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 20, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/new-gdp-data-falls-short-trump
MaddowBlog-New GDP data falls far short, shows 2025 ended with weak economic growth
In the first year of Trump’s second term, economic growth fell to a nine-year low, and domestic job growth fell to a 16-year low. It’s worth asking why.
As Trump rambles on about how “dead†the economy was, remember:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-20T21:56:47.789Z
2024, under Biden: 1.45 million jobs
2025, under Trump: 181,000 jobs
2024, under Biden: 2.8% GDP growth
2025, under Trump: 2.2% GDP growth
The question for the White House is simple: Why did things get worse after Trump returned?
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/new-gdp-data-falls-short-trump
Earlier this week, Peter Navarro, a leading White House voice on trade and economic policy, appeared on Fox News and insisted that the U.S. economy is “perfect.” In fact, during the same on-air comments, Navarro described the economic conditions in the first year of Donald Trump’s second term as the best since 1998, dovetailing with the president’s near-constant insistence that the domestic economy has literally never been as healthy as it is now......
But as the week comes to an end, the latest economic news adds insult to injury. CNBC reported:
What’s more, we now know that the economy grew at a 2.2% pace across all of 2025 — down from 2.8% in 2024. Excluding the pandemic, 2025 showed the weakest economic growth in the United States in nine years.
In other words, despite endless Republican hype, economic growth and job growth were stronger during Joe Biden’s final year in office compared with the first year of Trump’s second term.
The White House has not yet offered a persuasive explanation as to why the economy got worse after the Republican returned to the Oval Office......
If recent history is any guide, the administration will try to move the goalposts again, but the underlying question for the White House remains the same: As a candidate, Trump promised to deliver immediate, Day 1 results. Why did he fail?
But as the week comes to an end, the latest economic news adds insult to injury. CNBC reported:
Economic growth slowed more than expected near the end of 2025 while inflation held firm, according to data released Friday that could complicate the Federal Reserve’s path on interest rates.
Gross domestic product rose at an annualized rate of just 1.4%, according to Commerce Department numbers released Friday, well below the Dow Jones estimate for a 2.5% gain.
What’s more, we now know that the economy grew at a 2.2% pace across all of 2025 — down from 2.8% in 2024. Excluding the pandemic, 2025 showed the weakest economic growth in the United States in nine years.
In other words, despite endless Republican hype, economic growth and job growth were stronger during Joe Biden’s final year in office compared with the first year of Trump’s second term.
The White House has not yet offered a persuasive explanation as to why the economy got worse after the Republican returned to the Oval Office......
If recent history is any guide, the administration will try to move the goalposts again, but the underlying question for the White House remains the same: As a candidate, Trump promised to deliver immediate, Day 1 results. Why did he fail?
February 20, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-dont-just-want-seniors-working-later-they-also-want-kids-working-earlier
MaddowBlog-Republicans don't just want seniors working later, they also want kids working earlier
The more that GOP officials scramble to remove immigrants from the workforce, the more pressure they’ll feel to replace those workers with children.
Republicans don’t just want seniors working later, they also want kids working earlier
— John Geiger (Queerjohn PA) (@qj570.bsky.social) 2026-02-18T23:07:16.124Z
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-dont-just-want-seniors-working-later-they-also-want-kids-working-earlier
Oz said at the National Press Club last week that if older Americans could remain in the workforce, they’d help the economy and save the country money. Putting his best spin on the idea, the former television personality said seniors who push off retirement would gain “agency over their future” in exchange.
But many GOP officials don’t just want older Americans to stay in the workforce, they also want Americans at the other end of the age spectrum to join the workforce sooner.
“We need to focus on … getting people into the workforce even earlier,” Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told Fox Business this week. “We passed legislation last year to help high school students get their hands dirty and get on job sites more quickly.”
