Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel)

Monday, February 23, 2026

Anderson Cooper demolishes Chump's lies about South Africa

Russ Baker (WHO WHAT WHY) notes Alien Musk and Chump's war on South Africa:

He’s being aided and abetted by his allies, including his off-again on-again buddy, the increasingly discredited but — make no mistake — still enormously influential Elon Musk. Notwithstanding their sometimes rocky relationship, Musk knows his wagon is now firmly hitched to Trump’s and he’s increasingly desperate to safeguard their threatened political enterprise. It’s all or nothing.

He has reason to believe he will never have it so good when and if Trump is gone.

Since the new year, Trump and his MAGA abetters have pivoted toward white grievance — possibly one of the last “urgencies” they believe may still appeal to and turn out their base.

If you haven’t been on X lately, you may be unaware of how aggressive Musk, a privileged child of South African apartheid, has become in promoting the fabricated and laughable notion that whites in America are under attack — and that this is the most important issue of our time.

Here’s an example of a post from Musk, coupled with an apt response from a member of a public tiring of him and his trash megaphone — which, despite some setbacks, is still a tremendously powerful factor in shaping perceptions:

I had noticed this refrain from Musk building to a crescendo over time, and as The Guardian reported, he posted on the “plight-of-the-white” nonissue nearly every day in January.

And now he has stepped it up further, going to this topic every few hours some days, when he isn’t promoting his “amazing” companies and products. Musk’s rhetoric is so extreme that if you didn’t see his name affixed to it, you’d think it was from an explicit white supremacist.

This race card — combined with an increasingly bold, increasingly centralized, effort to limit who can vote — feels very “late stage,” very last-ditch. If that fascist stratagem doesn’t work, they got… nuthin.

Chump has lied repeatedly about a 'genocide' taking place in South Africa targeting White people. It is a lie. Anderson Cooper filed a report on 60 MINUTES last night regarding these false claims:

In November, President Trump announced he would, quote, "permanently pause migration from all third world countries" to the U.S. after a member of the National Guard was killed, and another badly wounded in Washington, allegedly by an Afghan refugee. But there is one group of refugees the Trump administration is welcoming: it's expediting the resettlement of White South Africans, mostly Afrikaners, who are descendants of Dutch settlers. President Trump says that White farmers are victims of a genocide. The South African government disputes that. We went to South Africa to see for ourselves.

In the rolling hills of KwaZulu-Natal province in the southeast of South Africa, we met Darrel Brown, a seventh-generation rancher and farmer.

Anderson Cooper: Did you grow up knowing you would be a farmer?

Darrel Brown: It was always in my blood. It's a calling.

But that calling has often come with risks. Ten years ago, his 82-year-old father was brutally attacked on the farm by robbers looking for guns and money. Then, in 2020, Brown's friends Glen and Vida Rafferty, were murdered in a robbery on their farm nearby.

Anderson Cooper: Your father was attacked. You've had friends murdered. Do you live in fear?

Darrel Brown: I certainly live carefully. We're aware of what's happening around us. We don't take silly chances.

We came to Darrel Brown's farm because of what President Trump said last May about the murders of South African farmers.

President Trump (in May 2025): It's a genocide that's taking place that you people don't want to write about, but it's a terrible thing that's taking place and farmers are being killed. They happen to be White.

Nine days later, South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa came to the White House. Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa and has also made claims of genocide, was there, too. What happened next seemed to take Ramaphosa by surprise.

President Trump (in May 2025): Excuse me, turn the lights down.

President Trump showed several videos, proof, the White House said, of the violence targeting White farmers.

President Trump (in May 2025): These are burial sites right here, burial sites, over a thousand, of White farmers.

We found the spot where those white crosses were once planted. It's a lonely pot-holed road not far from Darrel Brown's ranch.

Darrel Brown: It definitely wasn't a burial site, I mean, those crosses were there for less than 48 hours. It was purely an avenue of crosses that we planted there in honor of commercial farmers in South Africa that had lost their lives.

Brown knows about the crosses because he put them there on the day of his friends, Glen and Vida Rafferty's, funeral. He keeps them locked in a shed. In 2024, he brought them out again for the funeral of his best friend, Tollie Nel, who was also murdered on his farm.

Tollie's wife, Rene, still lives there. Her husband was killed in front of her trying to fight off burglars. Her son, Theunis, was tied up while they stole cash and guns. No one has been arrested.

Rene Nel: My whole life has changed. I've got nothing to look forward to. Sorry.

Theunis now runs the farm. He carries a weapon with him almost all the time.

Theunis Nel: The only time I don't have it on me is when, is when I'm in the shower.

Anderson Cooper: Really?

Theunis Nel: Cause I don't ever want another sit-- situation to arise where I feel that I'm a victim.

The Nels have hired private security guards and fortified their property with electric fences and cameras. Many in South Africa feel they can't rely on the country's ineffective and overwhelmed police to keep them safe.

Anderson Cooper: When you heard President Trump talk about a genocide what did you think?

Rene Nel: Well, I just thought he was using the wrong word.

Anderson Cooper: In your opinion, it's not a genocide here?

Rene Nel: Not what I know as a genocide. Not what I've heard of what a genocide is. I see our attack as a opportunistic attack. They knew there was money. They knew there were firearms.

Whites make up only about 7% of the population of South Africa but still own 72% of all privately held agricultural land, and many of the country's large commercial farms. But according to Wandile Sihlobo, a leading agricultural economist, the overwhelming number of farmers and those working on farms are Black.

Wandile Sihlobo: The White farmers may have-- a bigger part of the proportion of income, but the vast majority of people operating the farms in South Africa are Black.

Anderson Cooper: There is crime on farms. There are murders on farms. They affect Black farmers as well as White farmers.

Wandile Sihlobo: They affect Black farmers as well as-- as White farmers, and also farm workers who are largely Black.

Nhlanhla Zuma farmed this 9-acre plot for 20 years. He was used to having equipment stolen, but in 2024 a group of men shot at him and broke into his house.

Anderson Cooper: Did you think at the time they were gonna kill you?

Nhlanhla Zuma: 100%. 100%.

After the attack, he decided to sell the farm.

Nhlanhla Zuma: There are a lot of Black farmers that are attacked, and their voices are not out.

Anderson Cooper: People don't pay attention.

Nhlanhla Zuma: It's just another number, another statistic.

Here's the entire segment.

"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, February 23, 2026. Chump's buddy Musk is polluting, Chump's raging at the Supreme Court, Ka$h Patel goes to the Olympics on the tax payers' dime, and much more.

Starting with Sunday's LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER.

John notes Alien Musk in the video above and some of the problems Musk has created. One problem not noted is Musk's pollution. Samantha Hindman (THE COOL DOWN) notes:

According to KRIS 6 News, Tesla holds a state-issued permit allowing it to discharge up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day into an unnamed ditch that eventually flows into Petronila Creek.

