Trump Lies Told in the State of the Union Address.

 by Rod Williams, Feb 25, 2026- How do you tell if Trump is lying? His mouth is moving.

I watched the State of the Union last night, and several times I had to say to myself, "I just don't believe that is true," or "I know that is not true." One of the biggest lies he told was that foreign countries pay the tariffs the US imposes. He never gets tired of that lie and repeats it constantly and everyone knows it is not true, everyone except the most ardent Trump fan knows it is not true.  Facts just don't matter to Trump, and facts also don't matter to many Trump supporters. That is just the world we live in. 

CNN did a fact check of Trump. If any Trump cult members are reading this, you can stop now, and just say, "CNN! Fake News!"  That is what Trumpinistas do. "Fake News," to a Trump true-believer, does not mean something is untrue; it means it is an inconvenient fact. Trump true-believers don't want truth; they have faith. They do not want to be confused with facts. If you want some variety in your "fake news" response, you can also respond with "TDS." Dismissing by shouting "TDS" or "Fake News" is easier than facing reality. 

I am just listing the lies, not the explanation. Follow the link to read more details of the lies. 

• Trump falsely claims US has secured ‘$18 trillion’ in investments
• Trump’s misleading claims on gasoline prices
• Trump falsely claims he inherited record inflation. This was such a blatant lie. I was a young man in the early 70's and remember the high inflation of that time, so I knew the inflation under Joe Biden was not the highest inflation of all time. Inflation peaked near 12% in 1974, with a 12.2% annual rate reported in November 1974. I remember it. I lived through it. 
• Trump claimed that he inherited a “stagnant economy” from the Biden administration and that it is now “roaring like never before.” The US economy grew 2.2% in 2025, which was lower than in any year of the Biden presidency.
• Trump falsely claims foreign countries are paying his tariffs. This is his favorite lie other than the lie of the stolen election. Claiming this would be like claiming the grass is blue and the sky is green. This is not an exaggeration or an interpretation of facts. It is a blatant lie. Nevertheless, many Trump supporters believe it, proving that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
• Trump’s claim that more Americans are working today than ever.
• Trump’s claim he passed largest tax cuts in American history.
• Trump’s false claim on balancing the federal budget by ending fraud.
• Trump falsely claims that Biden allowed ‘11,888 murderers’ to enter US as migrants.
• Trump falsely claims he ended eight wars.
• Trump’s multiple false claims about US elections.
• Trump falsely claims a Charlotte killer ‘came in through open borders.’
• Trump’s two false claims about crime in Washington, DC.
• Trump’s unproven claim on fraud in Minnesota.

Top Stories

The FCC Finds the Bad Bunny Halftime Show Was, "No Violation of Our rules" and There Was "No Justification For Harassing Broadcasters.

by Rod Williams, Feb. 23, 2026 -In case you missed it, Trump's number one kiss-ass in the US Congress, our own Andy Ogles, went after Bad Bunny and called for an investigation into Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl half-time show, suggesting it amounted to broadcasting “gay pornography” during prime time. (Maybe I should keep the tone elevated and refer to Ogles as "a leading supporter of  Trump," or maybe, "a leading sycophant?" No. I don't feel like it. He's a kiss-ass.)

Filling legislation or calling for government action or investigation that parrots Trump's latest outrage or temper tantrum is kind of what Andy Ogles does. Trump expresses displeasure with something, and Andy Ogles immediately calls for an investigation to go after whoever offended Trump, or he introduces legislation to address whatever annoyed Trump. Ogles is like the little lap dog, always ready to please. He is kind of pathetic. Here are some examples of kiss-ass actions by Ogles.

Third-Term Constitutional Amendment: In January 2025, following reports of a federal investigation into his own campaign finances, Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow Donald Trump to seek a third term. Ogles described this as "imperative" to give Trump "every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration".

Anti-DEI/Pro-Trump Legislation: Ogles has filed articles of impeachment against judges who previously ruled against the Trump administration. 

He proposed the "Make Greenland Great Again" bill, following Trump's public interest in purchasing the island.

Oversight of Opponents: Ogles has demanded investigations into organizations and individuals deemed to be opposing the Trump agenda, such as calling for a Department of Education investigation into Belmont University over "shadow operation" concerns.

After a Feb. 8th President Trump Truth Social post saying the Bad Bunny half-time show "absolutely terrible" and "an affront to the Greatness of America," Andy Ogles sprang into action.  In a letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ogles argued the show was inappropriate for family viewing. and called for an FCC investigation. 

