HBO’s Bill Maher mourned the demise of the EPA’s endangerment finding on Friday’s episode of Real Time, declaring himself to be “not surprised, I’m angry” at the move he ridiculously compared to banning the Navy from being able to use ships. Kicking off his panel discussion with MS NOW host Stephanie Ruhle and Trump 1.0 National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Maher declared, “Well, I think I'm going to start tonight by saying elections have consequences because I want to talk about this EPA thing that is going on. I always thought when Trump first ran, the most damage he could possibly do would be the environment because he was always talking about what a hoax global warming was.”   Bill Maher mourns the downfall of the EPA's endangerment finding, "The Environmental Protection Agency cannot now protect against pollution. This is like the Navy can't use ships." (The EPA can still protect against pollution). After Stephanie Ruhle asks, "Why are you… pic.twitter.com/kuzF8SH8WR — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 14, 2026   Maher then got to the repeal of the endangerment finding, even if he got the regulation’s name wrong, “I mean, have sometimes they exaggerated? I don't think they did themselves any favors sometimes by predicting, like, 'Oh well, you know, we're going to hit past the tipping point if we don't do something by 2012,' and then we did and now—but it is still really happening, guys! It is not a hoax, okay! So here's what is going on. We had something called the engagement rule [sic] in 2009. This said the feds got to regulate fossil fuels because we believe they are a danger to public health.” He then huffed, “Well, what happened yesterday? Trump ended government's legal authority to regulate basically what causes pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency cannot now protect against pollution. This is like the Navy can't use ships.” That’s not quite right. The Endangerment Rule was the EPA granting itself the authority to regulate certain greenhouse acts under the Clean Air Act. Under the administration’s more narrow interpretation of the CAA, the EPA will still be able to regulate other pollutants that are explicitly mentioned in the statute, such as carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Speaking of carbon monoxide, earlier in the show, during his monologue, Maher had a scientifically challenged moment of his own, “Doug Burgum, he’s the Interior Secretary, listen to this, the way they all line up behind this nonsense. He said CO2, carbon was never a pollutant. He said when we breathe, we admit CO2. Let's try this little experiment. Tonight when you get home, go in the garage, close the door, turn the car on, and let's see if carbon is a pollutant, okay?”   It's funny Maher accuses other people of being anti-science when he doesn't know the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, " Let's try this little experiment. Tonight when you get home, go in the garage, close the door, turn the car on, and let's see if carbon is… pic.twitter.com/zP51LJDhyH — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 14, 2026   Car-emitted carbon monoxide is what kills you in an enclosed space, not carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, Ruhle interrupted, “Why are you surprised?” as Maher insisted that “I'm not surprised, I'm angry.” Ruhle then saw an even greater conspiracy at work, “A year and a half ago during the campaign, the president invited a bunch of oil and gas executives to Mar-a-Lago and he said to them, “If you deliver me a billion dollars in campaign donations, I will pay you back in spades. And that is exactly what we're getting here. A huge win for oil, gas, and big coal. Promises kept, he could say.” McMaster then got his turn and added some common sense to the discussion, “But what we were doing wasn't working anyway, really. What we do in the United States actually doesn't matter if China is building 40 coal-fired power plants a year.” Instead of EPA regulations, he urged that “I think we should do is come together and work together on a market solution that actually works. Just like what happened with the fracking revolution, right? The largest reduction in man-made carbon emissions in history didn’t come from a government regulation, it came from cheap natural gas displacing coal. That, I think, plus nuclear fission that gets us off the path towards global warming and gets us cheaper energy.” McMaster is correct. U.S. carbon emissions have steadily decreased over the years for reasons not related to the endangerment finding, while China’s have steadily increased. Those, unlike Maher’s car experiment, are facts. Here is a transcript for the February 13 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher 2/14/2026 10:11 PM ET BILL MAHER: Guys, this is not made up, this is science. Doug Burgum, he’s the Interior Secretary, listen to this, the way they all line up behind this nonsense. He said CO2, carbon was never a pollutant. He said when we breathe, we admit CO2. Let's try this little experiment. Tonight when you get home, go in the garage, close the door, turn the car on, and let's see if carbon is a pollutant, okay? … BILL MAHER: Well, I think I'm going to start tonight by saying elections have consequences because I want to talk about this EPA thing that is going on. I always thought when Trump first ran, the most damage he could possibly do would be the environment because he was always talking about what a hoax global warming was. And look, I mean, have sometimes they exaggerated? I don't think they did themselves any favors sometimes by predicting, like, "Oh well, you know, we're going to hit past the tipping point if we don't do something by 2012," and then we did and now—but it is still