This isn’t an altogether new priority for the GOP. In the wake of the 2010 midterm elections, when so-called Tea Party Republicans were riding high, a surprising number of party officials took aim at an unexpected target: child labor laws. One might have assumed a generations-old national consensus had taken root, but no, many Republicans were eager for a new public conversation on the topic.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, for example, suggested child labor laws might not be constitutional. Maine’s then-Gov. Paul LePage called for rolling back his state’s restrictions on children in the workplace. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa even argued that looser child labor laws might help combat childhood obesity.
Ahead of his ill-fated 2012 presidential campaign, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went so far as to argue that existing child labor laws were, as he put it in 2011, “truly stupid.”
In time, the issue largely faded from the Republican Party’s to-do list, but in 2023, the issue started to make a comeback. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for example, signed a bill that made it easier for companies to hire children without getting consent from their parents. Similar efforts were launched in several other states.
When the right-wing Project 2025 blueprint was written two years ago, it specifically endorsed rolling back “hazard” regulations around child labor. Around the same time, as Uthmeier noted, Florida loosened its child labor laws at Gov. Ron DeSantis’ behest.
But many GOP officials don’t just want older Americans to stay in the workforce, they also want Americans at the other end of the age spectrum to join the workforce sooner.
Florida AG James Uthmeier: "We need to focus on getting people into the workforce even earlier. We passed legislation last year to help high school students get their hands dirty and get on job sites more quickly."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-02-17T12:59:21.012Z
“We need to focus on … getting people into the workforce even earlier,” Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier told Fox Business this week. “We passed legislation last year to help high school students get their hands dirty and get on job sites more quickly.”
This isn’t an altogether new priority for the GOP. In the wake of the 2010 midterm elections, when so-called Tea Party Republicans were riding high, a surprising number of party officials took aim at an unexpected target: child labor laws. One might have assumed a generations-old national consensus had taken root, but no, many Republicans were eager for a new public conversation on the topic.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, for example, suggested child labor laws might not be constitutional. Maine’s then-Gov. Paul LePage called for rolling back his state’s restrictions on children in the workplace. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa even argued that looser child labor laws might help combat childhood obesity.
Ahead of his ill-fated 2012 presidential campaign, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went so far as to argue that existing child labor laws were, as he put it in 2011, “truly stupid.”
In time, the issue largely faded from the Republican Party’s to-do list, but in 2023, the issue started to make a comeback. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for example, signed a bill that made it easier for companies to hire children without getting consent from their parents. Similar efforts were launched in several other states.
When the right-wing Project 2025 blueprint was written two years ago, it specifically endorsed rolling back “hazard” regulations around child labor. Around the same time, as Uthmeier noted, Florida loosened its child labor laws at Gov. Ron DeSantis’ behest.
February 20, 2026
Under basic statutory construction, this should have been a 9-0 decision.
The Context You Need to Understand The Supreme Court's Tariffs Decision
This case involves tariffs being authorized under a statute that never mentions tariffs. This should have been an easy descision.
https://x.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/2024908102168977750
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-context-you-need-to-understand?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
The most shocking thing about the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, the tariffs case, is that three Justices would have let Trump use a statute that doesn’t mention tariffs to impose ones that are unrestricted in amount or length. Fortunately, the other six said no.
We discussed this case extensively ahead of oral argument on November 5, last year. Congress has the power to impose tariffs. But it has, in some cases, “loaned” them to the president, in specific grants with limitations. Here, the Court considered this administration’s claim that the president had the power to impose tariffs, without any limitations, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration contended that the president has that power because the statute says that the president can regulate the importation of foreign goods if there is “any unusual and extraordinary threat” that poses a national emergency......
