President Trump on Wednesday issued an executive order declaring the domestic production of “glyphosate-based herbicides” as “critical to national defense and security.” “Elemental phosphorus is pervasive in defense supply chains and is therefore crucial to military readiness and national defense. It is a key input in smoke, illumination, and incendiary devices and is a critical component for manufacturing the semiconductors that are central to numerous defense technologies, such as radar, solar cells, sensors, and optoelectronics. It is also increasingly important in modern lithium-ion battery chemistries used in a multitude of weapon-system supply chains,” the executive order read. “Elemental phosphorus is also a critical precursor element for the production of glyphosate-based herbicides, which play a critical role in maintaining America’s agricultural advantage by enabling farmers to efficiently and cost-effectively produce food and livestock feed. As the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture, glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy, allowing United States farmers and ranchers to maintain high yields and low production costs while ensuring that healthy, affordable food options remain within reach for all American families,” it continued. ICYMI President Donald Trump issued an executive order on invoking the Defense Production Act to promote domestic production of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides (commonly known as Roundup). He has declared these chemicals as essential for national… pic.twitter.com/jnE5HhqvBE — Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) February 19, 2026 Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. backed Trump’s executive order in a statement to CNBC. “Donald Trump’s Executive Order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply,” RFK Jr. told the outlet. “We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it. When hostile actors control critical inputs, they weaken our security. By expanding domestic production, we close that gap and protect American families,” he continued. The executive order and RFK Jr.’s response has sparked a furious MAHA revolt. Many social media users cited RFK Jr.’s remarks on glyphosate when he was running for president in 2024. “The herbicide Glyphosate is one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic. Much more widely used here than in Europe. Shockingly, much of our exposure comes from its use as a desiccant on wheat, not as an herbicide. From there it goes straight into our bodies. My USDA will ban that practice,” he said in June 2024. The herbicide Glyphosate is one of the likely culprits in America’s chronic disease epidemic. Much more widely used here than in Europe. Shockingly, much of our exposure comes from its use as a desiccant on wheat, not as an herbicide. From there it goes straight into our bodies.… — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 14, 2024 CNBC has more: But Kennedy’s MAHA coalition that supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election hates glyphosate, which has been alleged to cause cancer in myriad lawsuits. Now, the executive order threatens to unravel that coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that could loosen the president’s grip on Washington. “Just as the large MAHA base begins to consider what to do at midterms, the President issues an EO to expand domestic glyphosate production,” Kelly Ryerson, a prominent MAHA activist known as The Glyphosate Girl, said in a post on X. “The very same carcinogenic pesticide that MAHA cares about most.” Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog that has pushed back against chemicals in food for years, said in a statement that he “can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this.” “Elevating glyphosate to a national security priority is the exact opposite of what MAHA voters were promised,” Cook said. “If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust — and votes.” Kennedy, a former environmental attorney, notably once won a nearly $290 million case against Monsanto for a man who claimed his cancer was caused by Roundup. The executive order came down one day after Bayer proposed paying $7.25 billion to settle a series of lawsuits claiming Roundup causes cancer. TAKE A LOOK The day before President Donald Trump signed an executive order to prioritize and boost domestic production of glyphosate, Bayer/Roundup, announced a proposed $7.25 billion class action settlement to resolve current and future lawsuits claiming that glyphosate… pic.twitter.com/31AUFaewWI — Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) February 20, 2026 “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity. Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands,” the executive order read. “This order confers all immunity provided for in section 707 of the Act (50 U.S.C. 4557). Additionally, domestic producers of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides are required to comply with this order, in accordance with the provisions of 7 C.F.R. part 789,” it added. Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) proposed legislation to prohibit glyphosate manufacturers from having a liability shield. “This week I will introduce the ‘No Immunity for Glyphosate Act’ to undo the recent Executive Order which promotes glyphosate (Round-Up) and insulates manufacturers from liability,” Massie said. This week I will introduce the “No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” to undo the recent Executive Order which promotes glyphosate (Round-Up) and insulates manufacturers from liability. #MAHA pic.twitter.com/NLqBRUjZwz — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) February 20, 2026 USA TODAY shared further: According to Trump’s order, glyphosate allows U.S. “farmers to efficiently and cost-effectively produce food and livestock feed.” The order further states that the U.S. has “only a single domestic producer of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, and this producer does not meet our annual needs for those inputs,” requiring roughly 6 million kilograms of elemental phosphorus to be imported annually. Trump ordered U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, in consultation with the U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, to ensure no orders, rules or regulations place “the corporate viability of any domestic producer of elemental phosphorus or glyphosate-based herbicides at risk.” The move comes as several states debate whether manufacturers of the widely used chemical, like Bayer’s Monsanto, which markets its glyphosate-based herbicide as Roundup, should be protected from legal action over claims linking it to cancer. Dani Replogle, a Food & Water Watch senior attorney, said Thursday, Feb. 19, the executive order will do little to help farmers or consumers. “This is the clearest indication yet that the Trump administration is at the beck and call of the pesticide industry — Bayer specifically,” Replogle said. She said the Defense Production Act is typically reserved for “national emergencies like war or during the COVID pandemic,” when it was tapped to step up production of items such as personal protective equipment and ventilators. Read the full executive order HERE.