really happening, guys! It is not a hoax, okay! So here's what is going on. We had something called the engagement rule [sic] in 2009. This said the feds got to regulate fossil fuels because we believe they are a danger to public health. Well, what happened yesterday? Trump ended government's legal authority to regulate basically what causes pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency cannot now protect against pollution. This is like the Navy can't use ships. STEPHANIE RUHLE: Why are you surprised? MAHER: I'm not surprised, I'm angry. RUHLE: A year and a half ago during the campaign, the president invited a bunch of oil and gas executives to Mar-a-Lago and he said to them, “If you deliver me a billion dollars in campaign donations, I will pay you back in spades.” And that is exactly what we're getting here. A huge win for oil, gas, and big coal. Promises kept, he could say. H.R. MCMASTER: You know, Bill and Stephanie, you don’t need washed up generals to talk about climate science, you know, but I’m a believer that there—global warming is a real thing, right? Man-made carbon emissions are a problem. But what we were doing wasn't working anyway, really. What we do in the United States actually doesn't matter if China is building 40 coal-fired power plants a year. So, what I think we should do is come together and work together on a market solution that actually works. Just like what happened with the fracking revolution, right? The largest reduction in man-made carbon emissions in history didn’t come from a government regulation, it came from cheap natural gas displacing coal. That, I think, plus nuclear fission, that gets us off the path towards global warming and gets us cheaper energy.

On Friday's Morning Joe, the MS NOW panelists delivered a remarkable formulation regarding President Trump and the Jeffrey Epstein matter: they repeatedly portrayed Trump as looking “guilty” — while conceding they do not know what, if anything, he actually did. The segment began with a clip of Trump responding to a reporter’s question about Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s past visit to Epstein’s Caribbean island. Trump said he was unaware of the visit and emphasized, “I was never there.” That didn’t prevent the discussion from quickly shifting to speculation about Trump’s demeanor and possible wrongdoing. MS NOW analyst John Heilemann declared that Trump and those around him have “acted guilty” throughout the controversy. He said their conduct makes it look as though they are “hiding things” and that Trump is “guilty of something.” Then came the striking concession. HEILEMANN: We still don’t really know what, if anything, Donald Trump did that might be illegal, that might be criminal, it might just be immoral. The construction was telling. Even while admitting he does not know what Trump did — or whether any crime occurred — Heilemann suggested that whatever the conduct was, it was at least immoral—and possibly criminal. Guilty of what? Immoral in what way? The panel did not specify. Instead, the emphasis remained on appearances. Heilemann argued that Trump’s and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s behavior makes it look “more and more like they are hiding stuff.” Heilemann is not a religious man, but this sounds like a faith-based position. He believes in Trump being evil.  Former Hillary-for-President communications director Jen Palmieri reinforced the psychological framing. Trump, she claimed, “acts in a way he does with no other issue, guilty and scared.” She speculated that his remark about not speaking to Lutnick must have been scripted because “somebody told him” to say it. No evidence was presented. No particular act was identified. The case rested on tone, posture, and inference. Morning Joe: We Don’t Know What Trump Did on Epstein — But It Was At Least 'Immoral,’ Maybe Criminal pic.twitter.com/8rmUUGxJfW — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 13, 2026 Heilemann also offered a revealing aside about how such narratives travel. Most Americans, he noted, didn't watch Bondi’s congressional testimony. But he predicted Saturday Night Live would mock her in a cold open, thereby “get[ting] it out there into the culture.” In other words, when liberal political commentators float suspicions of criminal or immoral conduct against conservatives, the entertainment arm of the liberal media ecosystem will help transmit that impression to a broader audience. They can rely on SNL to provide propaganda for the Left. The through-line of the segment was unmistakable: Trump looks guilty. He seems to be hiding something. Whatever it is, it may be criminal — and at the very least, immoral. Yet even as those implications were advanced, the panel acknowledged it does not know “what, if anything” Trump did. If commentators don't know what occurred, the responsible course is to report facts as they emerge — not to presume that unidentified conduct was, at minimum, morally wrong. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Morning Joe 2/13/26 6:00 am ET REPORTER: Mr. President, were you aware that Secretary of Commerce visited Epstein's Island? And do you continue to have confidence in him? PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I wasn't aware of it. No, I didn't. I actually haven't spoken to him about it. I wasn't. But from what I hear, he was there with his wife and children. And I guess in some cases, some people were. I wasn't. I was never there. Somebody will someday say that. I was never there.  MIKA BRZEZINSKI: All right. President Trump yesterday, telling reporters he has not talked to Howard Lutnick, who admitted this week that he took his family, nannies, kids, to Jeffrey Epstein's Island in 2012. And that was years after Lutnick claimed to have cut off contact with the convicted sex offender who he called "gross." . . .  