In what simply has to be the best Nazgul news to hit the public since the dread black riders first rode forth from their dark citadel of Minas Morgul, a Czechoslovakian wolfdog of that name managed to break into the Olympics earlier today, appearing on a ski track during a qualification event for women’s cross-country skiing. And, at the risk of editorializing, we here at The A.V. Club would like to go on the record and suggest that this dog should now be given an Olympic medal—possibly taken from one of his faster but less adorable competitors, if need be.
We’re not saying Nazgul—who apparently lives at a nearby bed and breakfast, and is owned by people “related to an event official,” per NPR—should be given a gold medal, necessarily. But certainly a bronze; he did, after all, complete the event, with Omega, the company whose cameras do finish-line imaging for the Games, releasing a picture of Nazgul crossing the threshhold with absolutely majestic form. Also, listen to this description of the “stubborn but sweet” Olympian from his owners, whose identities are being kept anonymous so as not to have the entire laser-like focus of Dog Internet beamed at their faces: “He was crying this morning more than normal because he was seeing us leaving—and I think he just wanted to follow us. He always looks for people.” He always looks for people, folks! Give the dog silver, at least. (We just looked it up, licking bronze might not be good for dogs.)
Mark Joseph Stern at Slate is normally anything but positive about Chief Justice John Roberts. But he gives him some props for the tariff decision today:
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court sends the blunt message that Trump should not expect SCOTUS to rubber-stamp all of his expansions of executive power, no matter how much political pressure he puts on the justices. This rejoinder may be surprising given the Republican-appointed supermajority’s previous tolerance for the president’s assertions of king-like authority. But as Roberts’ crisp, confident opinion explains, allowing the president to impose taxes unilaterally—at least without clear congressional authority—is an existential threat to the very “existence and prosperity” of the nation.
[…]
Should we be shocked that this court—which has, for 13 months, enabledTrump’s abuses of officeover the shadow docket—smacked down Trump’s marquee economic policy so emphatically? Not really. For one thing, this case is pretty easy: As Roberts explained, no sensible reading of IEEPA would hand over unlimited tariff authority to the president. Moreover, the business community does not like these tariffs; even the Chamber of Commerce urged the justices to strike them down. The conservative justices are sympathetic toward corporate interests, and did them a favor by ending Trump’s whim-based tariff regime. These justices are also economically literate and must understand that tariffs are bad for the economy. As with Trump’s efforts to fire members of the Federal Reserve, this case gave the conservatives an opportunity to flaunt their independence while delivering a victory to corporate America. From that angle, it’s a pure win-win.
But we should not be entirely cynical about Friday’s ruling. It does take courage for the justices to stand up to the president this way, especially when he has tried to bully them into ruling in his favor. Since Trump returned to the White House, we have wondered whether the Supreme Court could muster enough independence to save our constitutional system from his efforts to consolidate all power in the Oval Office. Too often, SCOTUS has shirked this duty. But there are still some lines it won’t let Trump cross. As Roberts wrote, the Framers viewed taxation as “the one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based.” And in the end, he and his colleagues felt obliged to protect this thread of our national fabric from the man who would unravel it
Yes, it turns out that they don’t like taxes. Surprise. They’re clearly worried that a Democratic president will start unilaterally taxing them. Nonetheless, in protecting the prerogatives of the Congress, they are breaking from their Unitary Executive obsession and it’s just possible that they are finally seeing the wisdom of upholding the checks and balances. They’ve staked some ground with this one and it will be very interesting to see if they continue to relearn the lesson of 250 years ago that it’s a mistake to endow a Mad King with unlimited power.
.@POTUS: “If our new head of the Fed, who I think is going to be great … but if he does the job that he is capable, we can grow at 15% [GDP]. I think more than that.” pic.twitter.com/CLNd1GNWIH
U.S. growth slowed more than expected near the end of 2025 as the government shutdown impacted spending and investment, while a key inflation metric showed high prices are still a factor for the economy, according to data released Friday.
Gross domestic product rose at an annualized rate of just 1.4%, according to the Commerce Department, well below the Dow Jones estimate for a 2.5% gain.