President Trump just held an emergency press conference after the Supreme Court struck down his IEEPA Tariffs in a 6-3 ruling. I streamed it live from our Rumble channel and we had a big watch party going. You can see it here below and catch up if you missed it. It started about 30 minutes late, so just fast-forward until you find the part where it starts. Watch here: You can try this as a backup if needed, but YouTube has been crashing all morning. I guess YouTube doesn’t want you to see what POTUS has to say?

Breaking news out this Friday morning and it is not good… The Supreme Court has just ruled 6-3 AGAINST President Trump’s IEEPA Tariffs: *TRUMP’S GLOBAL TARIFFS STRUCK DOWN BY US SUPREME COURT — zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 20, 2026 Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs and IEEPA The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose his broad tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and many other countries. Why? Constitutional Authority: The Constitution gives Congress (not the President) the power to set tariffs/taxes in peacetime. Statutory Limits: IEEPA lets the President regulate or block imports in emergencies, but it never mentions tariffs and doesn’t give him authority to create or change them unilaterally. Scope of Power: These tariffs were too sweeping and unlimited to be covered by vague words like “regulate importation.” Result The tariffs are illegal under IEEPA. The Court blocked them (or allowed lower courts to do so). Congress must approve any such tariffs. Here’s more on the ruling, from Fox News: The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as “life or death” for the U.S. economy. In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump’s tariffs. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his “Liberation Day” tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on certain nations. In April, Trump declared the U.S. trade deficit a “national emergency,” and lawyers for the administration have cited that declaration as the legal basis for invoking IEEPA, which allows the president to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” when a national emergency has been declared. The high court agreed to take up the case last fall after lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, blocked Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA to enact import duties. Lower courts pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump invoked IEEPA when other, more narrowly tailored statutes enacted by Congress more specifically address tariffs — including laws that cap tariffs at certain levels or set timeframes subject to congressional review. The law authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” during a declared national emergency, but it does not mention the word “tariffs” — an omission that was at the heart of the hours-long arguments before the high court in November. The full ruling can be read here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf PLAIN TEXT: (Slip Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2025                 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 24–1287. Argued November 5, 2025—Decided February 20, 2026* The question presented is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. See 91 Stat. 1626. Shortly after taking office, President Trump sought to address two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, Presidential Proclamation No. 10886, 90 Fed. Reg. 8327; Exec. Order No. 14193, 90 Fed. Reg. 9113; Exec. Order No. 14194, 90 Fed. Reg. 9117; Exec. Order No. 14195, 90 Fed. Reg. 9121, and “large and persistent” trade deficits, Exec. Order No. 14257, 90 Fed. Reg. 15041. The President determined that the drug influx had “created a public health crisis,” 90 Fed. Reg. 9113, and that the trade deficits had “led to the hollowing out” of the American manufacturing base and “undermined critical supply chains,” id., at 15041. The President declared a national emergency as to both threats, deeming them “unusual and extraordinary,” and invoked his authority under IEEPA to respond. He imposed tariffs to deal with each threat. As to the drug trafficking tariffs, the President imposed a 25% duty on most Canadian and Mexican imports and a 10% duty on most Chinese imports. Id., at 9114, 9118, 9122–9123. As to the trade deficit (“reciprocal”) tariffs, the President imposed a duty “on all imports from all trading partners” of 2                 LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP Syllabus at least 10%, with dozens of nations facing higher rates. Id., at 15045, 15049. Since imposing each set of tariffs, the President has issued several increases, reductions, and other modifications. Petitioners in Learning Resources and respondents in V.O.S. Selections filed suit, alleging that IEEPA does not authorize the reciprocal or drug trafficking tariffs. The Learning Resources plaintiffs—two small businesses—sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That court denied the Government’s motion to transfer the case to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. The V.O.S. Selections plaintiffs—five small businesses and 12 States—sued in the CIT. That court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. And the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate . . . importation” did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which “are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.” 