'Dread the prospect of winning'

Two Supreme Court justices President Donald Trump appointed during his last term seemed skeptical of his presidential power to impose tariffs without an OK by Congress.  The high court heard arguments Wednesday about Trump’s tariffs in the case of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.  At issue is whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first high court appointee, suggested that a broad interpretation of deference to the president could lead to a broader ignoring of Congress.  “You say that we shouldn’t be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the president’s inherent powers,” Gorsuch said to U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who was arguing for the administration. “So, could Congress delegate to the president the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit? Pay and collect duties as he sees fit?” Sauer responded, “We don’t assert that here.” Gorsuch followed, “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce? For that matter, declare war, to the president?”  Sauer replied, “We don’t contend that he could do that if it did.”  Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked where in the federal law regulating importation has been used to confer tariff authority on the president. Sauer referenced the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 as an example of a statute where courts interpreted it as granting a president with tariff authority.  In one awkward moment, Sauer seemed at a loss to answer Barrett’s question on statutory language. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of President Barack Obama, jumped in to say, “Can you just answer the justice’s question?” Barrett asked, “Can you identify any statute that uses that phrase to confer tariff [authority]?”  Sauer replied, “The only two statues I can identify now are TWEA [Trading With the Enemy Act] … not regulat[ing] importation, but just imports.” “That just shows the word can be used that way. None of those cases talked about it as conferring tariff authority,” Barrett responded. In another awkward moment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to conflate the argument with the Civil War.  She asked if any other presidents imposed tariffs using the same rationale. Sauer replied, “President [Richard] Nixon’s 1971 tariffs.”  “That wasn’t a tariff. It was a licensing agreement during wartime,” Jackson said. “It was a specific thing.” Sauer explained, “I’m referring to Nixon’s 1971 tariffs.”  A confused Jackson replied, “Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you meant Lincoln. You’re talking so quickly.” Another Trump appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, asked why the International Emergency Economic Powers Act hadn’t been used for tariffs before. Sauer replied that tariffs are the “quintessential way” to regulate imports.  Kavanaugh later pointed to a 1976 case in which the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that President Gerald Ford could impose oil import tariffs based on a different statute that did not specifically mention tariffs.  Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, seemed to think tariffs were a form of taxation.  “Of course, tariffs are in dealings with foreign powers, but the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress,” Roberts said. Among the lawyers arguing for the plaintiffs was Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, who argued the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act was not intended to be applied for the purpose of boosting revenue to the government.  “If there is an international emergency, the appropriate way to deal with it is to make sure no more than 1,000 of this product comes into this country at a particular time,” Gutman said. “Setting a tariff doesn’t ensure that only 1,000 come into this country. It cedes control of whether the transaction occurs. What it does, it adds revenue to the Treasury. That is against something our Framers thought was extremely important.”  The post How Trump-Appointed Justices Are Responding to Trump’s Tariffs appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NEW: Heritage President Apologizes, Claims To Have Been Blindsided

Associated Press Takes Another Swipe at Your Pets

On Wednesday, ABC’s Good Morning America was ebullient over the blue wave Tuesday night in four blue states (California, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia) and predictably making long-reaching proclamations about 2026 as nationwide blue tsunami against President Trump and the GOP, including supposed popularity of democratic socialism. As part of their morning-after celebrations, the show interviewed communist New York City Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani and Governor-Elects Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Abigail Spanberger (VA). Mamdani was greeted as a conquering hero by co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos, in contrast to how he’s spoken this fall to two leading Republicans, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio: ?I know this may shock some of you, but ABC’s George Stephanopoulos played six minutes of teeball on ‘Good Morning America’ with Zohran Mamdani. Here were the first two questions. Zero