From Joyce Vance:

The Week Ahead

February 22, 2026 Joyce Vance

The primary focus this week is probably going to be on the State of the Union address. Will any of the Justices show up in the wake of Trump’s Friday afternoon press conference, where he excoriated the ones who ruled against him in the tariffs case and called them an embarrassment to their families? Will Trump continue to talk about his ability to destroy other countries? We will see what Tuesday brings.

But he heads into SOTU with a new Washington Post-ABC poll showing that his approval rating is at 39%—the last time it dipped below 60% was in the wake of January 6. Forty-seven percent of Americans strongly disapprove of the job the president is doing.

Late last week, there was reporting on a tremendously important story, one that should be topping every news cycle, but doesn’t seem to be. On this administration’s watch, a DHS agent shot and killed an American citizen living in Texas during a traffic stop last March. According to the report, released as part of a FOIA request, 23-year-old Ruben Ray Martinez is now the earliest known shooting by federal agents associated with the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy. We’re only finding out about it now.

Once upon a time, we would have taken the government’s version of an officer-involved shooting at face value. Here, according to the New York Times, the government’s report claims that, “Mr. Martinez initially did not follow officers’ instructions but eventually slowed to a stop after receiving verbal commands. Agents surrounded the vehicle and told him to get out of the car before Mr. Martinez accelerated and hit a federal agent, who landed on the roof of the car according to the documents. Another agent then fired multiple times through the driver’s side window. Mr. Martinez was transported to a hospital in Brownsville and later died.” NBC filed essentially the same report, but noted that the agent landed on the hood of the car when the driver accelerated after “Agents then surrounded the vehicle.”

Maybe the government’s story is true. Maybe it’s not. It doesn’t make a lot of sense—we’re to believe Martinez came to a stop and then, while surrounded by agents, managed to accelerate with enough force that he hit one of them, who ended up on either the hood or the roof of his vehicle. Were there bystanders nearby? The agent fired into a vehicle, an apparent violation of DHS policy. And was the agent still on the hood or roof when the other agent fired? Did they put him in danger? I’m having trouble envisioning it. The documents apparently reflect that the agent was treated for a knee injury at a local hospital and released.

One problem when the government consistently lies is that it’s hard to know when (if) it might be telling the truth. And the fact that this report was concealed for so long doesn’t do anything to calm suspicion. There was reporting of his death at the time it happened, but federal and state officials failed to disclose that ICE agents were involved.

The report that was released under FOIA does not disclose the reason Martinez was stopped by officers working on an immigration detail. He was a brown-skinned American citizen. We have a phrase that describes this in Alabama—driving while brown—and to state the obvious, it is not a legitimate reason for police, including federal agents, to make a traffic stop.

Martinez’s mom, Rachel Reyes, described her son as a hard-working young man who had no history of confronting law enforcement officials. She said he worked at an Amazon warehouse in San Antonio and was out celebrating his birthday when he was killed. “He was a good kid. He doesn’t have a criminal history. He never got in trouble. He was never violent.” She also said she was told by Texas Rangers that there was video that contradicted DHS’ version of events, but did not provide any details.

Under existing policy, every DHS component, including ICE, is required to have a “use of force review council or committee” to analyze incidents. The use of deadly force “must be reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the LEO [law enforcement officer] at the time force is applied.” It can only be used if agents reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury to an agent or someone else. It’s not clear whether a review was taken here and if so, what the results were.

There has been no outrage from Martinez’s senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. It is essential that there be a full accounting for Martinez’s death. The facts matter.

There are also ongoing reports of deaths at immigration detention facilities, even as the government is reportedly ramping up to literally warehouse human beings, including children, in actual warehouses, being snapped up with your taxpayer dollars. The Texas Tribune, a local paper that still does independent journalism, has a report calling out horrific conditions in Texas prisons, including the death of Geraldo Lunas Campos, which we’ve previously discussed. The official report says he tried to hang himself. The medical examiner ruled it a homicide, and a witness allegedly backs that up. There have been six deaths in six weeks at ICE-run facilities in Texas.

Although the Supreme Court released its decision in the tariffs case last week (6-3, IEEPA, the statute that doesn’t use the word “tariff” doesn’t authorize the president to issue them), we haven’t heard that last word on the issue yet. Trump is serious about tariffs. During the campaign, he called “tariff” the most beautiful word in the English language. He withdrew his support for incumbent Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd, calling him a “RINO,” because he opposes tariffs. And Trump has said that he will issue new ones.