149 F. 4th 1312, 1338. The Government filed a petition for certiorari in V.O.S. Selections, and the Learning Resources plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. The Court granted the petitions and consolidated the cases. Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed. No. 24–1287, 784 F. Supp. 3d 209, vacated and remanded; No. 25–250, 149 F. 4th 1312, affirmed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II–A–1: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, p. 310 (J. Madison). The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 515. The Government thus concedes that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime. It instead relies exclusively on IEEPA to defend the challenged tariffs. It reads the words “regulate” and “importation” to effect a sweeping delegation of Congress’s power to set tariff policy—authorizing the President to impose tariffs of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2026)                 3 Syllabus country. 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Pp. 5–7. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, joined by JUSTICE GORSUCH and JUSTICE BARRETT, concluded in Part II–A–2: The Court has long expressed “reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory text” extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. 697, 723 (quoting Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 324). In several cases described as involving “major questions,” the Court has reasoned that “both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent” suggest Congress would not have delegated “highly consequential power” through ambiguous language. Id., at 723–724. These considerations apply with particular force where, as here, the purported delegation involves the core congressional power of the purse. Congressional practice confirms as much. When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits. Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That “lack of historical precedent,” coupled with the breadth of authority” that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.” National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 595 U. S. 109, 119 (quoting Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 505). The “ ‘economic and political significance’ ” of the authority the President has asserted likewise “provide[s] a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority.” West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 721 (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159–160). The stakes here dwarf those of other major questions cases. And as in those cases, “a reasonable interpreter would [not] expect” Congress to “pawn[]” such a “big-time policy call[] . . . off to another branch.” Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477, 515 (BARRETT, J., concurring). There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes. Nor does the fact that tariffs implicate foreign affairs render the doctrine inapplicable. The Framers gave “Congress alone” the power to impose tariffs during peacetime. Merritt v. Welsh, 104 U. S. 694, 700. And the foreign affairs implications of tariffs do not make it any more likely that Congress would relinquish its tariff power through vague language, or without careful limits. Accordingly, the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify 4                 LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP Syllabus his extraordinary assertion of that power. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). He cannot. Pp. 7–13. THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes. The power to “regulate . . . importation” does not fill that void. The term “regulate,” as ordinarily used, means to “fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles or laws.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1156. The facial breadth of this definition places in stark relief what ”regulate” is not usually thought to include: taxation. Many statutes grant the Executive the power to “regulate.” Yet the Government cannot identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax. The Court is therefore skeptical that in IEEPA—and IEEPA alone—Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to “regulate.” While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. That it did not do so here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation. A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional. IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). But taxing exports is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Art. I, §9, cl. 5. The “neighboring words” with which “regulate” “is associated” also suggest that Congress did not intend for “regulate” to include the revenue-raising power. United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 294. Each of the nine verbs in §1702(a)(1)(B) authorizes a distinct action a President might take in sanctioning foreign actors or controlling domestic actors engaged in foreign commerce, as Presidential practice confirms. And none of the listed authorities includes the distinct and extraordinary power to raise revenue—a power which no President has ever found in IEEPA. Pp. 14–16. (b) Several arguments marshaled in response are unpersuasive. First, the contention