On MS NOW’s The Weekend, as they were discussing the Supreme Court ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs, Axios Senior Economics Reporter Courtenay Brown suggested it’s very unlikely Walmart would lower prices if it receives tariff refunds. Brown’s comments reflect a common media blind spot: the assumption that large retailers can simply pocket cost savings without regard to competition. Brown treats Walmart as though it operates outside market discipline. In reality, the retail giant competes on razor-thin margins with Target, Amazon, Costco, and regional chains. If tariff refunds materially reduce costs across major retailers, competitive dynamics would put downward pressure on prices — not because Walmart is charitable, but because it is competitive. Indeed, recent reporting has noted price declines in certain grocery categories — notably eggs — underscoring that retail pricing responds to cost pressures and competitive dynamics. Brown suggested a small Main Street shop might share a refund with customers — but doubted Walmart would. That echoes a familiar media narrative: small businesses are cast in a rosy light, while large corporations, driven by [cue Bernie Sanders voice] gr-e-e-e-d, are presumed to hoard gains. But large retailers got large precisely because they compete aggressively on price. Axios Reporter Doubts Walmart Would Pass Tariff Refunds to Consumers — Competition: Hello?@TheWeekendMSNOW @Courtenay_Brown pic.twitter.com/r8cTtFnGsF — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 21, 2026 The question isn’t whether Walmart benevolently sends consumers a rebate. It’s whether competitive pressure forces price adjustments if costs meaningfully decline. That’s Econ 101 — something you’d expect a senior economics reporter to consider. Here's the transcript. MS NOW The Weekend 2/21/26 7:09 am ET JONATHAN CAPEHART: My big question is, oh great, the Supreme Court said that these tariffs are unconstitutional. I bet most Americans who are watching, they're like, ooh, so where's my, am I going to get a refund? Hold on.  Listen to what the Treasury Secretary had to say about it when he talked at the Dallas, where was he?  EUGENE DANIELS: Economic Club of Dallas.  CAPEHART: Yeah, the Economic Club of Dallas, yesterday. Watch this, it's short.  ECONOMIC CLUB HOST: must be a food fight going after the $175 billion in it, so.  SCOTT BESSENT: I got a feeling the American people won't see it.  CAPEHART: Heh! I got a feeling the American people won't see it. He's right! We are not going to get any kind of rebate check from anybody.  COURTENAY BROWN: Yeah, I wouldn't wait by the mailbox for your check. There's no check coming directly to consumers.  CAPEHART: Not even direct deposit?  BROWN: Not even direct deposit. Don't sit refreshing your bank account either, it's not coming.  It's actually unclear whether businesses who paid for the tariffs will actually get a refund and if they do, when they get it. It could be years. Even President Trump admitted that it could be years down the line if they see anything at all.  And what businesses then do with the money, especially the ones that said, you know, I'm sorry to our consumers, we're going to have to raise prices because our cost of doing business has gone up tremendously.  I'm not sure how they get that money back to the consumers. I think for the sake of ease, that's not something that will happen at all.  Is there a small business on Main Street somewhere that decides, you know, hey, we finally got our refund, we won't raise prices for this reason? Sure. But I highly doubt that Walmart is going to roll back prices a lot to account for whatever refund that may or may not come. 

One of California governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) most high-profile donors is getting the heck out of dodge. Steven Spielberg, one of the most influential movie-makers in Hollywood history, is reportedly fleeing California for New York, as the state weighs levying a stupid wealth tax that’s sending billionaires fleeing the already high-taxed state, the New York Post reported February 19. Of course, Spielberg will perhaps never admit that the looming tax had anything to do with it. As his spokesperson Terry Press gaslighted in a statement, Spielberg’s “move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York-based children and grandchildren.” Tellingly, the Post noted that “Press did not answer queries about Spielberg’s stance on the proposed tax, which would slap a one-time 5% tax on individual fortunes exceeding $1 billion.” Go figure. Is this just an extreme coincidence or is Spielberg realizing that his penchant for throwing millions of dollars into the coffers of tax-hiking Democrats is about one of the dumbest routes to receiving a sizable return on investment (ROI), as his wealthy California cohorts seem to be seeing? You decide. If the California wealth tax becomes state law, it “would apply retroactively to the beginning of this year,” the Post analyzed. Gee, who could blame Spielberg for possibly wanting to protect his $11.5 billion net worth from getting knocked down a peg or two in arbitrary wealth taxation? Spielberg is no stranger to whipping out the big bucks to help Democrats win bigly.  In 2020 alone, Spielberg spent $4,250,000 to help the left win elections country-wide, according to Open Secrets. This isn’t surprising given his on-record disdain for President Donald Trump. At the end of 2017, Spielberg released The Post (2018), which glorified The Washington Post's war on President Nixon with the Pentagon Papers controversy in 1971. Spielberg told liberal outlet The Guardian January 19, 2018, that “The level of urgency to make the movie [The Post] was because of the current climate of this [Trump] administration, bombarding the press and labeling the truth as fake if it suited them.” After all, it was Spielberg himself who served as Hillary Clinton’s image adviser as the 2016 presidential election was set to kick into high gear by providing her with “likeability lessons.” That investment didn’t pan out so well either.