“This is not a case about tariffs in general or about whether they are good policy. It’s a case about specific tariffs that President Trump imposed in February and whether he had the statutory authority to impose them…
We studied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that rejected Trump’s effort to impose tariffs using IEEPA (I-E-Pa), the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for the very simple reason that the Act, unlike other statutes that do give a president the right to impose tariffs, doesn’t mention tariffs at all. It does not give the president any authority to impose them under the statute that he has expressly said he used to do so. This is the kind of textualist argument conservative justices have backed in other cases, and to abandon that approach here would be a sharp and hypocritical departure for them. Last term, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the justices’ primary focus should be on the text of the statute.
The Constitution gives the power to impose taxes, which includes tariffs, to Congress. Because IEEPA doesn’t extend that power to the president, his use of it here is just a power grab, the kind of practice the Supreme Court should push back against if it intends to remain relevant to the American experiment. The Federal Circuit’s decision pointed out that while other laws expressly give the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA does not. Congress knows how to give the president the power to impose tariffs when it wants to and because it did not do so here, that should be the end of the inquiry. The administration should lose here…”
Thankfully, it did.
We discussed this case extensively ahead of oral argument on November 5, last year. Congress has the power to impose tariffs. But it has, in some cases, “loaned” them to the president, in specific grants with limitations. Here, the Court considered this administration’s claim that the president had the power to impose tariffs, without any limitations, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The administration contended that the president has that power because the statute says that the president can regulate the importation of foreign goods if there is “any unusual and extraordinary threat” that poses a national emergency......
“This is not a case about tariffs in general or about whether they are good policy. It’s a case about specific tariffs that President Trump imposed in February and whether he had the statutory authority to impose them…
We studied the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that rejected Trump’s effort to impose tariffs using IEEPA (I-E-Pa), the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, for the very simple reason that the Act, unlike other statutes that do give a president the right to impose tariffs, doesn’t mention tariffs at all. It does not give the president any authority to impose them under the statute that he has expressly said he used to do so. This is the kind of textualist argument conservative justices have backed in other cases, and to abandon that approach here would be a sharp and hypocritical departure for them. Last term, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the justices’ primary focus should be on the text of the statute.
The Constitution gives the power to impose taxes, which includes tariffs, to Congress. Because IEEPA doesn’t extend that power to the president, his use of it here is just a power grab, the kind of practice the Supreme Court should push back against if it intends to remain relevant to the American experiment. The Federal Circuit’s decision pointed out that while other laws expressly give the president the power to impose tariffs, IEEPA does not. Congress knows how to give the president the power to impose tariffs when it wants to and because it did not do so here, that should be the end of the inquiry. The administration should lose here…”
Thankfully, it did.
Under basic statutory construction, this should have been a 9-0 decision.
February 20, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecutor-2675286812/
Trump lawyer astonishes admitting court orders flouted 75 times: 'Everybody is on notice'
Trump lawyer astonishes admitting court orders flouted 75 times: 'Everybody is on notice'
Trump lawyer astonishes admitting court orders flouted 75 times: 'Everybody is on notice'
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-02-20T04:00:18.955Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecutor-2675286812/
In a damning incident flagged by Slate legal experts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, a prosecutor working in one of President Donald Trump's U.S. Attorney's offices was asked by a judge to count the number of times the office has violated court orders — and he came back with an astonishing figure.
Jordan Fox, a DOJ official assigned to handle the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey after Trump's ally Alina Habba was forced to resign by federal courts, was ordered to provide this assessment by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz. This came after the judge issued an order prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement from moving a detainee out of state, only for ICE to do so five days later.
What Fox produced, per the report, was 56 violations — but, Stern said in Slate's podcast, the figure is actually even worse than that.
"Fox actually excluded two categories of violations, missed status update deadlines and late docket notifications. When you include those, it’s 75 violations," said Stern. "So let’s dig into these numbers. At least 17 times, the government transferred a noncitizen to a different detention facility after a court unambiguously prohibited it from doing so. That means they were detained in another state, where it would be harder to reach their lawyers, and perhaps where judges are more inclined to rule for the government. At least 10 times, the U.S. attorney’s office failed to produce evidence ordered by the court. And at least one time, the government deported a noncitizen in direct contravention of a court order forbidding that deportation."