that IEEPA confers the power to impose tariffs because early commentators and the Court’s cases discuss tariffs in Cite as: 607 U. S. ____ (2026)                 5 Syllabus the context of the Commerce Clause answers the wrong question. The question is not whether tariffs can ever be a means of regulating commerce. It is instead whether Congress, when conferring the power to “regulate . . . importation,” gave the President the power to impose tariffs at his sole discretion. And Congress’s pattern of usage is plain: When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither in IEEPA. Second, the argument that “regulate” naturally includes tariffs because the term lies between two poles in IEEPA—“compel” on the affirmative end and “prohibit” on the negative end—is unavailing. Although tariffs may be less extreme than an outright compulsion or prohibition, it does not follow that tariffs lie on the spectrum between those poles; they are different in kind, not degree, from the other authorities in IEEPA. Tariffs operate directly on domestic importers to raise revenue for the Treasury and are “very clear[ly] . . . a branch of the taxing power.” Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 201. Thus, they fall outside the spectrum entirely. Third, the argument based on IEEPA’s predecessor, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals’ decision in United States v. Yoshida Int’l, Inc., 526 F. 2d 560, cannot bear the weight placed on it. A single, expressly limited opinion from a specialized intermediate appellate court does not establish a well-settled meaning that the Court can assume Congress incorporated into IEEPA. Fourth, the historical argument based on the Court’s wartime precedents fails. Those precedents are facially inapposite, as all agree the President lacks inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs. And the attenuated chain of inferences from wartime precedents through multiple iterations of TWEA to IEEPA cannot support—much less clearly support—a reading of IEEPA that includes the distinct power to impose tariffs. Finally, arguments relying on this Court’s precedents lack merit. Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, bears little on the meaning of IEEPA. Section 232(b) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 contains sweeping, discretion-conferring language that IEEPA does not contain, and the explicit reference to duties in Section 232(a) renders it natural for Section 232(b) itself to authorize duties. Nor does Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, offer support because that case was exceedingly narrow, did not address the President’s power to “regulate,” and did not involve tariffs at all. Pp. 16–20. JUSTICE KAGAN, joined by JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE JACKSON, agreed that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, but concluded that the Court need not invoke the major 6                 LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP Syllabus questions doctrine because the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation amply support that result. Pp. 1–7. JUSTICE JACKSON would also consult legislative history—in particular, the House and Senate Reports that accompanied IEEPA and its predecessor statute, TWEA—to determine that Congress did not intend for IEEPA to authorize the Executive to impose tariffs. Pp. 1–5. ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. Would you like me to summarize the key legal findings or explain the significance of the “Major Questions Doctrine” mentioned in this ruling?

It seems like death has been in the air in the acting world recently. Actor Eric Dane, who starred in the hit show Grey’s Anatomy, has died at the age of 53. Dane’s death comes just nearly a year after he was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lough Gehrig’s disease. People broke the sad news and provided further details on Dane’s death: Eric Dane has died at the age of 53, PEOPLE confirms. Dane became a star with his role as Dr. Mark Sloan — a.k.a. McSteamy — in Grey’s Anatomy. Dane’s death comes 10 months after he went public with his diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Dane died Thursday, Feb. 19, the actor’s family confirms to PEOPLE. “With heavy hearts, we share that Eric Dane passed on Thursday afternoon following a courageous battle with ALS,” reads a statement from Dane’s family. “He spent his final days surrounded by dear friends, his devoted wife, and his two beautiful daughters, Billie and Georgia, who were the center of his world.” “Throughout his journey with ALS, Eric became a passionate advocate for awareness and research, determined to make a difference for others facing the same fight. He will be deeply missed, and lovingly remembered always. Eric adored his fans and is forever grateful for the outpouring of love and support he’s received. The family has asked for privacy as they navigate this impossible time.” Fans of Dane shared their condolences on X: ALS is so unforgiving and the progression was so swift. My heart goes out to Eric Dane’s family. — Minnie (@saintdutchess) February 20, 2026 2026 has started brutally when it comes to celebrity deaths. Eric Dane was excellent in everything he was in, but especially Euphoria. Perfect casting. ALS is simply awful. https://t.co/lfOpmEyERU — Courtney Finnicum (@courtney883) February 20, 