In the aftermath of DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin announcing her resignation, MS NOW reporter Jacob Soboroff accused her of spreading misinformation when, in fact, he was the one misinforming his viewers. Antonia Hylton filled in for Chris Hayes on Monday's All In show. She began by asking Soboroff what it has been like having to interact with McLaughlin to get information about immigration issues. He began by taking a shot at ex-DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen from the first Donald Trump administration: "It's been a bit of deja vu quite frankly, and I think that Tricia McLaughlin comes from a long line, I think it's fair to say, of Trump administration officials dealing with immigration policy that have been less than forthright with the truth." Referring to the other anti-Trump guest, former Trump DHS official Miles Taylor, Soboroff continued: And Miles Taylor knows this well and has spoken out since his time in the administration about this to Kirstjen Nielsen, who Miles worked for during the first family separation policy during the first Trump administration -- very famously said, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period." That was on June 17, 2018. And the American people are not stupid -- they saw right through it. It has been previously documented by NewsBusters that in June 2018 Nielsen forthrightly announced that those who crossed the border illegally would be detained and separated from their children, but Soboroff prefers to harp on one of her answers to a question to portray her as dishonest. The MS NOW reporter then repeated more previously debunked information when he claimed that illegal alien Narciso Barranco did not swing his weed whacker at Border Patrol agents in Los Angeles even though there is video of him doing just that. Here's Soboroff: And Tricia McLaughlin has basically taken a similar posture with the American people. The stories that I have reported on, whether it was Narciso Barranco, the landscaper who was violently detained outside of that IHOP in Santa Ana, California. She accused him of attacking agents with a weed whacker, despite the fact that the video showed him retreating. Hylton then went to Taylor, who fretted about who would replace McLaughlin, and then claimed that DHS is violating constitutional rights. When getting his chance to follow up, Soboroff complained that immigration enforcement has been too harsh all the way back to the Clinton administration, and talked up liberal protesters pushing congressional Democrats to go further in enacting laws to protect illegal aliens. Earlier in the day, on Ana Cabrera Reports, reporter Vaughn Hillyard accused McLaughlin of exaggerating how many ICE detainees had criminal records even though his own network has been recently highlighting a CBS News study reporting that more than 60 percent of detainees had either been convicted or charged with non-immigration crimes, which is close to what McLaughlin has repeatedly cited in her television appearances. Here's Hilliard: "She is somebody who has suggested that DHS data had shown that the great majority of the individuals who had been deported and detained under the Trump administration were convicted criminals. Much of that data that was put out there came into deep questions as you began to unwrap some of the numbers." Transcripts follow: MS NOW's All In with Chris Hayes February 17, 2026 8:08 p.m. Eastern ANTONIA HYLTON, FILL-IN HOST: I guess, take us down memory lane. You and I -- we both have worked with and spoken to Tricia McLaughlin a decent amount over the past. So what has it been like for you trying to report out your stories and get to the truth in your interactions with her? JACOB SOBOROFF: You know what, Antonia? It's been a bit of deja vu quite frankly, and I think that Tricia McLaughlin comes from a long line, I think it's fair to say, of Trump administration officials dealing with immigration policy that have been less than forthright with the truth. And Miles Taylor knows this well and has spoken out since his time in the administration about this to Kirsten Nielsen, who Miles worked for during the first family separation policy during the first Trump administration -- very famously said, "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border, period." That was on June 17, 2018. And the American people are not stupid -- they saw right through it. They stood in the streets and they protested. And Tricia McLaughlin has basically taken a similar posture with the American people. The stories that I have reported on, whether it was Narciso Barranco, the landscaper who was violently detained outside of that IHOP in Santa Ana, California. She accused him of attacking agents with a weed whacker, despite the fact that the video showed him retreating. He was never charged with a crime for doing that. Any Lucia Lopez, the 19-year-old coming home from Babson College who was deported to Honduras while she was going to see her parents in San Antonio -- she defended that deportation despite the fact that the administration later admitted they did it in error. Even Nory Sontay Ramos, who I reported on that high school star student track star who was taken at a routine immigration check, and she defended those types of immigration hearings as well. The American people know exactly what this administration is doing. Doesn't matter