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.

On Wednesday, the media’s favorite presidential historian, Jon Meacham, joined Walter Isaacson on PBS’s Amanpour and Company to resurrect his allegation that the Trump administration is “failing” the soldiers who served at places like Omaha Beach and Gettysburg as well as the men and women of the nation’s various civil rights movements. Isaacson put the ball on the tee when he declared, “And in both those books, you talk about history now in a polarized era being a battlefield itself, a source of contention. We even see it with the administration taking some of the plaques down on the old Philadelphia house where General Washington lived that talk about slavery. Tell us about history as a matter of contention now.”   Jon Meacham went on PBS on Wednesday to resurrect his Trump vs. spirit of Omaha Beach antics, "by attempting to control historical narratives by pushing aside the uncomfortable elements of our history to make it more heroic, you're failing, it seems to me, to keep faith with the… pic.twitter.com/zhBemisqbY — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 21, 2026   It should be noted that the plaques are back after a federal judge issued a bizarre ruling ordering the Interior Department to return them. The Interior Department, for its part, lamented that “updated interpretive materials providing a fuller account of the history of slavery at Independence Hall would have been installed in the coming days” if the judge hadn’t gotten in the way. As it was, Meacham began, “Well, the mechanics of memory matter. I'm sitting here arguing that an understanding of the story of liberal democracy from the late 18th century through the freedom movements of the 20th century is an empowering, elevating narrative. There are those who would like to argue that that history is different, that there were—that are alternative narratives like alternative facts—a term from the first term—that is more valuable.” After denouncing the White House’s Presidential Walk of Fame, Meacham continued, “So, it's not about us, it's not about we the people, it's about him. And by controlling, by attempting to control historical narratives by pushing aside the uncomfortable elements of our history to make it more heroic, you're failing, it seems to me, to keep faith with the people who fought and bled and died for the country.” Those people include, “The men who hit Omaha Beach, the soldiers at Gettysburg, the folks on the Pettus Bridge, the women at Seneca Falls, the women who were force-fed in the suffrage movement, they were confronting wrong and urging us to make it right. If we remove the wrongs from our narrative, then we are failing to honor the work they did and failing to find inspiration for our own era.” It’s ironic. Previously when Meacham had invoked this list, including Gettysburg, the number one news story in the country was Minnesota liberals thinking federal law doesn’t apply to them. Meacham can try to wax poetic all he wants, but he does not own the legacy of the men and women he mentioned. Here is a transcript for the February 18 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 2/18/2026 WALTER ISAACSON: And in both those books, you talk about history now in a polarized era being a battlefield itself, a source of contention. We even see it with the administration taking some of the plaques down on the old Philadelphia house where General Washington lived that talk about slavery. Tell us about history as a matter of contention now. JON MEACHAM: Well, the mechanics of memory matter. I'm sitting here arguing that an understanding of the story of liberal democracy from the late 18th century through the freedom movements of the 20th century is an empowering, elevating narrative. There are those who would like to argue that that history is different, that there were—that are alternative narratives like alternative facts—a term from the first term—that is more valuable. And you're also seeing with the plaques that President Trump put up in the White House, this kind of, again, kingly, kind of autocratic history, a narcissistic history. If you read the plaques that are now up in the colonnade of the West Wing, it's all about every other American president and their relationship to President Trump, right? So, it's not about us, it's not about we the people, it's about him. And by controlling, by attempting to control historical narratives by pushing aside the uncomfortable elements of our history to make it more heroic, you're failing, it seems to me, to keep faith with the people who fought and bled and died for the country. The men who hit Omaha Beach, the soldiers at Gettysburg, the folks on the Pettus Bridge, the women at Seneca Falls, the women who were force-fed in the suffrage movement, they were confronting wrong and urging us to make it right. If we remove the wrongs from our narrative, then we are failing to honor the work they did and failing to find inspiration for our own era.

