The Dictatorship

The House’s Canada tariff vote sent a message to Trump. But it won’t stop him.

Published

4 months ago

February 12, 2026

Feb. 11, 2026, 7:10 PM EST

The House of Representatives voted 219-211 on Wednesday to repeal President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada. The Senate will take up the matter next, but even if the upper chamber votes to repeal them, the president would almost certainly veto the measure, and the veto would be highly unlikely to be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress.

If the Trump administration is going to ask Americans to foot the tariff bill, the least it can do is level with them. Instead, the administration is speaking out of both sides of its mouth, advancing one set of arguments before the courts and another in public.

Put simply, President Donald Trump’s tariffs are as unconstitutional as they are harmful to the American people and the economy. Congress should wake up and reclaim its constitutional power to tax. Until that time, Congress’ weakness demonstrates the need for a clear decision on the tariffs from the Supreme Court.

Because so many legislators have shown an unwillingness to preserve their institution’s legitimate power, only the Supreme Court can now protect Congress’ power.

The court is now considering challenges to the president’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. On Aug. 29, as one of those cases, V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trumpwas pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick “declare[d] under penalty of perjury” to the court that “[w]ithout the viability of IEEPA tariffs, the United States would be weakened and would lose the essential tool to address” the supposed national emergency.

A month later, Phil Magness, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, and I warned that the administration would sing a different tune if it looked like it might lose at the Supreme Court.

Right on cue, Lutnick on Dec. 3 told CNBC“If … the Supreme Court didn’t side with the president, which I think they will, then we have other tools and we’ll put them right in place. Tariffs are here to stay.” That same dayTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “We can re-create the exact tariff structure with” other statutory provisions.

Why, then, would a court striking down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs “lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment” and “expose the United States to the risk of retaliation,” as Bessent said in a statement to the Federal Circuit?

The administration’s inconsistencies are not limited to claims made before the Federal Circuit. On Nov. 5, in oral argument before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer said of the tariffs, “They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental.” Yet, on Jan. 12, Trump posted on Truth Social that if the court ruled that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal, “[i]t would be a complete mess” because it would be “almost impossible for our Country to pay” back all the revenue the tariffs have generated as well as the supposed investments the tariffs have brought in.

Of course, if the court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, everyone in the administration will suddenly agree that the statutory provisions Bessent mentioned on Dec. 3 do, in fact, empower the president to carry out his desired tariff agenda.

Our Constitution was drafted and ratified by a generation that had recently fought a war partly against “taxation without representation.” Unsurprisingly, they therefore vested the power to tax, including the power to tariff the people, exclusively with Congress, not with the president for unilateral control.

Congress, however, has abdicated its responsibility. When the president usurps a power so central to the legislature as the power to tax, every lawmaker has a responsibility to vigorously defend Congress’ constitutional prerogatives. The Constitution protects liberty by assigning those powers to Congress.

Yet, because so many legislators have shown an unwillingness to preserve their institution’s legitimate power, only the Supreme Court can now protect Congress’ power.

Artificially raising prices on goods does not magically bring back American jobs. It only makes Americans poorer while driving our allies into the arms of the Chinese Communist Party. Congress should vote unanimously to reclaim its constitutional taxing power. Since it will not, a clear decision from the Supreme Court enforcing the Constitution’s limits is critical for American liberty and prosperity.

Marc Wheat is general counsel for Advancing American Freedom, which advocates for conservative values and policy proposals.

The Dictatorship

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Published

7 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

California voters to decide billionaire tax measure in November

Jun. 25, 2026, 10:25 PM EDT

California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.

“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.

A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.

“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.

Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”

“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.

Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.

Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.

California relies on its top 1% of earnersfor nearly half of its personal income tax revenue.

The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.

The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.

But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.

The Dictatorship

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Published

7 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Flattery, secrecy and chaos: Bill Pulte’s first week as intel chief

Jun. 25, 2026, 7:15 PM EDT

Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.

What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.

One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.

In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”

And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.

“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”

But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.

They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.

“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.

He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”

“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”

Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.

“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”

The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.

But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.

“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”

That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.

Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.

One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.

One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.

“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.

The Dictatorship

Barack Obama says Trump gives him a ‘room in his head’

Published

7 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Barack Obama says Trump gives him a ‘room in his head’

Jun. 25, 2026, 5:37 PM EDT

Former President Barack Obama slammed President Donald Trump for obsessing over him while serving in the nation’s highest office.

“I obviously, you know, have a room in his head. A suite in his head,” Obama said an an episode of the podcast “All The Smoke,” posted Wednesday.

“Look, first of all, when I was president, the last thing I had time to do was worry about what somebody said, or what my predecessor did,” Obama told the two hosts, former NBA players Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson. “They’re gone. I’ve got work to do.”

Trump has a long history of publicly insulting the former president, often invoking Obama’s middle name, Hussein.

Trump has also heavily promoted the false and racist “birther” conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he was born in Kenya rather than the United States.

Earlier this year, Trump drew criticism after sharing a racist artificial intelligence-generated video on his Truth Social account depicting the former president and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. The video was later deleted, and Trump did not apologize.

Before launching the war against Iran with Israel on Feb. 28, Trump repeatedly criticized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 diplomatic agreement primarily negotiated by Obama that also limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sweeping economic sanctions relief.

More recently, Trump trashed the newly debuted Obama Presidential Center in Chicago as a “very unattractive building” and “total disaster,” adding that when his presidential library opens, it will be “on time, on budget, best location in Miami.”

Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama criticized leaders who fixate on their predecessors, characterizing their priorities as misplaced.

“If you’re doing the job right, everyday, you’ve got five, ten things that are real hard. And you have to be constantly focused,” Obama said.

“The idea that I’d be worrying about somebody who came before and me trying to measure, ‘What’s he done today?’ Constantly worrying about that is a strange thing to me. It shows me somebody who’s not focused on the American people and the job they’re supposed to do.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.