He has the authority to do that. Although Congress has the power to impose tariffs, it can and has loaned some of it to the president. What Congress intends to do that, it knows the right way—it uses the word “tariffs” in the statute and places limitations on their use, like a time limit or a limit on how high the percentage of the tax can be. It also provides conditions under which the tariffs the specific law allows for can be imposed by a president.

That was the whole reason Trump used IEEPA: Because it didn’t give him any tariff powers, it necessarily didn’t impose any limits on what he could do. It would be as if you told your teenager they could go to a movie so long as they were home by 10 p.m. and it didn’t cost more than $10. You also have a rule that it’s a good idea for family members to be happy. Using the happiness rule, the kid then goes to a movie that doesn’t get out until 11 p.m. and costs $15. It’s an imperfect analogy, but you get the point of what Trump did and why.

Now he’s stuck in a world where he can only use the specific tariff authority Congress has granted him. So here’s what he had to say, in a Truth Social post:

“Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been “ripping” the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again – GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Trump seems to be contemplating tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That provision is designed to address short-term emergencies, not to implement trade policy, and it has never been used. He also seems to be contemplating other authorities for his new tariffs, and who knows what, if anything, he’ll actually end up doing—he repeatedly announced, repealed, waffled, and wavered on tariffs at the start of this term. One thing that is for sure is that if he actually enacts them, he’ll have a fight on his hands in court

He’s already lost conservative commentator Andy McCarthy, who says tariffs under Section 122 would be illegal. Neal Katyal, who argued the IEEPA case successfully tweeted “Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: “Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.” If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires.”

Neal Katyal@neal_katyal

Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: “Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which

10:48 AM · Feb 21, 2026 · 565K Views

270 Replies · 1.72K Reposts · 5.63K Likes

While we are not done with tariffs, we can expect more Supreme Court decisions this week, on the 24th and 25th.

We were supposed to see Volume 2 of Jack Smith’s special counsel report, the one about classified documents, on Tuesday. That deadline was set after the Eleventh Circuit chastised Judge Cannon for dragging her feet in the matter. But when she finally got around to setting the date, she noted that Trump could appeal, which he, of course, did. Delay. Delay. Delay. He filed a motion in his personal capacity in January, asking Cannon to permanently block the report’s release (he argued Smith’s appointment was illegal, so we should pretend it never happened). DOJ chimed in to support the boss. Trump’s former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, filed a request of their own, seeking a ruling that all copies of the report be destroyed.

Earlier this month, journalists who had previously intervened in the matter to force the release of the report went to the Eleventh Circuit. That court has expedited the matter, which means Trump and his supporters have briefs due next month. His delay game is still holding up, but unless the Supreme Court weighs in on his side again in a criminal matter, there’s a limited shelf life on this one.

Other events to watch for this week:

On Tuesday, Secretaries of State who have decided to participate will meet with the FBI on unspecified issues. We discussed that meeting here.
On Friday, a federal judge in Fulton County, Georgia, will hold a hearing on the county’s request to have items returned, including ballots and voter rolls, that were seized by the federal government during a search warrant executed on January 28.
Thursday, Hillary Clinton testifies in front of the House Oversight Committee looking into Jeffrey Epstein. Friday, Bill Clinton testifies. Both have previously provided sworn statements. Their testimony will be behind closed doors. I’m in favor of taking testimony from everyone who appears to have had a close enough relationship with Epstein to participate in or observe his crimes. The Clintons have both denied any involvement. Please consider grabbing this meme and posting it (I made it, so it’s fair game) and calling your Republican representatives to highlight the hypocrisy they’re engaging in.

While Republicans are focused on the Clintons, we still don’t know who the redacted name in this email, which was flagged in a CNN report, belongs to:

We don’t know the name behind the redaction of the person who sent Epstein this email in 2018

The survivors deserve to have all of this made public. A number of them plan to attend the State of the Union as guests of members of Congress.

What else will we see this week? Maybe in the wake of his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize from the actual winner, we’ll see athletes come to the White House to deliver their gold medals to Trump? My bingo card says he’ll float the idea during State of the Union ( I’m only partially joking).

We’re in this together,

Joyce

And Because Scottie Enjoys 1 [not even close to a] Million Moms Snark:

Dunkin’ Donuts Ad Is Just Far Too ‘Sensual’ For ‘One Million Moms’

SO SENSUAL. SENSUAL DONUTS.

Robyn Pennacchia

IT IS TOO SEXY!

I feel like it’s been a while since we’ve checked in on Monica Cole and the “One Million Moms” that are definitely in the room with her right now as we speak, but this one was just too good to pass up. As many of you may know, I am originally from the Massachusetts/Rhode Island area, and am thus possessed of a certain fondness for Dunkin’ Donuts. Especially since they started carrying coffee milk, the only kind of milk I will drink on its own because I am not a freak like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kid Rock.