Consumer spending increased at a slower pace for the period while government spending tumbled sharply in a quarter marked by the record-length shutdown. The department estimated that the shutdown subtracted about 1 percentage point from growth, though it added that the exact impacts “cannot be quantified.”
For the full year in 2025, the U.S. economy grew at a 2.2% pace, down from the 2.8% increase in 2024.
Trump’s saying that the GDP numbers would be massively better if it weren’t for the shutdown but, of course, he could have done something about that himself and chose to concentrate on his Nobel ambitions and destroying the East Wing instead. And he’s wrong. It may have caused caused some of it but the YUGE growth Trump predicted when he came into office would have off set it if it had actually happened.
Trump’s in a very bad mood after the tariff decisions which means it’s probably more likely he will go ahead and order strikes on Iran. He’s ordered a massive military build-up in the region and they are all just waiting for the go-ahead.
When President George W. Bush began preparing the country for the invasion of Iraq, he traveled the country making the case that Saddam Hussein’s government, and its weapons, posed an unacceptable threat to the United States.
Speaking in Cincinnati’s Union Terminal one October night in 2002, he warned that Iraq could attack the United States “on any given day” with chemical or biological weapons. He compared the urgency of the moment to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, declaring doing nothing was “the riskiest of all options.”
Most of Mr. Bush’s arguments turned out to be fanciful, based on selective intelligence and in some cases outright false claims. The war that followed is now considered by many historians as one of the gravest American strategic errors of modern times.
But if Mr. Bush made a false case, President Trump, facing a decision about whether to unleash a second major military assault on Iran in less than a year, has made almost no case at all.
He’s said it’s about the nuclear program which he previously claimed was “obliterated.” Then he said that he wanted to support the protesters. He’s doing it on behalf of Israel and for oil prices. he’s all over the place.
Mr. Trump has never consistently described his goals, and when he talks about them it is usually in a haze of brief, offhand comments. The president has given no speeches preparing the American public for a strike on a country of about 90 million people, and sought no approval from Congress. He has not explained why he has chosen this moment to confront Iran instead of, for example, North Korea, which in the years after Mr. Trump’s failed negotiations in the first term has expanded its nuclear arsenal to 60 or more warheads, by U.S. intelligence estimates, and is working to demonstrate they can reach the United States.
And when pressed on Iran, Mr. Trump regularly deflects questions about whether regime change is his true goal, leaving unclear what kind of end-state he seeks — other than an Iran that can never obtain nuclear weapons.
I think he believes that he can topple the regime and claim the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m quite sure Bibi, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the Iran hawks have been feeding him this for months if not years. The problem is that Trump is essentially a coward and on some level he knows that this could hurtle out of control and he could be stuck in a major war which frightens him.
But right now he’s pissed and since he is driven entirely by emotion I think he might just pull the trigger in a fit of pique. (He might have done it anyway, of course.)
I’m not a big fan of the “distraction” theory but if there’s any truth to it, this would certainly be the mother of all distractions.
The Supreme Court’s stunning decision invalidating Donald Trump’s tariffs isn’t just a major legal setback, though it certainly is that. The loss before the high court is also another sign that the pillars of Trump’s right-wing nationalist agenda are crumbling in a much broader and deeper sense—so much so that they’re posing a serious threat to the long-term durability of the ideology known as Trumpism.
If you had to name the two most essential pillars of Trumpian populist nationalism, you’d probably single out his sweeping tariffs and his campaign to deport all undocumented immigrants. The tariffs are supposed to unleash a domestic manufacturing renaissance, and the mass expulsions are designed to ethnically and culturally purify the nation. Together they make up much of the foundation of Trumpism’s fantasy version of nationalist renewal.
Both of those are now in crisis. The tariffs have been broadly invalidated. And in the aftermath of ICE’s invasion of Minneapolis, the deportations of noncriminal undocumented immigrants—while still proceeding—have been widely discredited in the minds of all but the molten MAGA core and face determined resistance all across American culture and society.
I hope this is true. I still worry that it’s all about the egg prices and if costs stabilize and the immigration push leaves the news cycle, people will go back to enjoying the show.
