Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
February 25, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/washington-post-trump-2675328550
Trump DOJ sharply rebuked by judge after seizing reporter's devices: 'Fox in the henhouse'
I am glad that the court rejected the search of this reporter's devices
A Virginia federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department on Tuesday, refusing to let prosecutors search through a Washington Post reporter's seized electronics and taking control of the operation himself.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-02-24T23:55:09.449Z
https://www.rawstory.com/washington-post-trump-2675328550
A Virginia federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department on Tuesday, refusing to let prosecutors search through a Washington Post reporter's seized electronics and taking control of the operation himself.
Magistrate Judge William Porter didn't mince words over the handing over of devices to government investigators.
“Given the documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well chronicled efforts to stop them, allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product — most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources — is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote, according to The Washington Post.
The judge feared Trump's Justice Department couldn't be trusted to conduct a narrow search without exposing more than 1,000 of reporter Hannah Natanson's confidential sources.
The decision represented a major victory for the newspaper and Natanson after federal agents conducted an unprecedented January raid on her Virginia home, seizing phones, laptops, a recorder, hard drive, and even a Garmin watch. Law enforcement claimed the search targeted a government contractor suspected of leaking classified information.
Magistrate Judge William Porter didn't mince words over the handing over of devices to government investigators.
“Given the documented reporting on government leak investigations and the government’s well chronicled efforts to stop them, allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product — most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources — is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote, according to The Washington Post.
The judge feared Trump's Justice Department couldn't be trusted to conduct a narrow search without exposing more than 1,000 of reporter Hannah Natanson's confidential sources.
The decision represented a major victory for the newspaper and Natanson after federal agents conducted an unprecedented January raid on her Virginia home, seizing phones, laptops, a recorder, hard drive, and even a Garmin watch. Law enforcement claimed the search targeted a government contractor suspected of leaking classified information.
February 25, 2026
Ratings-obsessed Donald is panicking over the growing boycott of his State of the Union speech.
Do not watch the SOTU.
Ratings-obsessed Donald is panicking over the growing boycott of his State of the Union speech.
— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@mrsbettybowers.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T21:06:47.372Z
Boycott the State of the Union tonight.
— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@mrsbettybowers.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T20:45:33.085Z
Donald doesn't care about any of us, but he *does* care about ratings.
February 25, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/state-of-the-union-trump-approval-rating-polling
MaddowBlog-Ahead of his State of the Union address, Trump's woeful approval rating 'amazes' him
At a White House event, the president, expressing a sentiment he rarely shares, said, “It just amazes me that there’s not more support out there.”
Usually, when Trump confronts another round of dreadful poll numbers, he makes up a generous approval rating for himself, peddles a few conspiracy theories, and asks everyone to just play along for the sake of his ego.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-24T20:58:49.122Z
Once in a great while, however, the masks slips.
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/state-of-the-union-trump-approval-rating-polling
On Monday, however, Trump did something quite different: He briefly acknowledged — and expressed public disappointment about — his deteriorating standing.
.....But on Monday, the mask slipped, and the president implicitly acknowledged the truth, though it was packaged in incredulity: Trump, who has long marveled at how awesome he considers his awesomeness, may not understand why he’s so unpopular, but he’s at least somewhat aware of the fact that he is unpopular.
That said, the candor was short-lived. Indeed, during the same White House event, the president claimed that he has “silent support” that independent surveys are overlooking, for reasons he did not explain, before adding, “I saw one [poll] today that I’m at 40%. I’m not at 40%. I’m at much higher than that.”
As it happens, even 40% was a bit of an exaggeration, with a growing number of national surveys consistently showing his support below that threshold. The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, for example, shows Trump’s approval rating slipping to 39%. That was followed by a CNN poll that found him sinking to 36% support.....
In a way, that’s true. If Trump and his team are comfortable with the idea that Americans put him back in power, that the president can’t run again and that polls reflecting public attitudes are therefore no longer relevant, they are welcome to embrace that attitude.
But a whole lot of midterm elections are scheduled for the fall, and I have a hunch congressional Republicans are far more interested in 2026 polls than 2024 election results.
Trump alludes to his bad polls: "It just amazes me that there is not more support out there. We actually have a silent support."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-23T15:44:53.547Z
.....But on Monday, the mask slipped, and the president implicitly acknowledged the truth, though it was packaged in incredulity: Trump, who has long marveled at how awesome he considers his awesomeness, may not understand why he’s so unpopular, but he’s at least somewhat aware of the fact that he is unpopular.
