Why I am Cautiously Giddy About the Firing of Kristi Nome.

by Rod Williams, March 5, 2026- I am trying not to get too giddy about Trump firing Kristy Nome. This could be a neutral event with little impact and soon forgotten, it could actually help Trump, or we could be witnessing the Trump house of cards beginning to topple. I am thinking this is major and Trump is starting to falter. I think this is the beginning of the end of the Trump nightmare. 

You had to watch closely to see it, but several of Trump's cabinet members have come under fire from Republicans recently when they appeared before members of Congress. Of course, the Democrats can be counted on to go after them and to criticize Trump, but as long as Republicans remain in control of Congress, there will be very little oversight and Democrat ranting in committee meetings may make some Democrat voters feel like their congressman is fighting the good fight, but it will have little impact. Until Democrats retake Congress, for Congress to have any impact on the operation of government or to moderate Trump's behavior will require some Republican defections from Trump. I think we are starting to see it. 

I have predicted that Congressional Republicans would start abandoning Trump at a rate parallel with the trend of his popularity. The trend is heading in the right direction for Republicans to feel emboldened to oppose Trump. The lowest approval rating for Trump ever was 29% in Jan 2021, following the January 6th attempted coup. Trump's poll approval numbers since returning to office have been around 47%–52%. As of today, RealClearPolling Average has Trump's approval rating at 43.3% approval and 54.8% disapproval. That is still not bad, but there is a lot of discontent about Trump. The ICE murders in Minneapolis, his losing the tariff fight at the Supreme Court, his continuing cover-up of the Epstein child molestation ring and his associations with Epstein, and now the war with Iran are all taking their toll. They are weakening Trump, and as he weakens, Republican members of Congress will more likely defy him. With every drop in a poll number, Republicans will be more vocal in criticizing Trump. I don't know how low he would have to go for it to really matter, but Republicans will react much differently if Trump's popularity stands at 37% than if it stands at 47%.

Perhaps as damaging to Trump's overall popularity rating decline is that elements of MAGA are turning on Trump. There is war going on in MAGA world between those for whom the Epstein files were a major concern and they are not going to just accept defeat. They want the truth to be revealed, and they feel that Trump, who ran on a campaign of releasing the files and punishing the guilty, has betrayed them. Some feel he is covering up his own complicity. On the other hand, there are those members of MAGA world who have almost a religious faith in Trump and can switch positions on any issue if Trump tells them to. To them, MAGA and America First are whatever Trump says they are. If Trump says we need to turn the page on Epstein, they are ready to do it.

The war against Iran is also contentious within  MAGA world. Some believed America First was an isolationist agenda and then there are those who can switch on a dime and will follow Trump anywhere.

This war within MAGA has more import than just the size of the voting bloc that identifies as MAGA. Those who care most about the Epstein files or the war against Iran and other foreign adventures are the kind of people who attend town hall, will call their congressman, who engage on social media, who work the polls, and are the small donors. Congress members want to keep these people placated and they get annoyed when Trump does things that cause these activists to call their office or shout at them at a town hall. And these MAGA congressmen don't know how to respond. Do they continue to side with Trump no matter his flipflop or do they side with the MAGA element that wants the Epstein files released and opposes foreign entanglements?

So, I see a couple of things happening at the same time. Trump's poll numbers are slipping, which makes Congress members feel emboldened to be more critical of the administration. Also, their most activist supporters are unhappy and Congressmen feel a need to placate them but don't really know how. Republican Congressmen, at this point, cannot directly attack or criticize Trump because even those MAGA activists who disagree with some of Trump's positions still like Trump. So, they can argue that what is wrong with the Trump administration is not Trump but that he is not being well-served by the people around him. Thus, they can grill Trump cabinet members in congressional hearings and claim to be supporting Trump, not attempting to harm him. 

I contend that Kristy Nome was a sacrificial lamb. She did nothing that was not either modeling Trump's behavior or carrying out his wishes. To recap the case against her and why Trump cut her loose, here are some particulars:

1) A firm tied to Kristi Noem secretly got money from a $220 Million DHS ad contract. The company is run by the husband of Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson and has personal and business ties to Noem and her aides. DHS invoked the “emergency” at the border to skirt competitive bidding rules for the taxpayer-funded campaign.

We know that this type of corruption is normal in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn't want anyone else ripping off the taxpayers but himself. He wants all of the control in his corrupt regime. He sees someone else's corruption as an infringement on what is rightfully his and making money at his expense.

