#the usconstitution

Stephen Miller says requiring ICE to follow the Constitution is a “non-starter.”

February 11, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

Note to reluctant readers and those avoiding the news: There are several significant, positive developments discussed in today’s edition. Here is the takeaway: The guardrails of democracy are rebounding, showing resilience in the face of lawless actions by a wannabe dictator. We have reason to be hopeful, but no reason to be complacent. Read on!

Stephen Miller says requiring ICE to follow the Constitution is a “non-starter.”

The requirement of a judicial warrant based on probable cause to enter a person’s home is a touchstone of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, according to John Adams, the British practice of issuing “general writs” authorizing unbounded searches of homes led to the “first Act of opposition” in the Revolution. As historians have noted, the colonists’ hatred of “general warrants . . . led ultimately to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” See Commentary in Adams Papers Digital Edition - Massachusetts Historical Society.

The Fourth Amendment states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On Tuesday, Stephen Miller rejected as a “non-starter” a demand by Democrats that ICE obtain judicial warrants based “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” before entering a home. See Politico, ‘Complete nonstarter’: Administration allies say judicial warrants a red line for White House in DHS funding talks as shutdown looms. (“The judicial warrants are the key operational thing that [deputy chief of staff] Stephen Miller and the crew do not want to budge on.”)

Got that? Complying with the Constitution’s foundational procedural protection is a “non-starter.” More importantly, it is an admission that the current practice of ICE of entering homes without a judicial warrant violates the Constitution.

Democrats must stand firm on this point. Demanding that ICE comply with a protection that was present at the birth of our republic should be “non-negotiable.” If complying with the Constitution is an intolerable burden for ICE, it must be abolished and replaced with an agency that views the Constitution as its charter, not an obstacle.

This point, standing alone, justifies the steadfast refusal to fund DHS until ICE agrees to follow the Constitution. To do otherwise would amount to amending the Constitution by fiat. In that sense, the fight over funding DHS is a defense of the Constitution, as to which there can be no compromise

So, too, the requirement that ICE agents drop their masks and conform to police practices nationwide. Republicans have promoted the myth that masks are necessary to protect ICE agents from “doxxing.”

To date, masks have served only two purposes:

First, masks have terrorized and confused law-abiding citizens; see, e.g., the doorbell video of Nancy Guthrie’s abductor, whose masked visage is indistinguishable from ICE agents pounding on doors in the middle of the night. Indeed, in an early decision challenging ICE’s tactics, US District Court Judge William Young wrote, “ICE goes masked for a single reason -- to terrorize Americans into quiescence.”

Second, masks have insulated violent ICE agents from accountability for their crimes, including the killing of innocent citizens. Similar practices by the British crown were at the heart of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. (“For protecting them . . . from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States. [¶] [The King] has constrained our fellow Citizens . . . to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren . . . .” )

Critically, the Republican claim that ICE agents have been “doxed” is a myth. As explained by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo, What Are the Masks for Exactly?,

[J]ournalist Philip Bump was able to determine that “doxxing,” the notional rationale for ICE masking, has in fact never happened. Not once. It’s important to note what definition we’re using here. As Bump puts it, “At no point in time has an officer been seen conducting his work, identified and subsequently attacked. While there have been threats issued against agents and incidents of off-duty harassment, there are no known incidents in which an officer was assaulted while off-duty because he was identified as a federal agent.” In other words, someone may have posted someone’s address on X or some website. But nothing happened.

So, “doxxing” of ICE agents is an exaggerated threat, close to being non-existent. And sharing publicly available information is not “doxxing.” Trump has shared publicly available information about his opponents. See, e.g., CNN, (7/22/15), Donald Trump gave Lindsey Graham’s cell number to U.S.

Moreover, the phone numbers, office addresses, and emails of every member of Congress are publicly available. Disseminating that information is not “doxxing.” Nor is sharing the identities of ICE agents filmed committing violent acts against protesters, innocent citizens, and immigrants who may (or may not) be subject to deportation. In normal times, capturing such video is known as “evidence” in a criminal proceeding. Now, Republicans claim that is “doxxing.”

Defending the Constitution’s probable cause requirement for a judicial warrant to search a home and demanding the unmasking of ICE agents should be “non-negotiable” items in the upcoming showdown.

A federal grand jury refuses to indict senators and representatives who advised service members of their duty to refuse illegal orders.

Those seeking to resist Trump’s authoritarian agenda should take heart from the actions of a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. Its refusal to indict the senators and representatives who recorded and published a video advising service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders should give us all renewed confidence that the guardrails of democracy will hold.

Recall that Senators Kelly and Slotkin, and Reps. Crow, Houlahan, Deluzio, and Goodlander recorded and released a video advising members of the US military of their obligation to refuse to follow illegal orders. The statements made by the senators and representatives accurately summarize the law set forth in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and international treaties that comprise the “law of war.”