But drainage district officials said they were never notified that a pipeline had been installed across their easement. When workers encountered the discharge, they were alarmed by what they saw.

"It was very dark and murky," drainage district consultant Steve Ray said. "I would say it was actually black. We're used to seeing good running water, and so we didn't know exactly what it was."

The lithium refinery, which began operations in December 2024, produces battery-grade lithium for electric vehicle batteries.

While Tesla's permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality allows wastewater discharge, it specifically notes that it does not grant the right to use private or public property for conveyance.

Petronila Creek flows into Baffin Bay, a sensitive coastal ecosystem that supports tourism and local livelihoods.

If large volumes of water — even treated water — were to overwhelm the ditch or carry unexpected pollutants downstream, it could threaten water quality and wildlife.

Musk is a threat as is his former buddy Donald Chump. This morning, Mattathias Schwartz, Zach Montague and Ernesto Londoño (NEW YORK TIMES) notes:

The judge was angry. She had ordered a detained immigrant to be released in Minnesota, but instead he was let go in El Paso, where he had to spend the night in a shelter. All his property was supposed to have been returned, but the government was still holding his identity papers.

“Why should I not hold you in contempt?” the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer at a hearing last week. Instead of answers, she got excuses.

“I don’t think there was ever any intention to defy the court orders,” said the lawyer, Matthew Isihara, a military judge advocate on temporary assignment to the Justice Department. “We were doing our best and things, unfortunately, slipped — slipped through the cracks.”

That explanation was not enough for Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. Last Wednesday, she found Mr. Isihara in civil contempt of court.

Legal experts said her ruling marked the first time during President Trump’s second term that a judge had attempted to assert authority by issuing a civil contempt ruling, which enforces a judicial order by imposing a penalty until the offending party complies. In this case, Judge Provinzino ordered Mr. Ishiara to pay $500 a day until the identity documents were returned.

But the anger Judge Provinzino flashed at Mr. Isihara has been repeated in courtrooms across the country amid Mr. Trump’s drive to deport large numbers of immigrants. A New York Times review of federal dockets found at least 35 instances since August in which federal district court or magistrate judges issued an order requiring the government to explain why it should not be similarly punished for violating court orders, essentially giving officials one last chance to explain themselves.

Moving up to the Supreme Court, for any who missed it, the Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday clarifying that only Congress has the power over tariffs -- like the Constitution says. Josh Marshall (TPM) points out, "We say the Court 'struck down' these tariffs. But that wording is inadequate and misleading. These tariffs were always transparently illegal. Saying the actions were 'struck down' suggests at least a notional logic which the Court disagreed with, or perhaps one form of standing practice and constitutional understanding away from which the Court decided to chart another course. Neither is remotely the case. There's no ambiguity in the law in question. Trump assumed a unilateral power to 'find' a national emergency and then used this (transparently fraudulent) national emergency to exercise powers the law in question doesn’t even delegate." Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) notes, "President Donald Trump was dealt a huge blow by the Supreme Court on Friday as they eliminated his ability to impose tariffs under economic emergency powers — but he almost at once declared he will continue to charge global tariffs, using a number of alternative statutes. During his rant, he claimed under the ruling, he can't charge tariffs to foreign countries but can 'destroy the country' by cutting off all trade to it instead."

What does this mean?

In the immediate term, Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes Chump's empty promises are revealed and exposed as empty, "Promises to fund sweeping tax cuts, bridge payments to farmers, deficit reduction, and phony $2,000 rebate checks all went up in smoke—because they weren’t his promises to make." In the long term? Greg Sargent (TNR) points out, "The loss before the high court is also another sign that the pillars of Trump’s right-wing nationalist agenda are crumbling in a much broader and deeper sense—so much so that it’s posing a serious threat to the long-term durability of the ideology known as Trumpism." At THE NEW YORK TIMES, Ana Swanson also covers Chump:

The Supreme Court may have ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s use of an international emergency law to impose tariffs. But Mr. Trump seems intent on continuing the experiment he has run with the U.S. economy over the past year, in which he has raised tariffs to levels not seen since the 1930s.

In a news conference at the White House on Friday, Mr. Trump made a series of false claims about the economic impact of tariffs and he promised to replace, or even increase, them using laws other than the one the court rejected.

“It’s ridiculous but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.”

“We broke every record in the book, and we are continuing to do so,” the president said about his tariffs.

By the end of Friday, he said he would impose a new set of levies, including a 10 percent across-the-board tariff. Then on Saturday, Mr. Trump suddenly raised the tariffs to 15 percent, the limit allowed by the new legal provision he was using. “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” he said in a post on Truth Social.

To the president, tariffs are the antidote to globalization, a way to force more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce America’s reliance on foreign products and lower the trade deficit. But the economic evidence so far has not been in his favor. Instead of shifting manufacturing back into the United States, Mr. Trump’s tariffs mostly appear to have reshuffled trade, at great cost to U.S. companies.

Just the day before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the government reported annual trade data for last year, including several metrics that controverted Mr. Trump’s claims. The data showed that the trade deficit — the gap between what America imports from other countries and what it exports — continued to widen in December, and that the annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high.

The verdict was a huge defeat for Chump. How the justices got there? Matt Ford (THE NEW REPUBLIC) observes:

The Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow to President Donald Trump’s policy agenda on Friday, ruling that a Cold War–era law for economic emergencies does not give the executive branch a blank check to impose trillions of dollars in tariffs without congressional approval.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that Trump had exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, also known as IEEPA. “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts concluded. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

The six-justice majority brought together the court’s three liberal members and three of their conservative colleagues: Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. But while they agreed on the outcome, they differed widely on the reasoning that led them there.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberals, argued that Trump’s invocation of IEEPA failed under the “ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.”

“Usual text-in-context interpretation dooms the tariffs the President has imposed,” she explained. “The crucial provision of IEEPA, when viewed in light of the broader statutory scheme and with a practical awareness of how Congress delegates tariff authority, does not give the President the power he wants.”

Roberts, on the other hand, argued alongside the other two conservatives that the tariffs were invalid under the “major questions doctrine.” Under that doctrine, the executive branch cannot invoke congressionally delegated powers in novel ways on matters of “vast economic and political significance” unless the courts decide that Congress has “spoken clearly” enough to authorize it.

Robert Kuttner offers his take at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT:

The ruling is a sharp rejection of one of the president’s primary policy tools, but it was telegraphed enough that the administration has some possible contingencies in place. Under a different authority, tariffs of 15 percent can be imposed to deal with trade deficits for 150 days. In that time, the administration can impose Section 301 and Section 232 investigations to extend tariffs on select goods or against select countries further. But Trump would have to justify these with data. And the days of unilaterally announcing tariffs that take immediate effect are dead and buried.

The president does have somewhat more open-ended general authority to impose tariffs against countries that discriminate against U.S. exports, but to invoke that now would be a poke in the eye of the Supreme Court and would invite more litigation.