how many times Tricia McLaughlin tried to defend it. The list goes on and on and on. I can think of many more examples. We don't have enough time to go through all of them -- the ones in which she didn't tell the American people the truth about what we could plainly see with our own eyeballs. (...) HYLTON: Do you think her departure signals a real change strategically in terms of the way policy is going to roll out? Or do you think we're going to get someone else who just brings more of the same? MILES TAYLOR, EX-DHS OFFICIAL: I shudder to think who comes next. And -- and you and Jacob both know this incredibly well, but I have to align with what Jacob said at the top of the program. The administration, whether it was the first Trump administration or this one, has tried to portray that cruelty is a consequence, an inadvertent consequence of policies that Renee Good, that Alex Pretti, that family separation, that all of these things are unfortunate mistakes. That is not true. That's where the lie machine starts at DHS. It's where it started when I was there. The cruelty, as has been said often, is the point here. It is the point. And -- sometimes they let the mask slip and they say that. In private they do. And in public, you've been seeing that happen more and more where they admit the point is to deter the political opposition. You say, "Wait a second, I thought this was about immigration." "Oh, well, we also want to send ICE to the polls." And I think that McLaughlin has only continued that tradition. She's probably become more of a little Trump than the other little Trumps in the administration. But what she hasn't been able to cover up in her tenure is that there has been an extraordinary violation of constitutional rights by this department, and that's because we've had people brave enough to take one of these and to go outside and to film it. And I do want to say something about this shutdown, because Republicans are going to say Democrats are holding the government hostage. I want to clarify something, and I'm not a Democrat. I'm saying this as someone who's watched this -- who's been in that department in two presidential administrations. Democrats aren't demanding policy changes. They are demanding compliance with the United States Constitution. There have been violations by this department of the 1st Amendment rights of Americans and the 4th Amendment rights of Americans and the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans and the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. And those are just the ones that come to my mind right now. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. This is about whether the Constitution is still a viable document in this country or not. And DHS is at ground zero of that debate. HYLTON: Well, Jacob, to Miles' point there, do you think that this laundry list, the list of demands that Democrats are sending to Republicans right now, when you talk to voters, to protesters that I know you speak with every week, do you think they see those demands as actually being enough because so many of them are just sort of basically what other law enforcement agencies already have to do and comply with day in and day out. Do they think that this list is enough, given just the outrage, the horror that there is just so deeply felt across this country right now? SOBOROFF: Not people who have spent enough time thinking about the system to understand that where we are today is a product of decades of bipartisan, deterrence-based, punitive-based immigration policy that started in the modern era in the Clinton administration, and under every President of the United States -- Democratic or Republican -- cruelty was used as a tool of immigration enforcement. No amount of unmasking ICE agents, no amount of identifying themselves, is going to change the fact that we have a for profit detention system largely in the United States of America that criminalizes people who come here seeking a better life, treats them as points on a bar graph or a chart, or talks about them like they're the weather, the flow, the surge, the inundation, the invasion, in the words of this administration. Joe Biden promised a wholesale departure from the cruelty of the first Trump administration -- fair, safe, humane, orderly immigration policy. And we ended up back here. I think the American people are very skeptical, and that is why you are seeing people in the streets in the numbers that we have seen in Minnesota, in Charlotte, in Chicago, here in Los Angeles, outside the hallways of 26 Federal Plaza in New York, because it's not enough, frankly, to rely on our lawmakers going to Capitol Hill and saying they're going to change things. We've been hearing that for decades as it comes to immigration. And I think that the American people now have not only are they not stupid, and what Tricia Mclaughlin has been telling them they know is not true, but they know it's going to take a lot more than relying on elected officials to go up to Capitol Hill and change the immigration system and the cruelty that we've been seeing in the streets. (...) Fox's America's Newsroom September 9, 2025 10:10 a.m. Eastern TRICIA McLAUGHLIN, DHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Seventy percent of those illegal aliens who have been arrested under this administration have prior convictions or pending charges. And that doesn't even