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi have made similar arguments before they surrendered their consciences and backbones to Trump. See Newsweek (12/03/25), Video of Hegseth telling military not to follow “illegal orders” resurfaces (Hegseth said in 2016, “That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief.”), and The New Republic, (12/08/25), Pam Bondi Made the Same Statement Trump Claims Is Sedition. (Bondi wrote, “Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders.”)

The duty to disobey an illegal order, as recited by Kelly, Slotkin, Hegseth, and Bondi, is recognized in federal jurisprudence interpreting the UCMJ. For example, in the prosecution of Lieutenant William Calley for the My Lai massacre, the court ruled that a soldier who obeys an order “which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful” can be convicted for following that order. Indeed, the court rejected Calley’s defense of “I was following orders” and convicted him of murdering 22 infants, children, women, and elderly men in the village of My Lai in March 1968. See Just Security (2016), A Duty to Disobey?

It therefore shocks the conscience that US Attorney Jeanine Pirro asked a federal grand jury to indict the two senators and four representatives for “interference with military morale and discipline” for their statements in the video.

Prosecutors may seek indictments only when they have a good-faith belief that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See, e.g., Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (“[N]o prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact . . . .”) Seeking an indictment to inflict political retribution is an abuse of process that the relevant licensing authorities should examine when considering the fitness of Pirro and her staffers to continue to practice law.

The mere fact that a grand jury refuses to return an indictment is not grounds for discipline or disbarment. But the public statements by Trump targeting the senators and representatives create a strong inference that the requests to indict were selective or vindictive prosecutions undertaken to please Trump.

Prosecutors who engage in such unprofessional conduct should be subject to discipline and, if appropriate, disbarment. Indeed, legal advocacy groups have begun to file complaints against current DOJ lawyers who fail to abide by ethical requirements in their representation of the government. See Reuters, US DOJ lawyer hit with bar complaint over search of reporter’s home.

The historic nature of the requested indictments makes a strong case for disbarment. Indicting sitting members of Congress, who have oversight of the military, for making statements that correctly summarize the law regarding the duty to refuse illegal orders tears at our constitutional fabric and should be condemned by every lawmaker and American who cares about the rule of law.

But in the end, the real story is that ordinary citizens serving on a grand jury served as a guardrail of democracy. In that simple but powerful fact, each of us should rest just a bit easier tonight.

Speaker Mike Johnson fails to pass legislation protecting Trump’s illegal tariffs.

In another sign of life in the guardrails of democracy, the GOP-controlled House failed to pass legislation that would have restricted its ability to challenge Trump’s illegal tariffs. See Politico, GOP revolt sinks effort to block votes on Trump’s tariffs.

Per Politico,

Three Republican lawmakers, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Kevin Kiley of California and Don Bacon of Nebraska, joined Democrats to defeat a key procedural measure 217-214. That gives Democrats the opportunity to force a vote as soon as this week on a resolution disapproving of the president’s 25 percent duties on Canadian goods.

While it might be generous to describe the crossover by three Republicans as a “revolt,” other GOP members likely voted with Trump and Johnson because they knew the measure would fail.

Interesting point: Kevin Kiley of California is one of the Republicans targeted by the mid-decade redistricting in California. Kiley opposed efforts by California and Texas to engage in partisan gerrymandering, believing he would become a target of the tactic in California. Now that Kiley is running a very competitive district, he has found the courage to stand up to Trump. (Don Bacon also represents a competitive district in Nebraska and frequently breaks with Trump.) Funny how representing a competitive district gives Republicans the backbone to stand up to Trump.

The Supreme Court should rule any day now on the challenge to the legality of Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Legal observers believe that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump, but we should prepare for any outcome. In the meantime, the House can continue to review Trump’s declarations of economic emergencies after the failure of Speaker Johnson’s maneuver.

Concluding Thoughts

Each of the stories in today’s edition shows that Trump is struggling to defend his unlawful regime. Drawing a “red line” over compliance with the Constitution is a sign of weakness, not strength. The actions of the federal grand jury in rejecting the indictments against the senators and representatives highlight the important firewall function that citizens serving as gatekeepers to criminal courts provide. And the fact that Mike Johnson has (again) lost control of the GOP caucus in the House says more about Trump than it does about the Speaker.

Various revelations in the Epstein child-rape and sex trafficking scandal today also continue to damage Trump. Key parts of Trump’s fictitious narrative about Epstein have been debunked by the documents. And the stunning revelations that contradict Howard Lutnick’s previous claims that he met Epstein on a single occasion show the value of documents in testing facile denials by men who believe they can lie and get away with it.