The bigger problem for Trump is the thousands of companies that will ask for refunds from the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. That will be a huge mess, and the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how to proceed with it.

With the unilateral tariff regime over, we can assess its value, and there really wasn’t any. Yesterday, the latest U.S. trade deficit numbers came in well above expectations. The merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion in 2025, according to Thursday’s Commerce Department report.

Basically, imports of Chinese goods fell by nearly 30 percent, but imports from other nations more than made up the difference. The deficit in manufacturing was especially severe, as U.S. production jobs fell by 88,000 in 2025.

So despite constant pronouncements of tariffs allegedly designed to boost domestic production, create jobs, and lower the trade deficit, the entire effort amounted to nothing.

Some questions remain. Some are wondering about companies that paid tariffs -- will they be able to seek refunds? Josh Marshall (TALKING POINTS MEMO) notes:

Almost every article on today’s tariff decision includes, somewhere two or three paragraphs down, a note which explains that it’s unclear how or whether the federal government will issue refunds for illegally collected tariffs. The Court’s decision doesn’t address this. I’m not sure why it would really need to address this. The tariffs were illegal. The government had no legal authority to collect them. So it should be a simple matter for importers to go to court and compel the government to refund their money. But set all that aside. Is it really so uncertain? I’ll bet the White House is going to find a way to issue those refunds. Why? Because Trump insiders, especially the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have reportedly made huge, huge bets on the tariffs being tossed. They and their clients now, per a July report that prompted a Senate investigation, stand to make tens or even hundreds of billions on those refunds. Given that Lutnick is a primary player in White House tariff policy, I’m pretty confident that they’re going to find a way to issue those refunds.

How does this work? I discussed this in a post from Sept. 1 of last year. The gist is this: When he became commerce secretary, Lutnick gifted his sons his Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. (In the link above I explained how they structured this handoff — which as a bonus allowed Lutnick to pay zero capital gains on the entire transaction.) Twenty-something failson Brandon Lutnick is now chairman of the firm. Brother Kyle, apparently another business prodigy from the same family, is vice chairman. Soon after Trump’s tariffs were announced last fall, Brandon Lutnick — no doubt in a totally, totally arms-length way — started buying up the rights to tariff refunds at about 25% of their sticker value.

I base this on reports of these trades from last summer; Wired broke the story in July. A day after the original publication of that article, Wired updated the story with a less-than-denial denial from Cantor Fitzgerald. Erica Chase, a spokesperson for Cantor, said: “Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk or taking views in litigation claims including tariffs.”

Of course, the true tax paid was paid by the American people. At The Tax Foundation, Erica York and Alex Durante offer:

President Trump has imposed International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs on US trading partners, including China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU. In addition, he has threatened and imposed Section 232 tariffs on autos, heavy trucks, steel, aluminum, lumber, furniture, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and copper, among others.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
The Trump tariffs amounted to an average tax increase per US household of $1,000 in 2025. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the President’s remaining new tariffs under Section 232 amount to average tax increase per US household of $400 in 2026.
The average effective tariff rate in 2025 was 7.7 percent, this highest rate since 1947. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 increase the weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports to 6.7 percent in 2026, and the average effective tariff rate, reflecting behavioral responses, rises to 4.5 percent—the highest since 1973.
With the IEEPA being ruled illegal, we estimate that the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 will raise $635 billion in revenue from 2026-2035 on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.2 percent, all before foreign retaliation. Accounting for negative economic effects, the revenue raised by the tariffs falls to $490 billion over the next decade. We estimate that the Section 232 tariffs raised $36 billion in net tax revenue in 2025.
The tariffs have not meaningfully altered the trade balance. The total trade deficit fell by only $2.1 billion in 2025, driven by an increase in the trade surplus of services.
Historical evidence and recent studies show that tariffs are taxes that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, resulting in lower income, reduced employment, and lower economic output.

A $1,000 increase per US household in 2025. How is that going to be made right for the American people? Sharon Zhang (TRUTHOUT) notes:

Up until the ruling, Trump’s tariff policies generated an estimated $195 billion for the government. Researchers have estimated that 90 percent of the extra costs will fall on consumers, and Yale University researchers have said that previous tariff policies have led to 100 percent of costs to companies to be passed onto consumers.

Analyses show that the tariffs would have cost American households roughly $1,000 to $2,000 over the course of a year. This burden would have come on top of skyrocketing inequality, as landlords impose unaffordable rents, federal subsidies for health care disappear, and corporations cut tens of thousands of jobs (instead of CEO pay) in response to cost increases.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called on the Trump administration to “immediately issue refund checks — with interest” to Americans and businesses.

“Time to pay the piper, Donald. These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them,” Newsom said in a statement.

Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following yesterday:

Senator Murray has been outspoken about the harm Trump’s tariffs are causing in WA—one of the most trade-dependent states in the country; Murray has held numerous events in every corner of the state to hear from businesses, farmers, and border communities about effects of Trump’s trade war

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) issued the following statement in response to the 6-3 Supreme Court decision ruling against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs.

“No doubt the President is somewhere throwing a tantrum over this Supreme Court Decision, but the law is clear and the law won. Small businesses across Washington state are breathing a sigh of relief thanks to this decision. Trump’s erratic tariff regime was nothing short of economic arson. On a whim, the President would upend entire industries and drastically drive up costs or block our small businesses from markets they depended on—it was sheer stupidity that cost us jobs and drove up prices for just about everyone.

“While this decision puts an important leash on an out-of-control White House, we have to recognize that so much damage has already been done. And all year, Republicans blocked Democrats from simply repealing Trump’s destructive tariffs out of pure cowardice and a slovenly deference to a President determined to set our economy on fire. Good riddance.

“Undoubtedly, Trump will look for new ways to impose tariffs and hurt American small businesses—he should just give it up and Republicans should work with us to make sure he does. In Congress, I’ll keep fighting back against Trump and Republicans’ anti-small business, anti-consumer policies—Democrats are fighting for commonsense policies that grow the economy for everyone, support the middle-class, and make life more affordable.”

Washington state has one of the most trade-dependent economies of any state in the country, with 40 percent of jobs in the state tied to international commerce. In 2024, Washington exported $57.8 billion of goods, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), making Washington state the 9^th-largest state exporter of goods last year. Washington state is also the top U.S. producer of apples, blueberries, hops, pears, spearmint oil, and sweet cherries—all of which risk losing vital export markets due to retaliatory tariffs from key trading partners including Canada.

###

Chump had a meltdown Friday when he heard the news of the Court's finding. Chump attacked and cursed out the Court over the verdict. Does that mean anything? David McAfee (RAW STORY) offers:

Donald Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court smacking down his signature initiative upset "all nine" justices and will give the conservative high court "more freedom" to defy the president's wishes in upcoming cases, according to a Republican strategist.