That said, the candor was short-lived. Indeed, during the same White House event, the president claimed that he has “silent support” that independent surveys are overlooking, for reasons he did not explain, before adding, “I saw one [poll] today that I’m at 40%. I’m not at 40%. I’m at much higher than that.”
As it happens, even 40% was a bit of an exaggeration, with a growing number of national surveys consistently showing his support below that threshold. The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, for example, shows Trump’s approval rating slipping to 39%. That was followed by a CNN poll that found him sinking to 36% support.....
In a way, that’s true. If Trump and his team are comfortable with the idea that Americans put him back in power, that the president can’t run again and that polls reflecting public attitudes are therefore no longer relevant, they are welcome to embrace that attitude.
But a whole lot of midterm elections are scheduled for the fall, and I have a hunch congressional Republicans are far more interested in 2026 polls than 2024 election results.
February 25, 2026
Mike Luckovich-State of the Union divided over Epstein Files coverup
— Mike Luckovich (@mluckovich.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T22:46:41.828Z
February 25, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/iran-2675327801
Speculation swirls as Marco Rubio's 'rare briefing' sees surprise guest
I am worried. Gang of 8 briefings could mean that trump is up to something. This is the type of stupid stunt that trump may try,
Speculation swirls as Marco Rubio’s ‘rare briefing’ sees surprise guest
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-02-24T21:10:21Z
https://www.rawstory.com/iran-2675327801
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was revealed to be delivering a “rare briefing” on Tuesday to top Trump officials, and one guest reportedly in attendance has sparked a flurry of speculation as to whether President Donald Trump may authorize an attack on Iran.
That briefing, reportedly about Iran, is being delivered to the so-called “Gang of Eight,” a coalition of congressional leaders who are typically informed of sensitive intelligence matters and covert operations. However, according to Axios reporter Barak Ravid, a ninth Trump administration official will be joining the briefing, an individual whose attendance raised eyebrows among critics.
“CIA Director [John] Ratcliffe is going to join Secretary of State Rubio at the 3pm Iran briefing for the ‘gang of 8,’ per source familiar,” Ravid wrote in a social media post on X Tuesday.
Ratcliffe’s attendance at the briefing startled onlookers, including journalist Adam Cochran, who took his attendance as a possible sign that a U.S. attack was either imminent or had already happened.
“If [Trump announces an attack on Iran during his State of the Union address], it will be that they already happened,” Cochran wrote in a social media post on X Tuesday.
That briefing, reportedly about Iran, is being delivered to the so-called “Gang of Eight,” a coalition of congressional leaders who are typically informed of sensitive intelligence matters and covert operations. However, according to Axios reporter Barak Ravid, a ninth Trump administration official will be joining the briefing, an individual whose attendance raised eyebrows among critics.
“CIA Director [John] Ratcliffe is going to join Secretary of State Rubio at the 3pm Iran briefing for the ‘gang of 8,’ per source familiar,” Ravid wrote in a social media post on X Tuesday.
Ratcliffe’s attendance at the briefing startled onlookers, including journalist Adam Cochran, who took his attendance as a possible sign that a U.S. attack was either imminent or had already happened.
“If [Trump announces an attack on Iran during his State of the Union address], it will be that they already happened,” Cochran wrote in a social media post on X Tuesday.
February 24, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-rulling-state-of-the-union
Deadline Legal Blog-After tariffs case, this State of the Union could be Trump's strangest SCOTUS showdown yet
Prior presidents have criticized justices to their face about their rulings. But Tuesday's speech could break new ground.
After tariffs case, this State of the Union could be Trump’s strangest SCOTUS showdown yet
— News Wire - World 🌎 Independent News Network Pro-Democracy (@democracyblue.bsky.social) 2026-02-24T14:56:54.012Z
Prior presidents have criticized justices to their face about their rulings. But Tuesday's speech could break new ground. www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-tariffs-rulling-state-of-the-union
Heading into Donald Trump’s latest congressional appearance on Tuesday night, he has already thoroughly lashed out at Friday’s tariffs ruling against him and — in dehumanizing terms — the justices behind it. Now, just a few days after the decision, he’ll come face to face with whichever justices decide to show up to the House chamber of the Capitol.....