All of this, he argued, is even worse than the Trump prosecutor in Minnesota who crashed out and asked a judge to hold her in contempt because the job was so awful.
Jordan Fox, a DOJ official assigned to handle the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey after Trump's ally Alina Habba was forced to resign by federal courts, was ordered to provide this assessment by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz. This came after the judge issued an order prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement from moving a detainee out of state, only for ICE to do so five days later.
What Fox produced, per the report, was 56 violations — but, Stern said in Slate's podcast, the figure is actually even worse than that.
"Fox actually excluded two categories of violations, missed status update deadlines and late docket notifications. When you include those, it’s 75 violations," said Stern. "So let’s dig into these numbers. At least 17 times, the government transferred a noncitizen to a different detention facility after a court unambiguously prohibited it from doing so. That means they were detained in another state, where it would be harder to reach their lawyers, and perhaps where judges are more inclined to rule for the government. At least 10 times, the U.S. attorney’s office failed to produce evidence ordered by the court. And at least one time, the government deported a noncitizen in direct contravention of a court order forbidding that deportation."
All of this, he argued, is even worse than the Trump prosecutor in Minnesota who crashed out and asked a judge to hold her in contempt because the job was so awful.
February 20, 2026
I have seen reports of people selling claims for tariff refunds.
Tariff Ruling Kicks Off Messy Fight Over $170 Billion in Refunds
This is from Kavanaugh's dissent
Back in August I posted following about tariff refunds.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220596612
There is going to be a messy fight over tariff refunds
https://x.com/BLaw/status/2024885684964659713
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/tariff-ruling-kicks-off-messy-fight-over-170-billion-in-refunds
Tariff refunds for companies that paid tens of billions were left unresolved by the Supreme Court, which ruled on Friday that President Donald Trump didn’t have legal authority to impose the duties under an emergency law.
The ruling will kick off what could be a prolonged battle for importers and retailers to try to recoup as much as $170 billion in tariffs they’ve already paid to the US government.
Among the major questions left unanswered for US importers are the prospects and the process for recouping the money the government collected over the past year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The vote was 6-3 against the Trump administration, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing in dissent.
“The court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged” during the court’s oral arguments in November.
US Customs and Border Protection so far has collected an estimated $170 billion in tariffs imposed by Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law at the center of the case, as of Dec. 14.
The court ruled that using IEEPA to impose tariffs wasn’t lawful, but the justices didn’t address whether importers are entitled to refunds, leaving it to a lower court to sort out those issues. The litigation will return to the US Court of International Trade for the next round of legal wrangling.....
While waiting for the justices to rule, more than 1,500 companies have filed their own tariff lawsuits in the trade court to put themselves in line for tariff refunds, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
The trade court in recent months has pressed the Justice Department for at least a hint of how it plans to handle the refund issue if it lost at the Supreme Court.
In written submissions, government lawyers have said that the administration won’t fight the court’s authority to order officials to recalculate tariffs, but left open the possibility that it might try to limit which importers are eligible.
The ruling will kick off what could be a prolonged battle for importers and retailers to try to recoup as much as $170 billion in tariffs they’ve already paid to the US government.
Among the major questions left unanswered for US importers are the prospects and the process for recouping the money the government collected over the past year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The vote was 6-3 against the Trump administration, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing in dissent.
“The court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged” during the court’s oral arguments in November.
US Customs and Border Protection so far has collected an estimated $170 billion in tariffs imposed by Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law at the center of the case, as of Dec. 14.
The court ruled that using IEEPA to impose tariffs wasn’t lawful, but the justices didn’t address whether importers are entitled to refunds, leaving it to a lower court to sort out those issues. The litigation will return to the US Court of International Trade for the next round of legal wrangling.....