Appearing on MS NOW's PoliticsNation this weekend, Republican strategist Susan del Percio, who has a history of working with Republican candidates and in Rudy Giuliani's administration, was asked if Trump's response to the Supreme Court would fly with the nation's highest jurists. Trump said he was ashamed and disappointed with Republicans who ruled against him, and said they lacked courage and loyalty.

Asked, "Will this pass with them?" the GOP insider replied, "I don't think so."

Today on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe noted Chump's personal attacks on the justices.

The polls continue to note that the American people are tired of Donald Chump and his self-created drama. Kathryn Palmer (USA TODAY) reports:

Ahead of President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address of his second term, a new poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of his job performance, especially on inflation, tariffs and foreign policy.

In a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released on Sunday, Feb. 22 − just two days before Trump's highly anticipated address to Congress − six in ten Americans, 60%, said they disapprove of the way he is handling his role. Of that number, 47% indicated a strong disapproval. Another 39% said they approve of the president's performance.

His performance has been lackluster and threatening at the same time. Currently, he's raging at NETFLIX to fire a member of the board (Susan Rice) and it's that sort of nonsense -- unethical and beyond the pale -- that really reveals him to be an immature cry baby incapable of stewarding the US economy. His meltdown on Friday following the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs didn't win him any glowing reviews.

Chump continues to struggle as does FBI Director Ka$h Patel. Alan Feuer, Glenn Thrush, Motoko Rich and Tariq Panja (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

The F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, criticized for blurring the lines between personal recreation and professional responsibility, spent Sunday celebrating the American hockey team’s Olympic victory in Milan as the bureau grappled with multiple, fast-developing crises at home.

A video of a euphoric Mr. Patel, a devoted hockey fan who plays the sport himself, was posted on social media, showing him giving a gleeful shaka sign — the thumb-and-pinky salute — in the gold-winning team’s locker room as he stood next to Dylan Larkin, the team’s center.

“Congratulations, Team USA!” Mr. Patel shouted while wearing a white jersey and craning his head to get into the frame of a cellphone video with Mr. Larkin, who flashed his gold medal at the camera.

Another video clip showed Mr. Patel chugging most of a beer and splashing the remnants into the air as the hockey players around him cheered. Then one of players, the video showed, draped a gold medal around his neck and he raised his arms in triumph.

Ka$h's presence came as a bit of a surprise due to a spokesperson disputing that Ka$h would be there. Jennifer Bowers Bahney (MEDIAITE) notes:

FBI Spokesman Ben Williamson spent days trashing reports by MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian and others who reported Patel would be attending the event.

“Your rag outlet wrote that [Patel] went to hang out at the Olympics on the taxpayer dime – even when provided information that your theory was false. When you’re ready to correct that let me know. Won’t hold my breath,” Williamson wrote.

This morning, Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) noted Ka$h's trip was on the taxpayer dime.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Mazie Hirono's office:

~Hirono has long championed the small businesses and working families who have been severely impacted by Trump’s illegal tariffs~

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), a senior member of the Senate Committees on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Judiciary, released the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s global tariffs.

“For the past year, Trump’s tariffs have wreaked havoc on small businesses and driven up costs for consumers, while doing nothing to help the U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs were never meant to help the American people. They were conceived as another lever for Trump to consolidate power and intimidate our global partners—including some of our closest allies. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we’ve known all along, these tariffs are not only reckless, they are illegal. Today’s ruling is an important step forward for American consumers and businesses, and also for the rule of law. Now that the Court has ruled, this regime needs to expeditiously reimburse the businesses who have borne the cost for Trump’s disastrous trade war and lay out a plan to actually address the affordability crisis facing millions of Americans. The President must not seek to reimpose these tariffs using the pretext of some other authority.”

As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, Senator Hirono has consistently fought to support the small businesses in Hawaii and throughout the country who have been impacted by the Trump Administration’s global tariffs. For the past year, she has fought for small businesses and families to get relief for the losses they have accrued as a result of the tariffs. In May, she introduced the Small Business Liberation Act, legislation that would exempt the more than 34 million U.S. small businesses from the overly broad, reckless global tariffs imposed by President Trump. In September, she also introduced the Small Business RELIEF Act, which would reimburse those businesses for costs incurred due to the tariffs. In addition to legislation, Hirono has stood with plaintiffs suing the Administration for losses they’ve accrued because of the tariffs and signed onto multiple amicus briefs advocating for relief.

###

Kat's "Kat's Korner: U2's DAYS OF ASH" went up yesterday and the following sites updated:

Thursday, February 19, 2026

Chump destroys the party

A huge number of Republicans in Congress are not running for re-election. It's because of Chump. He's a one man wrecking crew sending people for the exits. Adan Lynch notes:

Intelligencer columnist Ed Kilgore says there’s a clear reason for the dramatic exodus of House lawmakers this year, particularly those serving alongside President Donald Trump in the Republican Party.

“Even in safe seats, you have to beware a primary opponent, particularly if you are a Republican who has somehow forgotten to bow down to Donald Trump once after breakfast and twice before supper,” said Kilgore.

At this time, 51 U.S. House and nine U.S. senators out of 35 up for reelection are bowing out of the race this year. This is the most combined House and Senate retirements in the 21st century and well over average generally, said Kilgore. But these numbers are probably set to go even higher still, especially given the national gerrymandering war Trump kicked off in Texas last year.

Alex Isenstadt (AXIOS) notes:

Republicans are getting crushed in scores of state and local races, raising deep concerns about a deflated base refusing to show up to vote even in the most pro-Trump areas.

Why it matters: The numbers are startling. In race after race, Democrats are outpacing their 2024 performance by double digits, a clear sign of a yawning enthusiasm gap.

By the numbers: Democrats have outperformed former Vice President Harris' 2024 numbers by an average of 10.5 percentage points in the 20 state legislative districts that've held special elections this year.

Democratic candidates outperformed Harris by even more — an average of 13.9 points — in the 67 state House and Senate races last year, according to The Downballot, a site that tracks state-level and congressional campaigns.

Republicans' internal polling is aligning with recent surveys that suggest a downturn in support for GOP candidates.

He's a failure and he's hurting the ticket. The midterms should be very interesting. Chump destroys the party. He destroys everything he touches.

"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, February 19, 2026. The former Prince Andrew is arrested in the UK, Donald Chump tries to wish Epstein away but the public feels he's involved, THE NEW YORKER explores his involvement in an interview with THE MIAMI HERALD's Julie K. Brown, and much more.

Major news out of England this morning, Megan Specia and Michael D. Shear (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

British police on Thursday arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, over suspicions of misconduct in public office after accusations that he shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a British trade envoy.

The arrest was a stunning blow to the British monarchy, which has been rocked by scandals for decades and is now having to endure the spectacle of having one of its members arrested. The move escalated the long-running crisis for Buckingham Palace over the former prince’s ties to Mr. Epstein and allegations of sexual abuse of a young woman.

His brother, King Charles III, in a statement confirmed the arrest. The Thames Valley Police said in a statement that it had “arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk.”