The FCC does have some authority to regulate the content broadcast over the airways. The FCC was established to assign and regulate frequencies. Since bandwidth is limited, it was determined that some order was needed to regulate who had what position on the dial. Also, the argument goes, that since the airways are the "public airways," the government should have some say in what is broadcast over the airways, and the broadcast should be in the public interest. Such authority does not extend to live streaming of internet content. The same logic does not apply. Since the Super Bowl is broadcast over public airways, the FCC does have some oversight. 

In response to Ogles request, the Federal Communications Commission requested transcripts of Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime show from NBC and reviewed them. Commissioner Anna Gomez said she reviewed the transcripts of the performance after she learned the commission had requested them. She told the media that she found "no violation of our rules and no justification for harassing broadcasters over a standard live performance." The New York Post reported that the FCC does not plan to review the matter further, barring further evidence, citing a source familiar with the matter.

I guess that's it. Trump has a short attention span and probably will let the matter drop unless someone can keep him riled up. He has tariffs and war with Iran, and stealing a mid-term and a lot more important matters to worry about. However, I don't know. Anna Gomez is a Hispanic. That might be a factor. Trump may decide to fire her, deport her, or return to this matter to stir up his nationalistic anti-immigrant base. With a dip in the polls, he may need to divert attention and throw the base some red meat. I can see the argument now, if not stated, then implied: A deep-state Hispanic bureaucrat protects a Puerto Rican performer from the consequences of his smutty halftime show. Hopefully not. 

Meanwhile, Andy is waiting, standing by to anticipate what his master wants him to do next, craving that pat on the head. 

Top Stories

The President is Seeking to Exploit Questionable Statutory Language to Aggrandize His Own Power,

Kevin D. Williamson

by Kevin D. Williamson, The Dispatch, February 23, 2026 - ... Suppose for argument’s sake that Congress can delegate its tariff powers to the President as completely as Justice Thomas suggests. Even then, the question remains whether Congress has given the President the tariff authority he claims in this case—or whether the President is seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power. ...

.... Of course “the President is seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” He also seeks to exploit imaginary statutory language to aggrandize his own power, and seeks to exploit phony emergencies to aggrandize his own power, to exploit imaginary Venezuelan fentanyl to aggrandize his own power, to exploit imaginary Haitian cat-eaters in Ohio to aggrandize his own power, to exploit an absolutely ignorant misunderstanding of trade deficits to aggrandize his own power, etc. The president of these United States is not an aspiring autocrat but an actual autocrat acting outside of the constitutional powers of his office in matters ranging from imposing illegal taxes on Americans to carrying out massacres of civilians in the Caribbean. Speaking with his trademark stroke victim’s diction, Trump insisted: 

I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country! I’m even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want, but I can’t charge $1. Because that’s not what it says, and that’s the way it even reads. I can do anything I wanted to do to them but can’t charge any money. So I’m allowed to destroy the country, but it can’t be a little fee.

We have there what would have been another Kinsley gaffe coming from the mouth of anyone else—the president’s attachment to the erroneous and unconstitutional idea that “I can do anything I want”—but, given that Trump has been talking about himself as a god-emperor for as long as he has been in politics, the statement surely is not unintentional.

“The President is seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power,” writes the chief justice—out of context, yes, but that is where the truth is. And the Supreme Court now has acted, in its modest way. Trump, being Trump, has announced that he will set about subverting this ruling by any means he can find “to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” ... 

... Attention to Mike Johnson, the gutless worm who serves as speaker of the House—that is the sound of history calling your name. The Supreme Court has done what the Supreme Court can do, but now it is time for Congress to get in the game—long past time, in fact. The best time for Congress to rediscover its self-respect (as opposed to its self-importance) would have been 40 years ago—the second-best time is now. Never mind the fantasy of a Republican Congress impeaching and removing Donald Trump from the presidency, a prophylactic measure that should have been taken at the very latest after the attempted coup d’état that crowned his first administration but which was not, thanks in part to the catastrophic miscalculation of the risk-averse Mitch McConnell, then the Republican leader in the Senate. Congressional Republicans, having grown accustomed to (and perhaps even fond of) the taste of cordwainer’s leather, will not be weaned from their boot-licking ways so quickly. What could be done instead—what should be done but almost certainly will not be done—is to remove all of the president’s current statutory authorities touching trade in such a way as to invite his taking the opportunity “to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” 

And while it is the case that as a political reality Donald Trump cannot be impeached, is it so impossible to think that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick or Kevin Hassett, the president’s top economic adviser, could? If not by gutless Republicans today, then by a new Democratic majority come January? Can you imagine how much fun it would be to have a halfway competent economic inquisitor (I know, I know: Democrats) putting one of those guys through some tough questions (including ethical questions about Lutnick’s self-dealing) in front of the cameras for a couple of weeks? Hassett, who does not believe a word of the bullshit that comes out of his mouth but really likes to ride on Air Force One, would, from the Democratic point of view, make an excellent face for the Republican Party in its current intellectually vacant, shifty, self-serving, amateur-hour incarnation. 