It’s like chocolate milk but coffee flavored and it is magical, thank me later.

Anyway! The One Million Moms are very upset about a Dunkin’ Donuts ad that features Megan Thee Stallion, on account of how it is just too sensual.

Let us watch!

If you are a normal human person, you are probably thinking that this is nothing and pretty much as wholesome as a Dunkin’ Donuts ad featuring Megan Thee Stallion could possibly be.

If you are Monica Cole, however, you are thinking:

One Million Moms has received complaints regarding the new ad campaign from Dunkin’ Donuts. The “Dunk N’ Pump” commercial features Megan Thee Stallion, aka hot-girl coach, Pro-Tina, launching the new Protein Refreshers. Unfortunately, the offensive ad also features a vulgar workout routine full of sexual innuendos with an extremely sensual message.

Megan wears a thong skimpy leotard with flesh-colored leggings in this disgusting ad along with the “backup performers” wearing similar outfits. While sipping on a Dunkin’ Protein Refresher, they perform inappropriate and crude moves and the commercial ends with Megan performing the splits.

This type of advertising is entirely unnecessary. Dunkin’ has deliberately chosen to produce controversial advertisements instead of wholesome ones.

Apparently, Dunkin’ executives do not care how damaging and destructive such ads are to our children. Everyone knows kids repeat what they hear and see. This ad demonstrates weak marketing, and Dunkin’ should have the corporate responsibility not to use an age-old euphemism that offends families.

Let them know that, as a parent and a consumer, you are disgusted by their recent irresponsible marketing choices.

Dunkin’ needs to know that parents disapprove!

Man, they are really, really running out of material if this is the most sensual ad they can find to complain about.

What is it she’s worried about? That “kids repeat what they hear and see?” That they will start wearing thong leotards, which do not even come in children’s sizes?

For the record, as I (by strange coincidence) mentioned Friday, I watched this episode of Saved By The Bell approximately 17,000 times as a child and never once purchased a thong leotard or sported mall bangs.

What battle will they be fighting next? The war on the Jane Fonda Workout?

Honestly, this ad is so innocuous that I am convinced that One Million Moms is just trying to take up newly minted MAGA weirdo Nicki Minaj’s beef with Megan as a bizarre show of solidarity. They’ve been really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately. The last commercial they were upset about was the State Farm Super Bowl ad featuring Danny McBride and Keegan-Michael Key, because it “features the scantily clad girl-group KATSEYE dancing provocatively.” For approximately two seconds.

As if that’s the most annoying State Farm ad anyone’s ever seen.

Sadly for Monica Cole, Elmore City, Oklahoma — the inspiration for the movie Footloose — rescinded its ban on dancing some time in the late ‘90s. However! The town of Purdy, Missouri, reportedly still has one on books, so she can just move there and live a life free of dancing, without having to bother anyone else.

Quickie Comedy

It’s Josh Johnson, Craig Robinson, and Michelle Obama!

Hugely Snarky, So Fun

Woke Bitches Win Gold. MAGA Losers? Still Losers.

Cope and seethe forever.

Evan Hurst

Alysa Liu exits the ice after making history. (Screengrab: the Olympics)

God, Team USA is amazing.

“They hate to see two woke bitches winning,” said US figure skater Amber Glenn, who got death threats from America’s least important humans when she dared speak her mind about the vile regime running the United States right now.

The word I want you to keep in mind for this entire post is winning, because winning is the word that differentiates Olympians from the vile MAGA pieces of shit who have spent over a week now BITCHING and MOANING and CRYING and COMPLAINING and BELLYACHING and WHINING and WHINING and WHINING, all because a number of our finest athletes have met their Olympic moments by saying Hey, you know what? I’m proud to be here, but it’s not that easy right now to embrace everything this flag currently represents.

They’re already winners because they’re there, every one of them.

And every MAGA American is an absolute fucking loser.

Not long after I started The Moral High Ground, the Paris Olympics happened. During those games the MAGA freakout was over the absolutely wonderful opening ceremonies, which totally murdered white American conservative Christian culture by … we forget how, but we’re pretty sure they still bear the scars of that sexy-ass French opening ceremony with the heavy metal and the gender fludity and the joie de vivre. This month, these whining fucking losers have gotten their culture destroyed by Bad Bunny’s flagrant Spanish-speaking behavior at the Super Bowl, and of course by all these Olympians out here, accomplishing things and some of them not even tonguing Donald Trump’s asshole like a good little obedient Nazis!