Brittney Melton (NPR) notes, "U.K. media reports that this man is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew. Police have investigated whether Mountbatten-Windsor shared confidential government information with his late friend, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while he was U.K.'s trade envoy. Mountbatten-Windsor admits to ties to Epstein and settled a lawsuit with one of Epstein's underage victims, but denies wrongdoing." Jamie Grierson (GUARDIAN) adds:

The current whereabouts of Mountbatten-Windsor is unknown. It is understood neither the king nor Buckingham Palace was informed in advance of Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest.

Mountbatten-Windsor, who turned 66 on Thursday, has always denied any wrongdoing or accusations against him. Thames Valley is one of a number of police forces to have assessed allegations that resurfaced when the so-called Epstein files were published by the US Department of Justice.

The force previously said it was reviewing allegations that a woman was trafficked to the UK by Epstein to have a sexual encounter with Andrew, and claims he shared sensitive information with the disgraced financier while serving as the UK’s trade envoy.

Oliver Wright, one of the force’s assistant chief constables, said: “Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office. It is important that we protect the integrity and objectivity of our investigation as we work with our partners to investigate this alleged offence. We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time.”

The family of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Mountbatten-Windsor of sexually abusing her when she was 17 as part of a sex trafficking ring run by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell – allegations the former prince has denied – released a statement.

Her family members Sky and Amanda Roberts and Danny and Lanette Wilson said: “At last. Today, our broken hearts have been lifted at the news that no one is above the law, not even royalty. On behalf of our sister, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, we extend our gratitude to the UK’s Thames Valley police for their investigation and arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. He was never a prince. For survivors everywhere, Virginia did this for you.”

SKY NEWS notes the likely course that follows:

A former police chief has given an insight into what happens next after Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest.

"This is massive. You don't have to arrest somebody that you're investigating - you can ask them to provide a statement through their lawyer, you can invite them to a police station without arresting them - [so] to actually arrest, it would suggest there is some significant evidence," Dal Babu, former chief superintendent of the Metropolitan Police, says.

"I should imagine at this stage they'll have prepared interviews. There'll be an interview strategy.

"They'll present those questions to Andrew, and I think his lawyer would probably advise him at this stage to make no comment.

"And then once that has occurred, he'll be released under investigation."

Michael D. Shear (NEW YORK TIMES) notes others have been exposed in the release of The Epstein Files:

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is not the only member of the British elite who has been caught up in files connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender.

The files, released by the U.S. Department of Justice, have also put a harsh spotlight on Peter Mandelson, a longtime British political operative who served as ambassador to the United States, and Sarah Ferguson, Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s ex-wife and the one-time Duchess of York.

[. . .]

The emails and text messages in the latest release of Epstein files revealed that Ms. Ferguson had carried on a long and personal correspondence with Mr. Epstein long after the disgraced financier was convicted of soliciting prostitution in 2008.

In a 2009 email, Mr. Epstein suggested that he paid for flights for “the Duchess and the girls from Heathrow to Miami,” an apparent reference to travel for Ms. Ferguson and her daughters, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice. In 2010, in another email exchange, Ms. Ferguson called Mr. Epstein “a legend,” adding, “I really don’t have the words to describe my love, gratitude for your generosity and kindness. Xx I am at your service. Just marry me.”

Mr. Epstein also urged Ms. Ferguson to help him improve his public image, suggesting in one email that she release a statement asserting that he was “not a pedo.” There is no evidence that she did so.

Ms. Ferguson’s representatives have not responded to requests for comment since the new files were released. In 2011, she admitted that he had helped pay off her debts and apologized for her “terrible error of judgment” in “having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.” The new files show that she continued to exchange emails with Mr. Epstein after that admission.

That's in the United Kingdom. In the United States?

Donald Chump has made clear that he wants to 'move on' from The Epstein Files and his Epstein scandal. However, the American people aren't there with him on this. Sarah Davis (THE HILL) reports:

More than half of Americans in a new poll said they believe President Trump is attempting to conceal crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In an Economist/YouGov poll released Tuesday, 53 percent of respondents said they believe Trump is “trying to cover up Epstein’s crimes.” Twenty-nine percent of those polled said they do not believe the president is trying to conceal these crimes.

Additionally, exactly half of the poll’s respondents said they believe Trump was involved in Epstein’s illicit activities, while 30 percent said he was not involved.

Guess they didn't buy Chump's claim to have been "exonerated." Julie K Brown addressed that claim this week:

President Donald Trump continues to insist that he didn’t know about Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement with underage girls. While speaking to reporters Monday, Trump seemed to acknowledge that he had been accused of wrongdoing associated with Epstein announcing that he had been “totally exonerated” and adding that he has “nothing to hide.”

But the files raise even more questions about the President’s association with Epstein — particularly about how much he knew and when he knew it — as well as his effort to protect the powerful people whose names are listed as suspected co-conspirators in the files.

To be clear, there are two sexual assault allegations involving minor girls who have accused Trump of rape that are part of the public record. Both are referenced in the Epstein files.

There is no evidence that their stories are true. But they shouldn’t be dismissed either.

David Remnick (THE NEW YORKER) interviewed Julie K. Brown of THE MIAMI HERALD who has been reporting on the Epstein case for many years now:

David Remnick: Well, let’s start with what we know about the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. What is Trump saying it was, and what’s the reality? What are we learning?

Julie K. Brown: Trump has said that he really wasn’t as good of friends with him, that he had a falling out with him, that they had some events together—he was at Mar-a-Lago at some events, but he’s downplayed that, I think it’s fair to say. From what we have seen, they were much closer—certainly much closer than I thought they were when I did this story originally. I think we’re getting new information that shows that maybe they were closer, but we don’t find any evidence thus far that he was involved in any of Epstein’s crimes.

Can you be a little bit more specific about the relationship, what it consisted of?

Well, I think that they were sort of competitors, in a way. They were both very wealthy, connected men, and I think they competed. We know that there was this real-estate deal in the early two-thousands in Palm Beach, and then Trump jumped on it, and it ended up in a bidding war, and Trump won. And then he sold the property—it was this massive mansion—for oodles and oodles of money. Of course, Epstein was really mad about that. So I think Trump wanted to show off his wealth to Epstein, and Epstein wanted to show off his wealth.

That’s a situation of rich guys, whose is bigger, et cetera.

Yes.

What about their social relationship? And they seem to bond—to put this delicately—over the question of women.

Yes. They definitely did. Trump did an interview saying that [Epstein] likes women and he really likes them young. And so that was the same way they competed over money. They were also, I think, to some degree, competing over their prowess with women.

[. . .]

You’re publishing a story that has implications for the President of the United States where the Epstein case is concerned. What does it say?

We have found a document in these files that is an interview that the police chief of Palm Beach gave to the F.B.I. And in that interview the police chief, Michael Reiter, told the F.B.I. that back when Epstein’s case had first come to the attention of the police, and Epstein was first reported as a suspect in doing this—

What’s the year?