The Trump administration’s tariff policy is—and I cannot write was, inasmuch as they are going to try to ignore the Supreme Court ruling—bad on three counts. 

Least important is the fiscal calculation: The tariffs will bring in some money, but... 

Slightly more important, in the long run, is the ideological content: Protectionism is a dumb and backward economic policy that may serve the short- to middle-term interests of a small number of market incumbents but which does not serve the overall economy very well. The relatively dynamic and risk-exposed U.S. economy has lifted Americans’ standard of living relative to the rest of the world, while the relatively statist, risk-averse, protectionist economic policies of the rich nations of Europe have produced relatively low growth, ... Trump’s notion that the rest of the world has been getting over on the United States through crafty trade policy is utterly unsupported by the facts—it is pure flat-earther economics. ...

Most important—and most often overlooked—is the procedural issue: It is really, really important that presidents not be permitted to do things beyond the constitutional power of their offices. The president of the United States already has made war on Venezuela and Iran, threatened to make war on NATO, and reshaped the tax environment for American businesses (tariffs are taxes on American businesses) with no congressional authorization, only by “seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” Contrary to the popular assumption, overpowered executives unmoored from procedural and constitutional restraints do not produce order by consolidating power—they produce chaos by making one man’s whimsy the law of the land. ...

As a paragon of management excellence once said to an underling: “A nutless monkey could do your job.” If the other job candidate is Mike Johnson, I’d hire the nutless monkey. But perhaps there is someone in Congress—and I do not much care which party that someone belongs to—who is willing to stand up and do his goddamned job. Chief Justice John Roberts has done his. Your turn. (read it all)

Kevin D. Williamson is national correspondent at The Dispatch and is based in Virginia. Prior to joining the company in 2022, he spent 15 years as a writer and editor at National Review, worked as the theater critic at the New Criterion, and had a long career in local newspapers. He is also a writer in residence at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. When Kevin is not reporting on the world outside Washington for his Wanderland newsletter, you can find him at the rifle range or reading a book about literally almost anything other than politics.

This essay is behind a paywall. The Dispatch is a pro-democracy Conservative media outlet with some of the most thoughtful, talented, and accomplished writers and pundits around and is well worth subscribing to. 

Top Stories

The Harwood Salon Presents Veronique de Rugy Addressing, "The High Price of Debt: The Economic and Social Costs of Fiscal Drift.'

 

Join us in Nashville for an event with Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 

America’s mounting government debt is often met with public calm, even indifference. But that calm is dangerously misplaced.

In this talk, Veronique de Rugy will examine the economic and social costs of rising government debt and explain how debt crises unfold in advanced economies. Drawing on real-world examples, she will unpack both the visible and unseen consequences of sustained fiscal drift, including its impact on long-term economic growth.

The discussion will explore what slower growth means not only for national wealth, but also for social cohesion and political stability. Finally, the talk will address why Congress is running out of excuses, how fiscal space can disappear faster than expected, and why the next economic shock could expose just how fragile the current moment truly is.

Harwood Salons – Nashville is made possible through the generosity of supporters like you. We encourage you to become a member or make a donation to support the American Institute for Economic Research and ensure the continuation of these important events. All donations are tax-deductible and directly contribute to sustaining Harwood Salons – Nashville.

Registration Required. Free Admission. 

Agenda 

6:00 PM – 6:30 PM – Networking

6:30 PM – 7:15 PM – Presentation by Dr. Veronique de Rugy

7:15 PM – 7:30 PM – Q&A

About the Speaker

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, taxation, tax competition, and cronyism. Her popular weekly columns address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies. She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.

De Rugy is the author of a weekly opinion column for the Creators Syndicate, writes regular columns for Reason magazine, and she blogs about economics at National Review Online’s The Corner. Her charts, articles, and commentary have been featured in a wide range of media outlets, including the Reality Check segment on Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart, the New York Times’ Room for Debate, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN International, Stossel, 20/20, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and Fox News. In 2015, she was named in Politico Magazine’s Guide to the Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American Politics.

Previously, de Rugy has been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, and a research fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Before moving to the United States, she oversaw academic programs in France for the Institute for Humane Studies Europe. She received her MA in economics from the Paris Dauphine University and her PhD in economics from the Panthéon-Sorbonne University.

Top Stories

More Free Money!

by Ralph Bristol, Feb. 22, 2026 - Politicians don’t need much of an excuse to send out “free money” to voters, and the Supreme Court ruling Friday that nullified more than $100 billion in collected tariffs has members of Congress, and others, licking their chops. 