All of this adds to our momentum. While I frequently say that the daily news shows that we are winning, I will give the final word to Rebecca Solnit, who writes the essential Meditations in an Emergency. Her essay today is titled, Auspicious Omens and Excellent Insubordination. It is a truly prodigious work that chronicles the many ways that we are defeating the Trump regime. It is long, but worth every word.

If you don’t have the time to read everything Solnit writes, here is the gist:

The most essential thing about the Trump Administration right now is that it is weak, chaotic, and wildly unpopular and doing everything it can to make itself more so. Unfortunately, it’s taking the nation and to some extent the world with it, but if you want to see the administration as the drunk driver, more and more people are getting out of the car, or trying to turn it around (and take the keys away).

In ways large and small, we are successfully bending the arc. It is hard work and emotionally taxing. But our persistence is paying off. Stay the course, my friends! We are on the right path.

The House approved five appropriations bills on Tuesday, and Trump signed them into law. Congress also approved a two-week funding extension for the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of ICE. Democrats allowed the five bills to pass with the promise that they would stand firm in demanding meaningful reforms to ICE’s murderous, brutalizing, unlawful police practices.

This is the moment of truth for congressional Democrats. They must finally show courage and principle. They must demonstrate leadership that places the safety and liberty of their constituents above all else, rather than calibrating every action with the cowardly political algorithm, “Will this help or hurt my chances of re-election?”

Our nation is in a moment of crisis. We have no need of politicians. We need patriots and heroes, men and women of their word who will defend the Constitution, as they promised.

In this moment, “bi-partisanship” is a code-word for “capitulation.” There is nothing bipartisan about allowing ICE to continue public executions. There is nothing bipartisan about allowing roving gangs of masked men with automatic rifles and grenade launchers to terrorize peaceful residents of cities and states whose only crime was to vote against Donald Trump in 2024. There is nothing bipartisan about jailing children.

The current proposals for “reforms” floated by Democrats amount to nothing more than asking ICE to observe minimum standards of conduct that apply to every law enforcement agency in America. That is not reform. That is begging ICE to behave—“Pretty please, with a cherry on top.”

The truth is that ICE is so broken, so corrupt, that it must be disbanded and a new agency must be created to replace it. It must be defunded, its ranks cleared of officers caught on tape beating, shooting, tear-gassing, punching, and mocking Americans who are going about their daily lives or exercising their First Amendment rights.

Democrats held a hearing on Tuesday with some of the survivors of ICE violence and mistreatment. Lawrence O’Donnell devoted the first 20 minutes of his nightly news program to the hearing. You can watch it here: The Last Word. (click on the segment with the title, “In Cold Blood.”

If you watch this segment—and I request that you do as a personal favor to me—you will agree that we must defund and replace ICE wholesale. It will require you to devote 10 minutes of your life to listening to heartbreaking, enraging testimony. But it will change your view of the relationship between Trump’s lawless regime and America’s citizens and residents. It will change your view about the need to replace and rebuild ICE from the ground up, I promise.

The half-measures and window-dressing currently being shopped by Chuck Schumer are an insult to the memories of those killed and brutalized by ICE. They are the rock-bottom, bare minimum first steps toward meaningful reform. Members of ICE will continue their brutal terror even with body cameras and without masks. They don’t care if they are filmed committing illegal acts—because they have been told Trump will protect them, and they have been recruited precisely because they don’t care.

They glorify violence; they celebrate the number of bullet holes that their weapons of war inflict on American citizens. See ABC News, ‘5 shots, 7 holes’: Border patrol supervisor appeared to brag about shooting woman, defense attorney says. (The Border Patrol agent testified that bragging about the number of times he shot an innocent woman was “a way of relieving stress.”) To similar effect is the public execution of Alex Pretti. When a physician rushed to provide aid to Pretti, he was surrounded by federal agents counting the bullet holes in his body instead of rendering first aid. See The Independent, Doctor who attended to shot protester says agents were counting bullet holes rather than administering CPR.

A long-term shutdown of DHS will be hard. It will result in travel delays, delay in paying the US military, and delay in FEMA payouts. Speaker Mike Johnson is already setting up Democrats as the “bad guys,” saying,

“What they’ll be shutting down is FEMA operations, as we’re cleaning up from the winter storms. They’ll be shutting down TSA, which is obviously necessary to keep the country moving through our airports. So many important functions in the Department of Homeland Security is what will be adversely affected by these partisan games.”

So, a word to congressional Democrats: Steel yourselves. We will either live in a society with a roving paramilitary that is executing citizens on the streets or not. It is up to you. For once in your lives, do the right thing—something that will be hard, possibly unpopular, and may affect your fundraising.

Congressional Democrats gave away most of their leverage by allowing the five appropriations bills to pass without a fight. They told us they would extract concessions when the DHS bill is put to a vote. It is the moment of truth for congressional Democrats. Don’t tell us who you are or what you believe. Show us.