Around 2006. Around that time period, Trump called the police chief and he said to the police chief, “Thank God you’re doing something about him, because . . .” And I’m just quoting off the top of my head. I don’t have the document in front of me, but he said, “Thank God—everybody knew this.” He also knew about [Ghislaine] Maxwell’s role [as Epstein’s associate], calling her “evil.” We have this F.B.I. report of this interview that the chief gave to the F.B.I. where he is recalling this conversation that he had with Trump many, many years ago about Epstein. So it does raise some questions about how much Trump knew—whether he knew the extent of Epstein’s crimes.

So, in 2006, Donald Trump has what kind of communication with the police chief?

He called the police chief on the phone.

And there’s paper on that?

There is. There’s an F.B.I. report. It’s an interview that the police chief gave to the F.B.I.

So what does that suggest to you about Trump—that he was doing the right thing or that he was complicit in some way?

I think people are going to look at it one of two ways: A) that he was somewhat of an informant for the police, in that he called them after this case became active and he became aware of it, and admitted, “Wait a minute, I know he was doing this.”

Or you could look at it another way, in that he was also one of those people who knew, and really didn’t go to the police before then to tell them what he was doing. The police were sort of hearing that there were things happening at Epstein’s mansion well before this, but, every time they went to investigate, all the women who were coming and going who they saw on the street and stopped were of age. So they couldn’t find any evidence that a real crime was being committed. But if in fact Trump knew that there were some crimes being committed against underage girls, and he knew about it and didn’t tell them ahead of time, I guess people will look at that from a different vantage point, in that he should have told the police sooner.

We noted THE ECONOMIST-YOU.GOV poll already, Ryan Mancini (THE HILL) reports on another poll:

Most Americans say they believe the files connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein show that wealthy, powerful people are rarely held accountable, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

The poll found that nearly 7 in 10 respondents, or 69 percent of Americans, believe their views were captured “very well” or “extremely well” by a statement saying the Epstein files “show that powerful people in the U.S. are rarely held accountable for their actions.”

Reporting on the poll, Jason Lange (REUTERS) gets off this howler, "The Republican president, who socialized extensively with Epstein in the 1990s and 2000s, has denied any knowledge of the financier's crimes and says he broke off ties in the early 2000s, before Epstein's plea deal." Again, refer to the 2006 report on Chump talking to a sheriff about Epstein's crimes. Seems like that should have been caught before Lange's report was released. And Adam Lynch reports:

Despite however hard Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi may declare the Jeffrey Epstein case finished, it’s likely not, reports Left Hook author Wajahat Ali. Nestled within the Epstein Files, is evidence that the FBI interviewed a woman who credibly accused President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.

“This woman also accused Jeffrey Epstein, and she successfully settled a lawsuit in 2021 with the Epstein estate,” Ali reports.

“Investigative reporter Roger Sollenberger discovered this bombshell and told Ali that “The allegations and FBI interview are landmark revelations, undermining the White House’s protestations that Trump hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing and showing instead that the U.S. government has been aware of a credible Trump accuser in the Epstein files.”

In the summer of 2025, the DOJ included the redacted woman’s allegation in a 21-page internal slideshow presentation as well as in an internal email chain involving the government investigation into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Ali wrote. But she’s not the not the only credible accuser.

There is another incident that allegedly occurred at Mar-a-Lago in 1994 involving a 14-year-old girl who later became a key government witness against convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Chump's name came up yesterday in a deposition taken by the House Oversight Committee. Cheyenne Ubiera (THE MIRROR) reports:

President Donald Trump's attendance at Victoria's Secret runway shows with Jeffrey Epstein has been described as "odd" by Les Wexner, it has been claimed.

Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett spoke with billionaire Les Wexner, the co-founder and chair emeritus of Bath & Body Works. During their closed-door interview, Crockett shared Wexner's comments about Trump.

"There were always young girls looking for an opportunity to model, and there were always rich and powerful people on the other side, dangling a carrot, saying, ‘I will give you the life you are seeking.’ Yet ultimately, their stories are the same," said Crockett. "They are stories of abuse. They are stories of trafficking at the highest level."

The state representative revealed that when Wexner was asked about Trump and Epstein being in the same room, he said he didn't quite remember, "he imagined that yes, that possibly happened because he did remember that Donald Trump also would like to show up to the Victoria's Secret runway shows.

"That was a little odd to him because Donald Trump as not engaged in fashion whatsoever."

The House Oversight Committee traveled to Ohio to the billionaire's compound to take his statements. Kaia Hubbard (CBS NEWS) reports:

Billionaire retail tycoon Les Wexner, a longtime benefactor of Jeffrey Epstein, told House lawmakers that he was "duped by a world-class con man" and knew nothing of Epstein's crimes, according to his prepared testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

Wexner, who hired Epstein to manage his money, was among members of Epstein's inner circle who were subpoenaed for testimony last month. Members of the Oversight Committee and staff members deposed Wexner behind closed doors in his home state of Ohio on Wednesday.

Wexner, 88, previously led the former parent company of Victoria's Secret and worked with Epstein beginning in the mid-1980s. In his prepared statement, which CBS News obtained, Wexner outlined how he cut ties with Epstein in the aftermath of Epstein's 2006 arrest. Documents show the two men stayed in touch, but Wexner said they never spoke again.

[. . .]

Democratic Rep. Dave Min of California argued that Wexner's claim that he was not aware of Epstein's abuse is "just not credible."

"I realize he's an elderly gentleman, memories fade," Min said. "But the reputation of Jeffrey Epstein is very clear. Everyone around Jeffrey Epstein knew exactly what he was up to."

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, said there were no Republican members of Congress at the deposition, though he said there were GOP staff members.

The Committee traveled to meet Wexner. Don't marvel over people responding in polls that there are two systems of justice in the United States.

On the topic of polls, Jason Lange (REUTERS) notes, "U.S. public approval of Donald Trump's immigration policies fell to the lowest level since his return to the White House, amid signs he is losing support among American men on the issue, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 38% of respondents in the four-day poll, which closed on Monday, said Trump was doing a good job on immigration, a priority issue for the administration. The rating was down from 39% in a January Reuters/Ipsos poll and as high as 50% in the months shortly after Trump returned to power." At SALON, Amanda Marcotte notes Kristi Noem and Chump's actions and policies:

The havoc Noem brings is most obvious when it comes to her deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to blue cities as a paramilitary force rather than a law enforcement agency. The secretary has worked to make herself the face of these invasions, which have invariably led to pandemonium. In recent weeks, America has watched as agents have tear gassed civilians, made race-based arrests that have scooped up citizens and even small children, and sent two non-violent citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to their graves.