There’s no way to know how much extra you or I have paid, but a couple of organizations, the Tax Foundation and Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have come up with numbers ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per family.  California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker have demanded refunds of at least $1,700 per household for their residents. 

While there are multiple studies that show American importers and consumers have borne roughly 90% of the burden of the IEEPA tariffs, which the court struck down in its 6-3 decision Friday, none of the studies break down how much was passed on from the importers to the consumer. 

Legally, the refunds are owed to the thousands of importers who have filed suit and thousands more who will apply for the refunds because of the decision.  Consumers are not owed a refund as a result of the decision. Importers are. Consumers are not. 

That doesn’t mean consumers – well, some consumers – won’t be the beneficiaries of the ruling.  Even before the ruling, President Trump was talking about sending out $2,000 refunds to consumers of “moderate income.”  Congress will no doubt want in on that, although Democrats and Republicans will spin the refund differently to match their own agendas.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville.

Top Stories

A Disgusting, Disgraceful Fascist Flourish

Hanging Donald Trump’s photo on the nerve center of federal law enforcement is a disgusting, disgraceful fascist flourish, an official admission that the department now belongs to the president’s cult of personality. - Nick Catoggio, The Dispatch, Feb.21, 2026

Top Stories

A Political Movement Defined by What it Hates will Eventually Love Power

by Rod Williams, Feb. 21, 2026- As I have watched the Republican Party and major elements of the conservative movement abandon every principle that once expoused, I have been dismayed and disappointed and often felt betrayed. I have pondered how it could have happened. In the editorial below, I think Diogo Costa provides the answer.

Diogo Costa

by Diogo Costa, President, Foundation for Economic Education, Feb. 21, 2026 - A political movement defined by what it hates will eventually love power, because power is the easiest way to punish what it hates.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs last week, ruling 6–3 that he had exceeded his authority. The principle at stake, that government power must be constrained by law, that no president is above the constitutional structure, was for decades a constitutive commitment of American conservatism. From Goldwater to Reagan to the Tea Party, there was an entire intellectual project built on it. And for decades the antagonistic energy pointed the same way, as conservatives defended separation of powers against Obama’s executive orders, against every expansion of presidential authority that served progressive ends.

Then the executive power became theirs. Now, the president calls the justices who went against his tariffs “fools and lap dogs,” “unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” But “disloyal to our Constitution” no longer meant what it once meant. It meant disloyal to the president. The Constitution was no longer invoked as a principle, but as a loyalty test. Many of those now denouncing the ruling once championed free trade and warned against executive overreach as foundational conservative commitments. The principle did not change. The power did. And those for whom the principle had never been anchored in anything deeper than opposition followed the power.

Every political movement contains two orientations. One is constitutive: it knows what it stands for. For classical liberals, this means individual freedom, voluntary exchange, human dignity, institutional pluralism, the dispersed knowledge no central authority can replicate. The other orientation is antagonistic: it knows what it stands against. The enemy might be as real as socialism, identitarianism, progressive overreach, bureaucratic capture… but opposition becomes the organizing center of the project. This is not to say that antagonism is a corruption of politics. Every political movement pushes against something: from abolitionism to economic liberal reforms. The question is which orientation is load-bearing: the constitutive or the antagonistic. When the two point in the same direction, they feel like a single commitment. But when they pull apart, each person follows whichever thread runs deeper.

Free speech shows this kind of drift. The ACLU progressive in the 1990s defends the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, because the principle protects everyone or it protects no one. But she is also energized by what free speech does for her people: it shields civil rights organizers, anti-war protesters, marginalized voices. Then the voices demanding protection become conservative speakers and heterodox academics. She does not announce that she has abandoned free speech. She redefines it. Speech becomes harm, silence becomes safety. Now take the anti-woke conservative in 2018, rallying to free speech against deplatforming and campus speech codes. He may even understand the constitutive case. But he is also energized by what the fight does for his side. Then his side gained access to institutional power, and censorship became available as a tool rather than endured as a grievance. All of a sudden, he becomes in favor of the restrictions to speech he once denounced. He does not announce that he has abandoned free speech, either. He redefines it. Neither experienced the drift as betrayal. It felt like fulfillment.

Richard Hanania recently argued that American libertarianism has fractured into two camps: an elite wing of economists and policy scholars, and a populist wing of conspiratorial influencers and authoritarian fellow-travelers. There’s something to this distinction. But Hanania treats it as a sorting into fixed categories. On the one hand, the serious people who were always classical liberals, on the other, the contrarian vice-signalers who never were. I think this misses an important part of the story. Or, it misses the story. The fracture is not a revelation of who people always were. It is the result of a drift, a story told by its mechanism.