include those who have been arrested who don't have rap sheets in the U.S. but have rap sheets in their countries of origin. They might be a gang member -- they might have a human rights violation against them. (...) Fox's America Reports November 11, 2025 1:19 p.m. McLAUGHLIN: In Chicago, we've seen fantastic results -- the arrests of about 5,000 illegal aliens, 70 percent of which are -- have past criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them. (...) Fox's America's Newsroom January 19, 2026 9:08 a.m. McLAUGHLIN: The facts on the ground, Dana, is that 70 percent of those that have been arrested under the Trump administration -- seven, zero -- either have prior criminal convictions or pending criminal charges against them. That does not even include known or suspected terrorists of which we've arrested over 1,000. That doesn't include gang membership -- that doesn't even include being wanted for a violent crime in your country of origin or a third country. (...) MSNOW's Katy Tur Reports February 9, 2026 2:48 p.m.  (discussing a study by CBS News that more than 60 percent of arrestees either had criminal convictions or criminal charges in addition to "civil immigration violations") JACOB SOBOROFF: The larger picture is what we have seen anecdotally over and over and over again. They are not going after the worst of the worst, and you cannot institute the largest mass deportation program by going after only the worst or the worst. KATY TUR: Is it because there are not that many of the quote, unquote "worst of the worst" to go after -- that if you wanted to do mass deportations, if you want to exceed the number of deportations that President Obama did, if you want a million people a year, that you're going to have to get people who are not violent criminals? (...) MSNOW's Ana Cabrera Reports February 17, 2026 11:32 a.m. VAUGHN HILLYARD: She is somebody who has suggested that DHS data had shown that the great majority of the individuals who had been deported and detained under the Trump administration were convicted criminals. Much of that data that was put out there came into deep questions as you began to unwrap some of the numbers.

All the major broadcast networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — broke in Friday morning with special reports on the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling declaring most of President Trump’s landmark tariffs unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, ABC was almost ebullient in touting the ruling as “devastating,” “huge,” and “monumental” in hampering Trump’s presidency. Correspondent Devin Dwyer — who took over as the lone Court reporter at ABC after Terry Moran’s axing — said this was “one of the most significant decisions on presidential power in decades” ABC’s court reporter Devin Dwyer on SCOTUS deeming most of Trump’s tariffs illegal... “This is one of the most significant decisions on presidential power in decades. The supreme court just moments ago, in a 6-to-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, invalidated… pic.twitter.com/ermtNU5trX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Dispatch and SCOTUS editor and ABC legal analyst Sarah Isgur was even more explicit: .@SCOTUSblog editor/@ABC legal analyst @WhigNewtons on the SCOTUS ruling against most of Trump’s tariffs... “This has been a Supreme Court that has really been shrinking down executive power. We saw them do this during the Biden administration with his student loan debt… pic.twitter.com/4Ukxhcp77n — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Of course, chief White House correspondent and Biden regime apple polisher Mary Bruce was almost giddy in touting the ruling as a “devastating,” “huge blow to this White House and to this President” with this entire presidency “now coming into question” with the tariff revenue possibly having to be refunded. ABC’s @MaryKBruce celebrating the Supreme Court striking down most of Trump’s tariffs... “Devastating is right. This is a huge blow to this White House and to this President. Trump, in the lead up to this decision, had said that a ruling against his tariffs would be ‘devastating… pic.twitter.com/S5PZpwYHkK — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 “There is a lot of questions about what happens to the money that has been collected so far...What happens to other issues, like, for instance, pharmaceutical prices....[I]t is the ripple effects of this will be tremendous. What does it mean for the manufacturing here in the U.S....I can tell you this: Based off of the President’s comments in the lead up to this, while we haven’t gotten a reaction from him just yet, he certainly is likely to be deeply frustrated and angry about this decision,” she added. After correspondent Elizabeth Schulze pointed to the business fallout from small, medium, and large businesses that could become “very messy and very complicated,” chief Washington correspondent and four-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl boasted this was “both a monumental decision and frankly, an obvious one”: ABC’s @JonKarl on the SCOTUS decision about tariffs... “This is both a monumental decision and frankly, an obvious one. I mean, it seemed clear from the day that Donald Trump came out and announced his so-called reciprocal tariffs on the rest of the world, or most of the world,… pic.twitter.com/SawFe4jzHo — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 CBS spent nearly 13 minutes on-air, starting with longtime legal correspondent Jan Crawford framing it as “the most significant U.S. Supreme [Court] loss for a U.S. President, I think, in modern history” but should be seen as “a deeply divided issue” even within the 6-3 breakdown .