MAGA goes into these situations already mad, if you haven’t noticed. They go into every situation already mad, because despite all the years they’ve spent bitching about cancel culture and snowflake liberals needing their safe spaces, the reality is that MAGA Americans are the softest, most pathetic clumps of human detritus ever to waste our fucking time making us listen to their grievances.

Shut Up And Sing/Dance/Skate/Ski!

It is the damnedest thing.

There is this pathological tendency among MAGA Americans to be simultaneously the least valuable players of the entire human race, yet still manage to believe everybody who does things they can’t do is on this earth solely to entertain them. That there’s some unspoken tradeoff wherein God gave all these other people musical brilliance or athletic prowess or [name skill or talent here], therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to have opinions, unless of course those opinions conform with the dominant beliefs of the … least valuable players of the entire human race.

Which they seldom do.

Because winners don’t tend to look at the world the same way losers do.

They’re not eaten up by the same fears, the xenophobia, the hatred, the resentment. They’re not susceptible to politicians who tell them to blame all their problems on people who look different from them, or who are less fortunate.

They’re too busy putting in the work, and then winning. Or putting in the work and coming in second or fourth or really fucking it up, but developing the discipline and the heart to dust themselves off, perhaps heal, and then try again. (My God, bless Lindsey Vonn’s heart.)

I said it during the last Olympics, but it bears repeating that even when MAGA culture wars manage to get close to a place of excellence, it’s remarkable how far from the actual winner’s podium they happen.

(Why is Riley Gaines one of MAGA’s athletic heroes? Because she’s a fucking loser. Maybe if she had been a stronger swimmer she could have taken a better path in life.)

(snip; Substack Note embed that didn’t)

But enough about Riley Gaines, let’s talk more about Olympians!

These Team USA athletes have shown us these past two weeks how they are heroes in their disciplines, but also a number of them by truly representing the best of the USA, speaking calmly, humbly, compassionately, bravely about what it feels like to be competing under the American flag right now, as the nation that’s often been considered the hope of the world is struggling and buckling under a white supremacist, fascist, neo-Nazi regime that seeks to destroy it.

US freestyle skier Hunter Hess said wearing the American flag doesn’t necessarily mean supporting everything that’s happening in the US right now, and that “it brings up mixed emotions.” He continued: “There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t,” and “I just think, if it aligns with my moral values I think I’m representing it.”

Another skier, Chris Lillis: “I feel heartbroken about what’s happening in the United States. I think that as a country we need to focus on respecting everybody’s rights and making sure that we are treating our citizens as well as anybody with love and respect.”

Amber Glenn: “It’s been a hard time for the [LGBTQ] community overall in this administration. It isn’t the first time that we’ve had to come together as a community and try and fight for our human rights.…I hope I can use my platform and my voice throughout these Games to try and encourage people to stay strong in these hard times.”

Rich Ruohonen, Minnesotan, curling team:

“First of all, I’d like to say I’m proud to be here to represent Team USA, and to represent our country,” Ruohonen began his statement. “But we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention what’s going on in Minnesota, and what a tough time it’s been for everybody. This stuff is happening right around where we live.

“I am a lawyer as you know, and we have a Constitution, and it allows us freedom of the press, freedom of speech, protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and makes it that we have to have probable cause to be pulled over. What’s happening in Minnesota is wrong — there’s no shades of grey. It’s clear.”

You’re either with the Nazis or you’re against them. Period.

For speaking out, these Olympians, some of the real champions of this country, have been bullied, abused, received death threats. Amber Glenn has gotten it some of the worst, because MAGA trash always beats up women the hardest. She had to step off social media because of a “scary amount of hate/threats,” but even as the hate messages were rolling in — you know, while she was busy doing something worthwhile with her life — she said, “I know that a lot of people say you’re just an athlete, like, stick to your job, shut up about politics, but politics affect us all. It is something I will not just be quiet about.”

And then “They hate to see woke bitches winning,” she said on TikTok, posing with Alysa Liu and their team gold figure skating medals.

But my God, how the histrionics have flowed forth from MAGA!

The New York Post can’t fucking stop whining. Wrote their editorial board, “If you don’t want to represent your country, stay home from the Olympics. That’s the message that ungrateful athletes need to hear, after they tore into America in front of the international press.”

Ungrateful athletes. Ungrateful to whom, please, bitchass MAGA losers?

In another article, they outsourced the whining to MAGA nobodies and zeroes on the internet:

“This privileged athlete’s comments clearly show that he puts himself far above his country in this competition,” one user on X wrote. “His comments are an insult to Team USA and the spirit of the Olympics.”

“When you wear the Stars and Stripes, you represent ALL of us — not just the parts you like,” another commenter wrote.