Plenty of well-educated people made the drift. They didn’t become stupid. But antagonism has its own logic, and that logic eventually overrides whatever ideology it inhabits. The process is not a simple switch from principled to unprincipled. It is a drift. Most people hold both constitutive and antagonistic commitments simultaneously, in varying degrees of alignment. In certain moments, the two converge almost perfectly. But contexts change. Enemies shift. The political field rearranges itself. And the constitutive and antagonistic begin to pull apart. When these no longer align, they must choose which to follow. The choice is made incrementally, through a thousand small decisions about which audience to address, which outrage to amplify, which coalition to prioritize. To invoke Kubrick, they have learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

The case for liberty does not merely announce itself. The principles of a free society must be taught in a way that forms constitutive commitment, not merely reactive opposition. This is what the best educational institutions in the classical liberal tradition have always understood. The goal is not to produce people who are against the state or the left or any particular enemy. The goal is to produce people who understand what freedom generates, people who grasp the discovery processes that emerge when individuals and institutions are free to experiment, fail, learn, and cooperate.

Community matters, but not merely as a coalition, which is the trap Hanania falls into when he suggests that libertarians court intellectual elites on the left. If the problem is that alliance politics subordinates principle to tribal loyalty, the answer cannot be a different tribe. Community matters as a condition of formation: relationships of intellectual trust where someone further along can hold your attention on what is actually happening before you reach for a theory about it. This kind of community does not require partisan affiliation. It requires a shared commitment to seeing clearly.

A political movement defined by what it hates will eventually love power, because power is the easiest way to punish what it hates. Antagonism will always give you a rush and a reason to forgive your own side’s coercion as soon as it becomes available. Alliances can flip. Principles can be redefined. The only durable antidote is formation: communities of intellectual trust that train attention, that teach people to recognize the quiet miracles of liberty, and that make the constraints of law feel like guardians rather than obstacles. This is not a political project. It is an educational one.

Top Stories

The Supreme Court Keeps the Taxing Power with Congress

The Editors, National Review, Feb 21, 2026 - Donald Trump is the duly elected president, and whatever one thinks of the wisdom of his views of trade and tariff policy, he is entitled to exercise the full powers of the presidency. What he is not entitled to do is exercise the full powers of Congress — ....

That, and only that, is the rebuke a 6–3 Supreme Court delivered to the president Friday morning. .. he can’t keep imposing tariffs under the “emergency” powers granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). ... An emergency that is permanent and worldwide is a power so unlimited, it is hard with a straight face to believe any Congress would grant it — ...

Presidents may well have broad emergency powers to impose tariffs and trade embargoes during wartime. ... But Trump’s own solicitor general conceded that the Trump tariffs at issue rested only on IEEPA, not on war powers. As Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion acridly noted: “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.” ...

The Court was faithful to the same principles it repeatedly cited to constrain Biden on student loans, the eviction moratorium, the workplace vaccine mandate, and carbon emission rules. That means the Court is doing its job — which is why progressives hate it. The right should not sing from that hymnal. (read it all)

Top Stories

The Supreme Court’s Demonstration of Independence

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Feb. 21, 2026 -The editorial pages are predictably filled this morning with opinions about the Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. The most important point of the editorials are references to the court’s independence. 

Washington Post: One narrative about this Supreme Court is that it is subservient to Trump. Now the court has frustrated his signature initiative. Last year it also blocked his deportations without due process to El Salvador and ruled against his deployment of the National Guard in Illinois.  This decision was too close, but it underscores that the Supreme Court remains independent. The separation of powers held. If only Congress would also fulfill its role as forcefully.

Wall Street Journal: The tariff law ruling also gives the lie to the Democratic charge that the current Court is a rubber stamp for Mr. Trump. The Court has now shown it is willing to block abuses of executive power by Presidents of both parties. This is exactly what the Constitution calls on the Justices to do.

The court’s demonstration of independence won’t stop Democrats from claiming otherwise the next time it rules in Trump’s favor, just like their rulings for him in the past didn’t stop Trump from saying he is “ashamed” of the justices who ruled against him this time. 

People don’t like to lose, and politicians tend to be disingenuous in their losses. They have a First Amendment right to be so, but those of us who purport to be watchdogs of the government have an obligation to acknowledge when one of the branches of government does it job the way the Constitution mandates, regardless of our positions on the underlying policies in question. 