2)  Kristi Noem was the star of the ad. One of the ads was shot at Mount Rushmore, featuring Noem sitting on horseback in chaps and a cowboy hat. Noem addresses the camera with a stern message for immigrants: “Break our laws, we’ll punish you.” 

I suspect Trump is jealous of Noem. Trump wants it all to be about him. He wants to be the center of attention. He resents someone else building a support base and getting attention at his expense. 

3) The public affair with Corey Lewandowski is an embarrassment. Both Lewandowski and Noem are married, and the affair is quite public and Lewandowski works for Noem. That doesn't look good and looks an awful lot like sexual harassment.  In addition, Lewandowski has a history of embarrassing behavior, including improper lobbying, hitting on women in public and improperly touching them, and rudeness toward underlings. You may recall the incident in which Lewandowski tried to order an airplane pilot to turn a plane around to retrieve a blanket Noem had left on another plane.

Trump, being the womonizer and crude and rude person that he is, probably does not really care about any of this but it was proving an embarrassment.

4) Her pronouncements that the two people killed by ICE in Minneapolis were "domestic terrorists" immediately after the shootings. was defended by many in MAGA world, but normal Americans were appalled and this is one of the drivers in Trump's poll numbers decline. Trump doesn't really care that ICE murdered two Americans, but if it is driving his poll numbers down and endangering his agenda he cares and someone needs to be the scapegoat. 

So given all of this, what happens next?

This could all blow over; it could be that her replacement does not cause embarrassment, and not much changes. Congressmen who criticized her in committee are seen as doing their job and actually helping Trump get rid of someone who was serving him poorly and this incident is neutral or actually helps Trump. Congress members who were critical of Noem are seen as serving Trump rather than opposing him and Trump accepts that he had to give his critics one scalp of a person who was proving an embarrassment and will not have to give any more or change any policies. 

On the other hand, this could severely weaken Trump. If you look at other cabinet members such as Pam Bondi, Cash Patel, Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy, Jr., or Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, they have all done things to cause embarrassment, or displease the pubic, or the MAGA base. I don't think the throwing of Kristy Noem under the bus will satisfy them. 

Each of the above cabinet members is, deserving of attention but take the case of Pam Bondi. The handling of the Epstein files has been a disaster from the start.  From the event where she handed out big notebook binders to a bunch of Trumpinista influencers, which was supposed to settle the issue, to the release of heavily redacted files that exposed the names of victims and protected the names of the powerful, to the continuing failure to release all of the files has been a disaster for the Trump administration. Remember "drain the swamp?"

And then there is her failure to indict the eight Congressmen who put out a video reminding service members that they should follow the law and not carry out unlawful orders. It is said that you can indict a ham sandwich, but she could not get an indictment. Also, there have been other failed attempts to prosecute Trump critics. 

Pam Bondi looks like a liability. Trump can sacrifice one of his team to save the mission, but giving up another cabinet member makes Trump look weak. Republican congressmen, meanwhile, still have a restless MAGA base they need to placate and a public that is turning against Trump by the day. 

Also, the Supreme Court striking down tariffs means that Republicans will have to cast a vote in favor of tariffs in order to keep Trump's tariff policy on track. It is one thing to abdicate one's responsibility and allow Trump to impose tariffs, and it is something else to have to cast a vote to impose tariffs. I suspect some Republicans who found it easy to do nothing and allow the tariffs will find it harder to actually vote for tariffs.

And, there is the war. A lot of the general public and the MAGA base will oppose the war, especially if it is not over soon and if there is more loss of American lives. According to the War Powers Act the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, which he did. The act then mandates ending hostilities within 60-90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes the action. That is going to be a hard vote to cast. To vote to continue the war, Republicans will pay the price at the ballot box; to not do so makes Trump look really weak.

In addition, already being involved in the war in Iran and having just recently attacked Venezuela, Trump would be hard-pressed to attack another nation. The option of engaging in military action to distract from other problems is pretty much eliminated. He can't keep going back to that well. Even if neither of those military engagements was launched to distract from other issues, many assume they were, and he has already played that card. 

So, I see the firing of Nome as a desperate act born of weakness and think it will embolden Republicans to oppose Trump's policies and challenge his authoritarian agenda. Trump has shown not to be invincible. As his poll numbers drop, critics will be bolder. My only reason for not being more thrilled than I am by this development is that a wounded lion can be more dangerous than one that is unharmed. Who knows how Trump will react once he starts losing power? 

Top Stories

My! How Things Have Changed.

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- Pictured here is my friend Gene Wisdom at the 2016 CPAC convention with Gene standing in front of a cardboard Trump cutout display, holding a t-shirt he purchased at the convention featuring the front cover of the National Review issue called "Against Trump."