ferocity behind them. Contrast it with his hectoring of Secretary Rubio in September and… pic.twitter.com/55DX76qa81 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 5, 2025   The closest Stephanopoulos came to firing adversarial questions at Mamdani was a simple wonderment of whether he’s “worried that could drive a lot of job creators of New York” and if the “kind of tax increase” he’s hoping for to fund his agenda will have the support of the state government. The Trump-hating ABC host shifted to President Trump, asking Mamdani “how do you respond to” Republicans “trying to make you the poster boy of the Democratic Party” and Speaker Johnson “call[ing] you a true extremist and Marxist.” Stephanopoulos then offered two softballs each on the National Guard and the whether NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch will remain in office. On the National Guard, he wondered aloud to Mamdani if he’s “worried” Trump will “crack down on New York City” and how he’ll ensure he “won’t be intimidated.” Stephanopoulos finally arrived at the issue of anti-Semitism:     [L]ast night, you also said he wanted to reach out to New Yorkers who didn’t vote for you. Probably highest on that list is Jewish New Yorkers. It looks like there was about 30-point gap according to the polls between you and former Governor Cuomo. How do you convince those voters that your vision of New York includes them, and your victory is not a threat to them? A short follow-up later, he ended with a bizarre pivot to Bill Ackman and if Mamdani would reach out to him. Given Mamdani’s hatred for the wealthy, Mamdani tried to grin and bear in stating he “appreciated his — his words,” but argued the onus should be on those like Ackman to come to his side on issues of “lowering the costs of living in this city.” Sherrill and Spanberger came up in the second hour and both were treated to similar teeball practices. Stephanopoulos first gushed to Sherrill that she’s “made history” before wanting to know “what fueled the victory” and what she’s going to do in terms of “stop[ping]” Donald Trump: ?ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ also had interviews with Governors-Elect Sherrill (NJ) and Abigail Spanberger (VA) with Stephanopoulos speaking to Sherrill and then Michael Strahan with Spanberger. Here were the question Sherrill faced and tell me if any of these come anywhere… pic.twitter.com/2UA28CzHKp — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 5, 2025   Spanberger was last and that fell to co-host and former NFL player Michael Strahan, who was given the chance to interview Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wife and showed his lack of big-news acumen. Here it was much the same as Strahan openly agreed with Spanberger (click “expand”): You said last night, we sent a message. Why do you think you want — what message did you send? (....) And obviously your campaign resonated with voters out there. Do you feel like your campaign is a model for how Democrats should run in 2026? (....) And another big winner last night was Zohran Mamdani. Here in New York City. You ran a much different campaign, but what did you think of his victory? Do you think he is part of the future of the Democratic Party? (....) And earlier you mentioned the government shutdown and how it affected so many federal workers and others there in Virginia. I know you’ve called on Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and our President to make real progress on bringing this shutdown to an end. That’s what you said last night in your speech. So, what do you want your fellow Democrats and Congress to do now? (....) Yeah, I can agree with you. The impact [of the government shutdown] is real. CBS Mornings also spoke to Sherrill and that too was a complete joke. Here were the questions she was asked, ending with co-host and Democrat donor Gayle King asking Sherrill to introduce herself to the rest of the country (click “expand”): TONY DOKOUPIL: I’m curious what you think your victory means for your party, what the lessons are in the message you shared with voters and why they responded? (....) DOKOUPIL: You know, Governor-elect, you’re in a very interesting position because as governor of new Jersey you’ll, of course, have to work with Washington and the White House. On the other hand, you have a very different kind of Democrat who just won the mayorship in New York City. Kind of a dual question here. How do you anticipate working with Mayor-Elect Mamdani, and name one thing you’re excited to work with President Trump on. (....) KING: Yeah, the President said that voting for you would destroy lives, so it seems like there has to be a little bit of bridge building between the two of you. But I was watching your speech last night, governor. I think you said, I fought for you, I’m listening to you. I’m very honored to be your governor, and that you were ready to do whatever it takes. And you said governors matter more now than ever before. What do you mean by that? (....) KING: I think many people are fascinated by your resume. You’re a married woman with four children, a former Navy pilot. What do you want people to know about you as you are about to become the governor of New Jersey? To see the relevant transcripts from November 5, click here (for ABC) and here (for CBS).