The last three presidents have, even more than most before them, tried to expand the powers of the executive branch. They met little opposition from a largely dysfunctional Congress.   It has been up to others to challenge the president’s attempts at extra-constitutional powers and they have not always been successful, but the court has repeatedly ruled against presidents of both major political parties in cases that could have opened the door to a runaway autocracy, marking the end of the great American experiment. 

The U.S. Constitution has been the basis of experiments with various forms of democracy around the world. Our founders created a model that has been copied by every country that has tried to choose a democratic form of republic over an autocracy or a theocracy.  The main ingredient of that model is a separation of powers that gives most of the important policy-making powers to Congress, a big, diverse, body of representatives of the people who are charged with the duty of taking multiple, divergent, opposing opinions on critical issues and forming policy and laws by which we all must live.   

It was a difficult job when we were a less diverse country.  It has become a nearly impossible job in the 21st century, when our diversity has rendered our Congress dysfunctional.  Not only can Republicans and Democrats not agree on anything, but neither Republicans nor Democrats are anything like a unified body, so even a one-party Congress has trouble passing any significant legislation, adding to the frustration of presidents, who respond by trying even harder to expand the powers of the executive branch. 

Who can blame them?  

The Supreme Court – that’s who – because it’s their job – and at least one branch of government is still largely doing the job it was established to do.  And so, to them, today, I say “thank you.”

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs. YES!!

by Rod Williams, Feb. 20, 2026- I feel like celebrating and rejoicing. Today, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3, striking down President Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The majority decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that Trump did not have the authority to impose the tariffs.

This is fantastic news. These tariffs were clearly unconstitutional. Only Congress can raise taxes. Article 1, Section 7  says, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." That is pretty clear. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the U.S. President to regulate or prohibit international commerce and freeze foreign assets after declaring a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. It does not mention tariffs.

Not only were the Trump Tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act uncontitutional but they were also economically foolish. Trump consistently said foreigners pay the tariffs. That is just blatantly false. I am not sure if Trump is just a compulsive liar or if he is a total economic illiterate who really believes false things. Either way, he was wrong. The tariffs are paid by the importer and, like any other business cost, are passed along to the consumer. The only way the consumer does not end up paying the full cost of the tariffs is if the exporters are willing to make less money by lowering their cost, or the importers are willing to make less money by not passing on the full amount of the tariffs. While companies can rationally decide to eat the cost of a tax increase, profit margins are small on almost everything, and the amount of a tax the seller can eat is limited. On a mix of imports, 90% to 100% of the cost was passed on to consumers.  As of 2026, increased tariffs are estimated to cost the average U.S. household over $1,300 annually. 

Not only were the Trump Tariffs unconstitutional and economically foolish and costly to the American consumer, but they also had the opposite effect of returning manufacturing to America and creating good-paying American jobs. While some sectors did increase manufacturing in the US to avoid the tariffs, other producers fled the United States to avoid paying the import tax on the components that go into the products they produce.  Data shows a net negative impact on manufacturing employment, with reports of over 70,000 jobs lost in the sector between April and December 2025. 

Another negative to Trump Tariffs was the chaos they produced. A foreign leader could make Trump feel disrespected by doing something like putting out an advertisement showing President Ronald Reagan speaking on the benefits of free trade, or a foreign leader could speak out against US policy to annex Greenland at some international conference, and Trump would throw a temper tantrum and increase the tariffs on imports from that country. The Trump Tariffs were on again-off again, often making it difficult for producers to set prices or make decisions.

When the case was first heard, I read and listened to some of the proceedings, and based on the justices' questioning, I was almost certain the Court would rule the way it eventually did and find the tariffs unconstitutional.  The Court waited so long to issue this ruling, however, that I was beginning to think the Court might rule the other way. While the Court should, in my view, consider only the merits of a legal matter before them, justices do live in the real world, and I feared that they may reason that if they ruled against the tariffs, then the revenue collected by the tariffs would have to be refunded and this would create chaos. I am always pleased when the Courts uphold the Constitution, regardless of the chaos or public opinion. 

So what now? It is too early to know. Importers may sue for a return of the tax they paid the government. If they successfully earn the right to a refund, will the refund be passed on to consumers who ultimately paid the tax, or will importers pocket the money? How will the government deal with the hole this shoots in revenue projections? How will Trump respond? Not all of the tariffs are unconstitutional. Some were collected under a different authority. Those will remain in effect, and Trump may impose some of these same tariffs under different authorities. To impose most of the tariffs, Trump will have to go to Congress for authorization. 