While waiting for the justices to rule, more than 1,500 companies have filed their own tariff lawsuits in the trade court to put themselves in line for tariff refunds, according to a Bloomberg analysis.
The trade court in recent months has pressed the Justice Department for at least a hint of how it plans to handle the refund issue if it lost at the Supreme Court.
In written submissions, government lawyers have said that the administration won’t fight the court’s authority to order officials to recalculate tariffs, but left open the possibility that it might try to limit which importers are eligible.
I have seen reports of people selling claims for tariff refunds.
February 20, 2026
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-tariffs-trump-ruling
I listened to the oral arguments and did not think that this would be that close of a decision but this is a very divided opinion which is why it took so long to come down.
https://x.com/mcpli/status/2024864467100529049
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court rules Trump doesn't have the tariff authority he claimed
The justices expressed skepticism in November that the administration could impose sweeping tariffs under a federal law granting emergency powers.
Supreme Court rules Trump doesn’t have the tariff authority he claimed
— Anti-Trumpism (@forabettertomorrow.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T15:17:44.990Z
www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-tariffs-trump-ruling
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump doesn’t have the tariff authority he claimed, in a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The court’s Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.
The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.
When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administration’s position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).......
In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs,” the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.
In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress “had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so.” He wrote that no other president “has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.”
The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The court’s Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.
The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.
When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administration’s position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).......
In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs,” the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.
In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress “had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so.” He wrote that no other president “has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.”
I listened to the oral arguments and did not think that this would be that close of a decision but this is a very divided opinion which is why it took so long to come down.
https://x.com/mcpli/status/2024864467100529049
February 20, 2026
U2 releases Renee Good tribute song 'American Obituary'
"These songs were impatient to be out in the world," singer Bono said of the band's surprise new EP, "Days of Ash."
https://x.com/NBCNews/status/2024363401766428938
https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/u2-releases-renee-good-tribute-song-american-obituary-rcna259592
Irish rockers U2 became the latest high-powered musical act to condemn the federal immigration raids with the surprise release Wednesday of a six-track EP that kicks off with a song for slain Minneapolis protester Renee Good.
Following in the footsteps of Bruce Springsteen, Bad Bunny, Billie Eilish and other artists, U2 recorded “American Obituary,” a four-minute plus musical condemnation of the crackdown that left Good, the mother of three, dead on Jan. 7.
"Renee Good, born to die free. American mother of three. Seventh day, January. A bullet for each child, you see," frontman Bono sings in the high-energy rocker. "The color of her eye. 930 Minneapolis. To desecrate domestic bliss. Three bullets blast, three babies kissed. Renee the domestic terrorist?"
"America will rise against the people of the lie," the chorus chants.
"I am not mad at you, Lord," the song continues, an apparent reference to Good's final words that were captured on video. "You're the reason I was there. Could you stop a heart from breaking, by having it not care? Could you stop a bullet in midair?"
Titled "Days of Ash," the EP was released on one of Christianity's most somber days, Ash Wednesday.
The release also includes a poem set to music called "Wildpeace," by Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai, and other songs that focus on the ongoing clashes in Gaza, Iran and Ukraine.
Following in the footsteps of Bruce Springsteen, Bad Bunny, Billie Eilish and other artists, U2 recorded “American Obituary,” a four-minute plus musical condemnation of the crackdown that left Good, the mother of three, dead on Jan. 7.
"Renee Good, born to die free. American mother of three. Seventh day, January. A bullet for each child, you see," frontman Bono sings in the high-energy rocker. "The color of her eye. 930 Minneapolis. To desecrate domestic bliss. Three bullets blast, three babies kissed. Renee the domestic terrorist?"
"America will rise against the people of the lie," the chorus chants.
"I am not mad at you, Lord," the song continues, an apparent reference to Good's final words that were captured on video. "You're the reason I was there. Could you stop a heart from breaking, by having it not care? Could you stop a bullet in midair?"