Roberts authored the tariffs ruling, joined in the 6-3 bottom line by Trump appointees Barrett and Justice Neil Gorusch, as well as the court’s three Democratic appointees: Kagan and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. On Friday, while calling the justices in the majority cowards, disgraces, traitors and embarrassments to their families, the president praised Kavanaugh, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who all dissented. He said the dissenters are “happily” invited to the State of the Union and that the justices in the majority are “barely” invited and he “couldn’t care less if they come.”
The court is set to issue more opinions this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. It doesn’t announce what’s coming ahead of time, and whatever comes seems unlikely to fully overshadow the tariffs decision, but any Trump-friendly rulings on Tuesday morning would add another layer to the evening’s dynamic. Likewise, the president on Tuesday night could disparage justices who then issue a decision he might like in another case on Wednesday morning.
And while Kavanaugh has attended in recent years, the two justices who joined his tariffs dissent have not. Alito hasn’t shown up since the Citizens United year, when he was seen mouthing “not true” in response to Obama’s characterization of the ruling. A 2024 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal that aired Alito’s dim view of the event — “We sit there like potted plants,” he said — noted that Thomas last went in 2006. Thomas said in 2010 that he doesn’t go “because it has become so partisan.”
Roberts authored the tariffs ruling, joined in the 6-3 bottom line by Trump appointees Barrett and Justice Neil Gorusch, as well as the court’s three Democratic appointees: Kagan and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. On Friday, while calling the justices in the majority cowards, disgraces, traitors and embarrassments to their families, the president praised Kavanaugh, as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who all dissented. He said the dissenters are “happily” invited to the State of the Union and that the justices in the majority are “barely” invited and he “couldn’t care less if they come.”
The court is set to issue more opinions this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. It doesn’t announce what’s coming ahead of time, and whatever comes seems unlikely to fully overshadow the tariffs decision, but any Trump-friendly rulings on Tuesday morning would add another layer to the evening’s dynamic. Likewise, the president on Tuesday night could disparage justices who then issue a decision he might like in another case on Wednesday morning.
And while Kavanaugh has attended in recent years, the two justices who joined his tariffs dissent have not. Alito hasn’t shown up since the Citizens United year, when he was seen mouthing “not true” in response to Obama’s characterization of the ruling. A 2024 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal that aired Alito’s dim view of the event — “We sit there like potted plants,” he said — noted that Thomas last went in 2006. Thomas said in 2010 that he doesn’t go “because it has become so partisan.”
February 24, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/as-trumps-election-conspiracy-theories-take-an-ugly-turn-the-search-for-evidence-flails
MaddowBlog-As Trump's election conspiracy theories take an ugly turn, the search for evidence flails
The key detail the administration’s search for voter fraud shares with its search for weaponization: Looking for mirages inevitably fails.
The key detail that the search for voter fraud has in common with the search for Biden-era weaponization:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-24T19:44:50.660Z
Team Trump is desperately chasing mirages, investing enormous resources into uncovering evidence that does not (and will not) exist.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/as-trumps-election-conspiracy-theories-take-an-ugly-turn-the-search-for-evidence-flails
At a White House event ostensibly focused on immigrant crime, Donald Trump did what he nearly always does: The president peddled election conspiracy theories, pretended he won the 2020 race that he lost and falsely accused Democrats of cheating. The Republican did, however, add an ugly new twist to his usual pitch.....
That said, it’s important to emphasize that Trump’s Justice Department is making a diligent effort to find the evidence that would tell the president what he wants to hear. It’s also important to emphasize that the search isn’t going well. The Washington Post reported:
According to the Post’s reporting, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, leading DOJ officials have met regularly with officials from Homeland Security Investigations, the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security that works with prosecutors to bring cases against undocumented immigrants, about tracking down instances of voter fraud. To the surprise of no one, a member of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s team has participated in the conversations.
“The efforts so far haven’t yielded results,” the Post added.
Well, no, of course not. Those chasing mirages inevitably fail.....
More than five years later, the president, still operating from the assumption that his baseless ideas must have merit, because he says so, expects the DOJ and DHS to fill in the gaps and to expose the evidence of corruption he believes must exist somewhere.
But they’re failing for the most obvious of reasons: They’re looking for something that doesn’t exist.