More on Trump’s demand to “nationalize” elections in 15 states.

In yesterday’s newsletter, I addressed at length why it would be unlikely that Trump and congressional Republicans would “nationalize” elections anywhere. See Today’s Edition, Preparing for the shutdown battle . . . . I was skeptical that Republicans would abolish the filibuster to pass legislation that would implement Congress’s ability to regulate federal elections, which have traditionally been the purview of states—as permitted by the Constitution.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune dumped cold water on the idea. See The Hill, John Thune dismisses Donald Trump’s call for GOP to take over federal elections.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made a valiant attempt to “walk back” Trump's comments, claiming that he was referring only to the SAVE Act, an anti-voting package passed by the House but stalled in the Senate by the filibuster. See NYTimes, Trump Repeats Call to ‘Nationalize’ Elections, as White House Walks It Back.

Per the Times, Leavitt said,

“What the president was referring to is the SAVE Act, which is a huge, common-sense piece of legislation that Republicans have supported, that President Trump is committed to signing into law during his term,” Ms. Leavitt said. [¶] Ms. Leavitt said that “the president believes in the United States Constitution,” but that he also believed there had been “a lot of fraud and irregularities that have taken place in American elections.”

Despite Leavitt’s prevarication, Trump amplified his comments, again calling for nationalizing federal elections. So, there is a split between Trump and congressional Republicans, and Trump and his advisers.

I was sorely disappointed in much of the mainstream media coverage of this issue, which devoted 99.99% of its coverage to Trump’s threat and virtually no coverage to the fact that (a) the threat is subject to the filibuster, and (b) any extrajudicial efforts to interfere with state elections, e.g., by having the military seize ballot boxes, would be met by massive political protests that would bring down the Trump administration.

We can’t dismiss Trump’s delusional fantasies as irrelevant. See, e.g., January 6, 2021. But if we are going to amplify Trump’s threats, please give equal billing to the ability of the people to resist—in courts and in the streets. Looking at you, Chris Hayes and Jen Psaki. You are heroes of democracy, and we owe you a debt of gratitude, but please, don’t sell us short.

We are not potted plants or helpless victims without agency. We have been on the ramparts of democracy for eight months. Give us some credit. Better yet, rally us to redouble our efforts! Raising the alarm is appropriate; providing leadership is better.

Mass departures are hobbling the US Attorney’s office in Minnesota.

The US Attorney’s office in Minnesota has been plagued by waves of departures as DOJ leadership has ordered attorneys to prosecute the victims of ICE violence while protecting federal agents who engage in unlawful conduct. See AP News, More departures at the US attorney’s office in Minnesota, AP sources say. In addition, the illegal detentions of residents and citizens have led to a wave of habeas corpus petitions in federal court, which ICE, CBP, and the DOJ have routinely ignored.

On Tuesday, one of the nine remaining US Attorneys in the Minnesota office (out of 40), was called into court for a dressing down by a federal judge who was tired of the DOJ ignoring his orders. As described by Fox 9 News,

While [Assistant US Attorney Julie] Le said procedures are being implemented to ensure ICE complies with court orders moving forward, she admitted it has been like pulling teeth and has required non-stop work in an already depleted office. “I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.”

Two aspects of this story are important: First, Attorney General Pam Bondi is presiding over the destruction of the DOJ. It will need to be rebuilt from the ground up when we elect a Democratic president. Second, mass resignations in US Attorneys’ offices and the DOJ are likely to increase as Trump continues his war on the American people. That will limit the ability of Trump and his enablers to defend the administration’s unlawful actions, and lead to more adverse rulings against the administration at the district court and appellate levels.

Update on Trump’s fight with Harvard University.

Trump reacted badly to the NY Times’ story that he had dropped his demand for monetary penalties against Harvard for promoting diversity and inclusion. See The New Republic, Trump Suddenly Brings Back His Feud With Harvard in Crazed Rant.

Trump posted,

“Strongly Antisemitic Harvard University has been feeding a lot of ‘nonsense’ to The Failing New York Times,” Trump wrote in a lengthy post late Monday night. “Harvard has been, for a long time, behaving very badly! “This should be a Criminal, not Civil, event, and Harvard will have to live with the consequences of their wrongdoings,” Trump wrote, adding: “We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University.”

Harvard should just ignore Trump. He will be distracted soon, and the DOJ has effectively conceded defeat in its defense of the administration’s illegal impoundment of funds. See ABC News, Trump administration drops legal appeal over anti-DEI funding threat to schools and colleges.

Federal judge gives a cold reception to the government’s defense of Hegseth’s demotion of Mark Kelly.

