to fight.
Market reactions were telling: The dollar surged while gold and silver prices tumbled, signaling traders’ bets against aggressive rate cuts under Warsh. Investors see him as a bulwark against political meddling, but skeptics view this as code for preserving the status quo favored by global financial powers. Warsh’s recent pivot toward openness on rate cuts—after criticizing the Fed’s September 2024 reduction—smacks of opportunism, aligning with Trump’s demands while masking his deeper reservations. As Harvard economist Jason Furman quipped, Warsh’s desire to trim the balance sheet might “collide with reality,” leading to gradual changes at best. Yet, in a Trump administration eager to project economic wins, such caution could frustrate the president’s base.
Warsh’s nomination caps a tumultuous saga with Powell, whom Trump appointed in his first term but later branded a “moron” for resisting deeper cuts. The feud escalated when the Department of Justice launched criminal investigations into Powell, an unprecedented assault on Fed independence that has alarmed even some Republicans. Senator Thom Tillis vowed not to confirm any nominee until the probe ends, calling it essential to protect the central bank from “political interference or legal intimidation.” Meanwhile, Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren blasted the move as Trump’s “latest step in [his] attempt to seize control of the Fed,” tying it to broader efforts to oust critics like Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
But let’s peel back the layers on Warsh himself. At 55, he’s a product of the elite circuit: A Morgan Stanley mergers-and-acquisitions banker turned Bush White House economic adviser, then the youngest Fed governor ever at 35. Today, he’s a fellow at the Hoover Institution—a bastion of neoconservative thought—and a lecturer at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. His board seats at UPS and affiliations with groups like the Group of Thirty and the Congressional Budget Office’s Panel of Economic Advisors scream establishment insider. More intriguingly, Warsh’s personal connections raise eyebrows among those questioning undue influences in U.S. policy.

Warsh is married to Jane Lauder, granddaughter of cosmetics mogul Estée Lauder, whose Eastern European Jewish immigrant roots built a billion-dollar empire. Warsh himself identifies as Jewish, and his father-in-law, Ronald Lauder—president of the World Jewish Congress and a fervent Zionist—has been a longtime Trump confidant since their Wharton School days. Lauder’s influence extends beyond cosmetics; he’s pushed Trump on issues like acquiring Greenland, where he has investments in development and bottled water. The World Jewish Congress, under Lauder, aggressively advocates for Israeli interests, often lobbying U.S. policymakers to prioritize Zionism amid global conflicts. Critics argue this network exemplifies how a small cadre of influential Jewish figures—tied to finance, media, and politics—wields outsized power, sometimes at the expense of American sovereignty. Warsh’s ascent, facilitated by these ties, fuels suspicions that Fed policy could subtly favor internationalist agendas over domestic relief, echoing neoconservative priorities that have dragged the U.S. into endless Middle East entanglements.
This isn’t to say Warsh lacks credentials; he was a key communicator during the 2008 crisis, bridging policymakers and markets. But his “hawkish” reputation—favoring tighter policy to combat inflation—clashes with Trump’s push for stimulus. Some economists speculate Warsh might invoke offbeat theories, like a productivity boom from AI justifying cuts, or even the fiscal theory of the price level, where lower rates reduce deficits and curb inflation. Yet, with labor force growth stalled by immigration crackdowns and aging demographics, the standard model warns against it. As one analyst put it, Warsh is “hamstrung” on multiple fronts, including the balance sheet.
Trump edged out other contenders like Fed Governor Christopher Waller, BlackRock’s Rick Rieder, and adviser Kevin Hassett, reportedly because Warsh signaled willingness to cut rates. In a Fox Business interview last year, Warsh backed easing to boost growth, critiquing the Fed for straying into “political areas” like climate change—areas outside its mandate, he argued. But his past objections to low rates during crises, including downplaying unemployment in 2008 as it neared 10%, paint him as a “chameleon,” per policy expert Skanda Amarnath. “His track record speaks to someone who is pretty partisan and political,” Amarnath said, noting Warsh’s shifts depending on who’s in power.
If confirmed—facing a Senate grilling over Trump’s Fed assaults—Warsh could assume the role by mid-May, when Powell’s term expires. Speculation swirls on whether Powell would step down early or dig in. Economists like Robert Rogowsky call Warsh a “solid pick” but warn of his potential as a “political opportunist”—hawk under Democrats, dove for Trump. Rachel Ziemba of the Center for a New American Security adds that Trump’s trade wars and immigration policies could stifle growth, making rate cuts ineffective anyway.