@JanCBS Crawford on SCOTUS ruling most of Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional... “This decision is 6-to-3, invalidating President Trump's use of the sweeping tariffs imposing tariffs on almost every trading partner worldwide. This is the most significant U.S. Supreme [Court]… pic.twitter.com/YGHq6IUN9r — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026   “But the bottom line Tony, a major defeat for the President. I think you can put that right up there with some of the most significant Supreme Court losses by a U.S. president in history,” she emphasized. CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil came back to her at the end and she reiterated something she has long said about the Supreme Court, including on December 28’s Face the Nation: WATCH: @JanCBS Crawford argues this tariff ruling shows people should quit saying this Supreme Court is wholly beholden to Trump... “And what this says is that all of these people who have been saying that this is a Supreme Court that’s in the tank for Donald Trump, need to take… pic.twitter.com/qYkJhuEiMG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026 Following more explanation of the Court’s reasoning from legal analyst Jessica Levinson, senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe floated possible alternative approaches the White House could take because the ruling will impact “not only the economic agenda, but arguably the foreign policy agenda...because the hope here at the White House, at times, was to be able to use the threat of tariffs as sort of a coercive tool to get their way with certain countries[.]” Chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett and chief business and tech correspondent Jo Ling Kent offered historical and economic reactions, respectively (click “expand”): GARRETT: Well, the Supreme Court is well aware of the Constitutional history of generating revenue, a power explicitly reserved to Congress in its origination in the Constitution. And before, we had an income tax in this country, we raised revenue principally through tariffs. And there were lots of conflicts that previous Supreme Courts dealt with about the legality of those tariffs. That precedent is a backdrop for this. President Trump has jawboned and criticized this Court, saying if you rule against me you’re going to destroy our economy, waging a very aggressive public relations campaign. But the Court cares what the Constitution says and what precedent says. It’s interesting to note, Tony, this 1977 law that Jan and others have referred to grew out of a crisis with Iran after the Iranian revolution, and it has been used principally to freeze assets or to levy sanctions. The Trump administration told the Supreme Court it had almost unlimited powers to impose tariffs, not just as an economic matter but as a diplomatic cudgel. And what the Court said and I think this is important. Summarizing the administration’s argument before it, “that view would represent a transformational expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling,” the court wrote, “that in the IEEPA’s half century — that’s the law of existence — no president has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs, of the magnitude of this magnitude and scope.” So essentially, what the Court is saying is we have a Congress. Congress is negotiate laws with presidents, as this law was negotiated. If you follow that law, you can do it. If you expand way beyond that law, you can’t. And to Ed’s previous point, there’s another law in 1962 — law — the Trade Expansion Act, there’s a section 232 there. This President — previous presidents have used that to impose tariffs. There are many remedies this administration could look to and the trade representative, Jamieson Greer has said many times, if we lose in the Supreme Court, we have other remedies to advance our tariff agenda. This is not the end of the tariff conversation under this administration, but it is a setback significantly on this variant of using tariffs the way the President has attempted to enforce them. (....) KENT: [M]y phones are exploding right now with reaction from small business owners across the country we’ve been interviewing people about these tariffs for over the last year. And Emily Ley, a small business owner in Sarasota, Florida, tells me she’s thrilled. She’s relieved. It gives us clarity. She runs a very successful stationery and planner business. Another business owner, Beth, in Zumbrota, Minnesota, Southern Minnesota, she runs Busy Baby Mat and she says she’s seeing major relief that this is bittersweet. She just signed another $13,000 check to — you know for these tariffs to China last week. And now she feels like maybe she can start seeking a refund. Now when you pull back, how much does the average American household paid for these tariffs, you can see it’s about $1,700, according to the Yale Budget Lab. So what happens next? If this continues to move a pace, we expect overall prices, which could be good news for consumers to drop. But that won’t happen quickly. We also