It’s the same problem plaguing the DOJ’s investigation into Biden-era weaponization: Members of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “Weaponization Working Group” are struggling to expose an elaborate “deep state” scheme, despite their extensive efforts, because there’s nothing to find. Such events didn’t happen.
Extensive voter fraud in the 2020 race didn’t happen, either.
That said, it’s important to emphasize that Trump’s Justice Department is making a diligent effort to find the evidence that would tell the president what he wants to hear. It’s also important to emphasize that the search isn’t going well. The Washington Post reported:
The Justice Department has struggled to meet White House demands to prosecute noncitizen voters as conspiracy theories that President Donald Trump and his allies have pushed in public fail to hold up legally.
The president has grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of results, advisers said, leading to his public pronouncements about nationalizing elections and requiring voter ID, which he lacks the authority to do unilaterally.
According to the Post’s reporting, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, leading DOJ officials have met regularly with officials from Homeland Security Investigations, the law enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security that works with prosecutors to bring cases against undocumented immigrants, about tracking down instances of voter fraud. To the surprise of no one, a member of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s team has participated in the conversations.
“The efforts so far haven’t yielded results,” the Post added.
Well, no, of course not. Those chasing mirages inevitably fail.....
More than five years later, the president, still operating from the assumption that his baseless ideas must have merit, because he says so, expects the DOJ and DHS to fill in the gaps and to expose the evidence of corruption he believes must exist somewhere.
But they’re failing for the most obvious of reasons: They’re looking for something that doesn’t exist.
It’s the same problem plaguing the DOJ’s investigation into Biden-era weaponization: Members of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “Weaponization Working Group” are struggling to expose an elaborate “deep state” scheme, despite their extensive efforts, because there’s nothing to find. Such events didn’t happen.
Extensive voter fraud in the 2020 race didn’t happen, either.
February 24, 2026
Trump Faces Tough Legal Landscape to Oppose Tariff Refunds
Neal Katyal, Federal Express, Costco and others are already suing for their tariff refunds. In order to appeal the initial trial court ruling that the tariffs were illegal, the trump DOJ represented to the courts that the tariffs would be refunded to the parties if these tariffs were found to be illegal. Those representations will be used in this upcoming litigation on the refunding of these illegal tariffs.
https://x.com/BLaw/status/2026288533984477423
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-faces-tough-legal-landscape-to-oppose-tariff-refunds
The Trump administration is likely to face legal obstacles if it argues against refunds for the tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court — thanks to statements by Justice Department lawyers.
In a 6-3 decision last week, the justices declared President Donald Trump’s use of an economic emergency powers law illegal. The majority was silent on whether the companies that paid more than $170 billion in contested duties will get their money back, sending the issue to lower court to sort out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that a refund process was “likely to be a ‘mess.’”
Trump immediately signaled his administration might oppose payouts, saying, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Legal wrangling over refunds won’t play out on a clean slate, however. Over the past year, the Justice Department took positions before the US Court of International Trade that narrowed its paths to object going forward.
After the trade court initially declared the tariffs unlawful last May, the administration cited the availability of refunds as a reason for judges to let officials keep collecting tariffs for months amid the legal fight.
Government lawyers wrote in court filings last summer that plaintiffs whose cases went to the Supreme Court “will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest” if they won. The Justice Department hasn’t used the same definitive language in later cases, but trade lawyers said judges are likely to hold the administration to those promises.....
A three-judge panel of the trade court made clear in a December ruling that it would hold the administration to its word. The judges denied a request by companies to pause the customs process until the Supreme Court ruled, explaining that they didn’t need to intervene given the government’s assurances.
The government couldn’t take “a contrary position” after it had “convinced” the trade court to accept that importers “will be able to receive refunds” even if their tariff obligations became final, the panel wrote. A legal principle known as “judicial estoppel would prevent the government from taking an inconsistent approach,” the judges said.
In a 6-3 decision last week, the justices declared President Donald Trump’s use of an economic emergency powers law illegal. The majority was silent on whether the companies that paid more than $170 billion in contested duties will get their money back, sending the issue to lower court to sort out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that a refund process was “likely to be a ‘mess.’”
Trump immediately signaled his administration might oppose payouts, saying, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Legal wrangling over refunds won’t play out on a clean slate, however. Over the past year, the Justice Department took positions before the US Court of International Trade that narrowed its paths to object going forward.