Republicans have long been the party of free trade. Free enterprise and free trade have been bedrock Republican positions. Of course, we have witnessed that most Republicans will put loyalty to Trump above principles. However, legislating a trade war will be too far for some Republicans to go. While they could not muster the courage to oppose and call out Trump for his tariff policy, all they had to do to please Trump was be passive and let it happen. It is one thing to passively accept a bad policy and another to positively enact it. To pass new tariffs would mean holding Republican feet to the fire. If no Democrats vote with Republicans for additional tariff authority, it only takes two Republican votes against new tariffs for them to fail.  Also, Trump's poll numbers are falling, and Republican willingness to stand up to Trump seems to have an inverse relationship to Trump's popularity.  I suspect the weaker Trump becomes, the more Republicans will develop a backbone. The timing for this decision seems right. The wait was worth it. 

Top Stories

New Trump administration order could lead to the detention of thousands of legal refugees

Associated Press, Feb. 19, 2026 - The Trump administration has issued a sweeping new order that couldlead to the arrest of tens of thousands of refugees who are lawfully in the United States but do not yet have permanent residency, overturning years of legal and immigration safeguards.

A memo filed by the Department of Homeland Security ahead of a Thursday federal court hearing in Minnesota says refugees applying for green cards must return to federal custody one year after they were admitted to the U.S. for review of their applications.

DHS “may maintain custody for the duration of the inspection and examination process,” said the memo, which was filed Wednesday.

Advocacy and resettlement groups slammed the order, which will likely face legal challenges and could sow confusion and fear among the nearly 200,000 refugees who came to the United States during the Biden administration. .....

“Mandating detention would lead to an illogical result,” Tunheim wrote, since refugees can’t even apply for green cards until they’ve been in the U.S. for a year. The government’s interpretation, he said, means nearly all refugees would face detention unless immigration officials conducted their review at exactly the one-year mark, (read more)

Rod's Comment: Just when you think Trump can not get any worse, he does. Not that I have really been thinking he could not get any worse. I think he can. He can get much worse. This inhumane policy, if it stands, will condemn many who fled tyranny to be returned to the country they fled, and many will no doubt be executed. Many will be returned to countries they fled, which are in the midst of civil wars or to failing states where gangs control the streets. Shameful! 

Top Stories

The Senate and the Loss of “Mixed Government”

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi,  Mises Institute, 02/19/2026 - Most serious writing that advocates repeal of the 17th Amendment was published more than a decade ago. At the time, libertarian and constitutionalist circles showed modest interest in restoring Senate selection to state legislatures. That discussion never matured into a sustained reform effort, and it eventually faded.

The reason is not difficult to identify. Critics of the 17th Amendment have persuasively argued that direct election has nationalized the Senate and weakened federalism. What they have not convincingly shown is that repeal alone would solve the problems that led to the amendment’s adoption in 1913. Those problems included legislative deadlock, prolonged vacancies, and corruption in the selection process. Opponents of repeal continue to cite these failures as decisive objections, and they remain largely unanswered.

As a result, the debate has settled into a false choice. Defenders of the status quo accept a Senate that functions as a second House of Representatives—driven by national parties, donors, and media attention. Advocates of repeal argue for a return to legislative selection without fully explaining how the defects of the earlier system would be avoided. Neither position offers a structural solution capable of restoring the Senate’s original constitutional role.

This impasse explains why repeal efforts have stalled. The case against the 17th Amendment has been made repeatedly, but it has not displaced the arguments used to justify it in the first place. Any serious reform must therefore move beyond repeal and address the institutional design of the Senate itself.

Revisiting the 17th Amendment remains urgent. Federal authority has continued to centralize since its adoption, and state governments increasingly function as administrative arms of national policy. If the Senate is to serve as a meaningful check within the constitutional system, it must once again represent a distinct source of political authority. That requires, not restoration alone, but redesign.

The question is not why this debate once mattered, but why it matters now. We are witnessing the devolution of the Senate before our eyes. Senators increasingly function as national political actors, responsive to party leadership, donors, and media incentives rather than to state governments as institutions. This is not an accident of personality or politics. It is the predictable result of a structural change.

The Senate and Mixed Government

The case against the 17th Amendment begins not with nostalgia, but with constitutional theory. The Founders designed the American republic as a mixed government. Liberty would be preserved not by elections alone, but by a collision of authorities drawn from different sources. Bicameralism was central to this design. The House and the Senate were meant to represent different interests, answer to different constituencies, and operate on different incentives. Only through this separation could each restrain the other.

The House of Representatives was built to reflect popular opinion; its members were elected directly by the people, served short terms, and were expected to respond quickly to shifts in public sentiment. The Senate was designed to do the opposite. Senators were chosen by state legislatures to represent the states as political bodies within the federal system. This was not an accident of convenience; it was a deliberate attempt to anchor federal power in the institutional interests of the states themselves.