JOHN HEILEMANN: And then in every turn from now, and this is to bring it up to today, they have only acted guilty. That's the -- most Americans are not watching Pam Bondi on Capitol Hill. They're sane. They're not like us. We watch these things live. You will see, I'm certain, a cold open on Saturday Night Live this Saturday making fun of Pam Bondi. So that will get it out into the culture.  But for anybody in the political class, for a Republican, a Democrat on Capitol Hill, for the survivors, for the media, everything that Donald Trump has done and that his people around him have done throughout this period, and it's only made worse by the way Pam Bondi behaved, like a lunatic on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, is to make them look like they are hiding things and make them look guilty.  We still don't really know what, if anything, Donald Trump did that might be illegal, that might be criminal, it might just be immoral. But the reality is, does anything that they've done make us want to see the two million documents that have not been released less, or does it make us want to see them more? It makes everybody want to see them more because Pam Bondi's behavior, Donald Trump's behavior, makes it look more and more like they are hiding stuff and that Donald Trump is guilty of something.  . . .  JEN PALMIERI: The weird thing is the behavior from the president, right? Because it's just, even that little clip you showed about him reacting to Howard Letnick, that guy is never prepared. He was clearly on a script when he said, I haven't talked to Howard Lutnick about it. Somebody told him, it's important that you say that. Because maybe that triggers congressional questions or something.  But he acts in a way he does with no other issue, guilty and scared. And when the communications strategy doesn't make any sense, look to the person at the top to understand like the bad, you know, why it's going that, why it's going that way. And I think you just have to look at Trump. 

The Washington Post Editorial Board couldn’t have timed its faux-fussbudgeting over how the Trump tariffs were supposedly juicing Valentine’s Day inflation more perfectly (sarcasm). News was just released that inflation eased in January. The Post blurted out at 5:45 am February 13, “What do bad breath, wilted flowers and protectionism have in common? They might spoil Valentine’s Day.” “Bad breath” is right, because our faces contorted once we read the halitosis-infected headline following a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released just under 3 hours later showing that consumer prices increased 2.4 percent, which shattered naysayers’ expectations and defied “fears of a tariff-induced hike in overall costs,” as ABC News summarized. The Post would even release a story on the BLS data later admitting it was a “promising sign for” the “economy.”  Sheesh, you’d think The Post editorial board could have waited at least until after the BLS report data was released before it would make itself look stupid with this headline, “The love tax: Valentine’s Day costs more this year because of tariffs.” And what was the editorial board’s evidence that tariffs were definitively causing Valentine’s Day price hikes (flowers, chocolates, etc)? Well not much: “Boxes of chocolates from outside the United States cost an extra 8 percent thanks to 2025 tariff increases, according to the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome.” Nowhere did The Post draw a clear straight line — either using Lincicome’s analysis or its own — to clearly break past the wall of the correlation doesn’t equal causation fallacy. The Board just assumed the linkages prima facie.  Wellington-Altus Chief Market Strategist James E. Thorne underscored February 13 in an X post that the latest inflation data shows prices are being "overwhelmingly" driven by shelter, but “[t]here is still no evidence of any tariff-related inflationary pressure.” Economist Daniel Lacalle took the data as a victory lap for his August 2025 analysis showcasing why “Tariffs do not cause inflation.” In that report, Lacalle broke down five core reasons why tariffs are not inflationary: Costs do not dictate final prices; it is the other way around, as the Menger imputation principle shows. Tariffs do not suppose more units of currency in the system nor higher monetary velocity. Furthermore, they do not impact aggregate prices. Supply chains are not a binary producer-buyer chain. They are exceedingly complex, and many of those rivets and links absorb costs. Most exporter nations have overcapacity and working capital challenges and thus prefer to keep prices attractive to sell to the US, the largest and richest market. Tariffs do not increase aggregate prices. For the record. Today’s CPI release once again underscores that inflation remains overwhelmingly driven by shelter — a lagging and statistically distorted component. There is still no evidence of any tariff-related inflationary pressure. An objective reading of the data would… pic.twitter.com/2dCNxHjkeX — James E. Thorne (@DrJStrategy) February 13, 2026 But The Post acted like it somehow notched a gotcha! against President Donald Trump for supposedly ruining the vibe of Valentine’s Day romance: Valentine’s Day, of course, is not the only day people feel tariffs. If everyday life is going to be more expensive, Americans need a better reason than they’ve been given so far.” Well, as the latest BLS inflation data implies, tariffs are not the de facto “reason” for why life is more expensive. For that, it’s perhaps best to look at the out-of-control spending policies under Trump’s predecessor that caused overall prices to skyrocket over 20 percent in the first place. 

MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart and former New York Times columnist-turned-podcaster and staff writer for The Atlantic David Brooks returned to PBS News Hour on Friday to declare victory for the anti-ICE crowds in Minnesota by comparing them to the Civil Rights Movement and the Underground Railroad. Host William Brangham started with Brooks, “President Trump put—I'm talking about Minnesota—put his border czar in charge of what was going on there. And Tom Homan said, 'Okay, we're going to now start to pull this back.' David, what do you make of this development?” Brooks’s return meant anything resembling a conservative perspective was now gone, “Well, when Tom Homan is the reasonable and cuddly one, then you know we have come a long way. And, you know, I think it's partly because of the awfulness of those videos and the killings. But it's partly because of citizen power.”   On PBS, David Brooks compares the Minnesota demonstrators to the Civil Rights Movement, "I was with a historian yesterday. And she said, learn from the Civil Rights Movement. Everybody should be studying the civil rights movement. That's what they did," while Jonathan Capehart… pic.twitter.com/bxzFqxaY4o — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 14, 2026   He added: You know, we have been talking a lot over the months about a civic movement. And the people of Minneapolis in bitter cold weather behaved in a self-disciplined, humane way that appealed to people across the political spectrum and in a disciplined way. And they turned up the heat and they put the regime in an impossible situation. Either behave brutally and generate more hostility or lose control of the streets. And that's what a civic movement needs to do, put the pressure on the government and expose the moral distance between one side and the other.” Continuing his ode to the demonstrators, Brooks recalled, “I was with a historian yesterday. And she said, 'Learn from the Civil Rights Movement.' Everybody should be studying the civil rights movement. That's what they did. And it worked in this case in Minneapolis, and even the Trump administration had to back down.” Brangham then turned to Capehart, “Do you see it that way too, that this is power of the people?” Naturally, Capehart agreed, “Absolutely. And I saw it from the beginning. Remember, I went to college in Minnesota. And so Minnesota holds a special place in my heart. And I was just there. I wasn't on the show last weekend because I was at Carleton Board of Trustees meeting.” Capehart then recalled his own personal anecdote: What you were talking about in Minneapolis wasn't just in Minneapolis. It was throughout. In Northfield, Minnesota, they were dealing with ICE. And they were dealing with ICE in a very quiet way, not the whistles and the horns, but text chains, people who were observing, taking license plates, letting people know. I went to do something on Friday and the person who picked me up said—apologized for the vehicle and then said to me, I was—quote—‘underground railroading food all night.’ Brangham then interrupted to voice his amazement, “Wow. These are for people who feel that they can't go to the grocery store because they're scared of what—“ Capehart then kept rolling, “Could not—they had not left home. We're talking about people who had not left home in more than a month. And so what you had in Minneapolis, what you had in Northfield, Minnesota, what you have throughout Minnesota are people coming to the aid of their neighbors and their loved ones, standing up for their communities in the face of incredible, I don't know any other word to use, but oppression from the federal government, targeting, targeting their communities.” Enforcing immigration law is not the same thing as enforcing slavery or segregation, and just because Brooks and Capehart would prefer to avoid talking about the full context of the Renee Good and Alex Pretti shootings does not mean that context is unimportant. Here is a transcript for the February 13 show: PBS News Hour 2/13/2026 7:35 PM ET WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump put—I'm talking about Minnesota—put his border czar in charge of what was going on there. And Tom Homan said, “Okay, we're going to now start to pull this back.” David, what do you make of this development? DAVID BROOKS: Well, when Tom Homan is the reasonable and cuddly one, then you know we have come a long way. And, you know, I think it's partly because of the awfulness of those videos and the killings. But it's partly because of citizen power. You know, we have been talking a lot over the months about a civic movement. And the people of Minneapolis in bitter cold weather behaved in a self-disciplined, humane way that appealed to people