New York City voters have done what experts across the country have warned will be their doom and elected a Democratic Socialist. Former Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore is among those who sounded the alarm, and he now warns there will be a mass migration out of New York in retaliation.On Moore’s website, which champions “voting with your feet,” visitors can track “where the moving vans are going to and from and also how much money they’re taking with them.”“New York has lost two and a half million people. … Half of those people came from New York City,” Moore tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program.” “So if they elect a socialist and they raise the taxes again … the rich, they’re not going to be there any longer.”“One million is probably a long shot, but I think you’re going to see a lot of wealth move out of New York,” he says.“If they raise these taxes again, you’d pay 17% income tax in New York City. Who’s going to do that? By the way, that’s on top of the, you know, 40% federal tax. So people will move,” he adds.Moore uses the example of Ken Griffin, the billionaire behind Citadel.“He was the single biggest charitable giving in the city of Chicago. He gave to the Art Institute, he gave to the homeless shelters, he gave to the food kitchens and the museums and so on. I mean, he was by far the biggest donor to all of the charities,” Moore explains.“Well, finally they kept raising taxes in Chicago. And as you probably know, he moved out of Chicago and he moved to Palm Beach, Florida. And so then the interesting part of the story is it put a $50 million hole in the Illinois budget. One person,” he continues.“And so my point is, you chase the ‘evil’ rich out of your city and your state, and you pay a high price for that in terms of the employ,” Moore tells Glenn. “By the way, he took several thousand jobs with him.”“The rich aren’t rich because they’re stupid,” he adds.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Tis the season for disputations and theses nailed on doors. Reform movements simmer for years, then a single act draws a bright red line. Last week, one of our most influential platforms chose to give one of the right’s most infamous fiends a mainstream showcase. For many, though, Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes didn’t just cross a line. It obliterated it. Now we have a choice: Either take Fuentes seriously or seriously reconsider anyone who does.I criticized Carlson’s interview with Fuentes on my show last week. The next day, I defended Tucker’s larger legacy against calls to “cancel” him. After taking a few more days to watch, think, and pray, here’s a fuller accounting — organized as a thread of theses, but shaped into a single argument.Because if we’re going to have a debate, then let’s have a real one.How we got hereFatherlessness in the home and timidity in the pulpit have produced a generation of young men who never learned how to shoulder responsibility — preserve, provide, protect — or to wield authority with Christ-like meekness — power under control.Anger among young men, especially young white men, over the wreckage handed to them is justified. The right now faces a generational reckoning over decades of failure. Attempts by older leaders to bottle that reckoning will only push exasperated men toward Fuentes and his imitators.We can keep this coalition together if we hold fast to truth, reject bigotry, and refuse to platform malevolence.On Nick FuentesFuentes is a malignant satanic force. He speaks the language of slander and accusation. Unless he repents, he offers nothing we need. We can address the real grievances of young men without creating our own Louis Farrakhan.Mainstreaming Fuentes would splinter our already fraught coalition, poison donors and advertisers, and make us politically impotent.On Tucker CarlsonFuentes gained so much oxygen and wreaked so much internal havoc because Carlson chose to do a largely softball interview that amplified him. Tucker owns that choice. If you worry about distractions from the mission, take it up with the person who booked the guest. He could have been talking about Arctic Frost. He chose Nick Fuentes instead.The tone contrasted sharply with Tucker’s tough interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over Israel. Extending more empathy to Fuentes than to Cruz sends the wrong