Senator Mark Kelly sued the administration, seeking an injunction preventing Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth from demoting Kelly retroactively. Kelly released a social media post telling US military members that they could refuse to follow illegal orders. See Talking Points Memo, Judge Incredulous as Trump Lawyer Asks Him to Create New Law for Mark Kelly Retribution Crusade.

At one point in the hearing, US District Judge Leon said, “You’re asking me to do something that the Supreme Court has never done — that’s a bit of a stretch, is it not? That’s never been done before.

Hegseth will lose this fight. The only question is how long it will take for Senator Kelly to prevail.

Read this report about the contribution of immigrants to the US economy.

A report by the conservative CATO institute is worth reading, because it rebuts many of Trump’s lies about the contributions of immigrants to the US economy and Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets: 1994–2023 | Cato Institute.

The executive summary notes the following:

For each year from 1994 to 2023, the US immigrant population generated more in taxes than they received in benefits from all levels of government.

Over that period, immigrants created a cumulative fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion in real 2024 US dollars, including $3.9 trillion in savings on interest on the debt.

Without immigrants, US government public debt at all levels would be at least 205 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—nearly twice its 2023 level.

These results, which do not account for any of immigration’s indirect, tax-revenue-boosting effects on economic growth, represent the lower bound of the positive fiscal effects. Even by this conservative analysis, immigrants may have already prevented a fiscal crisis.

Concluding Thoughts

I had an exchange with a reader today that is worth sharing. I spent about 8 hours on Monday trying to use AI to write code to automate some of the daily newsletter tasks needed to keep the newsletter running smoothly (mainly handling reader requests about newsletter delivery and subscriptions). After a day’s worth of work, I was 99% of the way to an automated solution—which means that the “code” didn’t work. (That last 1% matters a lot!)

I then reached out to a reader, Bern S., and asked if he could help me figure out why the code wasn't working. (Bern had previously volunteered several very helpful software suggestions, so I respected his expertise.) Bern re-wrote my amateurish efforts into a very tight, elegant solution that works like a dream.

I offered to compensate Bern for his work. He politely declined and sent me the following quotations from George Bernard Shaw, which express a sentiment that applies to everyone involved in the resistance at this moment of crisis in our nation’s history:

This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.

We are engaged in a sacred duty—preserving democracy. I can think of nothing more noble or joyful than being “used up” in the process of preserving and passing the torch to future generations!

Friends,

A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court decided yesterday that Trump cannot take core powers that the Constitution gives Congress. Instead, Congress must delegate any such power clearly and unambiguously.

This is a big decision. It goes far beyond merely interpreting the 1997 International Emergency Economic Powers Act not to give Trump the power over tariffs that he claims to have. It reaffirms a basic constitutional principle about the division and separation of powers between Congress and the president.

On its face, this decision clarifies that Trump cannot decide on his own not to spend money Congress has authorized and appropriated — such as the funds for U.S.A.I.D. he refused to spend. And he cannot on his own decide to go to war.

“The Court has long expressed ‘reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory test’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself and five other justices in the opinion released yesterday in Learning Resources vs. Trump.

He continued: “In several cases involving ‘major questions,’ the Court has reasoned that ‘both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent’ suggest Congress would not have delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.”

Exactly. Trump has no authority on his own to impose tariffs because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.

But by the same Supreme Court logic, Trump has no authority to impound money Congress has appropriated because the Constitution has given Congress the “core congressional power of the purse,” as the Court stated yesterday.

Hence, the $410 to $425 billion billion in funding that Trump has blocked or delayed violates the Impoundment Control Act, which requires Congressional approval for spending pauses. This includes funding withheld for foreign aid, FEMA, Head Start, Harvard and Columbia universities, and public health.

Nor, by this same Supreme Court logic, does Trump have authority to go to war because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War … and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" — and Congress would not have delegated this highly consequential power to a president through ambiguous language.

Presumably this is why Congress enacted the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires a president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and requires their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes an extension. Iran, anyone?

The press has reported on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision as if it were only about tariffs. Wrong. It’s far bigger and even more important.

Note that the decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts — the same justice who wrote the Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, another 6 to 3 decision in which the Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts.

I think Roberts intentionally wrote yesterday’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump as a bookend to Trump v. United States.

Both are intended to clarify the powers of the president and of Congress. A president has immunity for actions taken within his core constitutional powers. But a president has no authority to take core powers that the Constitution gives to Congress.

In these two decisions, the Chief Justice and five of his colleagues on the Court have laid out a roadmap for what they see as the boundary separating the power of the president from the powers of Congress, and how they will decide future cases along that boundary.

Trump will pay no heed, of course. He accepts no limits to his power and has shown no respect for the Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the rule of law.