Time, as the saying goes, flies.  And Sean Hannity captures the moment exactly. Over there on his website, Hannity headlines:  Trump Pays Tribute to Rush Limbaugh Five Years After Radio Legend's Death  The former president honors the conservative icon who shaped the movement that transformed American politics. The story reports:  Five years after America lost one of its greatest conservative voices, President Trump continues to honor the monumental legacy of Rush Limbaugh, the talk radio titan who shaped minds and moved mountains in American political discourse. The EIB Network host didn’t just entertain millions daily—he built the conservative movement that would eventually propel Trump to the White House and fundamentally reshape the Republican Party. Sean goes on to say:  The radio legend’s influence extends far beyond the airwaves into the heart of today’s conservative policy victories. From tax cuts that unleashed economic growth to deregulation that freed American businesses, Limbaugh’s free-market philosophy lives on in every Trump administration achievement. His commitment to constitutional principles helped educate generations of Americans who now form the backbone of the MAGA movement. Exactly. To say the least, Rush Limbaugh’s impact on both the conservative movement and the nation as a whole was both far reaching and considerable. Rush, of course, was not alone. He was the heir to a movement that featured such key players as William F. Buckley Jr., R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., Arizona’s “Mr. Conservative" Senator Barry Goldwater -- and, of course, President Ronald Reagan. Collectively the conservative movement gained considerable steam with the creation of media outlets that brought the movement to public attention.  From Buckley’s National Review to Tyrrell’s American Spectator and on to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News and Chris Ruddy’s Newsmax, the conservative movement was on the move. But nowhere was that more vividly illustrated than with the arrival of Rush Limbaugh on the radio. From Monday through Friday, from noon to three, like clockwork Rush was there on the radio, broadcasting to the nation in ways both intellectually demanding and often enough hilarious. Not to mention that it was Rush who essentially created the industry of what quickly became known as “conservative talk radio.” Over here are the thoughts from James Golden, Rush’s longtime sidekick famous to Rush’s daily audience of thirty million as “Bo Snerdley.” James notes well when he says:  Five years later, millions of his thirty million listeners still miss his voice, wisdom, humor, and ever-present optimism that America would remain a great and good nation, thanks to their values and the fruit of their hard work. Exactly. And James goes on to add:  There is no question that his success on the radio, as an author and publisher, in television, and online changed America’s media landscape. He broke wide open – the media “dam” that suppressed the voices and values of almost half the country. The “silent majority” through Rush Limbaugh, found its voice. And find its voice that “silent majority” surely did.  Right here at NewsBusters is the home made possible by Brent Bozell and his creation of the Media Research Center. As the MRC notes:  For nearly four decades, the MRC has been the unrelenting counterforce to leftist bias in America’s newsrooms, broadcast networks, and Big Tech platforms. The elitist media don’t just report the news; they weaponize it. They choose what you see, what you never hear, and how you’re supposed to think. For generations, they’ve tilted elections, driven policy, and reshaped culture through selective facts, glaring omissions, and shameless spin. We exist to end that monopoly. We are the receipts the media pray you never see. We are the voice they try to silence. In short, as the conservative movement gained steam, Rush arrived on the scene to translate the movement from the written pages of Buckley and Tyrrell’s magazines to the widespread use of radio. And Rush was so very, very good at it. Over time, as noted, he had an audience of some thirty million Americans who listened to him every one of those five days a week. It should be noted that when he passed, seasoned radio guys and conservatives Clay Travis and Buck Sexton moved into his time slot with the Clay and Buck Show carrying the Rush tradition forward and doing a superb job of it. And that doesn’t count the contributions of Hannity, Glenn Beck and so many others. But without question Rush has been missed over the last five years and, for those who were alive in the day when he was on the air, he will continue to be missed. So one more time? Thank you Rush. Your legacy lives on - and always will. Onward!