After the trade court initially declared the tariffs unlawful last May, the administration cited the availability of refunds as a reason for judges to let officials keep collecting tariffs for months amid the legal fight.
Government lawyers wrote in court filings last summer that plaintiffs whose cases went to the Supreme Court “will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest” if they won. The Justice Department hasn’t used the same definitive language in later cases, but trade lawyers said judges are likely to hold the administration to those promises.....
A three-judge panel of the trade court made clear in a December ruling that it would hold the administration to its word. The judges denied a request by companies to pause the customs process until the Supreme Court ruled, explaining that they didn’t need to intervene given the government’s assurances.
The government couldn’t take “a contrary position” after it had “convinced” the trade court to accept that importers “will be able to receive refunds” even if their tariff obligations became final, the panel wrote. A legal principle known as “judicial estoppel would prevent the government from taking an inconsistent approach,” the judges said.
February 24, 2026
I remember the Federal government promising the courts that the tariffs would be refunded in order to be able to stay the initial court ruling and appeal this case.
Neal Katyal-Tariffs were illegal. Now Trump wants to delay refunds. (gift link)
The government said small businesses would be made whole. It’s time to pay up.
https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/2026284397649883538
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/24/tariff-refunds-trump-supreme-court/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzcxOTA5MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzczMjg3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3NzE5MDkyMDAsImp0aSI6IjMwOTIxOGViLTE1NjktNGI5ZC05NzgyLTJjYTYzMzI4MTZhYiIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI2LzAyLzI0L3RhcmlmZi1yZWZ1bmRzLXRydW1wLXN1cHJlbWUtY291cnQvIn0.F5PZ4_XEN8jKe4-ZTDxDqDWUuDtSFwfaTMlCmoWv3Vo
When the U.S. government makes a representation in federal court, it is not a talking point. It is a commitment.
In the landmark tariff litigation decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, that commitment was explicit: to give refunds if President Donald Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal.
On behalf of small businesses, the Liberty Justice Center and I challenged the tariffs. Across the country, businesses paid billions in unlawful duties. At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no “harm” in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole. Indeed, after I argued the case before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, the government doubled down on that promise in filings in lower court.
Those assurances carried weight. They were likely central to the appeals courts’ willingness to allow tariff collection to continue while the litigation advanced. Judges relied on the government’s representation that the injury was temporary and repairable. And our small businesses relied on it.....
On Tuesday, I am launching a task force composed of trade law experts and litigators to get these refunds back. We will be filing legal papers that detail the course of action ahead. The lower courts retain authority to enforce their judgments, including a permanent injunction granted on May 28. The Supreme Court has the power to ensure that its mandate is executed. And customs law provides mechanisms for refunding unlawfully collected duties through the liquidation and reliquidation process administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection — that is, the agency’s routine final calculation and, when necessary, recalculation of duties owed on imported goods. Courts order such refunds regularly in trade cases.....
Courts rely on the credibility of the U.S. I saw this when serving as the federal government’s top courtroom lawyer. When government lawyers tell judges that there is no harm because refunds can always be issued with interest, courts take that promise seriously. If those assurances dissolve into years of delay, institutional trust erodes. Interest does not restore lost opportunity. It does not retroactively fund the hiring that never occurred or the inventory that was never purchased.
Our constitutional structure depends not only on courts issuing decisions but also on the executive branch faithfully executing them. Compliance should not be grudging. It should be immediate and complete.
In court, the government said businesses would be made whole.
In the landmark tariff litigation decided by the Supreme Court on Friday, that commitment was explicit: to give refunds if President Donald Trump’s tariffs were declared illegal.
On behalf of small businesses, the Liberty Justice Center and I challenged the tariffs. Across the country, businesses paid billions in unlawful duties. At several points along the way, government lawyers assured judges that there would be no “harm” in allowing tariff collection to continue during the appeal process because duties later invalidated could be refunded — with interest. Businesses would be made whole. Indeed, after I argued the case before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5, the government doubled down on that promise in filings in lower court.
Those assurances carried weight. They were likely central to the appeals courts’ willingness to allow tariff collection to continue while the litigation advanced. Judges relied on the government’s representation that the injury was temporary and repairable. And our small businesses relied on it.....