moral signal and understandably raised suspicions about Tucker’s recent editorial choices.Also true: Over the last seven years, no one on our side has produced a more important body of work than Tucker Carlson.On the rules of engagementA generational reckoning will color outside the lines. Don’t cancel people willing to go there. The last generation’s political strategy failed often enough that we should err on the side of hard reassessment.But disagreement — even sharp disagreement — is not “cancel culture.” If you want to replace a narrative, expect scrutiny. That’s a reckoning, not a psyop.On the Heritage FoundationKevin Roberts is one of the finest salt-of-the-earth patriots I know, and Heritage under his leadership has fought real anti-Semitism. Reasonable people can critique Heritage’s handling of this moment, but the institution must equip itself for the fights in front of us, not yesterday’s battles. Some in and around Heritage want to rewind the clock to 2005 and used this episode to try.On the Jewish reactionConservative Jewish friends have reasons to feel skittish given history’s lessons. I will oppose anti-Semitism and the mainstreaming of Fuentes and his copycats down to the last molecule.On who this is really aboutI’m not worried about Israel’s ultimate fate. If modern Israel plays a prophetic role, God will protect and preserve it. If not, God will judge it.No, I’m worried about us — our souls and our movement. No culture descends into “it’s the Jooooos” and comes back stronger.On what should unite usAs Charlie Kirk said, “Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.” People who fixate more on Jews and Israel than on the threat from political Islam reveal their priorities.Criticizing Israeli policy does not equal anti-Semitism; I criticized Israeli COVID policy at the time. We may even need more policy criticism to sustain the Arab realignment President Trump helped forge. Your prophetic view of Israel is irrelevant. Without a Jewish state, Islam would focus all its energy on Christendom — as it did for the first 1,300 years of its existence. From a foreign-policy standpoint, a Jewish state functions as a strategic buffer between Islam and the West.On false choices and narrativesOctober 7 followed the neoconservative script: Israel granted more “agency” to the so-called Palestinians as a proto-two-state solution. The Palestinians then elevated Hamas, the architects of October 7, right on Israel’s doorstep. Some on our side now demand more of the same and unknowingly converge with the neocons they denounce.People who were dead wrong about the risks of striking Iran earlier this year should come clean, as Vice President JD Vance said recently. Their silence exposes them.Yes, some of the Tucker-Fuentes noise is a pre-emptive proxy fight over the 2028 presidential election, given Tucker’s friendship with Vance. We cannot afford to let 2028 maneuvering fracture the coalition before the midterms. Lose the midterms and much of the Trump agenda stalls and 2028 gets much harder.It’s too early for primary shenanigans.On the falloutIf Tucker had dropped that interview a year from now, Democrats would have used it as a midterm wrecking ball. They’d spend untold sums to make Fuentes the face of the right. It would devastate us.RELATED: Zohran Mamdani becomes first openly socialist mayor of New York City Photo by Angela Weiss/Getty ImagesOn the futureNone of this feels random. After Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom, the dam broke. I can attest he worked to keep Fuentes and the Groypers on the margins. A month before he died, he invited me into a one-on-one Signal chat to build a strategy to keep malignant forces from gaining a foothold in our movement. He believed God would never bless their darkness and that it would destroy us spiritually and politically.Now we see: our apostolic leader murdered, Democrats embracing Islamist politics through Zohran Mamdani, and a sudden internal split over Fuentes. Consider it a spiritual counterattack to the revival seeds we saw at Charlie’s memorial.Pat Buchanan had insights. Bill Buckley had insights. Both had blind spots. Trump, perhaps unintentionally, kept the best of Buchanan’s realism without the worst. We can keep this coalition together if we do the same: Hold fast to truth, reject bigotry, and refuse to platform malevolence.Come, let us reason together.