I did not attend that year. I had attended with Gene in 2012 and 2015, but by 2016, CPAC had warmed to Trump and Trump was scheduled to speak and I had had it with CPAC and chose not to go. 

Things had changed in one year. When I attended in 2015, Trump was not even invited to speak. CPAC always had prominent Republican candidates, and almost anyone of any significance to conservatives speak at the convention. This was an obvious shunning of Trump. CPAC, put on by the American Conservative Union, is the largest gathering of conservative activists in the nation. In one year, CPAC went from noticeably shunning Trump to embracing him. 

It is now easy to forget how united the conservative movement was against Trump the year prior to him winning the 2016 nomination. In February of 2016, National Review published an issue of the magazine that featured articles by some of the most popular and influential voices on the right. I have included the cover of that issue below. You will recognize many of the names of those who contributed essays to that issue, explaining why they could not support Trump.

 National Review had, since its founding, been the most influential publication of the conservative movement. Founded by William F. Buckley in 1955, National Review had defined the post Woarld War II conservative movement. The most influencial thinker and pundits of the movement had written for National Review. Its influence was enormous. While NR's influence since then has waned as the media landscape has changed, it is still influential, but in 2016, it was still seen as the premier voice of the conservative movement in America. 

If you look at the February 2016 cover of National Review, you will recognize some of the names who contributed to that issue. Some of those people who contributed to that issue have since embraced the Trump movement, some have become prominent voices in the pro-democracy movement against Trump, and others have tried to walk a fine line of one foot in and one foot out, and others have become  irrelevant. 

I still subscribe to National Review and think it has some of the best writing published today. National Review, while being faithful to conservative principles, has, in my opinion, been too solicitous and forgiving of Trump. They criticize many of his policies and his corruption, but are not nearly as alarmed as I think the moment requires. Also, it kind of depends on who the writer is; some seem much more critical of Trump than others. While I still appreciate National Review, I wish they still had the anti-Trump fervor now, as they did before Trump came to power. 

This picture of Gene in front of the Trump cutout is the year the Conservative movement abandoned conservatism and became a Blood and Soil, nationalist -populist movement.  How rapidly things changed.

Top Stories

Wilson County Mayor Says Public Opposition Drove ICE to Abandon Massive Detention Center Plans

 

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- Ruby red Wilson County will not be getting the massive ICE detention center as was rumored. The people don't want it. ICE backed off. This should not be interpreted as a rejection of ICE's secret police and paramilitary thugish-like behavior, but a case of Not-In-My-Back- Yardism.

Top Stories

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is Fighting the Good Fight

by Rod Williams, March 3, 2026- I have been a supporter of FIRE for a long time. For years, they fought for the free speech of conservative and religious students on college campuses. At some point, they broadened their scope to advocate for free speech everywhere.  Now, since the biggest threat to free speech is coming from the Trumpinista right, they are often defending critics of the Trump regime against government efforts to silence them. 

In this era of a president advancing an authoritarian agenda, many feel helpless to make an impact. We are not powerless. One thing we can do is support those in the trenches who are resisting the Trump authoritarian agenda. As a conservative, I support those who are remaining true their conservative values, such as respect for norms, fealty to the Constitution, limited government, respect for free speech and rule of law, free trade, and free enterprise.  While many Trumpian Republicans apparently never really believed the things they professed to have believed, there are many pundits, publications and thinktanks and activist organizations that have remained true to their beliefs. FIRE has not changed. It continues as a defender of free speech. Please consider sending them a donation. 

Top Stories

A Vote is Not a Felony: Tennessee Back Down After Constitutional Challenge to Criminalizing Votes.

by Cassandra Stephenson, Tennessee Outlook, March 1, 2026 - The state of Tennessee will not enforce a 2025 law that made it a felony for public officials to vote in favor of sanctuary policies for immigrants, according to a pending settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union-Tennessee. 

The ACLU-TN filed a lawsuit in June on behalf of seven Metro Nashville Council members, stating the law violates the First Amendment rights of locally elected officials to engage in legislative speech and debate.

The provision — part of Gov. Bill Lee’s 2025 immigration enforcement legislation — created a Class E felony for officials who vote in favor of policies or non-binding resolutions that can limit cooperation with  immigration authorities. The charge is punishable by up to six years in prison and a $3,000 fine.

“The state acknowledged that the law unconstitutionally violates legislative immunity, the foundational principle that protects elected officials from prosecution for their voting record,” ACLU-TN stated in a Wednesday news release.