“’Mixed emotions?’ Then stay home and let someone who loves this country shine.”

Another fumed that Hess’ “whole purpose in being there is to REPRESENT the USA,” adding that if he has mixed feelings, “there are other skiers that would love to be there.”

But other skiers didn’t make the cut, and guess who else didn’t? Literally every MAGA trash American punching out mad tweets with their diabetes fingers.

Of course, MAGA’s professional whiners, its elected politicians and pundits, have been doing everything they can to goose the culture war outrage for their little piggies.

“YOU chose to wear our flag. YOU chose to represent our country. YOU chose to compete at the @Olympics,” [Rep. Byron] Donalds (R-Fla.) wrote on X. “If that’s too hard for you, then GO HOME. Some things are bigger than politics. You just don’t get it.”

GOP Senator Rick Scott wants athletes caught expressing wrongthink to be “stripped of their USA Olympic uniform.” JD Vance said some shit but we couldn’t hear it over all the people booing him everywhere he went in Milan.

“Shut up and go play in the snow,” said GOP Rep. Tim Burchett, perhaps easily the stupidest member of Congress, at least on the House side. (Can’t definitively call him the stupidest in the whole building, not while Tommy Tuberville and Ron Johnson are still in the Senate.) He was mad about Hunter Hess’s remarks.

And of course, Stupid Hitler, 2016 election popular vote loser, 2020 total election loser, and 2024 couldn’t-even-get-50-percenter, called Hess a “total loser,” lied and said Hess said he “doesn’t represent his Country in the current Winter Olympics,” and whined that he “shouldn’t have tried out for the team.”

Madame Miserable Megyn Kelly referred to Amber Glenn as “another turncoat to root against” on Twitter.

Raymond Arroyo, the little circus-cast-member-looking MAGA milquetoast who goes on Laura Ingraham to say Black guys love Trump because of how they love sneakers and mugshots, told Laura it’s “borderline treason” what Hess said. (He was also really upset that British skier Gus Kenworthy peed in the snow and spelled out “FUCK ICE.”)

Jesse Kelly: “I’m openly rooting against every one of these people. I hope they fall and embarrass themselves and come in dead last. Man, sports sucks now.” So very upset and angry.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s daughter Evita Duffy-Alonso: “I don’t know why we don’t start vetting these Olympians before they actually start to represent us overseas for their patriotism.”

Sure, Jan.

There is just no shortage of sad, whining, butthurt comments from these brokedicks, messages of hate from America’s Nothings to America’s Somethings, MAGA Cletuses and Karens whose grandchildren don’t call them on Christmas, but who yet sincerely believe they’ve got something valuable to say to our very finest Olympians. My God.

Here are two more, then I will stop giving these creeps airtime:

“I’d rather us lose with patriots, than win with traitors.”

“Hey kid, you’re not doing this Country a ‘favor’ by repping us. In fact, by doing what you’ve done… you’re NOT representing us. Take the uniform off. We don’t need ya.”

We don’t need them … for what? Do these people think they’re in some kind of relationship with America’s Olympians? Bless their hearts.

Notice, please, how these human fistulas all seem to think Olympians are there to serve them, to entertain them. All these mouthbreathers, incels and shut-ins, whining on Twitter and on Fox News that these winners refuse to represent them personally.

As if these nutsacks and walking participation trophies pounding out their messages with Cheeto dust on their scaly hands are somehow characters in our Olympians’ stories? LOL.

Here’s a cold hard truth:

They don’t represent you, MAGA, not really. Because they’re winners, and you’re fucking losers.

They’re winners, and you’re stupid, inbred cows, the absolute worst this country has to offer, the most rancid shit that ever lab-leaked out of the back entrance of God’s imagination factory while His little elves were out on a smoke break.

Sure, they technically compete under the same flag these dorks are always humping with their erections whenever that Lee Greenwood song comes on, but that’s about the extent of the connection.

Because they’re winners, and MAGA are fucking losers.

Lord, the New York Post was even forced to admit that in one of its pathetic articles, that Hess has been all over winners’ podiums at the World Cup and the X Games. That Lillis won gold in 2022 in Beijing. That Glenn is the reigning and three-time US figure skating champion.

Whining that these winners should be pulled from the team? Pffffffft. What, so some kind of 176th-place MAGA athletes can take their places? They think these woke Olympians are taking jobs MAGA would get otherwise?

Maybe Secretary Shitfaced Hegseth can teach them some of his Sit And Be Fit kettlebell swings to get their training started.

Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine. That’s all we ever hear from these people.