As a presidential candidate in 2024, Trump billed himself as the savior who would end crime and bring order to what he falsely portrayed as a turbulent social landscape due to imaginary immigrant crime sprees. While the president appears to personally enjoy the violence and unrest his homeland security secretary has unleashed, even he can see the polling that shows it is backfiring. But this was inevitable, especially with Noem at the helm. Her personal behavior in office has been as bizarre as her theory that masked federal agents terrorizing innocents would read as bringing order to the public. More than anyone besides Trump himself, Kristi Noem is responsible for the current DHS funding shutdown.

On Renee Nicole Good, as Kat noted last night in "Janis Joplin, Grace Slick, U2," U2 has just released a song memorializing Renee.

Meanwhile, Max Burns (THE HILL) notes the lack of perspective in the White House:

This week marks the beginning of Lent, a time when millions of Americans practice the seemingly lost arts of inner reflection, repentance and humility. At its core, Lent is a reminder that not every impulse deserves to be gratified, and not every internal thought should be shouted into the public square of social media.

Imagine that.

One place we won’t see any reflection, repentance or humility is the White House, where even the impersonation of Christian ethics has fell out of favor long ago. Introspection has no place in an administration so totally defined by self-aggrandizing rhetoric, hate-mongering and gleeful bigotry. The Trump administration wears its personality cult egotism on its sleeve as a point of pride for the whole world to see.

It is rich irony that, after decades warning about how Democrats would corrupt our country with state-sponsored atheism and moral relativism, Republicans can now lay claim to perhaps the most godless and amoral administration in American history.

Just ask President Trump, who still defends sharing (and then blaming someone else for sharing) a blatantly racist video portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. Or ask Attorney General Pam Bondi, who boldly declared that Americans shouldn’t think about Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking because the stock market was up. This is what passes for moral leadership in today’s decaying Republican Party.

As Betty noted last night in "Updates on Chump's war on history, the Crooked Court's new stock measure and who does Chump's Tweets," White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt declared yesterday that Chump does all of his own social media posts. This despite telling us a few weeks back that someone other than Donald posted the racist video. Which is it, Karoline?

Brad Bannon (THE HILL) observes:

Donald Trump is in deep do do according to three national surveys conducted this month. Polls for the Associated Press and NBC presented presidential performance ratings underwater more than 20 points. The 47th president just missed the terrible trifecta with a negative job rating of 19 percent in a survey for Quinnipiac University. It’s like he just played the slot machine in one of his old bankrupt casinos and came up all lemons.

His job rating is now as deep underwater as the Titanic is in the cold icy depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile, ominous storm clouds hover over the beleaguered MAGA citadels in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The midterm election is a referendum on the incumbent chief executive. Unless there is a sharp increase in President Trump’s fortunes in the next eight months, his party will pay the price for his high crimes and misdemeanors in November.

The nature of public discontent is obvious in a recent national poll conducted by YouGov.com for The Economist. The biggest concern among adult Americans is inflation, with no other problem even close to it on the top 40 public opinion hit parade. The lame duck president’s score for fighting inflation was negative 28. You do the math.

That’s hardly a surprise since prices rose by 2.4 percent in the ninth month of his encore administration. This is the guy who promised repeatedly during his 2024 campaign that he would bring prices down on Day One of his second term. Americans are holding him accountable for his broken promise.

The two major initiatives of Trump term two have only served to intensify the economic carnage. His terrible tariffs have raised consumer prices. His big bad budget gave tax cuts to bankers and billionaires which accelerated the income growth for the wealthy at the expense of middle Americans.

While mothers and fathers struggle to feed their families at home, Trump has focused on fights abroad. The public wants cheaper butter but Trump’s priority is more guns. He has rattled a blunt saber against NATO allies Canada and Denmark, taken control of Venezuela and threatened Iran. But he has done little to improve the health, wealth and well-being of hardworking American families.

Trump’s callous indifference to the economic hardships faced by ordinary Americans is no skin off his back.

Monique Danao (MONEYWISE) notes:

As Donald Trump renews calls for sweeping tariffs and tougher trade negotiations, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sounding an alarm, saying that the policies could leave Americans “measurably poorer.”

Krugman, a Nobel laureate recognized for his research on international trade and a frequent commentator on U.S. economic policy, says the warning isn’t about Wall Street or abstract trade balances. He says it’s about higher prices at home — from groceries and household goods to cars and construction materials — as tariffs function like a tax on consumers.

In a recent Substack post, Krugman argued that Trump’s approach to trade risks pushing the United States toward what he calls an “economic divorce” from significant trading partners. If that happens, he says, Americans are likely to feel the impact in their wallets.

“Now US economic relations with other nations have turned abusive, and the world is moving toward divorce,” Krugman wrote.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:

Lawmakers: “The Trump Administration’s policies risk eliminating a significant number of trained caregivers from an already strained system, reducing access to care and raising child care costs for American families”

“Rather than making child care more affordable, President Trump has done the opposite by withholding billions of dollars in federal funding from child care providers, and rescinding protections meant to ensure that child care providers can stay afloat”

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) joined U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Representative Mike Quigley (D-Ill.-05), and over 40 other lawmakers in raising serious concerns about how the Trump Administration’s cruel immigration policies are shrinking the child care workforce and driving up costs for American families.

The letter to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children & Families (ACF) comes amid reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity at and around child care facilities and worsening staffing shortages nationwide.

The American economy heavily depends on immigrant workers in the child care sector, making up approximately 20 percent of the U.S. child care workforce and totaling more than 282,000 workers. In parts of Florida, Texas, New York, and California, that share is even higher — nearly 40% in California, which has almost half a million foreign-born early childhood educators. Over 1 million Californian parents — both immigrants and U.S. citizens — depend on reliable access to child care so they can continue working.

“These policies — paired with the Administration’s recent moves to slash federal support that made child care more affordable — are an attack on American families,” wrote the lawmakers.

Since Trump began his indiscriminate mass deportation campaign in Los Angeles last June, student and staff absences have risen at California child care centers. At the same time, Republican influencers have harassed workers at Somali-run day care centers in San Diego, including at their homes, confronting operators about unsubstantiated claims of alleged fraud.

Over the last year, President Trump has enacted a cruel and aggressive immigration agenda, including eliminating legal immigration pathways, stopping lawful immigration processes, and ramping up indiscriminate ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) raids. Those arrested include critical child care providers taking care of children in their communities.

The Trump Administration’s immigration policies have significantly impacted immigrant child care workers and the families whose children they care for. Following the Administration’s decision to revoke a longstanding policy protecting “sensitive locations” from ICE and CBP raids, immigration enforcement activities are now occurring at child care facilities, with agents apprehending and detaining employees in front of children and their families. Other child care workers have been stripped of their work permits and forced to leave their jobs.

These actions are pushing providers to leave the child care field, and programs have seen sharp staffing declines. Some estimates say the Administration’s immigration agenda could reduce the child care workforce by 15 percent — over half a million workers. This, along with Trump Administration efforts to slash federal support that makes child care more affordable, is an “attack on American families,” the lawmakers emphasized.