Titled "Days of Ash," the EP was released on one of Christianity's most somber days, Ash Wednesday.
The release also includes a poem set to music called "Wildpeace," by Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai, and other songs that focus on the ongoing clashes in Gaza, Iran and Ukraine.
February 20, 2026
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/02/19/alternative-world-health-organization-proposal/
After leaving WHO, Trump officials propose more expensive replacement to duplicate it
HHS proposes spending $2 billion a year to re-create systems the U.S. accessed through the WHO at a fraction of the cost, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Now Trump wants to spend BILLION to recreate what already exists, with worse results.
— Chuck Schumer (@schumer.senate.gov) 2026-02-19T22:59:11.471Z
This is exactly what I warned about and it is exactly why I launched an investigation into the Trump administration’s domestic and global health cuts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/02/19/alternative-world-health-organization-proposal/
After pulling out of the World Health Organization, the Trump administration is proposing spending $2 billion a year to replicate the global disease surveillance and outbreak functions the United States once helped build and accessed at a fraction of the cost, according to three administration officials briefed on the proposal.
The effort to build a U.S.-run alternative would re-create systems such as laboratories, data-sharing networks and rapid-response systems the U.S. abandoned when it announced its withdrawal from the WHO last year and dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.
While President Donald Trump accused the WHO of demanding “unfairly onerous payments,” the alternative his administration is considering carries a price tag about three times what the U.S. contributed annually to the U.N. health agency. The U.S. would build on bilateral agreements with countries and expand the presence of its health agencies to dozens of additional nations, the officials said.
“This $2 billion in funding to HHS is to build the systems and capacities to do what the WHO did for us,” one official said.
The Department of Health and Human Services has been leading the efforts and requested the funding from the Office of Management and Budget in recent weeks as part of a broader push to construct a U.S.-led rival to the WHO, officials said. Before withdrawing from the agency, the U.S. provided roughly $680 million a year in assessed dues and voluntary contributions to the WHO, often exceeding the combined contributions of other member states, according to HHS. Citing figures in the proposal, officials said the U.S. contributions represented about 15 to 18 percent of the WHO’s total annual funding of about $3.7 billion.....
Experts and medical societies have said withdrawing from the preeminent global health alliance is scientifically reckless because global cooperation is key to controlling and preventing infectious diseases. They said exiting the WHO makes the U.S. less prepared to respond to health emergencies such as the coronavirus pandemic or the West African Ebola crisis from 2014 to 2016, which killed more than 11,000 people in the largest outbreak of the deadly disease since the virus was discovered in 1976.
The effort to build a U.S.-run alternative would re-create systems such as laboratories, data-sharing networks and rapid-response systems the U.S. abandoned when it announced its withdrawal from the WHO last year and dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations.
While President Donald Trump accused the WHO of demanding “unfairly onerous payments,” the alternative his administration is considering carries a price tag about three times what the U.S. contributed annually to the U.N. health agency. The U.S. would build on bilateral agreements with countries and expand the presence of its health agencies to dozens of additional nations, the officials said.
“This $2 billion in funding to HHS is to build the systems and capacities to do what the WHO did for us,” one official said.
The Department of Health and Human Services has been leading the efforts and requested the funding from the Office of Management and Budget in recent weeks as part of a broader push to construct a U.S.-led rival to the WHO, officials said. Before withdrawing from the agency, the U.S. provided roughly $680 million a year in assessed dues and voluntary contributions to the WHO, often exceeding the combined contributions of other member states, according to HHS. Citing figures in the proposal, officials said the U.S. contributions represented about 15 to 18 percent of the WHO’s total annual funding of about $3.7 billion.....
Experts and medical societies have said withdrawing from the preeminent global health alliance is scientifically reckless because global cooperation is key to controlling and preventing infectious diseases. They said exiting the WHO makes the U.S. less prepared to respond to health emergencies such as the coronavirus pandemic or the West African Ebola crisis from 2014 to 2016, which killed more than 11,000 people in the largest outbreak of the deadly disease since the virus was discovered in 1976.