And to make a picky point here, but no, pedophile-loving MAGA piss troughs, these athletes don’t hate their country. They hate what these MAGA fascists are doing to their country, as they’re trying to seize permanent power and turn the United States into a shithole that only reflects MAGA’s darkest and most perverted shortcomings, and yanks us all away from the light we’re striving for. They hate MAGA’s vile, inferior vision for a United States that’s nothing but a humping blanket all their most pathetic fucking fears, weakness, grievances and hatred, and a vehicle for retribution against all those who don’t have to live that way because they aren’t total fucking losers like MAGA.

So yeah, I guess Olympians really aren’t competing for the MAGA version of America that’s drenched in the piss-stench of failure. Reckon most of ‘em are too nice to say that, though.

One final thing: As Parker Molloy notes, what these Olympians have said is actually pretty tame, comparatively, and you can really see how far the fascism has encroached comparing this year’s statements to past years under Trump. An example is 2017 Lindsey Vonn, who said “absolutely not” to the prospect of visiting Trump’s White House. What about just before these Olympics? “I’m not going to answer that question because, I’m just not going to answer it,” she said. “I want to keep my passport.” Unfortunately not a crazy thing to say.

I am of course sure MAGA is thrilled at how these Olympics have gone for Vonn.

That said, I do think it’s swinging back the other direction. I think six months ago, nine months ago, these athletes might not even have said the things they’ve said. But then ICE started cold-blooded murdering Americans in the streets and building concentration camps and the Epstein Files just kept leaking out and the fascists are trying to ban James Talarico from saying words on Stephen Colbert, and, and, and.

People are fucking pissed. And I think decent Americans have gotten their groove back, and are much more full of the sense these days that we are going to win.

Speaking of winning:

And Then Last Night!

If you saw the women’s free skate on Thursday, you already know. If you didn’t, LA LA LA LA LA SPOILERS.

After one painfully unfortunate mistake in Amber Glenn’s short program — which waddling MAGA spectators also celebrated — she was pretty much out of medal contention in 13th place, but came back to have the free skate of her absolute life, and climbed all the way to fifth in the final standings.

And then it was Alysa Liu’s turn. She was third after the short program, but she just … did something incredible. She skated to “MacArthur Park,” and she just floated and bounced across that ice like she didn’t have a care in the world. She was flawless. You knew you were seeing something special, the way the commentators just shut. up.

More than anything it was so fun. This woman, my God she is cool.

“THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKIN’ ABOUT!” Liu shouted as she came off the ice. [It has been pointed out in the comments that she actually said “That’s what I’m FUCKIN’ talking about!” and that it was censored in subsequent broadcasts. This makes Liu even cooler. – Ed.] She won the US’s first women’s individual figure skating medal since 2006, the first American gold since Sarah Hughes in 2002.

Two winners.

Oh yeah, and again, the American skaters won the team gold. Which includes Amber Glenn.

“They hate to see two woke bitches winning.”

Fuck yes they do.

Cope forever, losers.

About Those Tariffs,

I’m reading The Guardian’s live updates. Here are a couple of them.

First, I love Sen. Professor Warren:

Lawmakers react to supreme court ruling against Trump’s tariffs

We’re starting to see members of Congress react to the supreme court ruling that many of Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal.

Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, said that no decision can “undo the massive damage that the Trump tariffs have done to small businesses, to American supply chains, and especially to American families forced to pay higher prices on everything from groceries to housing”.

She added that there is “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid”.

“Giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves. It’s one more example of how the game is rigged,” said Warren, who is the ranking member on the Senate banking committee. “Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump.”

==========

Haha. Also note, he’s true to form of accusing his opposition of what’s true about himself and his cult.

Trump lambasts liberal justices on supreme court, says they’re being ‘swayed by foreign interests’ without providing evidence

In his remarks today, Trump lambasted the liberal supreme court justices today, as well as those who concurred with the opinion that the use of IEEPA was illegal.

“The Democrats on the court are thrilled,” Trump said. “They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.”

He went on to criticize “certain” members of the court, which would include justices he nominated to the bench – such as Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution,” Trump added. “It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” he said without citing any evidence for his claims.

So I’m Reading This,

and wondering about the little internet anomalies that happened here after I sent a very nice letter to Sec. Noem about a young woman being detained for protesting, who’s starving to illness because halal food is not provided in her detention facility. You all know me; of course I made it very polite and non-confrontational. I had a few concerns for a bit, then let it go, slept, did yesterday only wondering a bit now and then, but nothing happened. Then this morning, I see this article. sigh I really hate posting this because I’m always encouraging people to write and direct our government, and this is certainly dis-encouraging. And discouraging. But necessary for people to know.