2026 Fox News provided a biography of Dane’s life and acting career: Born and raised in San Francisco, Calif., Dane kick-started his career in the early 1990s with small guest roles in beloved sitcoms such as “Saved By the Bell” and “The Wonder Years.” It wasn’t until 2000 that he landed his breakthrough role as Jason Dean on “Charmed,” which he portrayed during the show’s third season. Dane’s professional life took a dramatic turn, however, when he made his debut as Dr. Mark Sloan (“McSteamy”) on “Grey’s Anatomy” in 2006. But despite his success, Dane was dealing with something much bigger: an addiction to drugs and alcohol. “If you take the whole eight years I was on ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ I was f—ed up longer than I was sober and that was when things started going sideways for me,” he admitted to host Dax Shepard during an appearance on the “Armchair Expert” podcast in 2024. Before his departure from the show in 2012, Dane went to rehab for an addiction to painkillers. “I didn’t leave [“Grey’s Anatomy”] so much as I think I was let go,” he told Shepard. “I was struggling. They didn’t let me go because of that, although it definitely didn’t help.” After his run on “Grey’s Anatomy,” Dane took on the leading role of Captain Tom Chandler on the TNT series “The Last Ship” from its premiere in June 2014 through its final season in 2018. During his run, Dane took another break from production for personal reasons: he was battling depression. “That was a scary thing, when you wake up, and you’re like: ‘I don’t want to get out of bed,’” he said during an appearance on the “Today” show in 2017. “I was seeing these doctors thinking that there was something physically wrong with me, because I’d never felt like that.” “I mean, I’d dealt with depression throughout my life, but it was always manageable,” he said. “I just felt like, you know, everybody kind of feels a little blue. But this just hit me like a truck. I had to take some time off — I went away, I took care of it, and I’m feeling great.” In April 2025, Dane announced his ALS diagnosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. “I have been diagnosed with ALS,” he said in a statement to People at the time. “I am grateful to have my loving family by my side as we navigate this next chapter. I feel fortunate that I am able to continue working and am looking forward to returning to set of ‘Euphoria’ next week. I kindly ask that you give my family and I privacy during this time.” During an interview on “Good Morning America” in June 2025, Dane said he was prepared to go to great measures to fight ALS.

President Trump is all about transparency. And his latest move is just another example. On Wednesday evening, President Trump announced he would direct the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and numerous governmental agencies to release all files they have on aliens, UFOs, and UAPs. Trump shared that he has decided to release the files on aliens, as interest in them has grown over the last couple of days. Check out what the New York Post had to report on Trump’s big announcement: President Trump announced Thursday that he will order top administration officials to identify and release government files related to UFOs and aliens. “Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “GOD BLESS AMERICA!” he added. Earlier Thursday, Trump chastised former President Barack Obama for saying aliens are “real” in a recent interview. Here’s Trump’s full statement: pic.twitter.com/YvlvECEuIK — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 20, 2026 Here was Hegseth’s response: pic.twitter.com/lOxRRze16x — Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) February 20, 2026 Earlier on Wednesday, Trump called out Obama for talking about aliens due to the information being classified. Take a look: HOLY CRAP! President Trump just sent a WARNING to Barack Obama, after Obama said “aliens are real” “He made a BIG MISTAKE giving out classified information!” pic.twitter.com/mZI0p08POV — Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 19, 2026 Fox News had more to add on Trump’s comments on Obama: President Donald Trump said aboard Air Force One that former President Barack Obama revealed classified information by suggesting aliens are real, calling the remarks a “big mistake” and accusing Obama of disclosing secrets about possible non-human visitors to Earth. Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy asked Trump about Obama’s claim during a gaggle aboard Air Force One, pressing the current sitting president on whether he has seen evidence of non-human visitors on Earth. “He gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that,” Trump said. “I don’t know if they’re real or not. I can tell you, he gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that – he made a big mistake. He took it out of classified information.” Former President Barack Obama appeared on Brian Tyler Cohen’s podcast Saturday, where he was asked point-blank whether aliens are real. “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them,” Obama said. The 44th president also dismissed the idea that extraterrestrials are being held at Nevada’s Area 51, saying there is no secret underground facility “unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States.” After his comments sparked buzz online, Obama sought to clarify his remarks on Instagram.