On Tuesday, I am launching a task force composed of trade law experts and litigators to get these refunds back. We will be filing legal papers that detail the course of action ahead. The lower courts retain authority to enforce their judgments, including a permanent injunction granted on May 28. The Supreme Court has the power to ensure that its mandate is executed. And customs law provides mechanisms for refunding unlawfully collected duties through the liquidation and reliquidation process administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection — that is, the agency’s routine final calculation and, when necessary, recalculation of duties owed on imported goods. Courts order such refunds regularly in trade cases.....
Courts rely on the credibility of the U.S. I saw this when serving as the federal government’s top courtroom lawyer. When government lawyers tell judges that there is no harm because refunds can always be issued with interest, courts take that promise seriously. If those assurances dissolve into years of delay, institutional trust erodes. Interest does not restore lost opportunity. It does not retroactively fund the hiring that never occurred or the inventory that was never purchased.
Our constitutional structure depends not only on courts issuing decisions but also on the executive branch faithfully executing them. Compliance should not be grudging. It should be immediate and complete.
In court, the government said businesses would be made whole.
I remember the Federal government promising the courts that the tariffs would be refunded in order to be able to stay the initial court ruling and appeal this case.
February 24, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republican-congressman-faces-bipartisan-resignation-calls-following-latest-allegations
MaddowBlog-Republican congressman faces bipartisan resignation calls following latest allegations
Rep. Tony Gonzales was already facing a serious scandal, but the Texan is now confronting something new: GOP calls for his ouster.
It’s not every day when House Republicans call on one of their own colleagues to resign.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-24T16:27:32.596Z
But the scandal surrounding Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas is not just another controversy — even if Speaker Mike Johnson is reluctant to act on it.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republican-congressman-faces-bipartisan-resignation-calls-following-latest-allegations
Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas was already facing a serious scandal. On Monday, however, newly released text messages between the congressman and a former aide generated something new: bipartisan calls for his resignation. The New York Times highlighted some of Gonzales’ GOP colleagues who now believe he needs to go.
A variety of other GOP officials, including Texas Reps. Chip Roy and Brandon Gill, stopped short of calling for Gonzales’ ouster, but they urged him to end his re-election campaign in light of the allegations.
The underlying scandal reached new heights last week when The San Antonio Express-News, Gonzales’ hometown newspaper, reported on a text message from Regina Santos-Aviles, a former aide to the congressman, who said she had an extramarital affair with Gonzales. Santos-Aviles died by suicide last year.....
Pressed for answers on Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson conceded that the underlying allegations are “serious,” adding that he’s urged Gonzales to address the controversy “in an appropriate way with his constituents.” The Louisiana Republican did not, however, join the list of members calling on Gonzales to step down, concluding, “It’s too early for anybody to prejudge any of that, but we’ll see how it develops.”
Johnson is hardly a dispassionate observer. His House Republican Conference was already shrinking when, earlier this month, the GOP majority in the chamber was reduced to a one-vote margin. If Gonzales were to resign, his party’s advantage would hardly exist at all, and the Republicans’ ability to move legislation would largely come to an end, at least for a few months.
‘Resign!’ wrote Representative Lauren Boebert, a hard-right Republican from Colorado, in a social media post that included images of the text messages. Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican on the House Oversight Committee, urged colleagues to condemn Mr. Gonzales for ‘asking for explicit photos’ of a member of his staff. … Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, also said Mr. Gonzales should resign immediately instead of ‘campaigning like nothing happened.’
A variety of other GOP officials, including Texas Reps. Chip Roy and Brandon Gill, stopped short of calling for Gonzales’ ouster, but they urged him to end his re-election campaign in light of the allegations.
The underlying scandal reached new heights last week when The San Antonio Express-News, Gonzales’ hometown newspaper, reported on a text message from Regina Santos-Aviles, a former aide to the congressman, who said she had an extramarital affair with Gonzales. Santos-Aviles died by suicide last year.....
Pressed for answers on Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson conceded that the underlying allegations are “serious,” adding that he’s urged Gonzales to address the controversy “in an appropriate way with his constituents.” The Louisiana Republican did not, however, join the list of members calling on Gonzales to step down, concluding, “It’s too early for anybody to prejudge any of that, but we’ll see how it develops.”
Johnson is hardly a dispassionate observer. His House Republican Conference was already shrinking when, earlier this month, the GOP majority in the chamber was reduced to a one-vote margin. If Gonzales were to resign, his party’s advantage would hardly exist at all, and the Republicans’ ability to move legislation would largely come to an end, at least for a few months.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 177,863