Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – February 22, 2026
by Tony Wikrent
Don’t Be Fooled By the Corrupt Court’s Tariff Decision
Josh Marshall, February 20, 2026 [Talking Points Memo]
The depth of the Supreme Court’s corruption has forced us to find new language to describe its actions. Today’s decision, undoing Trump’s massive array of tariffs that upended the global financial system, is a case in point.
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….
This is a case where the legal merits of the President’s action were just too transparently bogus even for this Court to manage and — critically — his actions and the theories undergirding his claims to the power were, for the Corrupt majority, inconvenient. The architect of the current Court — the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo — was behind the litigation that undid the tariffs. That tells you all you need to know. In this case Trump’s claim to power was neither in the interests of the Republican Party — the Court’s chief jurisprudential interest — nor any of their anti-constitutional doctrines. So of course they tossed it out. This may sound ungenerous. It’s simple reality.
Indeed, today’s decision is actually an indictment of the Court. These tariffs have been in effect for almost a year. They have upended whole sectors of the U.S. and global economies. The fact that a president can illegally exercise such powers for so long and with such great consequences for almost a year means we’re not living in a functional constitutional system. If the Constitution allows untrammeled and dictatorial powers for almost one year, massive dictator mulligans, then there is no Constitution.
Part of the delay of this ruling is the fact that most major corporations were afraid to bring litigation because they didn’t want to go to war with the president. But that’s also an indictment of the Supreme Court’s corruption. Because they made clear early on that there was little, if any, limit they would impose on Trump’s criminality or use of government power to impose retribution on constitutionally protected speech or litigation. So that’s on the Court too. But it’s only part of the equation. The Court also allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the government appealed the appellate decision striking down the tariffs back in August. Let me repeat that: back in August, almost six months ago.
In other words, most of the time in which these illegal tariffs were in effect was because of that needless stay. The logic of the stay was that deference to President’s claim of illegal powers was more important than the harm created by hundreds of billions in unconstitutional taxes being imposed on American citizens. It’s a good example of what law professor Leah Litman — one of the most important voices on the Court’s corruption — earlier this morning called the Court’s corruption via “passivity,” empowering anti-constitutional actions through deciding not to act at all or encouraging endless delays it could easily put a stop to in the interests of the constitutional order….
The Supreme Court Fractures While Striking Down Trump’s Tariff Policy
Matt Ford, February 20, 2026 [The New Republic]
It may look like the justices made a clean break with the president, but the mess the conservative bloc made for itself raises some major questions….
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….
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.
In practice, the major questions doctrine has served one real purpose: It’s given the court’s conservative justices a freewheeling veto over Obama and Biden administration policies over the past decade. The doctrine has also received criticism in legal circles for its lack of a firm jurisprudential basis, for the uneven ways in which the court applies it, and for its vague and insubstantial nature. (What is a matter of “vast economic and political significance,” and what isn’t?)
While the differences between the justices may seem arcane, the implications for the court’s jurisprudence could be significant. The court’s conservatives missed a chance to bolster the doctrine’s legitimacy by applying it to a Republican president for the first time. Their failure also exposed fissures among the conservatives over the nature of the major questions doctrine itself….
We Won? The Supreme Court Checked Trump? That’s what happened, right?
Christopher Armitage, Feb 21, 2026 [The Existentialist Republic]
…The media frames the 6-3 vote as evidence of cracks forming between conservative justices. Look at what the split actually is. Three conservatives said IEEPA authorizes tariffs. Three said it does not because the statute does not use the word. Nobody on either side said the president lacks the authority to impose tariffs. The disagreement is over which form to fill out.
But the Court did not even strike down all the tariffs. It struck down roughly half. Everything imposed under Section 232 and Section 301 never went before the Court at all. Fifty percent on steel. Fifty percent on aluminum. Twenty-five percent on every imported car. Fifty percent on copper.(5) All still in effect. The effective tariff rate dropped from 16.9% to roughly 9.1%, and 9.1% is still the highest since 1946.(6) The Tax Foundation estimates the surviving tariffs alone will cost American households $400 a year and raise $635 billion over the next decade.(5) Not one headline I have found leads with the fact that half the tariffs survived untouched….
The Quiet Architect of Trump’s Global Trade War
[New York Times, via The Big Picture, February 20, 2026]
Jamieson Greer, a low-key lawyer from a working-class background, is rewriting the rules of the global economy at the president’s behest.
Trump EPA strips legal bedrock supporting clean energy
[Renewable Energy Magazine, via Clean Power Roundup, February 17, 2026]
President Donald J. Trump has announced the single largest deregulatory action in American history: the full revocation of the Obama-era “Endangerment Finding” and the consumer mandates that depend on it. The move could dismantle the legal justification for federal solar incentives and emissions standards.
Poll finds half of Americans describe Trump as ‘corrupt’ ‘racist’ and ‘cruel’
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sent this in an email earlier today.
