A lot of people started claiming yesterday that Howard Lutnick’s firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, was profiting from the Trump Tariffs. Posts like this: I think MeetKevin was actually the first to post about it and really go viral: Howard Lutnick’s family firm bought up the rights to tariff refunds for 20-30 cents on the dollar after Liberation Day last year. Today, the Supreme Court struck the tariffs down. For every $100 invested, Lutnick’s sons just made 3-5x. Welcome to Crony Corrupt America. pic.twitter.com/Wr1FkA5kZk — Meet Kevin (@realMeetKevin) February 20, 2026 Everyone piled in after that post. But you’ll notice we didn’t run with it. It seemed off to me. So I researched it and it turns out it’s not true. First I worked with Grok to get to the truth, and Grok told me it was not an accurate claim: Analysis of Claims Regarding Tariffs and Cantor Fitzgerald The claim in the X post (from @T… , likely a shortened handle for The Patriot Voice) accuses Trump’s tariffs of being a “get SUPER RICH quick scheme” for Howard Lutnick, Trump, and associates. This appears to stem from recent viral rhetoric following a February 20, 2026, Supreme Court ruling that struck down many of Trump’s tariffs as unauthorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Key Facts on the Tariffs and Court Ruling Legal Basis: Trump imposed broad tariffs using IEEPA, claiming emergency powers. Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 (majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts) that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs (which are a form of taxation, not mere regulation of imports). Historical Context: No prior president had interpreted IEEPA this way for tariffs. Impact: The ruling creates potential for refunds to importers who paid the duties, as the tariffs were unlawful. Response: Trump responded by quickly reimposing a 10% global tariff under different statutory authority (not IEEPA), showing the policy intent persisted despite the legal setback. On the Lutnick/Cantor Fitzgerald Angle Howard Lutnick (Trump’s Commerce Secretary and a vocal tariff supporter) previously led Cantor Fitzgerald; he transferred control to his sons (Brandon and Kyle) upon joining the administration. The Wired Report (July 2025): A report based on internal documents and letters revealed that Cantor Fitzgerald’s investment banking arm explored and pitched a product: buying “tariff refund rights” from companies that paid duties. The Pitch: They offered 20-30% of the paid amount upfront (e.g., $2-3 million for $10 million in duties), in exchange for the rights to any future government refunds if the tariffs were struck down. Scale: The firm claimed capacity for hundreds of millions and mentioned at least one ~$10 million deal in progress. Optics: This created optics of “betting against” the tariffs’ legality (profiting if invalidated), despite Lutnick’s pro-tariff role—prompting Senate scrutiny (e.g., letters from Sens. Wyden and Warren on conflicts/insider trading concerns) and accusations of a scheme. Cantor Fitzgerald’s Denials The firm has repeatedly and emphatically stated it never executed any such trades, took no risk on the tariffs’ legality/outcome, and did not profit from the Supreme Court ruling. They described reports otherwise as “completely false.” Sources indicate: An individual broker/salesman may have shopped the idea around enthusiastically (including claiming a trade was in place). The firm considered the product (a type of litigation/futures trade seen in prior tariff eras) but ultimately declined to proceed, largely due to political optics tied to Lutnick’s government role. Conclusion and Contextual Evaluation No evidence has emerged of actual executions, large-scale profits, or direct involvement by Trump/Lutnick personally in profiting from this. Claims of a coordinated “get rich quick scheme” involving Trump/Lutnick appear overstated or conspiratorial—rooted in the Wired reporting and amplified on social media—but contradicted by Cantor’s statements and lack of confirmed trades. Your point is spot-on: If the goal was a quiet scheme for financial gain via tariff invalidation and refunds, there’s little logic in immediately reimposing similar tariffs under new legal grounds. The uncertainty drove market positioning (as often happens with litigation), but that’s standard finance—not proof of corruption. The rhetoric seems more like partisan outrage over perceived conflicts than substantiated evidence of a plot. This narrative has circulated widely online post-ruling, but the core accusation doesn’t fully hold up against the denials and reimposition facts. And now just a few minutes ago, the White House Rapid Response X profile has just confirmed it. The rumor is false: Fake News. Completely false. https://t.co/sUXnhfbMKc pic.twitter.com/XuzW0g7415 — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 