During the Constitutional Convention, several delegates warned that drawing both chambers from the same source would collapse this balance. Elbridge Gerry outlined the available options with clarity. Selection by the House would create dependency. Selection by the executive risked consolidating authority. Direct election would leave no effective check against majority impulses. If both chambers answered to the same electorate, they would reflect the same passions and interests, and the safeguards of bicameralism would be lost.

John Dickinson made the positive case for legislative selection. He argued that the Senate should arise from state governments in order to create a collision of authorities between state and national power. This arrangement would bind the federal government to the continued agency of the states, preserving federalism as a living structure rather than a parchment promise. Dickinson emphasized that the Senate was to be a point of connection, not separation, between the states and the national government.

This structure gave the Senate a distinct role. It was not merely a smaller House with longer terms, it was a chamber rooted in institutional representation rather than mass democracy. Senators had incentives to defend state prerogatives, resist national overreach, and slow legislation that threatened the balance between local and centralized authority. The result was a genuine check, not only on the House, but on the growth of federal power itself.

The 17th Amendment dismantled this arrangement. By shifting Senate elections to the same popular electorate that selects the House, it erased the institutional distinction between the two chambers. The Senate became nationalized—its members now compete for party leadership, donor coalitions, and national media attention rather than accountability to state governments. The chamber still moves more slowly than the House, but it no longer represents a different source of authority.

Modern constitutional analysis has acknowledged this shift. The National Constitution Center notes that the amendment increased similarity between House and Senate constituencies and altered the original function of bicameralism. What was once a structural restraint on centralized power became a second venue for the same political pressures.

This loss helps explain why federal mandates now so easily override state priorities. When both chambers draw legitimacy from the same mass electorate, there is little incentive to defend the institutional role of the states. Federalism becomes rhetorical rather than operational.

For these reasons, simple repeal of the 17th Amendment is insufficient. The original problem was not merely who voted for senators, but how institutional diversity was preserved within the federal legislature. Any serious reform must restore that diversity. The Senate must once again arise from a different foundation than the House. Without that distinction, bicameralism cannot perform its intended function as a vital pillar of limited government.

A Proposed Amendment

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of three senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for terms of six years, with a power reserved to a two-thirds majority of each legislature to recall its senators, or any of them.

Except in trials of impeachment, each state shall cast one vote in the Senate, to be determined by the majority of its senators. In the event the senators fail to agree, the vote of that state shall not be counted. In trials of impeachment, each senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided equally into three classes, each class composed of one member of each state delegation so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

Conclusion: Institutions Designed to Restrain Power

The 17th Amendment did more than alter the method of Senate selection. It collapsed the Senate into the same political universe as the House of Representatives. By drawing both chambers from the same source of authority, it weakened bicameralism, eroded mixed government, and removed an essential institutional check on centralization, a danger long recognized in classical theories of divided power.

Repeal alone cannot repair this damage. It would restore a flawed mechanism without addressing the deeper problem of how states are represented within the national legislature. A successful reform must restore the Senate’s federal character while correcting the defects that once justified reform in the first place.

The proposed amendment does exactly that. By restoring legislative selection, treating each state delegation as a unit, and requiring unified state voting, it reestablishes the Senate as a council of governments rather than a national popular assembly. Treating each state delegation as a single voting unit restores the Senate as a body of governments rather than individuals, while preserving internal deliberation within each state delegation. Staggered terms ensure that changes in state legislative composition are reflected gradually, allowing state interests to evolve over time without producing abrupt reversals in federal policy. Accountability is returned to state governments without recreating the paralysis of the late nineteenth century.

This structure also produces broader institutional benefits. It reduces the nationalization of Senate offices, weakens the incentive to politicize judicial appointments, and reinforces the separation of powers by reintroducing meaningful institutional conflict into federal lawmaking. These outcomes are not incidental; they are the direct result of restoring distinct sources of authority within the constitutional framework.

The choice, then, is not between repeal and retention. It is between continuing a system that has hollowed out federalism and adopting a reform that restores the Senate’s original function. A constitutional republic requires more than popular elections. It requires institutions designed to restrain power by dividing it and by drawing authority from distinct political sources. This proposal offers a step toward restoring that balance.

Michael Dioguardi is a residential property manager and independent blogger writing under the title Seeker of Liberty. Drawing on years of dedicated study of the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, landmark court decisions, and Austrian School economics, he analyzes contemporary challenges to individual liberty, institutional accountability, and economic stability.

His blog, Seeker of Liberty, explores a wide range of topics including critiques of federal agencies like the FBI, the institutional risks of unconstrained sovereign credit, and bold proposals for constitutional and criminal justice reform.

Michael resides in Nashville, TN.

Top Stories