Peter Birkenhead

“Elected officials no longer attempt to win you over, they attempt to rewrite laws and district boundaries so that your vote is irrelevant. Their true constituency is the criminal elite.” ― Sarah Kendzior, They Knew: How a Culture of Conspiracy Keeps America Complacent

+

Sign of the Day... in London .. [Mary Elaine LeBey]

+

Stonekettle Station

Jim Wright

In case you missed it, Trump phoned into failed Deputy Director of the FBI Dan Bongino's podcast and declared AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES that elections, which according the Constitution are the responsibility of each state, should be nationalized, i.e. put under HIS authority, and his political party should just take over all elections across the country.

Mere suggestion of such by any President, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, should in itself be an impeachable offense and grounds for immediate removal from office.

Good news to start our weekend! The Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s illegal tariffs in an opinion that reasserts the separation of powers, the primacy of the Constitution, and the role of Congress in making law. Clear-cut victories are rare; we should celebrate!

The seven opinions by nine justices are unnecessarily complicated, but at root, the majority agreed that the Constitution means what it says (Congress has the authority to impose duties and taxes) and that a statute that does not mention tariffs does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The political and economic consequences deserve comment (see below), but we should not lose sight of the simple but powerful fact that the Constitution prevailed. It could have been otherwise.

The victory was expected, but we can take nothing for granted. Let’s breathe a sigh of relief and prepare ourselves for the next battle.

Trump rejects gift horse offered by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court tried to save Trump from his misguided, destructive tariffs. Rather than taking the win by saying, “Thank you,” and then blaming the Court for whatever happens to the economy, Trump did the following:

1. Called the justices “fools and lapdogs” who were “unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution” and “an embarrassment to their families.” 2. Suggested that some of the justices had been “swayed by foreign interests.” 3. Immediately imposed a global 10% tariff on all imports.

Ending the unpopular tariffs was a gift to Trump, whether he likes the outcome or not. See David Frum, The Atlantic, The Supreme Court Delivers Trump a Humiliating Gift. (Gift article accessible to all.)

Per David Frum,

The ironic political question for 2026 is whether the U.S. Supreme Court acted in time to save Trump from himself. Whether or not it was the justices’ intention to help Trump, a generally Trump-friendly Supreme Court has offered the president an exit from one of his most unpopular domestic policies.

There is an old saying about “not looking a gift horse in the mouth.” The origin of that saying (about being grateful for a gift) is detailed in the footnote below,1 but whatever its historical meaning, Trump took it to the next level. He was not only an ungrateful recipient of the Court’s gift, but he also insulted the gift-giver and then shot the horse.

Trump’s reaction demonstrates that he is a weak loser who knows he is a weak loser. The most logical response to a judicial opinion holding that “You need the consent of Congress to impose tariffs” is to secure that consent to impose new tariffs. This is especially true when your party holds a majority in both chambers of Congress. But Trump knows that he would be unable to convince Congress to pass legislation authorizing him to impose tariffs.

Trump imposes a 10% “ad valorem tax” on all imports—almost.

So, a defeated Trump invoked a different statute to apply a universal 10% global tariff on all imports (except for Canada and Mexico). See CNN, A defiant Trump vows new tariffs while fuming at Supreme Court.

Although Trump’s 10% global tariff effectively offsets the economic impact of the invalidated tariffs, a universal tariff is not a weaponized tool of foreign policy. If a country cannot be singled out for punishment via tariff, Trump loses the ability to exercise economic coercion over foreign nations.

The presidential proclamation imposing a 10% ad valorem tax excludes a dozen categories of products, including vehicles, aerospace, electronics, beef, and certain agricultural products, fertilizers, and minerals. See Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems – The White House.

The core legal ruling and its implications

The opinion turned on the meaning of the word “regulate” in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs, in Learning Resources v. Trump.

Millhiser explains the core of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion:

In the part of Roberts’s opinion that five other justices joined, he explains that the word “regulate” means “to ‘fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.’” But it does not mean the power to tax.

For all practical purposes, the above holding could and should be the end of the legal analysis. You could stop reading here and not miss anything.

But there is a nuance worth further discussion that is not essential to the holding but may be good news if Trump claims he has the authority to regulate elections by, for example, requiring Voter ID and proof of citizenship. He does not have that authority, and today’s opinion suggests that Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett would rule against Trump on such a claim by applying the Major Questions Doctrine.

Why the Major Questions Doctrine discussion in today’s ruling matters.

Three of the Republican justices also relied on a judicial creation known as “the Major Questions Doctrine,” which asserts that “in the Supreme Court’s words, “we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

Because only three justices relied on the Major Questions Doctrine, it is not a “controlling” part of the holding. But it is informative, nonetheless.

Although the Major Questions Doctrine was developed in the context of congressional delegation to executive agencies, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett applied it to Trump’s claim that the IEEPA delegated the power to impose tariffs to the president. The three conservative justices firmly rejected Trump’s claim that the tariff power was delegated to him by implication in the IEEPA.