expect to see perishable items your fruits and veggies, they actually might go down in price a little bit more quickly. You might see durable goods like your tech products and furniture see a slight decrease as well. And you can see overall the price increases that you may be facing at home due to tariffs across the board there especially in apparel, things that are imported from overseas. But if you’re looking for a Trump tariff refund, if you will, as an individual family member, for example, that’s probably off the table. But we do expect businesses to start seeking tariffs and perhaps forming class action lawsuits to get this money back. As a result of this ruling those companies could get refunds from the Treasury. But overall, the small business reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, saying they feel that they’re thrilled and they’re relieved. NBC was on the air for just over nine minutes and was relatively muted but matter-of-the-fact in relaying the ruling. Chief legal correspondent and Saturday Today co-host Laura Jarrett emphasized the right-of-center justices who voted against the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs, combining for half the majority that delivered “a major blow to the centerpiece of the President’s economic agenda” and could have ripple effects with forthcoming class-action lawsuits by affected companies. Senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake said he could not “overstate how important these tariffs were as a tool for President Trump” in “address[ing] trade deficits, to try to bring money into the U.S. government...sending back out to the American people in the form of refund checks or to use to fund other programs...and he has claimed repeatedly that the tariffs have helped him solve global conflicts around the world[.]” Jarrett herself wrapped by quoting from Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion and stating executive authority is the theme of this Supreme Court term (click “expand”): Yeah, it’s interesting just to see Justice Gorsuch complaining in his concurrence here knowing the criticism that could be on the way at least from a political standpoint and he says, “all I can offer them that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time and, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some passing problem arises, but the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design, essentially saying the Constitution was set up this way, having the legislative branch be the one that can levy taxes. And the President, of course, can enforce the laws. He can regulate some imports, but he can’t go too far, and the Constitution does that by design. (....) Well, and this whole term, if you think about it, is the Supreme Court taking a hard look at some of the things Donald Trump has done that have never been done before, like trying to fire a member of the Federal Reserve board, Lisa Cook. It’s another big case on the docket. He’s tried to fire her. He’s tried to fire a woman who was on the FTC. They obviously have other big questions concerning his birthright citizenship plan. So, this is really the term of SCOTUS and the President, and how they see executive authority. At least as it results to tariffs, [this] is a big blow. To see the relevant transcripts from the network special reports on February 20, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

MS Now’s fun haters at Morning Joe had an interesting recap on Friday of the previous day’s Olympic events, where the U.S. women’s hockey team defeated Canada in a dramatic overtime comeback to win the gold medal, and American figure skater Alysa Liu also took home gold. Forcing politics into sports, ESPN talking head Pablo Torre, the hockey women proved one can cheer on America without embracing a certain nameless president, while host Joe Scarborough and New York Times opinion writer Eugene Robinson argued it was ironic for “MAGA World” to celebrate an immigrant. Torre declared that “the thing I marvel at not only is the way that, oh, wait a minute, maybe there's the possibility of a global village in some capacity. Still, when I watch these games, maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration.”   Former ESPN talking head Pablo Torre says of the U.S. hockey women winning gold, "maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration." Joe Scarborough adds, "I… pic.twitter.com/9Ik9Jitnug — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 20, 2026   Team USA has always been a key part of American monoculture, which is why some athletes’ desire to opine on politics has been so disappointing. If liberals such as Torre let their feelings about Trump overpower their feelings for the country, that says more about them than it does Trump. However, the hot takes were just beginning. Scarborough told Robinson that “It was really inspiring. I will say how hilarious that the sort of MAGA, online MAGA World were celebrating Alyssa Liu's gold medal without a hint of any irony. Celebrating the immigrant. Who they were celebrating as an American, you know, USA, USA. Which, of course, that's basically proving the point that we've been making all along, that Ronald Reagan made in his final speech to America, that we are strengthened by immigrants.” The context for this is that Liu’s father fled China for his role in supporting the Tiananmen Square protests and has been stalked by Chinese spies ever since. It also comes as American-born skier Eileen Gu chose to dump her country and compete for her mother’s China, America’s biggest rival in the world today. Gu, who has no problem speaking out against Trump, is not prepared to discuss China’s genocidal repression of the Uyghurs. Of course, Scarborough left all that out. As for Robinson, he agreed with Scarborough and while cracking himself and Scarborough up, declared, “Oops. Yes, they, you know, they're celebrating this. You know, ‘We're supposed to hate this, but we can't hate it because USA, USA.’ So, you know, it's—it was crazy. Those were two amazing moments yesterday, though.” Beyond being a gold medalist, conservatives' embrace of Liu as a role model has to do with the contrast she provides with Gu. One is a story of patriotism and assimilation, while the other is a story of betrayal for money. Liu and Gu are a great snapshot of the immigration dilemma: some immigrants move to America and instill their children with the virtues of America and some don’t. The problem is Morning Joe only wants to talk about one side of the equation. Here is a transcript for the February 20 show: MS NOW Morning Joe 2/20/2026 9:02 AM ET PABLO TORRE: But finally we get to the Olympics— JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Yeah. TORRE: —and in the Olympics, look, the thing I marvel at not only is the way that, oh, wait a minute, maybe there's the possibility of a global village in some capacity. Still, when I watch these games, maybe there's the capacity for us to celebrate American dominance in a way that feels genuine as opposed to, you know, a series of lies to prop up a certain administration. But also what it's like when you don't choke under pressure. It's amazing. These are not athletes who are going to make millions of dollars in their lives. This is it. And when you see Americans do this— SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. TORRE: — it is. It's the best of us in a sincere way for a couple of weeks. JOE SCARBOROUGH: It really is. And Gene Robinson, it was really inspiring. I will say how hilarious that the sort of MAGA, online MAGA World were celebrating Alysa Liu's gold medal without a hint of any irony. Celebrating the immigrant. TORRE: That's right. SCARBOROUGH: Who they were celebrating as an American, you know, USA, USA. Which, of course, that's basically proving the point that we've been making all along, that Ronald Reagan made in his final speech to America, that we are strengthened by immigrants. EUGENE ROBINSON: Oops. Yes, they, you know, they're celebrating this. You know, “we're supposed to hate this, but we can't hate it because USA, USA.” So, you know, it's—it was crazy. Those were two amazing moments yesterday, though.

In a 6-3 Friday, the Supreme Court blocked President Donald Trump’s imposition of reciprocal tariffs, which the president had successfully used to raise much-needed government revenue and level the playing field with countries charging exorbitant tariffs on U.S. goods. The decision upheld rulings by lower courts declaring Trump’s use of a presidential emergency power provision to unilaterally impose the tariffs unconstitutional. The ruling invalidating Trump’s tariffs immediately sparked extravagant conjecture and commentary about the implications of the decision. “It is important to be clear about what the Supreme Court’s decision on IEEPA does — and does not — do,” Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) wrote in a social media post setting the record straight about the ramifications of the decision. The ruling does not invalidate all of Trump’s tariffs – just those imposed by his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Rep. Meuser explains: “First, the Court did not strike down the President’s broader trade authority. The President retains extensive tariff authority under longstanding statutes, including: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (national security) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices) Section 201 safeguards Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 Other congressionally delegated trade enforcement tools.” “All tariffs imposed under those authorities remain fully in effect,” Meuser says. Additionally, the ruling does not invalidate the fruits of Trump’s use of the tariffs to negotiate favorable trade terms, such as lower tariffs charged on U.S. exports by other countries, Meuser notes: “Second, all trade agreements and commitments secured during this period remain in place. The Court’s ruling does not unwind negotiated deals, investment pledges, LNG purchase agreements, or manufacturing commitments.” “What the Court did do is remove a key leverage tool under IEEPA,” Rep. Meuser writes. “That tool provided the flexibility to move quickly, impose broad reciprocal tariffs, and bring trading partners to the table.” Nonetheless, the ruling will not derail Trump’s “America First” trade policy, the Republican says, promising that the president will continue to use every legal authority available to protect American workers, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and secure fair treatment for the United States in the global economy: “While the Court has now limited one of those tools, the President retains powerful and proven authorities to ensure our trading partners honor their commitments.”