across the political spectrum and in a disciplined way. And they turned up the heat and they put the regime in an impossible situation. Either behave brutally and generate more hostility or lose control of the streets. And that's what a civic movement needs to do, put the pressure on the government and expose the moral distance between one side and the other. And I was with a historian yesterday. And she said, “Learn from the Civil Rights Movement.” Everybody should be studying the civil rights movement. That's what they did. And it worked in this case in Minneapolis, and even the Trump administration had to back down. BRANGHAM: Do you see it that way too, that this is power of the people? JONATHAN CAPEHART: Absolutely. And I saw it from the beginning. Remember, I went to college in Minnesota. And so Minnesota holds a special place in my heart. And I was just there. I wasn't on the show last weekend because I was at Carleton Board of Trustees meeting. And what you were talking about in Minneapolis wasn't just in Minneapolis. It was throughout. In Northfield, Minnesota, they were dealing with ICE. And they were dealing with ICE in a very quiet way, not the whistles and the horns, but text chains, people who were observing, taking license plates, letting people know. I went to do something on Friday and the person who picked me up said -- apologized for the vehicle and then said to me, I was—quote—"underground railroading food all night." BRANGHAM: Wow. CAPEHART: And so to David's point— BRANGHAM: These are for people who feel that they can't go to the grocery store because they're scared of what— CAPEHART: Could not—they had not left home. We're talking about people who had not left home in more than a month. And so what you had in Minneapolis, what you had in Northfield, Minnesota, what you have throughout Minnesota are people coming to the aid of their neighbors and their loved ones, standing up for their communities in the face of incredible, I don't know any other word to use, but oppression from the federal government, targeting, targeting their communities.

Fox News Digital media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn found an amazing discourse from Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the wife of California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, at a press conference where the Newsoms celebrated awarding $90 million in state taxpayer money to the abortion conglomerate Planned Parenthood after federal funding was pulled by the Republicans in the "Big Beautiful Bill." Standing at a podium reading "STOPPING TRUMP'S WAR ON WOMEN," the First Lady lectured reporters who were allegedly "off topic" by asking Gov. Newsom questions about the perennially delayed high-speed rail boondoggle, and his upcoming meeting with the prime minister of Germany. Wow— Jenifer Siebel Newsom—CA’s First Partner and Gov’s wife— scolds California Capitol press corps for not asking on topic questions at a Planned Parenthood press conference. “You don’t seem to care.” Most of the journalists in the room —repping AP to NY Times —were women. pic.twitter.com/I59M0Kvl0j — Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) February 11, 2026 "We just find it incredulous that we have Planned Parenthood here, and women are 51% of the population," California's first lady said. "And the majority of the questions — all of these questions — have really been about other issues. So, it's just fascinating. "You have the incredible Women's Caucus and all these allies, and you're not asking about it. And this happens over and over and over and over again," she continued. "You wonder why we have such a horrific war on women in this country and that these guys are getting away with it. Because you don't seem to care. "So, I just offer that with love," Siebel Newsom said with a chuckle. "Ask about what we're here for today, don't you think?" Reporters didn't obey her orders. The remaining questions were still "off topic." KCRA political reporter Ashley Zavala, president of the Sacramento Press Club, made the obvious point: “A setting like this is one of the few opportunities where the California Capitol press corps get the opportunity to ask Gov. Newsom questions. So often times in settings like this, they are off topic." She tweeted "Most of the journalists in the room —repping AP to NY Times —were women." Mrs. Newsom ought to be wiser, since she's been by her politician husband's side since 2008. The man wants to be president, but this makes Kamala Harris look smart by comparison. Journalists aren't personal servants of politicians. They ask about whatever they want. Republicans are always bracing for hostile "off topic" questions. But apparently Democrats think they should be obedient little scribes.