February 20, 2026
There is another lawsuit pending on the building of trump's ballroom. These lawsuits will be fun to watch
Veterans sue over Trump's planned 250-foot arch, citing cemetery views
The Vietnam War veterans, who later worked as U.S. diplomats, say that the arch would harm the experience of visiting nearby Arlington National Cemetery.
https://x.com/washingtonpost/status/2024586066506702975
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/19/trump-arch-250-lawsuit
Three military veterans and a historic preservationist on Thursday sued the Trump administration over President Donald Trump’s planned 250-foot triumphal arch, arguing that the new structure would disrupt the experience of visiting Arlington National Cemetery and interfere with the intent of nearby monuments.
Michael Lemmon, Shaun Byrnes and Jon Gundersen, who served in the Vietnam War and later worked as U.S. diplomats, say that the arch would obstruct “the symbolic and inspiring view” from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial. Calder Loth, a retired senior architectural historian for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, said the new structure would undermine the historic relationship between Arlington National Cemetery and other monuments by interrupting long-planned sight lines, including along Memorial Avenue.
Public Citizen, a government watchdog organization, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is seeking to halt the project until the Trump administration secures approval from Congress and federal review panels.....
Trump has touted the arch as a priority, telling Politico in December that he hoped to begin construction “sometime in the next two months.” The Post reported that Trump has told allies that he wants the arch to be 250 feet tall to correspond with the nation’s 250th anniversary this year.
“I’d like it to be the biggest one of all,” the president told reporters last month. A triumphal arch in Mexico City, currently the largest in the world, measures 220 feet.
Federal review panels have yet to receive proposals for the project, and Congress has not signed off on its construction.
Memorial Circle, the plot of land that the president has targeted, is controlled by the National Park Service and is currently used as a traffic roundabout. A 1901-1902 report overseen by the Senate Park Commission, which laid the groundwork for constructing the National Mall and beautifying much of the city’s core, appears to envision some sort of structure in the circle, drawings show.
Michael Lemmon, Shaun Byrnes and Jon Gundersen, who served in the Vietnam War and later worked as U.S. diplomats, say that the arch would obstruct “the symbolic and inspiring view” from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial. Calder Loth, a retired senior architectural historian for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, said the new structure would undermine the historic relationship between Arlington National Cemetery and other monuments by interrupting long-planned sight lines, including along Memorial Avenue.
Public Citizen, a government watchdog organization, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is seeking to halt the project until the Trump administration secures approval from Congress and federal review panels.....
Trump has touted the arch as a priority, telling Politico in December that he hoped to begin construction “sometime in the next two months.” The Post reported that Trump has told allies that he wants the arch to be 250 feet tall to correspond with the nation’s 250th anniversary this year.
“I’d like it to be the biggest one of all,” the president told reporters last month. A triumphal arch in Mexico City, currently the largest in the world, measures 220 feet.
Federal review panels have yet to receive proposals for the project, and Congress has not signed off on its construction.
Memorial Circle, the plot of land that the president has targeted, is controlled by the National Park Service and is currently used as a traffic roundabout. A 1901-1902 report overseen by the Senate Park Commission, which laid the groundwork for constructing the National Mall and beautifying much of the city’s core, appears to envision some sort of structure in the circle, drawings show.
There is another lawsuit pending on the building of trump's ballroom. These lawsuits will be fun to watch
February 19, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/on-advice-for-the-uk-trump-keeps-contradicting-his-administration
MaddowBlog-On advice for the UK, Trump keeps contradicting his administration
The Trump administration endorsed a deal, only to have the president reject it, before reendorsing and rejecting it again.
It's a little off the beaten path, but hear me out:
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-19T21:12:30.332Z
- Trump admin backs a UK/Mauritius deal over the Chagos Islands
- Trump rejects his own admin’s line
- Trump admin then rejects Trump’s line
- Trump then rejects his own admin’s line again
How is anyone supposed to trust the White House's word?