20, 2026 Here’s more, from Semafor: Cantor Fitzgerald is rejecting claims that it sold a product that would pay off if the Supreme Court ruled, as it did Friday, against tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, where Cantor’s founder is Commerce Secretary. Wired reported in July that Cantor was among the Wall Street firms pitching a financial product tied to the outcome of the Supreme Court case. It cited an email sent by a Cantor salesman that said the firm had “already put a trade through representing about ~$10 million” of tariff-refund rights “and anticipate[s] that number will balloon in the coming weeks.” Two Democratic senators called for an investigation and the CEO of one of the country’s largest import-logistics firms amplified the story. Cantor’s founder, Howard Lutnick, is Trump’s Commerce Secretary, and the firm is run by his two sons. The elder Lutnick announced the sale last year of his stake in the firm to them and other investors. The Supreme Court on Friday invalidated many of Trump’s tariffs, a ruling that ignited criticism of Cantor’s activities from widely followed finance accounts and the left-leaning The New Republic. The president said at a White House press conference, flanked by Lutnick, that he would reinstate the tariffs on different legal grounds. Cantor did consider the product — which has existed for years and was a humming trade on Wall Street during Trump’s first-term tariff push — but decided against it after weighing the political sensitivities, according to a senior banker familiar with the matter. A Cantor spokesman said the salesman “erroneously” believed that the firm was likely to greenlight the business, then went out looking for the other side of the trade. “Cantor Fitzgerald has never executed any transactions or taken risk on the legality of tariffs,” he said. “Any report suggesting otherwise is completely false.”

An Emerson College survey indicates that Steve Hilton, the former Fox News personality, is currently ahead in California’s 2026 gubernatorial primary race. Close behind him is former Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Meanwhile, the crowded Democratic lineup has sparked discussion about the unusual possibility that no Democrat could appear in the general election. Conducted Feb. 13–14 with 1,000 likely voters, the Emerson poll shows Hilton leading the field with 17% support. Republican Steve Hilton has just taken the lead in California governor’s race. Let’s go!!!! pic.twitter.com/qMZLUyPjMD — Pamela Hensley (@PamelaHensley22) February 18, 2026 Bianco and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) are tied for second place, each receiving 14%. Former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter placed next at 10%, while Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer earned 9%. A notable share of respondents — 21% — reported that they remain undecided. Compared to Emerson’s December survey, Hilton’s support increased by five percentage points. In that earlier poll, he was not the leading candidate. Originally from the United Kingdom, Hilton once served as director of strategy for former British Prime Minister David Cameron from 2005 through 2012. After moving to California in 2012, he became a Stanford University lecturer and helped establish the political fundraising platform Crowdpac. He later hosted the Fox News show “The Next Revolution” until 2023. Hilton formally entered the governor’s race in April 2025. His campaign has focused largely on affordability concerns, particularly housing costs and homelessness, along with efforts to challenge what he characterizes as California’s longstanding Democratic one-party control. Among Republican voters, Hilton held a narrow lead over Bianco, securing 38% compared with Bianco’s 37%. He also performed best among independent voters, receiving support from 22% of that group. Within the Democratic electorate, however, no clear frontrunner has emerged. Among Democratic respondents, Swalwell led with 24%, followed by Porter at 17% and Steyer at 15%. Spencer Kimball, who serves as executive director of Emerson College Polling, observed that the split Republican vote combined with a large number of undecided independents could play a major role in shaping the outcome of the general election, particularly because of California’s primary system. California operates under a nonpartisan blanket primary — commonly called a “jungle primary” — created through Proposition 14 in 2010. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, appear together on one ballot. The primary election will take place June 2, 2026. The two candidates receiving the most votes will move on to the November general election, irrespective of party. Because of this structure, a general election featuring two candidates from the same party can occur if voters from one party unite behind a single contender while the other party’s support is spread across multiple candidates. The Democratic side of the race remains especially crowded. Declared candidates include Swalwell, Porter, Steyer, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Each of these figures received under 5% in Emerson’s latest poll. With more than a dozen Democratic candidates competing, no individual has recently exceeded 21% support in polling. This division has enabled both Hilton and Bianco to make gains, even though Democrats maintain a substantial voter registration advantage across California. We have the world’s #1 ag industry but it’s under constant assault by Gavin Newsom and his urban elitist regime. I went to World Ag Expo in Tulare to tell our farmers: When I’m governor you’ll get the water – and everything else – you need. I will be your greatest champion! pic.twitter.com/aW89vnmrDn — Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) February 15, 2026 Prices for household necessities are going up. Why? Because Democrats are raising the sales tax—AGAIN. When I’m governor, I’ll CUT taxes instead of raising them. pic.twitter.com/sp2Z0V0FSr — Steve Hilton (@SteveHiltonx) February 17, 2026

Stick with me on this one… A woman who looks eerily similar to Ghislaine Maxwell has been spotted in Canada. Take a look: Ghislaine Maxwell spotted in Quebec? pic.twitter.com/piN4mdQXWU — Noah Christopher (@DailyNoahNews) February 21, 2026 I’m not the only person who thinks she’s a dead wringer… Here is RT: Video appears online showing a woman in Quebec looking STRIKINGLY similar to Ghislaine Maxwell pic.twitter.com/GsCF8VQ8bh — RT (@RT_com) February 21, 2026 Let’s do a side-by-side: The details seem pretty on point: But it’s not just that the Quebec woman looks exactly like Ghislaine… It’s also that the woman in prison looks almost nothing like her. Have you seen this? The woman in prison looks nothing like Ghislaine Maxwell. Which means the photos of a dead Epstein are fake too. Likely they’re alive & well in some remote tropical location under the

Brits host Jack Whitehall says he halted Thirty Seconds To Mars frontman Jared Leto's diva moment

'The biggest home run in baseball history'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. California Governor Gavin Newsom watched seven teenagers ignore each other at his daughter’s birthday party, all of them staring at their phones, none of them talking. His response to that moment wasn’t to ask the kids to put them down. It was to call for a law that would ban an entire generation from social media and ignore the constitutional rights of all Americans. “I had a birthday party just a few weeks ago, with a lot of my daughter’s friends, and I literally stopped everybody because there were seven of them together — all of them on their cell phone at the birthday party, not one of them talking to each other,” Newsom said Thursday. “We have a generation that’s never been more anxious, less free, more stressed — and we have to address this issue.” He addressed it by announcing support for age-gating legislation that would bar teens under 16 from having social media accounts, modeled on Australia’s ban. His spokesperson, Tara Gallegos, confirmed the position to Politico. Whether he would back an outright ban, as Australia has done, remains “in flux.” So let’s be precise about what happened here. The governor of California attended a birthday party. He saw something that bothered him. He had, at that moment, the ability to do what parents have always done: intervene, set a boundary, ask the kids to put the phones away. He “literally stopped everybody.” He had their attention. And the conclusion he drew from that experience is that the government needs to remove these platforms from teenagers across the state. This is the logic of the age-gating movement rendered in miniature. The problem is real. The phones were out. The kids weren’t talking. And the solution on offer isn’t parental authority. It’s a state authority, applied to every family in California regardless of their own judgment, their own kids, their own circumstances. Newsom has four children between 10 and 16. He has been signing social media legislation for years: warning labels, restrictions on algorithmic feeds, penalties for deepfake pornography, and age verification requirements for devices. Last year alone, he signed more than a dozen bills touching social media and AI. Each one, including the current push, is framed as protection. Each one also extends the government’s power to decide who gets to speak online, on what terms, verified against what identity data. A bipartisan group of California lawmakers introduced a bill this month, AB 1709, calling for “a minimum age requirement to open or maintain a social media account.” Lead author Josh Lowenthal, a Long Beach Democrat, is leaning toward 16 as the cutoff. Newsom moved ahead of it, publicly backing the legislation before