In another tease for CNN’s new documentary on The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Pamela Brown continued her promotion of hour-long “special report” by going after Christian schools’ methods of teaching and punishment amid a recent rise of shooting attacks against Christian schools on Thursday’s CNN News Central. Brown started her report by calling classical Christian schools as “foundational” for the “Christian nationalism” movement.  She visited and interviewed the heads of a classical Christian school in Taylor, Texas, who happened to be a married couple. She made sure to make a point that a religious school's teachings are… built upon the ideals of their religion, “Religion isn't just a subject, it's embedded in every subject and in the way they discipline students who may act out of turn.”   While America sees more transgenders shooting up Christian schools, Pamela Brown's new tease for her anti-Christian doc also bashes such schools: "Religion isn't just a subject, it's embedded in every subject and in the way they discipline students who may act out of turn." pic.twitter.com/TvmnoTCnrF — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) February 19, 2026   Brown's interview with the school leaders focused on the discipline techniques of the classroom, some of which have been common occurrence at religious schools for many years, “Within strict reformed churches, disobedience demands discipline. Whether from a parent, a husband, or a teacher.” Headmaster Caleb Ripple then added, “The goal of biblical discipline is to get them back into fellowship with God, with one another. And nine times out of ten our teachers are able to get that done in the classroom.” As for the one exception, Headmistress EJ Ripple declared, “We do have a spanking policy. We'll make a phone call to the parents and say we have to resolve the issue. So whether it's you coming to pick them up or you coming and administering your own discipline, or us administering a spanking. The root of the problem is a sinful heart.” Caleb concluded, “We do not ever leave that room after a spanking. And the student is sulky, angry, mad. It is always a restoration of fellowship and it's a beautiful picture. It really is.” The short preview ended as Brown pointed out the presence of high chairs in the classroom, as her teachers who are mothers are “encouraged to bring their newborns to school. There could be babies crawling around while they teach. They might be holding their babies, Brianna. It's to remind the students that their female teachers' primary role, first and foremost, is to be a mother.” The documentary tease’s use of the paddle is meant to invoke an image of violence at these schools, but in reality it is part of stories that have been told about corporal punishment at some Christian schools for decades. The depiction of these schools also comes at a time where Christian schools have been victims of shooting attacks, with some being motivated by transgender ideologies seen in Minneapolis and Nashville.  It is also important to note in most of the documentary teases so far, there has been little explicit connection of Christianity to politics, except for a connection between as Christian pastor, Doug Wilson, and Secretary Pete Hegseth. It may lead some to ask if some of CNN's resources could be used to cover topics other than Christianity. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN News Central February 19, 2026 1:57:50 PM BRIANNA KEILAR: CNN's brand new episode of The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper examines the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States. That ideology is rooted in the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and its laws and institutions should reflect that. CNN anchor and chief investigative correspondent Pamela Brown has been digging into this. All right, Pamela, tell us what you found. PAMELA BROWN: Well Brianna, when I embarked on this documentary on Christian nationalism, I wanted to better understand the curriculums and ultimate goals of classical Christian schools, which are really foundational for this movement and what the environment there looks like.  So, I embedded with a community in southeast Texas called Taylor, where I interviewed several folks affiliated with the classical Christian school in the town there, that included the headmaster and headmistress who are married, and another teacher who plans to send all of her children there. Religion isn't just a subject, it's embedded in every subject and in the way they discipline students who may act out of turn. [Cuts to video] BROWN: Within strict reformed churches, disobedience demands discipline. Whether from a parent, a husband, or a teacher. CALEB RIPPLE (Classical Christian School Headmaster): The goal of biblical discipline is to get them back into fellowship with God, with one another. And nine times out of ten our teachers are able to get that done in the classroom. BROWN: But when they can’t. GROUP: We do have a paddle. EJ RIPPLE (Classical Christian School Headmistress): We do have a spanking policy. We'll make a phone call to the parents and say we have to resolve the issue. So, whether it's you coming to pick them up or you coming and administering your own discipline, or us administering a spanking. The root of the problem is a sinful heart. C. RIPPLE: We do not ever leave that room after a spanking. And the student is sulky, angry, mad. It is always a restoration of fellowship and it's a beautiful picture. It really is. [Cuts back to live] BROWN: Now, something they wanted to make clear to me is that disobeying the teacher, while under the authority of that teacher, in their view is also disobeying God. So they see the paddling as a picture of restoration for the students.  And another element our viewers might find interesting, is at the back of the classroom where we did this interview, there were high chairs. The teachers explained that mothers who are teachers are encouraged to bring their newborns to school. There could be babies crawling around while they teach. They might be holding their babies, Brianna. It's to remind the students that their female teachers' primary role, first and foremost, is to be a mother. I mean, that is foundational as well in their belief system that women should be submissive to their husbands and they should be a mother first and foremost. So, I'm going to examine all of this and much more in my hour long documentary on The Whole story with Anderson Cooper this Sunday, February 22nd at 8 PM Eastern on CNN, or the next day on CNN's all access streaming platform. And you can see other elements of the story while we're promoting this week on my Instagram, @PamelaBrownCNN. KEILAR: Really fascinating. And I know it’s going to generate a lot of conversation. BROWN: And it should. And I hope people of all different faiths watch this and learn something from it, because it is a consequential moment in our country.