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/on-advice-for-the-uk-trump-keeps-contradicting-his-administration
Last spring, the United Kingdom and Mauritius reached a diplomatic agreement over the Chagos Islands, which had been under British control for two centuries. Under the deal, Mauritius, an island country in the Indian Ocean, would gain sovereignty over the islands, and the British government would make annual payments to Mauritius to lease one of the islands, Diego Garcia.
This was of interest to the United States because there’s a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia.
When the agreement was announced, the Trump administration was pleased. In fact, it issued a statement touting the deal, saying it “secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-U.K. military facility at Diego Garcia.”....
At that point, the diplomatic process moved forward, without controversy — right up until a month ago, when Donald Trump published an odd, middle-of-the-night statement to his social media platform, condemning the U.K.’s decision as “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.”
Trump went on to describe the agreement as an “act of total weakness” and an example of why he wanted to seize control over Greenland. (He didn’t fully explain what the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean had to do with Greenland, which is roughly 7,000 miles away.).....
In fact, British officials largely ignored the president’s weird harangue and proceeded to implement their policy of transferring ownership of the islands to Mauritius. That didn’t pose much of a problem for the administration, which quietly reversed course: Just four weeks after Trump’s online condemnation, the State Department issued a formal statement, announcing U.S. support for the deal.
That was on Tuesday. One day later, Trump issued a new statement, condemning the agreement anew. The rant, published to his social media platform, rambled on for a while before concluding:
So to recap, the administration endorsed the agreement, only to have Trump reject it, only to have the administration re-endorse the agreement, only to have Trump reject it again.
Time will tell what becomes of the issue, and by all accounts, there’s nothing to suggest the U.K. is prepared to back out of the agreement it’s already reached. But the conflict between Trump and his own team doesn’t just reinforce concerns about the administration’s competence; it also signals to the world that no country, including our closest allies, can count on foreign policy consistency from the planet’s preeminent superpower.
This was of interest to the United States because there’s a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia.
When the agreement was announced, the Trump administration was pleased. In fact, it issued a statement touting the deal, saying it “secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint U.S.-U.K. military facility at Diego Garcia.”....
At that point, the diplomatic process moved forward, without controversy — right up until a month ago, when Donald Trump published an odd, middle-of-the-night statement to his social media platform, condemning the U.K.’s decision as “an act of GREAT STUPIDITY.”
Trump went on to describe the agreement as an “act of total weakness” and an example of why he wanted to seize control over Greenland. (He didn’t fully explain what the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean had to do with Greenland, which is roughly 7,000 miles away.).....
In fact, British officials largely ignored the president’s weird harangue and proceeded to implement their policy of transferring ownership of the islands to Mauritius. That didn’t pose much of a problem for the administration, which quietly reversed course: Just four weeks after Trump’s online condemnation, the State Department issued a formal statement, announcing U.S. support for the deal.
That was on Tuesday. One day later, Trump issued a new statement, condemning the agreement anew. The rant, published to his social media platform, rambled on for a while before concluding:
This land should not be taken away from the U.K. and, if it is allowed to be, it will be a blight on our Great Ally. We will always be ready, willing, and able to fight for the U.K., but they have to remain strong in the face of Wokeism, and other problems put before them. DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!
So to recap, the administration endorsed the agreement, only to have Trump reject it, only to have the administration re-endorse the agreement, only to have Trump reject it again.
Time will tell what becomes of the issue, and by all accounts, there’s nothing to suggest the U.K. is prepared to back out of the agreement it’s already reached. But the conflict between Trump and his own team doesn’t just reinforce concerns about the administration’s competence; it also signals to the world that no country, including our closest allies, can count on foreign policy consistency from the planet’s preeminent superpower.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 177,573