it reaches his desk, which is unusual for him. Newsom mentioned countries like Spain that are “moving in this direction.” Australia has already enacted a law that bans children under 16 from maintaining social media accounts. “I think it’s long overdue that we’re having the debate we’re having now in the legislature, and I’m very grateful the legislature is taking this very seriously,” he said. The debate he’s grateful for will determine whether teenagers in California have the legal right to post, organize, share journalism, or participate in the political conversations that now happen almost entirely on the platforms this legislation would close to them. A 15-year-old banned from Instagram isn’t simply protected from doomscrolling. They’re removed from the spaces where their generation does its civic life. The legal battles over what California can actually do are already underway. Google, TikTok and Meta are currently suing to block a 2024 state law requiring parental consent before minors can view personalized content feeds, arguing it violates free speech. NetChoice, the industry group representing those same companies, has signaled it may challenge two more laws passed last year: one requiring mental health warning labels on platforms for users under 18, and another requiring device-makers like Apple and Google to collect and report user ages. The enforcement problem is the one nobody in this debate wants to sit with. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about it Wednesday in a landmark Los Angeles trial, where a 20-year-old plaintiff known by her initials KGM claimed she became addicted to social media as a child, leading to depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta has denied the allegations. Asked about Instagram’s ban on under-13s, Zuckerberg acknowledged that enforcement is the central difficulty. “I generally think that there are a set of people, potentially a meaningful number of people who lie about their age in order to use our services. There’s a separate and very important question about enforcement, and it’s very difficult,” he said. That’s the problem with age bans: they don’t work without identity verification, and identity verification means every user, at every platform, must prove who they are. The infrastructure built to keep 15-year-olds off TikTok is the same infrastructure that knows exactly who you are when you post something a future government finds inconvenient. Age-gating and surveillance are the same system, built for different justifications. Newsom’s answer to seven teenagers on their phones at a birthday party is a law that covers millions of people who weren’t at that party. The kids he saw weren’t doing anything illegal. They were doing what teenagers do. He had the authority, in that room, to ask them to stop. He chose instead to ask the state to stop them for everyone. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Newsom Backs Teen Social Media Ban After Daughter’s Birthday Party Phone Moment appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

On Monday we told you about an interview conducted by CBS's Norah O'Donnell with Maryland Democrat Governor Wes Moore, where Moore was allowed to avoid directly answering questions about recent revelations made in the Free Beacon, which call into question details of his life story which he has told over and over again. On Wednesday, Moore appeared on CNN's The Arena. Host Kasie Hunt addressed the White House's National Governors Association's annual winter gathering held Feb.19–21, where reportedly neither Moore or Governor Jared Polis, (D-CO), have been invited to the White House dinner, something Moore has attributed to his race, even though Polis is not Black. HUNT: So speaking of the President...an invitation was not extended to you, although I understand there's been a little bit of lack of clarity on whether that's actually the case. But now other Democratic governors are also saying that they might not attend... would you like to see all of your Democratic governors join you in refusing to attend the dinner if you're not invited?  So is he invited or not? It didn't seem to matter. He also indicated he will voluntarily skip the entire weekend. MOORE: I'm not casting judgment on any Governor that chooses to attend. If they choose to attend the dinner, that is their prerogative, I will not... and I also know it's because the President of the United States does not get to get to determine what my worthiness is...  If this is not going to be a serious gathering where we can talk about issues where we can address the fact that everything is more expensive under the President, if we can address the fact that why he is spending his time giving tax cuts to his friends while making life more expensive on everyone else, if that's not the intent, then I have no desire of actually sitting down. Then Hunt played the race card, "Do you think his lack of extension of an invitation to you, is the President motivated by race?"  