Roberts writes,

[T]he President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs. . . . He cannot.

The argument is much more complicated and nuanced than I have described, but the point is that three conservative justices are willing to apply the strict test of the Major Questions Doctrine to Trump’s claims of congressionally delegated power.

Why does this matter?

Because Trump is likely to make similar arguments of “delegation of congressional power” to the executive in the context of the regulation of elections. And Congress has not made a “clear delegation of congressional authorization” to the president to regulate elections. See Rick Hazen, The Supreme Court’s Tariffs Opinion Suggest Strong Limits on President Trump’s Attempts to Exert Power over the Administration of Congressional Elections - Election Law Blog.

As Hazen notes, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett hold:

[W]e would not expect Congress to relinquish its tariff power through vague language or without careful limits.

Rick Hazen comments on the above holding as it might apply to a future case contesting Trump’s assertion that Congress has delegated authority to him to regulate elections:

The same could be said with the power to override state laws governing the time, place, and manner of congressional elections. The Constitution gave that power to Congress alone in Article I, section 4’s “Elections Clause.” Any attempt for Trump to try to defend his exercise of executive powers over the conduct of congressional elections under state rules should fail for the same reason as his power over tariffs fails: the conduct of election is certainly a question of major national importance, and “there is no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.”

This discussion is more complicated and technical than I intended, so let me distill the Major Questions Doctrine discussion to its essence:

Congress did not explicitly delegate tariff authority to Trump, so he cannot impose tariffs. This matters because Congress has not explicitly delegated authority to regulate elections to Trump, so he cannot regulate elections.

Overall, today’s opinion was a significant limitation of Trump’s claims that Congress delegated its powers to the president. That is a good result.

Mitch McConnell is blocking a committee vote on the SAVE Act

Here is an unexpected twist: Mitch McConnell is refusing to hold a committee vote that would advance the SAVE Act to the Senate floor for a vote. (Even if the bill is advanced to the floor, it is subject to the filibuster and will not pass.) See The New Republic, McConnell Stalls Trump’s Election Overhaul Bill as Republicans Fume.

Why is McConnell stalling the bill? Because he understands it can pass only if Republicans create a carve-out from the filibuster for voting legislation. That will spell disaster for Republicans when Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency.

Per The New Republic, McConnell explained his views in a Wall Street Journal editorial last year:

Last year, McConnell wrote in The Wall Street Journal that such a bill would give a future Democratic president and Congress the ability to “use more sweeping mandates to carry out a complete federal takeover of American elections.” “The current administration has better ways to spend its time than laying the groundwork for a leftwing election takeover,” McConnell wrote.

In short, unless McConnell relents, the SAVE Act will not even reach the Senate floor for a vote. But if it does, it will be subject to the filibuster..

Concluding Thoughts

Friday was a good day for democracy. We don’t have to win every battle, just most of them, over time. The tariff ruling augers well for future decisions limiting Trump’s expansive claims of congressionally delegated powers. That is a good result all around.

* * * *

Corridors, Not Colossi

DHS escalates, Epstein exposes the web, Trump builds monuments — but the Rockies remind us systems can be redesigned.

Mary Geddry

Feb 15, 2026

Good morning! Let’s begin with the sound of flash-bangs. While most of America was scrolling, Homeland Security officers were once again demonstrating what “less lethal” means in 2026. It means rubber bullets that shatter faces, and tear gas canisters bouncing off chests. It means flash-bangs exploding near 73-year-old men who thought they were exercising their First Amendment rights instead of auditioning for a war documentary.

NBC’s reporting this week documented a pattern that is no longer accidental. Federal officers in military-grade armor are conducting open-air immigration raids in cities across the country and meeting protest not with de-escalation, but with force. Pepper spray to the face. Chemical agents into crowds. “Everybody f—— gets it if they touch you,” one operation commander was caught saying on body cam. Whose city is it? “It’s our f—— city.” That’s the language of an occupying force, not law enforcement.

While courts in multiple states have found that force was used indiscriminately, the administration’s response has not been contrition but acceleration. Stephen Miller told officers, “You are unleashed.” Another federal judge described DHS’s culture as one that “celebrates violent responses over fair and diplomatic ones.” The administration, in turn, is fighting those rulings.

The flash-bangs on the street are loud. But the quieter shift might be even more consequential. The Guardian reported this weekend that the administration has dramatically expanded the 287(g) program, deputizing more than 1,400 local police agencies to function as federal immigration enforcement. Local officers can now interrogate anyone they suspect of being undocumented during routine policing and detain them purely on immigration suspicion. That’s a federal civil matter now embedded in everyday traffic stops.