He Sent One Email. Then Federal Agents Came To His Door.

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security is weaponizing a little-known legal tool to crack down on free speech — and Big Tech is complying.

n October, a Philadelphia man sent an email to the Department of Homeland Security criticizing a government policy. Hours later, federal agents and local police were banging on his door to interrogate him without a warrant. It feels like something out of a movie, but it’s real.

Today on Lever Time, David Sirota sits down with ACLU attorney Steve Loney, who’s now representing the man involved, to ask some big questions: How are federal agencies obtaining your private data without a warrant? How are tech giants like Google enabling them? And what should you do if the feds come knocking on your door?

LISTEN: https://megaphone.link/TPG5560517715

Or read the transcript (as I’m doing.) Part of it below, then the rest on the page.

TRANSCRIPT

Following is an automated, unedited transcription of this episode. The text may contain grammatical or spelling errors, especially for proper nouns, or attribute text to the wrong speaker. If you plan to quote any part of this transcript, please first confirm that it is correct by listening to the audio.

[00:00:00] David Sirota: From The Lever’s reader, supported newsroom, it’s Lever Time. I’m David Sirota. The idea of civil liberties can seem abstract. Civil liberties are your basic right to speak out, criticize the government and feel free from state sponsored censorship or intimidation. And it’s easy to take civil liberties for granted as if they just exist.

That is, until they become less abstract and more concrete when the government goes full authoritarian against you. In recent months, we’ve seen the Trump administration deploying immigration enforcement agents to violently invade US cities. Killing people is an obvious violation of their civil liberties, to say the least.

But there’s a quieter assault on civil liberties also happening right now. One that can start with you just sending an innocuous email expressing opposition to a government policy, and then end up with federal agents banging on your door and big tech companies threatening to turn all of your digital data over to federal police.

Now, this may sound like science fiction or something happening in a far away country, but today on Lever Time, you’re gonna hear how it’s happening right here in America at a potentially massive scale, and I have some very big questions for the lawyer right in the middle of this battle.

How can a federal agency subpoena your personal data without a judicial warrant? Why are giant tech companies that once sold themselves as protecting customer’s privacy from government intrusion? Why are they now apparently working with the Trump administration to destroy that privacy? And what can you do if you find one of these subpoena threats in your own email inbox? Coming up, my discussion with ACLU attorney, Steve Loney, who tells the harrowing tale of one man being threatened by the government for sending an email opposing ICE’s policy and what they discovered when pushing back against the Trump administration and Big Tech.

Why don’t we start with, um, just who you are, uh, what you do, and anything you think the audience should know. Uh, for purposes of this conversation.

[00:02:22] Steve Loney: My name is Steve Loney. I’m the senior supervising attorney at the A CLU of Pennsylvania. Um, the senior attorney in the Alus Philadelphia office. I am a civil rights attorney, um, one of the last of the generalists.

So if, uh, people’s civil rights are being violated in Pennsylvania, then um, I may be on the case. I have a pretty significant First Amendment docket, which is how I got involved in cases involving people. Having their data subpoenaed by the federal government, and a couple of the most significant or high profile cases have come out of Pennsylvania and activists, uh, in suburban Philadelphia.

[00:02:58] David Sirota: So the story that we’re talking about today starts with a Washington Post article, and I want you to tell me about this article published in late October. Of 2025 detailing how the Trump administration decided to deport a man, a father of two to Afghanistan, where he expected the Taliban to kill him.

Just set the scene here with this article coming out.

[00:03:26] Steve Loney: It started with a man who ended up being our client sitting in the suburbs of Philadelphia reading. This post article in October about the government sort of stripping status for an asylum seeker, somebody who was trying to stay in the United States legally.

Um, so to the extent that all of this debate around immigration is about, you know, trying to find a path to be here illegally, this individual apparently was seeking a path to be here illegally. He had a live asylum application. His asylum claim was based on his legitimate fear that if he returned. To Afghanistan after having helped the United States while he was there.

Then he would suffer retribution, maybe even be killed by the Taliban. So the post published an article about his case where the government was essentially revoking his status and attempting to deport him imminently. And the men ended up being our client. John, and I’ll avoid using his last name because part of the First Amendment issue here is DHS piercing the bail of anonymity for people who are trying to express their abuse anonymously.

John is a naturalized citizen in Pennsylvania who is very politically interested, very upset about what’s happening. Right now, especially as it pertains to immigration. As somebody who was born in another country and worked to become a United States citizen, he read this article and was appalled by the position the government was taking.