In the end, this nomination underscores the rot in Washington’s financial corridors: A president railing against elites while appointing one with Zionist and neoconservative baggage, potentially sabotaging his own pro-worker promises. Americans deserve a Fed that prioritizes domestic stability over global distortions, not another insider perpetuating the cycle of debt and inequality.
February 11, 2026
Trump Threatens to Block Opening of Key U.S.–Canada Border Bridge
President Donald Trump is once again putting America First by leveraging his negotiating prowess to demand fair treatment from our northern neighbor, threatening to halt the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. In a bold Truth Social post on Monday, Trump declared he “will not allow” the $4.7 billion project to proceed until Canada compensates the U.S. for decades of what he calls “very unfair” dealings. This move exemplifies Trump’s unapologetic style: using economic pressure to secure better deals for American workers, taxpayers, and industries long shortchanged in lopsided trade relationships.
The bridge, a six-lane span named after Canadian hockey legend Gordie Howe, has been under construction since 2018 and is slated for an early 2026 opening, according to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA). Financed primarily by the Canadian government but publicly owned by both Canada and Michigan under a 2012 Crossing Agreement, it’s touted as a “once-in-a-generation undertaking” to boost cross-border commerce. With U.S. and Canadian entry ports and connections to Michigan’s road network, the project promises to ease congestion at the busy Ambassador Bridge, facilitating the $700 billion annual trade between the two nations.
Yet, Trump sees an opportunity to rectify imbalances. “I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve,” he wrote. “We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset.” From a conservative, America First lens, this is spot-on: Why should American steel—used on the Michigan side—and U.S. infrastructure support a project that benefits Canada disproportionately? Trump’s stance echoes his successful renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA, which leveled the playing field for American manufacturers and farmers.
Critics on the left, like Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D), decried it as “punishing Michiganders for a trade war he started,” claiming Trump’s actions pushed Canada toward a trade deal with China. But conservatives counter that Democratic appeasement has allowed allies like Canada to freeload on U.S. security and markets while pursuing deals with adversaries. Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens called the post “insane,” hoping for midterm changes, but such reactions ignore the real issue: Canada’s history of dairy protections, softwood lumber disputes, and now cozying up to China amid U.S. tariffs.
Spanning the Detroit River, the Gordie Howe International Bridge will connect southern Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, when completed. ( Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images via AFP via Getty Images)
The Gordie Howe International Bridge under construction in Windsor, Ontario, earlier this month. (Carlos Osorio/Reuters)
Spanning the Detroit River, the Gordie Howe International Bridge will be the longest cable-stayed bridge in North America. (Business Wire/AP)
The Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit, seen here on May 10, 2024, is expected to open sometime this year after almost a decade of construction. (Radio-Canada / Patrick Morrell)

Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, labeled blocking bridges “self-defeating,” urging to “build bridges” instead. Yet, from an America First viewpoint, Trump’s threat is a masterclass in leverage—much like his tariffs on Canadian aircraft last month, which addressed unfair subsidies and protected U.S. aviation jobs. That salvo followed clashes at Davos, where Trump traded barbs with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and revoked Canada’s invitation to the “Board of Peace,” his initiative for global conflict resolution.
The White House, Canadian government, and WDBA did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving unclear how Trump might enforce a delay—perhaps through federal permits, border controls, or negotiations. But legal experts note the president’s broad authority over international commerce and security, especially given the bridge’s role in trade flows vulnerable to exploitation.
This isn’t isolated antagonism; it’s strategic recalibration. Under Trump, the U.S. has demanded reciprocity from allies, yielding wins like increased NATO spending and fairer trade pacts. Canada, despite being a key partner, has faced scrutiny for policies that disadvantage American exporters. Trump’s approach may ruffle feathers, but it prioritizes U.S. interests—boosting domestic manufacturing, securing borders, and ensuring allies pull their weight.
Michigan Republicans like Rep. Tim Walberg have echoed support, noting the bridge could enhance trade if terms are fair. “President Trump is right to demand compensation—America has subsidized too much for too long,” Walberg said in a statement. As midterms loom, this could rally the base, reminding voters of Trump’s deal-making that puts jobs and security first.
While Democrats decry division, conservatives see strength: A president unafraid to negotiate hard for America’s benefit. If Canada comes to the table, both nations win; if not, Trump ensures no more one-sided deals.
February 10, 2026
ICE and CBP Officials Face Congressional Scrutiny Over Minneapolis Immigration Surge
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a move that underscores the relentless Democratic push to undermine President Donald Trump’s bad immigration policies, top officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) are set to testify before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Tuesday. Acting ICE Director Todd M. Lyons, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow will face what conservatives view as a partisan grilling, aimed at handcuffing federal agents who are on the front lines protecting American sovereignty and communities from the threats of illegal immigration.