MOORE: You know, honestly, I think that's a real question for President Trump you know, what I know is, and what I've shown is I will work with anybody...  Remember, Governor Polis is not invited and he is white, but Hunt persisted. "What's it about for President if it's not about race?" MOORE: I think the President just seems to have a very real issue with the fact that I do not bow to him and I will stand up to him because I will always defend my people... But  you know, the fact that I'm the only Black governor in this country and he seems to have a real issue with me, I think that's an issue he's got to take up. When Hunt asked about an accusation from the Free Beacon, Moore did exactly what he did on CBS on Sunday, he did not answer the question. HUNT: You say you are who you are, conservative outlet the Free Beacon recently wrote about a story you often tell about your great grandfather and your family and how and why they left the United States.. They report, they look at church records. They say the story is not true, that the Ku Klux Klan did not force your family to leave, that your family left voluntarily...is there any truth to what the Free Beacon has written here? MOORE: There is no truth to what a right wing blog writes about me. No, there is not.. I know my family's history is, you know, my grandfather is James Joshua Thomas, a man who was born in South Carolina and my family when he was just a toddler, that he was run out by the Ku klux Klan, that he still returned to this country. He became the first Black minister in the history of the Dutch Reformed Church... And he's maybe the most patriotic American I've ever met... And when the threats that came to his father, when people started making intimidating threats to him, when he became the first Black minister in the history of the Dutch Reformed church, he's stuck and he kept his chest out..  And so if anyone wants to question my family's history or question the history of the Ku Klux Klan, they should really ask the Ku Klux Klan, because they're the ones who should have the answers. Hunt did follow-up, "And those church records that show that one of your family members left voluntarily to take over for someone who had passed away, those records are wrong." All he could do was repeat, "They should really ask the Ku Klux Klan about what their activities were in the 1920's." Sad.

Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado complimented the U.S. Senate campaign of Texas Democrat James Talarico — and even delivered a humorous jab at his opponent, Democrat U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett.Boebert appeared alongside Talarico on "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday, talking about everything from faith to Talarico's infamously pulled Stephen Colbert interview. Boebert also extended a compliment to the congressman, noting that his Senate candidacy has been impressive and joked about giving him a leg up ahead of the primary against Crockett.'My concern is not for my campaign, it's for the Constitution.'"I do want to congratulate you on the success so far in your campaign," Boebert told Talarico before adding, "Maybe I should endorse Jasmine Crockett so you could do a little better!"Talarico, Maher, and the crowd laughed in response.RELATED: Crockett hits back, says Colbert is full of it: 'They just didn't want to air it Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesBoebert also set the record straight in the aftermath of Talarico's interview with Colbert, noting that Crockett's analysis — that the federal government had nothing to do with the decision to pull the interview — was correct.“It wasn’t President Trump that canceled your segment," Boebert said. "This is one area where Miss Crockett is correct. This was a decision by the network. They didn’t want to have her on, possibly. They didn’t want to have that equal time.”Boebert added, "But I also think that the way it was aired — I mean you got over five million views. You raised 2.5 million dollars in 24 hours, so it was a pretty big success for you."RELATED: Stephen Colbert melts down after CBS pulls interview with Democrat just months before his show ends Photo by Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty ImagesTalarico and Boebert also sparred over the pulled Colbert interview, with the Texas Democrat claiming it was a top-down order from President Donald Trump. "My concern is not for my campaign, it's for the Constitution," Talarico said. "Right, but it wasn't the president who said 'Do not allow this to air ...'" Boebert replied. "It was equal share time. It was already in the rules. And that network said, 'We do not want to have the equal share. We don't want to fulfill that part of the rule.'"Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!