But for today, I’ll take this. I do think that people are seeing him more clearly than they have since January 6th and they don’t like what they see. With Trump promising to continue the tariffs by hook or by crook it’s hard to see how the economy materially improves. (If we have a war with Iran, we can be sure that oil prices are going to spike so it will almost certainly get worse.) The immigration policy is unlikely to change — there just too much money involved now what with the huge detention centers and the billions going to hire misfits to put on a mask and camo to terrify the public. (If you build it they will use it.) So there’s a good chance that people aren’t going to snap back. I hope not.
He will no longer be able to (easily) destroy the economy with his daft tariffs and the Supremes are helping the GOP with the affordability crisis. We knew they would, right?
President Donald Trump paid a price for going it alone on tariffs — with the Supreme Court on Friday delivering a rare rebuke by ruling he lacked the power to declare an economic emergency and launch sweeping new taxes on imports.
Trump had made tariffs the bedrock of his economic pitch to voters going into the midterm elections, even describing tariffs as his “favorite word in the dictionary.” He promised that factories would relocate from overseas and bring jobs with them, and he warned that losing the tariffs could plunge the U.S. into a deep recession.
But Friday’s ruling will most likely prolong political and economic chaos over international trade through the election year.
Trump called the decision “a disgrace” after he was handed a note informing him of the Supreme Court decision during a private meeting with several governors, according to two people with knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Another person, who was briefed on the conversation, disclosed that Trump said he has “to do something about these courts.”
Lol. He practically birthed this entire Court.
They knew this was probably coming and they’re prepared to use some other authorities so he’s not going to give up easily. He loves his tariffs. They are his One Big Economic Idea and he doesn’t really know what else to use as a threat, his only method of negotiation. (Well, there IS the military…. looks like Iran will be the new paradigm for that technique.)
Stay tuned. This should get interesting.
Update: He’s very upset and whining like a little bitch:
Trump: “I didn't want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court…I want to be a good boy." pic.twitter.com/7HpKkKrE0P
Trump: "I am allowed to cut off any and all trade…I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country, I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo…I can do anything I want to do to them…I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge a little fee." pic.twitter.com/LZQLJQueuI
He said “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” That would include two of the ones he appointed, Gorsuch and Barrett.
They did him a favor.His tariff scheme is an epic failure. If he’s just take the L, he’d be a lot better off. But he won’t. He’s determined to add on a bunch of new tariffs under different authorities and throw the economy into further chaos.
This is the problem with someone who can’t ever admit he was wrong.
Update II:
You cannot make this shit up:
Q: "What did you mean a moment ago when you said the Supreme Court was swayed by foreign influence?"
Trump: "I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence, they have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court." pic.twitter.com/YDlcIXD2mN
Like Henry Hill’s fondness for gangsters, Donald Trump always wanted to be a dictator. He’s as desperate to be one as he is for a Nobel Peace Prize. The problem is that Trump wants to join a club that wouldn’t have someone like him for a member. So instead he’s gathered other lowlifes and formed his own club:
The husband of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer has been barred from the department’s headquarters after at least two female staff members told officials that he had sexually assaulted them, according to people familiar with the decision and a police report obtained by The New York Times.
The women said Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s husband, Dr. Shawn DeRemer, had touched them inappropriately at the Labor Department’s building on Constitution Avenue. One of the incidents, during working hours on the morning of Dec. 18, was recorded on office security cameras, the people said. The video showed Dr. DeRemer giving one of the women an extended embrace, and was reviewed as part of a criminal investigation, one of the people said.
Okay, so he’s just the husband of a Trump employee. How much of that reflects the character of Secretary Chavez-DeRemer?
Well:
The inspector general’s office is investigating a formal complaint that Ms. Chavez-DeRemer was having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate — a member of her security detail — and abusing her office by taking staff to strip clubs, drinking alcohol on the job and taking personal trips at taxpayer expense. Her lawyer has denied the allegations.
Innocent until proven a member of Trump’s cabinet, I say.
During her tenure as labor secretary, thousands of department employees have been pushed out of the federal service. Her department has also broadcast social media messages that echoed those used by white nationalists.
King Charles insisted “the law must take its course” after police on Thursday arrested his brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The former prince and trade envoy is under investigation for leaking confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein. Police are also reportedly investigating information revealed in released documents that Epstein sent a second woman to England for sex with Mountbatten-Windsor (BBC News):
“I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.
“What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities.
“In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation.
“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”
On this side of the pond, our divine-right “king” declares himself exonerated four times in 30 seconds in connection with anything to do with the Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislane Maxwell’s sex trafficking. If only we heard a rooster crow every time Donald Trump repeated his declaration of innocence.
Stephen Collinson of CNN laments the collapse of accountability for Epstein perps on this side of the Atlantic:
The first arrest of a British royal in nearly 400 years posed this question: If legal authorities in Britain and elsewhere in Europe can act independently and breach the protected circle around Epstein’s former network, why is there not a similar faith in the justice system in the US?
“Great Britain is holding its powerful and privileged to account. The United States of America should do the same,” Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts told CNN’s Kate Bolduan.
In the United Kingdom, the machinery of public investigation appears to be functioning as intended. It’s harder to make that claim with confidence in the US given the politicization of a justice system that has prosecuted President Donald Trump’s opponents and a president who pardoned hundreds of people convicted of crimes linked to the January 6, 2021, riot.
Trump’s Department of Justice has resisted every effort to bring those connected to the Epstein scandal to justice. Epstein’s victims raised their hands during AG Pam Bondi’s House Judiciary Committee hearing last week to affirm that, yes, they’d taken their allegations to the DOJ (under multiple administrations) and, no, they’d heard nothing back. Meanwhile. simply being associated with Epstein has cost some high-fliers their jobs both overseas and in the U.S.
Collinson defines the problem:
The DOJ may be justified in insisting that there is insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to charge anyone with crimes over their ties to Epstein.
This does not, however, address the core issues in the scandal. Even if prosecutions aren’t possible, what about an accounting for scores of women allegedly abused by Epstein? If there was a sex trafficking ring operating in the United States, shouldn’t the government be investigating it, if only to ensure it never happens again? And isn’t the country owed answers about the circle of rich and influential people who continued to associate with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
The Trump administration doesn’t think so. Bondi’s unwilling. What’s more, she’s just declared her DOJ a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Crime Syndicate.
Collinson concludes:
And the idea that the US justice system, like its British counterpart, could operate independently of the head of state — even if it causes him great embarrassment — is no longer credible.
As if to confirm this stark new American reality, the DOJ on Thursday unfurled a massive banner between two iconic columns on its Washington headquarters.
Bigly Brother is not watching out for you, only for himself. If you want to see the law take its course, take your criminal complaints somewhere that the rule of law still applies.
“It’s astonishing how much accountability seems to be possible once you cross the Atlantic,” writes Miami Herald investigative journalist Julie K. Brown. “Meanwhile, neither the U.S. Justice Department or the Treasury Department seems to have made an effort to ‘follow the money’ involving some of Epstein’s friends and associates.”
We’ve forgotten what accountability for public officials looks like in the United States, or even that it’s possible. But here it is in front of us, with a former prince stripped of his royal titles and arrested by the police just like anyone else. The cult of Trump may have temporarily derailed the rule of law in the U.S., at least for its leader, but it can still be restored; indeed, the public is clamoring for that when it comes to the Epstein Files. It’s time to stop protecting rich and powerful men who rape children and others who made that possible, whoever they are. Later this month, Bill and Hillary Clinton will testify on Capitol Hill. There is no possible justification for treating Donald Trump any differently.
Unfortunately, you can’t hear the music but you can see he knows how to cut a rug. (And he writes well too!)
Lol. Apparently, some Hullabaloo readers have come up to him in recent days to give him a pat on the back. He texted me today:
“I tell people this is an attention economy. Get some or go home. For the first time in my life yesterday, in another location, I had a white-haired woman in a new, red Cadillac shout out the window, “Get a job!” Cracked me up. What century is she living in?”
He’s a local hero. We should all aspire to do as much.
I wrote about the destruction of the post-Watergate reforms, particularly the abandonment of any pretense of an arms length relationship with the White House, in this piece for Salon last week. I never imagined they would illustrate it so vividly.