In that article, a government lawyer, a United States lawyer from the DOJ was identified as the lawyer identified by name. It’s this is a public servant doing the business of the government in public. So this is not a doxing situation, however people might try to use that term. This is somebody who publicly signed the papers in the Afghanistan refugees case and was identified by the Post.

Our client did a quick Google search, found the government lawyer’s email address listed publicly. Again, I think he found it on his state bar’s website, so he decided to send an email to the government lawyer. It was a very innocuous, non-threatening, just plea for. The government to do the right thing and not let this individual from Afghanistan go home to face torture and death.

[00:05:38] David Sirota: So at this point in, in this story, the Washington Post publishes a story that’s, uh, a pretty tragic story of the Trump administration deporting a guy potentially sending him back to a country where he could get killed. Somebody else reads this story. Sees the, uh, public official quoted emails, the public official, a plea for a different, a different decision.

[00:06:04] Steve Loney: I believe his words were a plea for decency. Apply human decency. That was this. This was the guy’s crime, was to ask a government official to be decent,

[00:06:12] David Sirota: and that gets to this next part, which is a crime, right? That apparently in doing this, the response was to treat the. Guy who sent the email almost as a criminal, what happened next?

[00:06:28] Steve Loney: What happened next was that the government investigated him or started to investigate him as a criminal. Within hours of hitting send on the email, he used his Gmail account to send this email to the government official, and within hours he received a notice on his Gmail account sort of form. Notice from Google saying that we’re waiting to notify you that your data has been requested by a government agency and you have seven days to seek a court order stopping this or else we’re gonna comply and hand over your data to the government.

[00:06:56] David Sirota: This is hours later.

[00:06:57] Steve Loney: Hours

[00:06:57] David Sirota: later, like not, not a few days later, not caught in the spam filter. It’s like sends the email, maybe goes out, does some errands, comes back, checks his email, and he gets this email in his Gmail precisely saying. The government is like knocking down our door. Google’s door demanding your data,

[00:07:13] Steve Loney: right?

And Google’s not gonna step up and try to resist this. Google’s not gonna look into whether this is a legitimate government inquiry. Google is putting the onus on this individual who all he did was send a two line email to navigate federal courts and figure out what motion to file on his own dime. To stop this train or else Google’s gonna comply with the subpoena.

[00:07:34] David Sirota: This subpoena, to be clear, is known as an administrative subpoena. So just for people who hear this term, it’s not like the government went to a judge, got a judge to sign off on a warrant, like in a couple of hours, and then sent something to Google. This is something. Different. And I think it’s important for people to understand what an administrative subpoena is as distinct from a, a judicial warrant,

[00:08:00] Steve Loney: right?

And, and a judicial warrant is what you would normally expect to be sought by a prosecutorial entity trying to prosecute or investigate a crime. So, as I said before, they treated him like a criminal, but they didn’t follow the procedures and the guardrails that are in place to protect our rights. In the event that.

A prosecutor wants a warrant to search your stuff. So what they’re doing instead is trying to shoehorn these kinds of requests into administrative subpoenas. So administrative subpoenas are authorized to some extent by statute. So DHS has statutory authority to investigate, essentially, I’m gonna oversimplify, but essentially violations of immigration law or interference with immigration functions.

So if DHS is legitimately. Investigating a violation of the immigration laws. It can issue its own subpoena. It doesn’t have to go to to a judge because it’s not, that is not a criminal process. That or it’s not yet a criminal process, right? So the agency can do agency things through an administrative subpoena, but there are still guardrails and, and a bygone, quaint era of Trump won.

We might’ve expected the tech companies who are under no obligation. This is, this is a big distinction between a criminal search warrant signed by a judge and an administrative subpoena. The recipient of the administrative subpoena, the tech company can actually say no. They can say thanks. No thanks.

And in that past era when tech companies seemed to be more interested in kind of marketing how good of a job they were doing at protecting their users’, privacy would kind of tout that we will push back on these subpoenas. And they did. And there were some cases like this, that back and forth, the administrative subpoena goes to Google or any tech company, they look at it, they realize it’s not a judicially signed warrant.

They say, no thanks. Then the onus is on the government to go to court and they know how to file things in federal court. The onus is on the government to go to court and justify why their investigation is tied to that statutory authority. Right. And it’s so then it’s not on the end user. But things have shifted now in a couple of different ways.

One is we’ve learned that. DHS is overusing these administrative subpoenas.

[00:10:16] David Sirota: How much, like what are we talking about overusing?

(snip-more)

No SAVE America Act:

I know; it’s always something, and it’s always call/write our lawmakers (which is no more than what we ought to be doing, anyway, but still.) Maybe a reader hasn’t decided what to stand up for, or stand up to. Might as well be this, then: