Woot! Late-breaking News, Bringing It Here A Bit Later:

The SAVE Act Is Dead, Fulton County Is Fighting Back; So, Of Course, Trump Wants To Seize Control Of The Election

Here’s everything you need to know after a day of fast moving developments

Joyce Vance Feb 26, 2026

The SAVE Act appears to be dead, at least for now.

Trump wanted his party to enact the SAVE Act because it was supposed to make it more difficult for citizens he thinks are Democrats to vote: Its strict ID requirements would have impacted poor people, elderly people, students, married women, and others.

Although Trump pushed hard for its passage, most recently during the State of the Union address, enough Senate Republicans defected to make passage a possibility too remote to pursue. Republicans attempted a “talking filibuster” to get the bill across the finish line, but the procedural unity that would have required failed to materialize. Per Punchbowl News, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, Utah’s John Curtis, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, and possibly others who weren’t named broke ranks.

It’s a major loss for the president.

There is also good news out of Fulton County, Georgia.

Instead of the hearing we were expecting on the County officials’ request to have their 600 boxes of election records restored to them this Friday, we got an order from Judge J.P. Boulee.

The County officials asked the Judge to use Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 to restore their property to them. That rule permits: “A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property’s return.” Judge Boulee set forth the four requirements for establishing that the moving party is entitled to have their items returned:

(1) the government displayed a “callous disregard” for the plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

(2) the plaintiff has an individual interest in and need for the material whose return he seeks;

(3) the plaintiff would be irreparably injured by denial of the return of the property; and

(4) the plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law absent the Rule 41 proceeding.

The Judge pointed out that a successful Rule 41 proceeding would not deprive the government of the use of evidence for lawful purposes. If returned, the County would be required to preserve the documents for the government’s later use—a requirement that it is already subject to, because these are election records that must be maintained.

The Judge noted his obligation to hear testimony and take evidence if he was ultimately called upon to decide the dispute. That’s something that DOJ might be eager to avoid, given the apparent irregularities in their process, which saw the head of the Atlanta FBI office step aside and a U.S. Attorney from Missouri, instead of the one in Atlanta, handle the matter. He then gave the government an out: “the Court believes it is best for the parties to work toward a mutually agreeable resolution before receiving additional evidence.” He gave them until March 4 to agree on a mediator and until the 18th to report back on whether the mediation succeeds.

It’s a strong move from the Judge. He declines to rule on whether the County officials can meet the high standard for proof under Rule 41. But the fact that he hasn’t denied their request out of hand and is treating it this seriously strongly suggests to the government where this is headed if they don’t reach a deal to return the records to the County. Rule 41 proceedings don’t usually make it this far, and the government has to be concerned that’s a very bad sign for them. The risk that they will still have to return the items they seized pursuant to a court order, and that all of their maneuvering will be publicly exposed in the process, is substantial.

There’s a subtle additional benefit here. The subtext has always been that this process, designed to cast doubt on election officials in the County (even though recounts and court cases confirmed the outcome), was designed to permit Republicans who control the state legislature to take over elections. It will be much more difficult for them to proceed while this process lingers, so a delay of even a couple of weeks, with the elections drawing ever closer, isn’t a bad thing.

And finally, a caution.

The Washington Post reported this morning that “Pro-Trump activists who say they are in coordination with the White House are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

Of course, at the time, and with Trump officials in place running cybersecurity, there was a different message. In a Joint Statement, the National Coordinator for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience CISA, the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC), and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC), reported that “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history . … There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised … While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections … we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.” Chris Krebs, Trump’s Director at CISA, told 60 Minutes that “[Election] Day was quiet. There was no indication or evidence that there was any evidence of hacking or compromise of election systems on, before, or after November 3 … We did a good job. I would do it one thousand times over.”

Beyond that, a 2021 intelligence review concluded that China did not engage in efforts to influence the 2020 election. There were multiple audits and recountscourt rulings, and investigations without any finding of widespread fraud. There was no evidence of coordinated foreign interference.

So we all get it. It’s another ginned-up emergency. There wasn’t an outbreak of irrepressible crime on American streets that necessitated the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. Trump made that up. A Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, wasn’t invading the United States. Trump made that up. There wasn’t a balance of payments problem that warranted the imposition of exceptional tariffs. Trump made that up. And there’s not an emergency involving our elections that means Trump should take control of them. He’s making that up too—to the extent that there’s an emergency, he’s the cause of it.

The order Trump’s election denier buddies are pushing would use the supposed China emergency as the reason to declare yet another national emergency. The Post’s reporting suggests they will claim that permits them to “mandate voter ID, ban mail ballots, and change voting machines in November’s midterm elections.” How convenient—all the stuff they want to do, but can’t, because the law doesn’t permit it or Congress won’t pass laws authorizing it, tied up with a nice, neat bow into another one of those “uh oh—emergency, so I can claim extraordinary powers” executive orders Trump has become so fond of using.

The reality is that the president lacks constitutional authority to control elections. The Constitution gives that authority to the states. Even if Trump declared another national emergency, there is no basis for the assertion it would permit him to seize control of the elections. All this plot shows is that Trump lacks confidence in his party’s ability to win the midterm elections.

The election deniers are back in the White House and hard at work, as they were in 2020, to try and prevent American voters from determining the outcome of this year’s elections. Just like it did in 2020, the rule of law will prevail here.

Pro-voter lawyers will go to court if Trump tries to implement this kind of desperate attempt to rig the election. And they will win. Even the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump, now in both the National Guard and in the tariffs cases, when he attempted to drum up fake emergencies to justify his assumption of exceptional powers. Nothing is certain with this Court, but district court judges who are increasingly taking this administration to task and holding it to account are likely to pave a smooth path. And working against the administration is the clear fact that the greatest threat to free and fair elections isn’t China, non-citizens, or Democrats—it’s this president and his cronies.

For years, I’ve been working to educate the public on the fact that voter fraud isn’t the problem—all of the evidence is to the contrary. The real issue is Republicans who use false or dramatically overblown claims of fraud to suppress the vote, and keep eligible citizens from voting. Let’s stay informed and make sure they don’t get away with that this year.

(snip)

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Reddit, Meta, and Google Voluntarily Gave DHS Info of Anti-ICE Users, Report Says

https://gizmodo.com/reddit-meta-and-google-voluntarily-gave-dhs-info-of-anti-ice-users-report-says-2000722279

DHS is expanding its use of administrative subpoenas, which don’t come from judges.
By 
A U.S. Department Of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection sign is displayed at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters on May 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Reddit, Meta, and Google voluntarily “complied with some of the requests” for identifying details of users critical of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent as part of a recent wave of administrative subpoenas the Department of Homeland Security has been distributing to Big Tech the past few months, according to an anonymously sourced New York Times report.

Those three companies, plus Discord, have received “hundreds” of such requests that have come from DHS recently. Meta, it should be noted, is the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp.

Administrative subpoenas used for this purpose represent an escalation. This tool, which comes not from a judge but from DHS itself, was formerly reserved for situations like child abductions, according to the Times.

The users were targeted because their posts “criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents,” the Times says.

A Google spokesperson replied to the Times with a statement, saying “When we receive a subpoena, our review process is designed to protect user privacy while meeting our legal obligations,” and “We inform users when their accounts have been subpoenaed, unless under legal order not to or in an exceptional circumstance. We review every legal demand and push back against those that are overbroad.”

Gizmodo requested comment from Meta, Discord, and Reddit. We will update if we hear back.

According to the Times, one or multiple of the relevant companies have stated that they notify users of these requests from DHS, and give them a 14-day window to “fight the subpoena in court” before complying.

Amazon has also been accused of at least some degree of participation with ICE’s ongoing mass deportation efforts. In October, Amazon-owned Ring announced a partnership with Flock that would loop the AI-powered network into the content coming from users’ doorbell cameras. According to a 404 Media investigation, that network feeds information to law enforcement agencies at the local and federal levels, allowing for reasonable concern that ICE has access to all that footage.

Protesters have launched an effort called “Resist and Unsubscribe” targeting ten tech companies they perceive as exceptionally supportive of ICE. That list includes Meta, Google, and Amazon, but not Reddit.

Trump’s ICE is now holding a political prisoner for one year—and unless we speak up, she won’t be the last!

https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/trumps-ice-is-now-holding-a-political

This is the next page in the fascist playbook

A verity of clips from the majority report

 

 

 

 

A Couple Of Pertinent Snippets From Erin In The Morning:

American Psychological Association Reaffirms Support For Trans Youth Care, Pushes Back Against NYT

A recent article from Jesse Singal in the New York Times seemed to indicate the organization might be quietly retreating from supporting trans youth care.

Erin Reed Feb 25, 2026

Yesterday, anti-transgender activist and columnist Jesse Singal published a piece claiming there were “cracks in the wall” around gender-affirming care (which you can find fully fact-checked here). To make that case, he relied heavily on a statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons that bypassed the organization’s normal scientific review process and was advanced under pressure from leadership aligned with the Trump administration, including a president who is a major Republican donor. Singal also invoked the American Psychological Association, suggesting the organization was retreating from its 2024 position supporting transgender care and rejecting claims that gender identity is “caused” by external factors. But a representative for the APA tells Erin In The Morning that the organization stands firmly by its 2024 guidelines supporting transgender youth care and provided documentation indicating Singal mischaracterized its position.

“No, APA’s position has not changed,” says a representative speaking for the APA, attaching a link to their 2024 policy statement which provided broad support for gender-affirming care. “APA continues to support unobstructed access to evidence-based care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals of all ages.”

The 2024 policy statement is to date one of the most significant supportive stances of any medical organization for gender-affirming care. It states that gender-affirming medical care is medically necessary, opposes bans on gender-affirming care, declares that being transgender is not caused by autism or post-traumatic stress, establishes the organization’s support for combatting disinformation on transgender healthcare, and finds that rejection of a trans youth’s gender identity can increase their risk of suicide and harm their psychological wellbeing. The policy was passed overwhelmingly, 153-9, with each voter representing a large subset of the organization’s 157,000 members. Now, the organization says that it is not accurate to claim that there is any regression on support for transgender youth care from the organization.

The organization also disputes Singal’s portrayal of a 2025 letter written by Katherine McGuire to the Federal Trade Commission. In his piece, Singal claims the APA “cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of ‘trauma-related presentations’ rather than a trans identity,” and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria,” framing this as evidence that the organization is retreating from its 2024 policy supporting transgender youth care. That interpretation is incorrect, according to an APA representative, who says the letter does not contradict the organization’s 2024 position and does not represent a regression in its support for evidence-based transgender care. (snip-MORE)

And again with the big-money outsiders meddling in state lawmaking:

Billionaire-Funded Anti-Trans Bathroom/Sports Ban Ballot Initiative Moves Forward In Maine

The ballot initiative is bankrolled by billionaire anti-trans donor, Richard Uihlein, and represents a new line of attack against transgender people in blue states.

Erin Reed Feb 23, 2026

Anti-trans organization “Protect Girls Sports in Maine” has announced that it has collected enough signatures to get a combination transgender sports ban and school bathroom ban onto the November 2026 ballot, making Maine the second state this year to announce a ballot initiative targeting transgender people in a blue state after a similar effort in Washington. This comes after Maine Gov. Janet Mills fiercely rejected Trump administration attempts to strongarm the state into enacting such restrictions on its own, under threat of losing school lunch money and more. Now, voters may directly determine the fate of transgender youth in schools across the state after a massive signature drive bankrolled by billionaire Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein, the latest in an attempt by ultra-wealthy conservative donors to export anti-trans discrimination across the United States through direct ballot measures.

“Not only will our initiative become the only citizen-led issue to appear on the 2026 Maine ballot, but we will likely be the first state where voters can protect female sports at the ballot box this November. We will pave the way for the rest of this nation,” said Leyland Streiff, the lead petitioner, about the ballot initiative turn-in. Notably, he remained cagey about bathrooms, which the ballot initiative will also heavily impact, in a possibly strategic angle to hide that the bill is much more expansive than he gives credit for.

The initiative would, according to the summary page, define a person’s sex for school purposes as “a person’s biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the person’s original birth certificate.” It would “require schools to maintain separate restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, and other private spaces for each sex,” going beyond sports. It would also create a “private right of action” for a student who “suffers direct injury because of a violation of a provision of the initiated bill,” allowing students to sue if they encounter transgender students in bathrooms at schools or in sports. Lastly, it specifically carves out transgender students in bathrooms and sports from the Maine Human Rights Act.

Maine LGBTQ+ organizations fiercely condemned the bill. David Farmer, speaking on behalf of an opponent coalition of LGBTQ+ organizations across the state, called the referendum a “one-size fits all approach to sports participation and bathrooms that will increase bullying and harassment and cost local schools millions of dollars for construction and litigation.” He also called out the billionaire backing of the bill, stating, “This is a cynical attempt by one of the richest people in the world to manipulate voters in hopes of influencing the U.S. Senate race, the race for governor and the races for Congress.” (snip-MORE)

OK, So. On The One Hand,

I really don’t care to dignify or even acknowledge that last night’s spectacle was an actual State Of The Union address, but it was what we get. I thought I’d simply ignore all of it and all surrounding it, but of course I read this article in The Guardian because old civic duties habits die hard (this one’s not dead yet!), and I thought I’d bring it here because it’s not sharp or negative. It’s simply what happened. (And what, no doubt, we all expected, though I’m certain some expected far less from the Democrats in attendance.)

Why the longest-ever State of the Union address was the most inconsequential

Amid Trump’s lies and xenophobic rants, people struggling to pay bills and make ends meet are unlikely to be moved

He wanted to give the king’s speech. Donald Trump entered the US House chamber on Tuesday like a medieval monarch, with Republicans lined up eager to touch his royal robes (or, in two cases, grab a selfie with him). But within moments, the illusion was shattered.

As the US president strolled by, soaking up adulation, Democratic representative Al Green of Texas held aloft a handwritten sign: “Black people aren’t apes!” – a reference to Trump recently sharing a racist video depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama.

When the first State of the Union address of Trump’s second term got under way, Republicans moved in on Green menacingly and tried to tear the sign away. But he persisted until being escorted out for the second year in a row. As he departed, there were more acrimonious exchanges with Republicans, a few of whom tried to start a chant of “USA! USA!”

(snip-embedded 3 minute video, on the page: “Donald Trump’s two-hour State of the Union address in 3 minutes – video”)

It was the first but not the last time that a person of color would take a stand during the wannabe autocrat’s record 107-minute speech while others remained silent or raucously egged him on. It was a night where Trump again sought to poison US politics and divide Americans along various fault lines, none more inflammatory than race.

The great salesman, sporting his familiar red tie and orange hue, began with a predictable pitch: “Our nation is back – bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.” In his telling, inflation, mortgage rates and gas prices are falling, while the stock market, oil production and foreign direct investment are booming along with construction and factory jobs.

Luckily for Trump’s speechwriter, the US men’s hockey team won Olympic gold two days earlier. The reality TV president hailed them in the press gallery, prompting applause and roars from both Democrats and Republicans. But while Republicans chanted “USA! USA!” with gusto, barely any Democrats did.

“We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it,” Trump declared. While he didn’t mention his gilded ballroom, it was still a Pollyannish version of America that will not be recognized by people struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. Trump is not the man to offer: “I feel your pain.”

Republicans ritually stood and clapped and cheered all the same. Democrats, who last year waved protest signs that looked like Marty Supreme’s table tennis paddle, this time remained bolted to their seats and grunted, rolled their eyes, dropped their jaws, shook their heads, waved their hands or got bored and studied their phones.

Trump moved on to his beloved tariffs, calling the supreme court decision to kill his pet project “very unfortunate” and “disappointing” as four black-robed justices wore inscrutable expressions on the front row. Compared with last week’s White House tantrum, when he threw all toys and decorum out of the pram, this was Trump showing self-restraint worthy of a child refusing a second ice cream.

It didn’t last. As Trump riffed on crime, election integrity and transgender issues, he turned his fire on Democrats: “These people are crazy, I’m telling ya, they’re crazy. Boy, oh, boy, we’re lucky we have a country with people like this. Democrats are destroying our country, but we’ve stopped it just in the nick of time.”

He soon reminded everyone that, since the day he came down the golden escalator a decade ago and ranted about immigrants, race has always been at the heart of the Trumpist project. He gazed out at a chamber where Democrats – including the late Jesse Jackson’s son, Jonathan Jackson – somewhat resembled America in their diversity while Republicans presented a sea of white faces with only a handful of exceptions.

Trump announced a “war on fraud” led by vice-president JD Vance, citing a social services scam in Minnesota that he mendaciously and absurdly estimated to have cost $19bn. Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born representative from Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian American from Michigan, shouted: “That’s a lie!” and “You’re a liar!”

The president was just warming up. He went on a xenophobic rant: “The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception. Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here, to the USA.”

Omar shook her head, perhaps more in sorrow than in anger.

Trump challenged Democrats: “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Democrats remained seated. Trump retorted: “You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up.”

It was rich from the man who sent a goon squad into Minneapolis that resulted in the needless deaths of two US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who went unmentioned by the president (as did survivors of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein).

Omar, raising a hand to the side of her mouth to project her voice, yelled with piercing moral clarity: “You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans!”

Helpfully, Omar and Tlaib had set up a real-time factchecking service for the chamber. Trump boasted that he ended eight wars. Tlaib shouted: “It’s a lie! What are you talking about?”

Trump said: “No one cares more about protecting America’s youth – .” Tlaib interjected: “Then release the Epstein files!”

Trump vowed to halt insider trading by members of Congress. Mark Takano of California yelled: “How about you first!” Tlaib called out: “You’re the most corrupt president!”

The more Trump talked, the less he said. He had gone into the address with an approval rating of 39% positive and 60% negative, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, lower than any past president delivering his first State of the Union address. Over an hour and 47 minutes, he offered little to change that equation. The longest State of the Union speech in history was also one of the most inconsequential.

It was small wonder that Omar, Tlaib and several other Democrats walked out before the end. As for Green, his seat remained empty too save for a handwritten cardboard sign that simply and defiantly said: “Al Green.”

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

ICE gang thugs caught lying to the courts

ICE going after people with legal permission to be in the US but have not gotten a green card yet

Attorney on 9-year-old client in Dilley detention site: ‘She wishes she was no longer alive’

Attorney on 9-year-old client in Dilley detention site: ‘She wishes she was no longer alive’

The family of 5 has been detained in the immigrant detention facility near San Antonio for 8 months, and each of the kids has had a birthday inside.
A 5-year-old girl detained in Dilley drew herself and her family trapped in a cage.Credit: Courtesy / Eric Lee

A 9-year-old girl detained in Dilley’s South Texas Family Residential Center says she wants to die, according to family attorney Eric Lee, who recently went viral when a protest erupted inside the facility as he tried to visit his clients.

“The 9-year-old has expressed that she wishes she was no longer alive,” Lee said in a Wednesday phone interview with the Current.

Lee said the mother conveyed her child’s alarming wish to him in a recent a phone call from within the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility an hour southwest of San Antonio, which houses over 1,400 people, including hundreds of children.

Lee represents a family of five, consisting of the 9-year-old along with 5-year-old twin sisters, a 16-year old brother, an 18-year-old sister and her mother. All are Egyptian citizens, and all have had birthdays inside the facility. The minors are not named in this article to protect their identities.

The family, which immigrated from Kuwait, has been detained in Dilley for eight months for what Lee calls “political retribution” from the Trump administration for the alleged crimes of the family’s patriarch, Mohamed Soliman. Soliman became a suspect in an anti-Semitic attack in Boulder, Colorado last June using Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower.

The attack left seven people injured. One 82-year-old woman died from injuries relating to the attack 24 days later. Soliman received 12 counts of federal hate crime and 118 state criminal charges.

When the attack occurred, Soliman had been estranged from the family for at least a year, living in his car over an hour away and working as an Uber driver, according to Lee. Soliman only saw his family once a week at most, the attorney added, saying they had no knowledge of his plans. The family has spoken out condemning the attack and the mother, Hayam El Gamal, is now seeking a divorce.

Over the months of detainment, their mental health has deteriorated, Lee said.

On a previous visit, the 9-year old daughter gave Lee a picture she drew inside Dilley. The drawing is of the Colorado house she hasn’t seen in the months she’s been in detention.

A 9-year-old child detained in Dilley for months drew this picture of her one-time home.Credit: Courtesy / Eric Lee

One of the five-year-old twins also gave Lee a drawing, which depicts her and her family in a cage. She told Lee that she had a dream that she was trying to run away from a wild animal.

“But she’s stuck in a cage and can’t get out,” Lee said.

The family’s younger kids also have begun skipping meals, “which they hadn’t been doing before,” Lee added.

People detained at the Dilley site have complained that the food inside sometimes is served with bugs, worms and mold. Lee described the water there as “putrid.”

The 16-year-old boy at one point suffered from appendicitis and was told to simply take a pain reliever before collapsing and being rushed to the hospital.

“He could have died,” Lee said.

But, if deported, the family could face certain death in Egypt, Lee claims, for cooperating with the FBI and speaking out against their patriarch.

The Detroit attorney says after months of detention, the Soliman family’s optimism began to rapidly decline in January.

“They really believed that the immigration judge was going to give them a fair hearing after he granted them bond in September,” Lee said. “And so they were hopeful, they were hopeful that they were going to be released through that process, and they weren’t.”

Meanwhile, even the older siblings have shown signs of worsening mental health, despite attempting to hold it together for their family, the attorney added.

“[T]he 16 year old, who’s been kind of, you know, rock solid, taking on the role of man of the house — his attitude has really begun to change,” Lee said. “And that goes for all of them.”

The oldest daughter, Habiba Soliman, was separated from her family once she turned 18 as punishment for talking to the press, Lee asserted. Separated from her family, she’s also been denied religious exemptions, he added.

“They’ve been calling me less in the last week or so, which I think is because they’re just sort of despondent and depressed,” Lee said of his clients. “That’s been the goal from the start, to ruin these children’s lives. And they didn’t do anything.”

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who wrote the fiery opinion releasing 5-year-old Minneapolis boy Liam Conejo Ramos from the same facility, will consider the family’s third habeas case, but Lee doesn’t know when.

“It’s a deplorable situation. There’s really no silver lining,” Lee added.