“As Members of Congress committed to supporting American families and maintaining an affordable, reliable child care system, we seek to ensure that federal enforcement practices are not unintentionally driving up costs, destabilizing child care programs, or undermining the safe, supportive environments that children need to thrive,” added the lawmakers.

The lawmakers requested that, by February 26, 2026, HHS share any information available regarding the impact of immigration operations on child care staffing shortages, including data on staffing shortages, enrollment declines, projected cost increases, and how coordination with DHS on enforcement actions may disrupt federally funded child care programs.

In addition to Schiff, Padilla, Warren, Duckworth, and Quigley, the letter was also signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), as well as Representatives Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.-03), Becca Balint (D-Vt.-AL), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.-01), Greg Casar (D-Texas-35), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.-31), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.-09), Herb Conaway (D-N.J.-03), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas-30), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.-04), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.-03), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.-03), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.-04), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas-29), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Bill Keating (D-Mass.-09), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.-08), George Latimer (D-N.Y.-16), Summer Lee (D-Pa.-12), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.-08), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.-07), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.-03), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.-06), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.-AL), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.-02), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.-03), Mark Takano (D-Calif.-39), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.-20), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.-25), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.-24).

Earlier this month, Schiff and Padilla joined Warren, Alsobrooks, Quigley, and 56 other lawmakers in demanding answers from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the impact of children’s exposure to ICE and CBP’s escalating violence in American communities, which threatens to leave them with lasting physical and psychological trauma.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Assistant Secretary Adams:

We are concerned about how the Trump Administration’s immigration agenda is making it more difficult for Americans to find and afford child care. Immigration policy changes — including terminations of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), the elimination of other lawful immigration pathways, and immigration raids in and around child care programs — are driving child care providers out of the workplace, exacerbating child care workforce shortages and high prices. These policies — paired with the Administration’s recent moves to slash federal support that made child care more affordable — are an attack on American families. We request information regarding how the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children & Families (ACF) is assessing these workforce impacts and what steps ACF is taking to prevent further disruptions to child care services and to protect families from rising costs and reduced access.

The child care sector depends heavily on immigrant workers. Nationally, immigrants make up approximately 20 percent of the child care workforce — more than 282,000 workers. That share is even higher in some areas, including parts of Florida, Texas, New York, and California — in some cases as high as 70 percent. The vast majority of these workers are immigrants who have lived in the United States with lawful status, playing by the rules, building stable lives, and caring for children every day — yet they now risk losing their ability to work in the United States, as this Administration has abruptly terminated most TPS designations and dramatically limited pathways to lawful immigration and access to corresponding employment authorizations. To date, this Administration has stopped most lawful immigration processing for refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants from 39 countries. Many others have been arbitrarily stripped of status.

On Day 1 of his presidency, President Trump began ordering the elimination of legal immigration pathways and revoked a long-standing policy that protected areas such as child care facilities and other “sensitive locations” from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. During his first year back in office, President Trump also ramped up indiscriminate ICE arrests, with over 86 percent of people arrested by ICE lacking any charges or convictions for violent crimes. Some of those arrested have been critical child care providers taking care of children in their communities. For example, a nanny in Wisconsin was reportedly detained by ICE after a routine check-in despite the fact that she is an asylum seeker with no criminal record. Meanwhile, some child care workers have been stripped of their work permits, such as several immigrant teachers working at a preschool in Washington D.C. who lost their work authorizations and were forced to quit.

Alarmingly, some ICE enforcement activities have occurred at child care facilities themselves. In November 2025, federal agents apprehended an employee at a Chicago early-education center. During the drop-off period, a vehicle followed a staff member into the facility’s parking lot and federal agents apprehended the employee as children and parents watched. Other providers have reported similar enforcement activity, including child care centers in Minnesota that described worker detentions — with one provider at a Spanish immersion program being detained in the child care center’s parking lot — and “visits” from federal agents.

Apparently because of these developments, providers are leaving the child care field, and programs have seen sharp staffing declines and have begun canceling child enrichment activities to minimize time outdoors and avoid attracting ICE’s attention.

The Trump Administration’s policies risk eliminating a significant number of trained caregivers from an already strained system, reducing access to care and raising child care costs for American families. According to some estimates, the Administration’s immigration agenda could reduce the child care workforce by 15 percent — over half a million workers — as the child care sector loses both immigrant and U.S.-born workers. Another study estimates that “a doubling of ICE arrests is associated with a 12 percent reduction in child-care employment” for immigrant women since President Trump took office, and approximately “39,000 fewer foreign-born child care workers.” Indeed, economists warn that “deportations and restrictive immigration policies . . . could increase scarcity” in the child care workforce. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this “labor supply shock” would likely raise prices across the economy, as providers are forced to compete for fewer qualified staff. Because child care programs already face high turnover and must meet strict staffing ratios, even modest hiring challenges can force them to scale back or shut down.

Immigration enforcement against child care workers not only impacts the child care sector but also risks second-order effects for American families’ employment. When child care is disrupted, many parents must cut work hours or leave the workforce altogether to care for children. One study estimated that, from February to July 2025 alone, the “doubling of ICE arrests led to about 77,000 fewer employed U.S.-born mothers.” Already, child care is one of the most burdensome expenses for American families. Nationwide, families spend an average of more than $13,000 each year on child care, and up to almost $30,000 in some states. And even when families can afford child care, these services are in short supply; more than half of parents report waiting months for available slots. Rather than making child care more affordable, President Trump has done the opposite by withholding billions of dollars in federal funding from child care providers, and rescinding protections meant to ensure that child care providers can stay afloat. Now, this Administration’s immigration agenda will exacerbate the child care crisis for American families, worsening child care workforce shortages, increasing child care prices, and driving Americans out of the workforce.

As Members of Congress committed to supporting American families and maintaining an affordable, reliable child care system, we seek to ensure that federal enforcement practices are not unintentionally driving up costs, destabilizing child care programs, or undermining the safe, supportive environments that children need to thrive. To better understand these dynamics, we respectfully request that ACF answer the following questions by February 27, 2026:

1. Since January 2025, has ACF collected or analyzed data on child care staffing shortages, including the rate of programs reporting difficulty hiring or retaining early childhood educators?

a. Has ACF assessed how immigration policy changes may be contributing to shortages? Please describe any analyses or other information ACF has provided to DHS regarding how immigration enforcement actions may unintentionally disrupt federally funded child care programs or children’s access to care.

b. Please provide any internal projections regarding how ongoing reductions in the child care workforce may affect child care availability, waitlists, program closures, or prices over the next 12-24 months.

2. What steps is HHS taking to assess and mitigate the effects of immigration-related enforcement actions on the safety and stability of early learning environments, and to ensure that such actions do not disrupt children’s access to federally funded child care programs?

a. What guidance, if any, has ACF issued to state or local grantees regarding maintaining program stability in communities experiencing sudden workforce disruptions or enrollment declines? Please provide copies of relevant guidance.

We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

###

The following sites updated: