Politics
Supreme Court Shows A Willingness To Deny Trump’s ‘Emergencies’ — At Least For Now
WASHINGTON – Does the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Donald Trump’s claim that no one can challenge tariffs he imposed under an “emergency” mean that those same justices who placed the presidency above the law two years ago are now prepared to block his other, even more autocratic impulses?
Critics of Trump’s efforts to expand his powers are cautiously optimistic following Friday’s 6-3 decision in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett joined with the court’s three justices appointed by Democratic presidents to rule against Trump, noting it shows a willingness to limit Trump’s claims of “emergency” authorities.
“The Supreme Court’s decision provides a roadmap for how the new left-right court majority intends to check Trump’s unlawful abuses of power,” said Norm Eisen, a lawyer in Barack Obama’s White House. “The opinion resoundingly rejects Trump’s contention that courts cannot review a president’s declaration of an emergency.”
Robert Kagan, a neoconservative scholar who served in Ronald Reagan’s State Department and stands among the most strident voices warning of a Trump dictatorship, was less sanguine.
“The fact that they were willing to do this is better than if they had gone the other way. Does it mean they are ready to step in on something like an election dispute?” he wondered. “If the administration claims foreign involvement and national security? If there are disputes about ballots? I can still see them delaying or punting on those questions.”
From the day he took office, Trump set off on a spree of declaring “emergencies” that he claimed allowed him to set aside laws or rules to push policies he wanted. An “energy” emergency, for instance, enabled him to open Alaska for fossil fuel drilling notwithstanding environmental laws and regulations. A “border” emergency has been the pretext for curtailing the refugee program, among many other actions.
Friday’s ruling was the first Supreme Court decision to block actions Trump has taken citing his “emergencies,” in this case tariffs he imposed because of fentanyl trafficking and a trade imbalance with the rest of the world.
“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” the summary of the opinion states, citing a framework the court has in recent years used to invalidate programs it believed went too far beyond what laws had authorised. “Nor does the fact that tariffs implicate foreign affairs render the doctrine inapplicable.”
While a defiant Trump announced in a news conference three hours after the court’s decision that he would simply replace the struck-down tariffs with different ones, the probability of that happening and import taxes continuing was never really a primary concern for those worried about the future of the republic.
A tariff regime set by one president can be modified or eliminated by another president. The biggest worry of Kagan and others remains whether there will even be another president.
A worst-case scenario, some Trump critics posit, is that during the run-up to a national election, Trump issues an executive order declaring that the nation’s voting systems have been corrupted by malign foreign actors and that he is declaring a state of emergency, postponing elections until he determines the threat has ended and deploying troops to enforce his order.
Indeed, Trump has already hinted at such circumstances. He constantly lies that elections have been stolen from him through illegal voting, and he has multiple times spoken of taking over elections in states he dislikes.
Under the traditional legal framework, presidential findings in the areas of foreign affairs or national security are not subject to review by the courts, which have worked from the principle that they lack access to the intelligence agencies that presidents have and therefore cannot second-guess their decisions.
Friday’s ruling offered the first hint that a majority of justices are willing to challenge Trump if they believe he is overreaching.
“This was a clear-cut case, but it does establish a helpful baseline,” said Amanda Carpenter, a former aide to Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz and now a researcher with the nonprofit Protect Democracy.
Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, wrote that all presidents seek to maximize their power, which is why the framers of the Constitution specifically gave so much of it to Congress.
“Our founders understood that men are not angels, and we disregard that insight at our peril when we allow the few (or the one) to aggrandize their power based on loose or uncertain authority,” he wrote.
Roberts went perhaps even further by making a factual, common-sense assertion ― without bothering to cite evidence gathered from lower courts, as is usually the case ― to contradict Trump’s claim of an emergency: “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”
Roberts criticized Trump’s ability to impose, reduce, increase and eliminate tariffs on a whim under that claimed authority.
“All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a presidential declaration of emergency, which the government asserts is unreviewable,” he wrote, quoting later from a 1952 decision: “And as the framers understood, emergencies can ‘afford a ready pretext for usurpation’ of congressional power.”
Democracy advocates have been leery of the current Supreme Court since its 2024 decision giving broad immunity from prosecution for presidents’ “official” acts taken in office. The ruling delayed movement in the criminal prosecution of Trump based on his Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt. Trump won his office back in the November 2024 election, and the case was dismissed under standing Department of Justice policy to not prosecute a sitting president.
Ty Cobb, a former prosecutor who served in Trump’s first-term White House Counsel’s Office, said he was glad Roberts could manage to build a six-vote bloc in the tariffs case.
“The Kavanaugh dissent is very discouraging, however,” he said of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s 61-page opinion that found novel ways of siding with the president who pushed through his controversial nomination. “Roberts and Barrett, though, and Gorsuch to a lesser extent, seem to understand the stakes now, which is a good thing. The chief justice was direct and forceful on this.”
On 21 February, we reported on disturbing comments from the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Our focus was that Huckabee wants the world to pay Israel reparations for the genocide it inflicted upon Gaza. It’s another comment from Huckabee which has caused international controversy, however, especially in the Middle East:
🚨 BREAKING: Mike Huckabee just triggered a full-blown diplomatic backlash.
After saying it would be “fine” for Israel to take over the Middle East, 14 countries + major regional blocs publicly condemned him.
Jordan. UAE. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. Türkiye. Indonesia. Qatar. Lebanon.… pic.twitter.com/KuCsIh6TMz
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) February 21, 2026
The Middle East United
As we reported yesterday, Huckabee is an American evangelist:
Many American evangelicals support Israel, but not because they like Israelis. In actuality, they think the creation of Israel is a signifier that the end times are approaching, and that Israel will trigger the Rapture.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, the ‘Rapture’ is the time when God calls his faithful back to heaven. Said ‘faithful’ will not include the Jewish men and women who live in Israel, even if they do play an instrumental role in jump starting the Armageddon.
While it’s perfectly possible for faithful people to serve in government, it’s a different story for zealots. The response to Huckabee’s comments demonstrate why that is.
The following is what Huckabee said:
mike huckabee cares more about the greater israel project than he does about americans. he cares more about israel than the majority of american jews. totally insane person. https://t.co/BjbooXPuXI
— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) February 21, 2026
In the clip, Carlson makes it clear that Huckabee’s vision of an expanded Israel would mean the overthrow of every sovereign country in the Middle East. Huckabee says he would be “fine if they took it all”.
You know your interview with Tucker Carlson could have gone better when you united the entire Muslim world (probably for the first time ever) in condemnation. https://t.co/pZeZUAKbO4
— Shaiel Ben-Ephraim (@academic_la) February 21, 2026
Just imagine the response if a Chinese ambassador said he would be fine with Mexico taking over all 50 US states.
The problem for Donald Trump is that he’s sought to have good relations with the wealthier Middle Eastern countries. Now, Saudi Arabia and others have made it clear they’re furious with the Trump regime’s messaging:
The worst US diplomatic blunder in recent memory. Huckabee just set our relations in the M.E. back decades and destroyed any trust they may have in the US.
This is what happens when you hire maniacal religious zealots to represent you overseas.
Huckabee must go immediately before… https://t.co/p1jw5K3Pmm— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) February 21, 2026
Alliances
Obviously it’s a problem that the West is most comfortable with the wealthy Middle Eastern countries which use literal slaves. At the same time, Huckabee’s comments have just made it more difficult for the US to wage another devastating war in the Middle East:
I guess we owe Huckabee a “thank you.” https://t.co/egbtBaWcZq
— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) February 21, 2026
Much like in Europe, Middle Eastern countries may be realising that the US only looks out for itself.
Featured image via Trade Mark Room
A new poll conducted by Opinium has wrecked the far-right myth that Muslims in the UK and US are determined to impose Sharia law on everyone else. Opinium shared the results with Zeteo, who report:
The survey of 1,000 American Muslims and 500 British Muslims, conducted by Opinium for the Concordia Forum, a transatlantic thinktank and networking group, in October 2025, measured views on democracy, equality, and the intersection of religion and country.
85% of Muslims across Britain and the North of Ireland voted for democracy when asked:
Do you believe democracy is the best system of government for the country you live in or do you think another system would be better?
This compares to 71% of the general population giving the same answer to the question. In the United States, the figures were 81% for Muslims and 67% for the general population. Opinium asked a range of other questions too, including querying Muslims as to whether they had:
…changed [their] routine or avoided certain places due to concerns of anti-Muslim hate or violence.
Survey also finds Muslims are changing lifestyle to avoid threat of violence
Alarmingly, only 15% said they never change their routine. 32% of UK respondents said they “often or “always” make adjustments due to concerns of violence. This fear is rational given the huge rise in Islamophobia in recent years. Tell Mama, a group that measures anti-Muslim prejudice, said in February 2025 that cases of hatred towards practitioners of the faith were at an all-time high. They reported:
…a large rise in the categorisation of ‘threatening behaviour’ in street based cases. This amounts to a 715% increase in such cases between 2023 and 2024.
…surge in rhetoric that falsely portrays Muslims as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.
This has accelerated during the Gaza genocide, amidst rhetoric from so-called ‘Israel’ and its supporters that cast the Zionist entity as being at the forefront of a battle between a supposedly civilised ‘Judeo-Christian’ axis and a regressive Muslim world. The whole concept of a single Judeo-Christian ideology is a myth, just as much as the ‘clash of civilisations’ narrative.
US political scientist Samuel Huntington concocted the latter concept as a cynical ploy to unite the US against an external enemy. This too was driven by his bigoted fears that a diverse US population would end up internally divided. Huntingdon said:
There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are.
Our current ruling class are intent on ensuring we have someone to hate, to distract from the fact they continue to rob us blind. Muslims are still the main fall guy for this tactic. US president Donald Trump attempted to maintain the pretence that Muslims are subverting democracy when he said:
I look at London, where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor, and it’s been changed, it’s been so changed. Now they want to go to sharia law. But you are in a different country, you can’t do that.
This sort of shite seems to be having an effect. A 2024 Hope Not Hate survey of Conservative Party members:
…found that 52% believed parts of European cities were under sharia law and were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Billionaires are the true haters of democracy
In reality, the people who have the greatest disdain for democracy are authoritarian politicians like Trump and the billionaire class they serve. Trump famously goaded his supporters into an insurrection in 2021, and has ranted to his military about the need to purge an “enemy within”. The brownshirts of his personal paramilitary force ICE have been murdering dissenters around the US.
Billionaires like Peter Thiel loathe the notion that his ilk ought to be constrained by the popular will. He has talked about a desire:
…to find an escape from politics in all its forms.
I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
This, of course, is a conception of liberty in which ‘freedom for the pike is death for the minnows‘. Ultra-rich paedo Jeffrey Epstein viewed most people with total disdain, pondering that:
Maybe climate change is a good way of dealing with overpopulation.
His eugenicist fantasies included vile breeding programs to populate the world with his own supposedly superior genetic material. Elon Musk also has a similar disdain for democracy, illustrated by the fact he is a literal Nazi. He likewise shares Epstein’s belief in diluting the world’s gene pool with clones of his deeply flawed self.
Through their overt belief that they are uniquely qualified to rule, these people show us who are the true opponents of democracy. In the case of billionaires, despite never being elected, they reckon they have the right to determine the future of the species. If we want democracy to survive, it’s not Muslims we need worry about — it’s concentrations of extreme wealth and the economic system that makes it possible.
Featured image via MiddleEastEye
“I want a fairer system for students and graduates”
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson says the government will “look at” how it can improve the student loan system but does not commit to reforms called for by opposition parties #BBCLauraK
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) February 22, 2026
A cabinet minister has promised the government is “not ruling anything out” when it comes to the possibility of removing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession.
The former prince was already stripped of his titles last autumn over his connection to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Fresh details about their relationship saw police arrest Andrew, formerly a UK trade envoy, over allegations of misconduct in public office on Thursday.
He was released under investigation. The former Duke of York has always vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
The developments have sparked widespread calls for the government to take further action against the former prince, who remains eighth in line to the throne.
Doing so would require an act of parliament, meaning it would need approval from MPs and peers before going to the King for royal assent.
It would need to be supported by 14 Commonwealth countries where King Charles is still the head of state, too.
Andrew is also still part of the Privy Council, a formal body of advisers to the monarch, which acts as a key link between the monarchy and the government.
So Sky News presenter Trevor Phillips asked education secretary Bridget Phillipson: “When can we expect to see draft legislation, excluding the form of Prince Andrew from the line of succession?”
She replied: “So we’re not ruling anything out, around this, but we have obviously got a live police investigation underway, so we’ll not be setting out further steps until the police have been able to do their work.
“And wherever that investigation, wherever the evidence takes them.”
Phillips said: “But so you’re up for this and also presumably advising the King to remove him from the Privy Council?”
“So we’ve said that we have to keep all of these options available to us,” the cabinet minister replied. “But you’ll appreciate that because we have a live police investigation underway.
“It’s right that the police are allowed to do their job.
“Once that is concluded, then of course we’ll consider in discussion, with the royal family, with the King, what further action is needed.
“But I do just think as well, in all of this, we really shouldn’t lose sight of where this began.
“And where this began was with young women and girls being exploited over an extended period of time by a network of very powerful men and we can’t ever forget that.”
Her remarks come after defence minister Luke Pollard told BBC Radio 4 that the government has “absolutely” been working with Buckingham Palace to stop Andrew “potentially being a heartbeat away from the throne.”
He said he hoped the idea would receive “cross party support” but warned that something like that could only happen when the police investigation concludes.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said last week that the monarchy must work to make sure Andrew can “never become king”, while Green leader Zack Polanski said “when necessary” people should be “removed” from their positions.
Andrew was detained for 11 hours on Thursday, which was his 66th birthday.
Police searched his property on the Sandringham estate on the day and are in the middle of a five-day search of his Windsor home, Royal Lodge.
Several other police forces are allegedly considering launching an investigation into the former prince based on the Epstein files.
It comes after the US Department of Justice released more than three million documents about Epstein and his connections around the world last month, including his contact with Andrew.
Reform UK treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick tells @TrevorPTweets it ‘wasn’t an easy decision’ to leave the Conservatives, but refuses to respond to Kemi Badenoch’s comments about his defection.
— Sky News (@SkyNews) February 22, 2026
Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest and links to Jeffrey Epstein.
— GB News (@GBNEWS) February 22, 2026
The post Trott supports removal of Andrew from royal succession appeared first on Conservative Home.
Phillipson Refuses to Say US Could Use UK Military Bases to Hit Iran
Jenrick: The Country is Going Bankrupt, Reform Has Got to be Responsible
Phillipson Grilled as Teacher Numbers Fall Year-on-Year
spiked is funded by readers like you. Only 0.1% of regular readers currently support us. If just 1% did, we could grow our team and step up the fight for free speech and democracy.
Become a spiked supporter and enjoy unlimited, ad-free access, bonus content and exclusive events – while helping to keep independent journalism alive.
Hilary Duff reveals how her parents tricked her into eating cow testicles as a kid: 'Devastated'
mental freedom matters more than financial freedom.
Bolton best friends host charity night for Destitute Animals Shelter
-
Video6 days agoBitcoin: We’re Entering The Most Dangerous Phase
-
Crypto World5 days agoCan XRP Price Successfully Register a 33% Breakout Past $2?
-
Video2 days agoXRP News: XRP Just Entered a New Phase (Almost Nobody Noticed)
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Boden – Corporette.com
-
Sports5 days agoGB's semi-final hopes hang by thread after loss to Switzerland
-
Politics7 hours agoBaftas 2026: Awards Nominations, Presenters And Performers
-
Tech5 days agoThe Music Industry Enters Its Less-Is-More Era
-
Business5 days agoInfosys Limited (INFY) Discusses Tech Transitions and the Unique Aspects of the AI Era Transcript
-
Entertainment4 days agoKunal Nayyar’s Secret Acts Of Kindness Sparks Online Discussion
-
Video5 days agoFinancial Statement Analysis | Complete Chapter Revision in 10 Minutes | Class 12 Board exam 2026
-
Tech4 days agoRetro Rover: LT6502 Laptop Packs 8-Bit Power On The Go
-
Sports3 days agoClearing the boundary, crossing into history: J&K end 67-year wait, enter maiden Ranji Trophy final | Cricket News
-
Entertainment4 days agoDolores Catania Blasts Rob Rausch For Turning On ‘Housewives’ On ‘Traitors’
-
Business1 hour agoMattel’s American Girl brand turns 40, dolls enter a new era
-
Business4 days agoTesla avoids California suspension after ending ‘autopilot’ marketing
-
NewsBeat7 days agoThe strange Cambridgeshire cemetery that forbade church rectors from entering
-
Politics5 days agoEurovision Announces UK Act For 2026 Song Contest
-
Crypto World4 days agoWLFI Crypto Surges Toward $0.12 as Whale Buys $2.75M Before Trump-Linked Forum
-
NewsBeat7 days agoMan dies after entering floodwater during police pursuit
-
Crypto World3 days ago83% of Altcoins Enter Bear Trend as Liquidity Crunch Tightens Grip on Crypto Market