This hearing marks the first appearance of ICE and CBP heads before the committee since Trump’s second term began, and it comes amid heightened scrutiny following the tragic deaths of two U.S. citizens, Alex Pretti and Renée Good, in Minneapolis last month during enforcement operations. From a pro-conservative perspective, these incidents highlight the dangers ICE agents face daily while enforcing laws that safeguard white American neighborhoods and traditional values from the chaos of unchecked migration. Pro-ICE advocates argue that weakening these efforts would erode national sovereignty, allowing criminal elements to exploit porous borders and dilute the cultural fabric that has made America strong.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem has been a steadfast defender of these operations, correctly labeling threats like Pretti’s actions as potential “domestic terrorism” aimed at law enforcement—a claim supported by initial reports, despite later video evidence sparking debate. Noem’s leadership has been crucial in deploying resources to blue cities like Minneapolis, where local Democratic policies have long hampered federal enforcement. Her announcement last week to immediately equip every officer in Minneapolis with body cameras, with plans for broader rollout as funding allows, demonstrates a proactive commitment to transparency and accountability—countering leftist narratives of overreach.
Yet, Democrats are exploiting these tragedies to demand radical restrictions on ICE and CBP, including judicial warrants for all entries, bans on masks (which protect agents from doxxing), mandatory body cameras (already being implemented), and independent probes into misconduct. These proposals, conservatives argue, are designed to neuter enforcement, turning agents into sitting ducks while illegal immigrants flood communities, straining resources and threatening the safety of law-abiding citizens, particularly in white-majority areas where cultural erosion is a growing concern.

Posters dedicated to Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti outside in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Bridget Bennett/The Guardian)
The hearing coincides with frantic negotiations to avert a partial government shutdown, with Democrats holding DHS funding hostage to their anti-ICE agenda. Republicans like House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino (R-N.Y.) plan to focus on practical issues like agent training and use of force, emphasizing support for those who risk their lives daily. “We need to ensure our brave men and women in uniform have the tools to do their jobs effectively,” Garbarino told The Post, highlighting the need to back sovereignty-protecting measures.
Public support for Trump’s immigration crackdown has faced headwinds from biased polling, like a Quinnipiac survey showing 61% doubting the administration’s account of Pretti’s death and 58% calling for Noem’s removal. An Economist/YouGov poll claimed 50% believe ICE makes Americans less safe—a narrative conservatives dismiss as media-driven hysteria, ignoring ICE’s role in deporting criminals and securing borders. Under Noem, Border Patrol has expanded operations in sanctuary cities, led by figures like Gregory Bovino, who returned to California after Pretti’s incident, replaced by border czar Tom Homan. Homan recently announced the withdrawal of 700 agents from Minneapolis, signaling a strategic pivot amid political pressure.
Scott’s appearance with Homan in Minneapolis underscores the administration’s unity in defending these surges as essential to national security. Pro-sovereignty voices praise this as protecting American interests, preventing the dilution of white American communities through mass migration that burdens schools, hospitals, and social services.
Democrats, per a committee aide, plan to argue DHS actions violate the law and demand Noem’s resignation—partisan theater that ignores the real threats agents face. The administration’s initial budget proposal to trim ICE’s body camera program staff from 22 to three and funding from $20.5 million to $5.5 million was a fiscally conservative move to eliminate waste, now reversed with expanded deployment.
Tuesday’s testimony will also precede a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs appearance, offering another platform for Lyons, Scott, and Edlow to highlight successes in deportations and border security. Conservatives hope Republicans will push back against Democratic overreach, affirming ICE’s vital role in upholding sovereignty and preserving the America our founders envisioned—one where law enforcement protects citizens without apology.
As Trump navigates these challenges, his steadfast support for ICE embodies the pro-White America ethos: prioritizing the safety and prosperity of longstanding communities against globalist erosion. Weakening these efforts would betray the mandate voters gave him to secure borders and put Americans first.
February 10, 2026
Justice Department Seeks Dismissal of Steve Bannon Jan. 6 Contempt Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bold move that underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to rectifying what many conservatives view as the weaponized excesses of the previous Biden-era Justice Department, federal prosecutors have formally requested the dismissal of Steve Bannon’s contempt of Congress conviction stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol events. This development, filed on Monday, represents a significant victory for Bannon, the fiery conservative strategist and former White House chief advisor, who has long maintained that his prosecution was a politically motivated witch hunt designed to silence dissent against the establishment.
The request, led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro—a no-nonsense prosecutor known for her tough stance on crime and her appearances on Fox News—cites prosecutorial discretion and argues that dropping the charges is “in the interests of justice.” Pirro’s filing, submitted to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who originally oversaw the case, emphasizes that Bannon does not oppose the motion and requests dismissal with prejudice, ensuring the charges cannot be refiled. This comes as a welcome reprieve for Bannon, who endured four months in federal prison in 2024, a sentence many on the right have decried as unjust and emblematic of selective prosecution.
Bannon’s ordeal began in 2021 when the Democrat-led House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot subpoenaed him for testimony and documents. As a vocal supporter of President Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election results—efforts rooted in widespread concerns over voting irregularities—Bannon had publicly predicted turmoil on his “War Room” podcast, stating on January 5, 2021, that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.” The committee targeted him for his insights into the so-called “Green Bay Sweep,” a strategic plan discussed among Trump allies to contest electoral votes from key swing states amid allegations of fraud.

Refusing to comply, Bannon invoked executive privilege, a doctrine protecting presidential communications, despite having left the White House in 2017. Critics on the left painted this as defiance, but conservatives argue it was a legitimate legal stance, especially given Bannon’s advisory role to Trump. The House, under Democratic control, voted to hold him in contempt, and the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland swiftly indicted him on two counts. Bannon’s defense team later offered to testify after Trump waived privilege, but it was too late; a D.C. jury convicted him in 2022, and he was sentenced to prison time.
Throughout his appeals, Bannon has steadfastly claimed he did not willfully defy the subpoena but was following his lawyers’ advice to resolve privilege issues first. An appellate court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court declined to halt his sentence. Yet, Bannon’s resilience shone through—he continued broadcasting his podcast from behind bars and emerged in October 2024 as a martyr figure in conservative circles, railing against what he calls the “deep state” and the “unselect committee” that pursued him.
The Trump administration’s return to power in 2025 has brought swift changes to the DOJ, including the appointment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, both of whom have prioritized dismantling what they describe as politically tainted prosecutions. In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Blanche declared, “Under the leadership of Attorney General Bondi, this Department will continue to undo the prior administration’s weaponization of the justice system.” He specifically hailed the Bannon filing as a step to vacate the conviction arising from the “J6 ‘Unselect’ Committee’s improper subpoena.”
Solicitor General D. John Sauer echoed this in a separate Supreme Court filing, urging the justices to remand the case back to Judge Nichols for dismissal. Sauer noted that even post-conviction, prosecutors retain the authority to drop charges if justice demands it—a principle that aligns with conservative values of fairness and limited government overreach.
This isn’t an isolated incident. The administration has already pardoned over 1,500 individuals charged in connection with January 6, framing the event not as an “insurrection” but as a passionate protest against a stolen election. Similar leniency was extended to Peter Navarro, another Trump advisor convicted for defying the same committee; the DOJ announced last year it would no longer defend his conviction, with his appeal ongoing.
The move has drawn predictable outrage from liberal quarters, who accuse the Trump DOJ of cronyism and undermining congressional authority. But for conservatives, it’s a long-overdue correction. Bannon, ever the provocateur, has positioned himself as a frontline warrior against elite corruption, and this dismissal bolsters his narrative. As one of the architects of Trump’s 2016 victory and a key voice in the MAGA movement, Bannon’s exoneration could energize the base ahead of future political battles.

Comparisons have been drawn to other contempt cases, such as the recent House Oversight Committee vote to hold Bill and Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing to testify in a Jeffrey Epstein probe. The Clintons eventually “caved,” as Republican Rep. James Comer put it, agreeing to depositions just before a full House vote. Conservatives point to this as evidence of double standards: why were the Clintons spared prosecution while Bannon was jailed?
Legal experts on the right argue that the January 6 committee itself was flawed—lacking bipartisan balance and operating with a partisan agenda. “This dismissal acknowledges that the subpoena was improper from the start,” said a source close to Bannon’s legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Steve has always been about fighting for the forgotten man, and this vindicates his stand against overreach.”
As the nation grapples with ongoing debates over election integrity and government accountability, Bannon’s case highlights the deep divides in American politics. With Trump back in the Oval Office, expect more such reversals as the administration seeks to heal what it sees as wounds inflicted by a vindictive opposition.
Bannon did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but his supporters are already celebrating online, viewing this as a triumph over “lawfare.”
February 9, 2026