Any consideration of oversight has been trimmed. The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog office, which had been reviewing suspected racial profiling and civil liberties violations, was gutted. A congressionally mandated report raising red flags has gone “into limbo.” An advisory board reviewing new partnerships was dissolved. Former officials describe the current structure bluntly: “I don’t think anybody’s doing any of the oversight work.”

They have also added incentives. Equipment grants, vehicle reimbursements, and salary coverage. “Monetary performance awards” based on how many undocumented immigrants officers identify. One former official called it what it looks like: a bounty system.

On the surface, you have armored agents firing tear gas into crowds. Underneath, you have the quiet rewiring of American policing so that immigration enforcement is everywhere and oversight is nowhere.

Then there’s the other story that will not die, because the system cannot metabolize it: Epstein. The files are back. Six million documents, give or take the repetition. Britain is convulsing. Peter Mandelson’s career is radioactive. Prince Andrew is already politically extinct. In London, association with a convicted sex trafficker is not treated as a quirky networking misstep, it is career-ending. In Washington? It’s just another taxpayer-funded golfing holiday.

The latest document dump exposes what we already suspected: the web was larger than previously understood and more international. Julie K. Brown, who has been hammering at this story for years, says what surprises her most is the scale. Recruiters in multiple countries. Lawyers arranging visas for teenage girls under the guise of modeling contracts. Emails showing trajectories, flattery, promises, father-figure mentorship, followed by discarding and indifference.

This was not a one-off monster in a Palm Beach mansion. It was a global apparatus, yet here we are. Survivors report their names remain sprinkled throughout the released files while powerful men’s names are redacted. The Department of Justice says there is no credible evidence to pursue further charges, but provides little visible evidence of follow-up on credible tips. A congressionally mandated oversight report on the immigration crackdown disappears into bureaucratic limbo. Another system that exposes everyone and holds no one accountable.

In Britain, proximity destabilizes leadership. In America, it becomes atmospheric. Scandal becomes climate, not weather, because everyone’s dirtiness uniquely disqualifies no one.

Julie Brown made another observation worth sitting with: this is not a partisan story. Epstein donated across party lines. Sexual assault does not discriminate by political affiliation. The common denominator was not ideology; it was power, money, and access.

The problem may not have been a single monster in the center of the web. It may have been the web itself. Which brings us to monuments. The New York Times ran a news analysis this weekend describing what it called an American cult of personality. President Trump, one year into his second term, is engaged in a spree of self-aggrandizement unmatched in modern American history. His name etched on federal institutions. Pressure on cultural institutions to display flattering portraits. A proposed “Trump-class” of ships. Whispers of coins, airports, mountains. And somewhere in an Ohio sculptor’s studio, a 15-foot gold-covered bronze statue called “Don Colossus” waits for installation. Washington declined “Your Majesty.” Trump wonders why Washington didn’t brand Mount Vernon.

This isn’t just vanity, as one historian noted, it’s about omnipresence. A president is more powerful if he is ever-present than if he keeps his head down. The cult architecture binds loyalty not to policy, but to persona. Those who stand against the persona are not opponents; they are traitors.

An immigration enforcement system expanding downward into local policing, guardrails stripped away. Federal officers escalating force in American cities. An elite scandal that reveals proximity but produces little accountability. A presidency increasingly framed not as an office, but as a myth.

Far from Washington and Westminster, in the Rockies, something else is happening. Engineers are building bridges that are not bridges so much as forests suspended over highways. The Yellowstone to Yukon initiative has been quietly stitching together one of the largest wildlife corridors on Earth, 1.3 million square kilometers, spanning five states, two provinces and more than seventy-five Indigenous territories. Grizzly bears whose populations were split by highways and railways are being given safe passage to find one another again. Wildlife crossings reduce collisions by more than 90 percent. More than 150,000 animals have already used them.

In one part of North America, we are building a system that expands movement, reduces harm and reconnects what was fractured. In another, we are building statues. For now, the Don Colossus still sits in the sculptor’s studio, instead of casting a long bronze shadow across a golf course.

Systems can be redesigned, even the US Constitution has amendments. We know how, we have the engineering diagrams. We know how to build guardrails instead of removing them, and how to structure incentives so they reduce harm instead of rewarding it, and how to fund oversight instead of dismantling it. We know how to create corridors that reconnect fractured populations rather than walls that divide them, and how to build institutions that outlast egos.

What makes this moment uncomfortable is that it is so clarifying. The flash-bangs, the bounty-style enforcement incentives, all the redacted names. None of it is subtle. The wiring and the architecture are fully exposed. Exposure, as painful as it is, is an opportunity because once you can see how a system works you can dismantle it.

We are rarely handed moments this stark or so ripe for change. The engineers in the Rockies are not asking which bear deserves to cross the highway. They are building a bridge so that life can move freely and safely again. We know how to do that in our civic life, too.