The settlement must be approved by the court to go into effect.

“It is antithetical to a free society for legislators to be charged with a crime for representing their constituents,” ACLU-TN Interim Legal Director Lucas Cameron-Vaughn stated in the release. “This law criminalized key aspects of a working democracy. It made dissent a felony. This agreement marks a major recognition that laws that target officials for voting violate the very foundation of the Constitution.”

The provision drew scrutiny from lawmakers — including Sen. Todd Gardenhire, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — prior to its passage during the 2025 legislative session. Gardenhire attempted to remove the criminal penalties from the bill but was blocked by other Republicans, who make up the majority of the committee. 

Tennessee enacted a law allowing citizens to file civil lawsuits against local governments that adopt sanctuary policies in 2019.

After the ACLU-TN filed the lawsuit, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti informed the Tennessee General Assembly that he could “advance no argument in support of the constitutionality of the challenged statutes,” according to the proposed settlement.

The Tennessee General Assembly told Skrmetti that it would not hire outside counsel to defend the law.

The state will pay just over $61,200 in attorneys’ fees and court costs, the proposed settlement states.

“Every legislator, whether at the federal, state, or local level, has a constitutional guarantee against prosecution for how they vote,” Skrmetti’s office stated in an email.  “Sanctuary policies remain illegal in Tennessee, but city and county officials cannot be imprisoned for voting for such policies.  As a result, we agreed that dismissal of this case was the appropriate outcome.”

Rod's Comment: I knew this was a dumb action when the State legislature passed this bill. It is also a trampling of free speech. I am pleased Skemetti refused to defend it, and pleased this issue is resolved.

Top Stories

It's Time to Bring Light to Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying

Did you know that Tennessee’s 30 largest cities spend more than $1.4 million a year to hire private lobbyists to advocate for bigger government at the state Capitol in Nashville? That doesn’t even include the state’s remaining cities, 95 counties, 147 school districts, and nearly 200 public utility districts, many of which also hire their own lobbyists. 

Obtaining this information is incredibly opaque and requires months of waiting for responses to open records requests. 

This practice, known as taxpayer-funded lobbying, leaves most citizens unaware. But when asked whether their local government officials should be spending their tax dollars to hire lobbyists, a minuscule five percent of voters agree with the practice. Rather, almost all Tennesseans believe that local officials like mayors, city council members, and school board members should be directly responsible for making their case to state policymakers on issues of importance to them. They should not be able to spend taxpayer money to farm this out to highly-paid professional lobbyists.

Do you think that taxpayer-funded lobbying is wrong? Send a message to lawmakers TODAY — https://www.beacontn.org/sunshine/

Top Stories

Nashville's privately funded Airport Tunnel Moving Forward

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, March 1, 2026-  An underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to the airport moved forward Wednesday with a right-of-way approval for Tennessee-owned property.

The Music City Loop will reduce travel time from downtown to the Nashville Metropolitan Airport to eight minutes.

Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday that the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration approved a lease that gives the Boring Company a permit to use state-owned property.

The Boring Company, founded by Elon Musk, is funding the entire project.

“The Music City Loop shows what’s possible when we leverage private-sector innovation and American ingenuity to solve transportation challenges,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a release from the governor's office. “TDOT’s lease approval will help advance this ambitious project as we work to reduce congestion and make travel more seamless for the American people."

The project announced in July 2025 has drawn opposition from state and local leaders. Nashville City Councilwoman Delishia Porterfield said at a meeting of the Nashville Metropolitan City Council's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that she has asked the Boring Company for answers.

"There was no response to this body until I filed legislation opposing this project," Porterfield said at Thursday's meeting where Boring Company officials spoke. "And to me that is completely disrespectful. That shows that there is no spirit of transparency from this company."

State Sen. Charlane Oliver, D-Nashville, raised concerns at the BNA Airport Authority's February meeting.

"The Music City Loop does not address daily congestion challenges or function as broad, equitable mass transit," Oliver said. "Instead, it prioritizes a limited corridor tied to airport access."

Lee's administration has touted the project as the "safest, most efficient travel system in America. The Boring Company's Las Vegas Loop has a 99.57% safety rating from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, according to a release from the governor's office.

“Tennessee continues to lead the nation in finding innovative solutions to accommodate growth, and in partnership with The Boring Company, we are exploring possibilities we couldn’t achieve on our own,” Lee said. “I’m grateful for TDOT’s commitment to a forward-thinking, fiscally responsible approach to infrastructure modernization that will define the future of transportation in our state and beyond.”

Top Stories

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