The apparent harassment of the Mexican president by a seemingly drunken man has led to a national conversation about the harassment women face on a daily basis.President Claudia Sheinbaum was taking a five-minute walk on her way to the Education Ministry when a man approached her from behind, grabbed her, apparently attempted to cup her breasts over her clothes, and tried to kiss her, video showed.'If the most powerful woman in Mexico experienced harassment, what can women who travel on public transportation or walk alone every day expect?'The man was brushed away by someone near the president, and the bizarre incident was captured on video by bystanders. Sheinbaum said in her daily media briefing that she was pressing charges against the man in order to show other Mexican women that the harassment was not acceptable. "I decided to file a complaint because this is something ... all women in our country experience," Sheinbaum said. "I experienced it before, when I wasn’t president. It shouldn’t happen. No one should violate our personal space. No man has the right to violate that space."Others jumped on the incident to call for more action against public harassment."If the most powerful woman in Mexico experienced harassment, what can women who travel on public transportation or walk alone every day expect?" asked Ivonne Ortega, a member of Congress. "This is the reality that millions of women and girls face daily."RELATED: Mexico hands over 26 high-ranking alleged drug cartel figures to US for prosecutionOne survey of female transit riders from several nations found that Mexico had the worst reported rate of public harassment.Some critics of the president speculated that the incident was orchestrated in order to draw attention away from the horrific assassination of the mayor of Uruapan, Michoácan, seemingly at the hands of the drug cartels.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents last month detailing how the Biden FBI not only secretly obtained the private phone records of numerous Republican lawmakers but subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities as part of what the Iowa senator called a "fishing expedition."Grassley noted last week that Operation Arctic Frost, the "fishing expedition" in question, "was the vehicle by which partisan FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors could improperly investigate the entire Republican political apparatus."'The road to reform is long.'Amid the backlash over the latest insights into the Biden administration's yearslong apparent campaign to criminalize its political opponents, the FBI began canning some of the agents involved in Arctic Frost whose names appeared in the newly released documents. While the bureau handed out numerous pink slips in recent days, it evidently had issues making them stick.Last week, the FBI reportedly fired at least two agents who had worked on the Arctic Frost investigation.CNN originally reported that Aaron Tapp, the special agent in charge of the FBI's San Antonio office who previously had an oversight role on Arctic Frost, was among those fired, though it has since indicated that he was forced into retiring.RELATED: Bondi exposes ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ Arctic Frost action against Trump by Biden admin Jack Smith. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesOn Monday, the bureau allegedly canned another four agents who worked on Smith's team: Jeremy Desor; Blaire Toleman, a Chicago-based agent who once led a now-defunct public corruption squad; David Geist, a former assistant special agent in charge of the bureau's Washington field office; and Jamie Garman, an agent who was placed on administrative leave early last month, reported Reuters."The public has a right to know how the government's spending their hard-earned tax dollars, and if agents were engaged in wrongdoing they ought to be held accountable," Sen. Grassley said in a statement. "Transparency brings accountability."Multiple sources told Reuters that at least two of the terminations — Toleman's and Geist's — were rescinded later in the day, along with a number of other terminations that allegedly took place on Monday.Sources familiar with the matter told CNN that Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, had intervened on Monday to reverse the firings of least four fired FBI agents. One source said she weighed in on account of the agents' involvement in the Trump administration's crackdown on criminality in the national capital.This last-minute rescue was, however, apparently as short-lived as the initial terminations. The FBI reportedly fired the agents again on Tuesday.It's presently unclear how many agents were officially canned.The FBI and Pirro's office did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.The FBI Agents Association complained in a statement on Tuesday that "the actions yesterday — in which FBI Special Agents were terminated and then reinstated shortly after — highlight the chaos that occurs when long-standing policies and processes are ignored. An Agent simply being assigned to an investigation and conducting it appropriately within the law should never be grounds for termination.""Director Patel has disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution," added the group.Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, "Individual accountability for participation in or oversight of weaponized operations such as Arctic Frost should absolutely be imposed. I'm glad some have been fired for this, and I am sure they will sue and be well represented.""The personnel laws are very restrictive to accountability, which certainly makes accountability harder, especially when considering termination versus reassignment," continued Howell. "That being said, you can't have weaponized individuals still at the FBI, that just should not ever be an acceptable option. The road to reform is long."Howell added, "I'd like to see more thought given to systemic reform at the FBI so it can't operate institutionally as it did during the Biden years especially. Whack-a-mole on weaponized individuals is tough work, but the FBI and government should also mitigate the potential for them to abuse power again."Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor at Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Blunder Games: Jennifer Lawrence Says No More Trump Talk Because Hollywood Actors Are Powerless