Yesterday [Axios] ran a piece about the looming midterms warning for the GOP. The first line of the piece is both arresting and provides some reassurance that the images of recent months have broken through to the public at large. It reads: “Nearly half of Americans would describe President Trump as ‘corrupt,’ ‘racist’ and ‘cruel’ in new polling full of midterm warning signs for Republicans.”
The growing focus on cruelty and corruption shows that Trump’s cratering public support isn’t just about tariff anxiety or affordability. The brutality and corruption of his government, the fulsome rejection of the civic democratic order are breaking through with a broad public. The public increasingly sees the reality of Trump’s rule, and a majority doesn’t like it.
[TW: I think this is a very important development. The Democratic party leadership needs to realize how quickly the public is being alienated and angered by the Trump / MAGA regimes’ cruelty. This can become a far more promising issue than affordability.
[No amount of public shaming or protest is going to get Trump to stop being cruel. Cruelty and violence are central to what they believe about the proper ordering of society and how to maintain it. Last week, on his Culture, Faith, and Politics podcast Pat Kahnke used the example of Pete Hegseth to this. There is “a direct line from antebellum pro-slavery theology to modern Christian nationalist ideology.” Basically, American right wing christianists have fallen for the theology developed by Confederate leader Robert Lewis Dabney to allow slaveholders claim to claim they are a Christian while owning slaves and using violence to keep them under control. This confederate thinking was revived in the mid-20th century by conservative extremist activist R.J. Rushdoony.
It’s tempting to think that Trump has some secret plan to rig or overrule or maybe even cancel the election. But in fact it’s not a secret. He claims he’s going to “nationalize” the election, which actually just means putting his Republican friends in charge of counting the ballots in places he’s upset about losing in prior cycles. Maybe they’ll pass the SAVE Act, though Republicans would need to abolish the filibuster to do that. So that almost certainly isn’t happening.
I don’t think Trump’s plans are going to work. Especially if the opposition is vigilant. What seems more likely is that Trump is falling prey to that common peril of aging strongmen: he’s trapped in a bubble of his own making, in which he hears only the voices of lackeys and sycophants and — when it’s not one of those — people more committed to degenerate ideology than to Trump’s public approval. People like Stephen Miller for instance….
Asawin Suebsaeng, Feb 19, 2026 [Zeteo]
…Ever since the early months of the second Trump era, several well-placed sources – Trump appointees in the government, other MAGA diehards close to the White House – relayed to me private conversations happening in the upper tiers of the federal government about potentially sending armed ICE agents to US polling places, during the 2026 midterms or other elections. Some of these on-again-off-again conversations – preliminary and casual as some of them were – happened with President Trump in the room or at the table.
To some of MAGAworld’s most prominent anti-immigration zealots, the logic (or, authoritarian and racist wish-casting, depending on who you ask) went: The president has been saying for a long time that “the illegals” are voting in massive numbers and hence rigging elections for the Democrats. It makes no sense NOT to send ICE agents to polling places during critical elections.
It goes without saying that the GOP’s persistent claim that undocumented voters are swinging elections all over the place to the Dems is all a bunch of bullshit that isn’t happening, and that Trump and his party are the ones working overtime to steal and rig elections. Trump’s federal goon squad showing up, possibly with loaded guns, at or near your local polling station – even just to stand there and stare – would be nothing short of thuggish, corrupt voter intimidation tactics, especially given what we know they’re capable of doing both to citizens and noncitizens….
Trump not violating any law
‘He who saves his Country does not violate any Law’
Joe DePaolo, May 4th, 2025 [mediaite.com]
The Increasing Attacks on Francesca Albanese Presage a New Dark Age
Chris Hedges, February 16, 2026
…Francesca was placed by the Trump administration on the Office of Foreign Assets Control list of the U.S. Treasury Department — normally used to sanction those accused of money laundering or being involved with terrorist organizations — six days after the release of her report, “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide,” which documented the global corporations that make billions of dollars from the genocide in Gaza and occupation of Palestinians.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control list — weaponized by the Trump administration to persecute Francesca and in violation of the diplomatic immunity granted to U.N. officials — bans her from entering the U.S. It prohibits any financial institution from having her as a client. A bank engages in financial transactions with Francesca is banned from operating in dollars, faces multimillion-dollar fines and is blocked from international payment systems. This has cut her off from global banking, leaving her unable to use credit cards or book a hotel in her name. Her assets in the U.S. are frozen. It has seen her medical insurance refuse to reimburse her for medical expenses. It has resulted in institutions, including U.S. universities, human rights groups and NGOs that once collaborated with her severing ties, fearing onerous U.S. penalties. The sanctions followed those imposed in February and June of last year on The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor Karim Khan along with two judges for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant….
Credit cards cancelled, Google accounts closed: ICC judges on life under Trump sanctions
[The Guardian, via Naked Capitalism 02-19-2025]