Thursday, February 26, 2026

Trump Uses State of the Union Address to Falsely Declare Economy Is “Roaring”


Ignoring the economic reality of most Americans is an incredible gamble for the president.

February 25, 2026

President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2026.Kenny Holston-Pool / Getty Images

President Donald Trump delivered his first State of the Union speech since returning to the White House for a second term, largely ignoring the real economic conditions of the American people.

Trump declared economic success, claiming “the interests of hardworking American citizens are always our first and ultimate concern.”

“The roaring economy is roaring like never before,” Trump said.




During his speech, Trump claimed there was “no inflation,” only to state later that “inflation is plummeting.”

In reality, the 2.7 percent rate of inflation seen in 2025 is only 0.2 percent lower than it was in the year prior to Trump re-entering the White House. Food prices are also up by 2.4 percent overall during the first year of Trump’s second term.



Trump’s Pre-State of the Union Polling Numbers Among the Worst He’s Ever Had
Trump receives negative marks on the economy, foreign policy matters, his handling of immigration, and more. By Chris Walker , Truthout February 23, 2026


The president also touted tax cuts in his so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act as beneficial for most Americans. However, the law’s tax cuts largely benefited the wealthy, and the bill made significant cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Trump also praised his tariffs and blasted the Supreme Court decision last week that declared them unlawful and unconstitutional. He promised to institute more tariffs, using different mechanisms, and falsely claimed that American consumers wouldn’t bear the costs.

He absurdly claimed tariffs could replace income taxes one day, too.

“I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love,” Trump said.

Experts regard tariffs as a regressive form of taxation, affecting people with lower incomes much more than the wealthy. Trump’s tariffs are also the largest increase in taxes seen since 1993. Some economists believe that Trump’s tariffs have negatively impacted job growth in the U.S.

Trump’s comments were absurd at times.

“Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much,” Trump said at one point.

“We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country. Until you came along, we were just always losing, but now we’re winning too much,” he continued, adding that he’s not going to stop, and the U.S. will supposedly “win bigger than ever.”

Throughout his speech, Trump celebrated an economy that the majority of Americans think he is mishandling.

“We are the hottest country anywhere in the world,” he said.

A majority of Americans do not share that sentiment, several polls have found.

Trump entered the State of the Union Address with some of the worst polling numbers he’s seen in his two terms in office. A CNN/SSRS poll, for example, showed that only 36 percent of Americans approve of how Trump is handling his presidency, with 63 percent saying they disapprove.

A recent Pew Research poll found that only 28 percent of Americans believe the president’s economic policies have improved the country, while 52 percent believe his administration’s actions have made things worse.

An Economist/YouGov poll published on Tuesday also found that only 28 percent of Americans rate the current state of the economy as “excellent” or “good,” while 69 percent only rate it as “fair” or “poor.”

Most respondents in that poll were pessimistic about how the economy is trending, with 50 percent stating that things are “getting worse” overall.

Trump’s speech on Tuesday night is unlikely to ease the concerns of most Americans, as most State of the Union addresses fail to provide more than a statistical “bump” in presidents’ polling numbers. But if Trump continues to celebrate the economy while Americans by and large do not share the same rosy outlooks, the president’s risky gamble could affect how well the Republican Party does against Democrats in the midterms this fall.

Nobel laureate says Trump’s economy is not the 'envy' of Europe


U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One to depart Haneda Airport for South Korea, in Tokyo, Japan, October 29, 2025. REUTERS Evelyn Hockstein

February 25, 2026 
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump and Republicans enjoy bashing the European economy as a foil to America’s awesome growth, but Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman says the party really doesn’t have much to brag about.

“When comparing the US and the EU, uncritical use of real GDP numbers can lead to the conclusion that Europe is getting poorer relative to America. But it isn’t,” said Krugman on his substack.

A lazy glance at growth in real GDP between the U.S. and the EU might suggest the U.S. is growing substantially more than the EU, but “not so fast,” said Krugman. A third comparison adjusting for differences in the overall price level goods in the U.S. and EU puts the rate of growth between the two economies extremely close to one another between 2007 and 2024.

“One says that in real terms the U.S. economy has grown much faster than the EU economy. The other says that in real terms the two economies have stayed roughly equal in size,” said Krugman, adding that the contradiction appears to exist “because the concept of real GDP is often misunderstood.”

It can certainly lead you astray when “comparing nations that produce different mixes of goods because they have staked out different positions in the global economy,” said Krugman.

The U.S. conceivably produces more tech than the EU, and this spurs rapid technological progress, but that progress gets “passed on to everyone in the form of lower prices. … The relative size of the economies measured [while adjusting for differences in the overall price level] doesn’t change.”

And should Europe envy the United States for its tech sector? No, said Krugman. Big tech makes big money for big tech billionaires.

”Aside from the fact that Europeans are living well, tech generates a big negative externality, because among other things it generates tech-bro billionaires, who are corrupting our politics,” Krugman said, likely referring to Elon Musk putting his finger on Trump’s re-election, and his more recent failed endeavor to win a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat for Republicans.



DC insider lets loose on Trump's bad economy — and Republicans' 'irrelevance'

U.S. President Donald Trump smiles as he departs following the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

February 25, 2026 
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump is being trashed for the false claims he made last night in his speech, distorting the truth about the economy. But one former Republican leader said something worse is happening.

Speaking to MS NOW's Katy Tur, fellow host Michael Steele said that voters are already telling the country that whatever efforts Trump has attempted aren't working.

"He's upside down, not just with the broad swath of Americans. Independents, he's lost 43 points with Independents. He's down 16 points with his own base. I mean, come on," said Steele.

He said that support among Republicans may still be high, but losing any ground is a unique situation for Trump.

"But here, let's level-set what we're talking about here. You know this, you've known this, and followed this guy from the very moment he stepped on the stage. He doesn't care about the politics of politics within the organs and the sinews of a party to get folks elected and connect that to a broader message, to sort of drag the laggards to the —" Steele said before he was cut off by Tur.


"He doesn't care about Congress," she said.

Steele argued that Trump doesn't care about anything other than himself.

For those working in Republican Party politics, Trump would never be someone to rely on.


"So, if you're in the game of politics, [and] the titular head of your party doesn't even care that you're there, meaning your fate is not aligned with his, and his is not aligned with yours, particularly in a congressional cycle where they should be aligned. That's how you don't lose 63 House seats if you're the Democratic Party, or what's going to happen to Republicans this November," said Steele.

Tur said that Trump has always been the one to say he can do everything by himself and doesn't need help from anyone to accomplish his goals. Now he's in a position where he holds every house of Congress, and the Supreme Court is dominated by conservatives.

Steele and Tur agreed that Trump still can't get anything passed because Republicans are unwilling to work with Democrats on bipartisan legislation.


"So, there's been basically no legislation," he said.

It means that Trump has turned House and Senate Republicans "irrelevant," so it ultimately hurts their reelection campaigns.

"Here's the kicker. Republicans in the House and Senate have made themselves irrelevant because at any juncture, particularly after the decision by the Supreme Court on tariffs, that's a moment where you step in. The Supreme Court is giving you your power back," continued Steele.

It's a rare opportunity to work on tariffs, Steele said, and show Americans that they are relevant again. What Speaker Mike Johnson did, however, was to continue allowing Trump to run the show.


The two compared it to having someone throw a ball and stepping aside, letting it sit.

Tur simply couldn't understand why.

"Because they're mini men," he said. "They play small ball. From the very beginning, they always saw Donald Trump as something that he was not. And they gave him power he did not have because Donald Trump wasn't in the districts. He may endorse you, but he's not running your race. He's not managing your campaign. He's not getting you elected. They made him who he is," Steele closed.

"And at no time along the way have they decided that this individual is not in our political best interest. And the political calculation for that was realized when Mitch McConnell refused to convict after Jan. 6," he said.




'His policies have failed': Nobel economist disputes Trump's myths


U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 20, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

February 25, 2026 

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz responds to Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, when the president repeatedly touted his tariffs as saving the country money and boosting the economy. Stiglitz says Trump’s “lies” about tariffs can’t erase the truth about how they have raised costs for most U.S. residents. “It is estimated the average family is paying somewhere between $1,000 and $1,700 in extra money because of the tariffs,” says Stiglitz. “His policies have failed.”







This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: “Streets of Minneapolis” by Bruce Springsteen. Later in the broadcast, we will speak with Aliya Rahman. She was ripped out of her car, her windshield ”the passenger glass broken by immigration agents as they cut her seatbelt. A U.S. citizen who was then invited to the State of the Union by Congressmember Ilhan Omar. She was removed from the gallery. We will ask her if she was also arrested. That’s coming up.


This is Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. During his State of the Union, President Trump repeatedly hailed his economic record over the past year. He also openly criticized the Supreme Court again for striking down his global tariffs in a decision that’s having major implications on the global economy. Less than half, four of the nine Supreme Court justices, attended the speech. This is part of what Trump said.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Everything was working well. Countries that were ripping us off for decades are now paying us hundreds of billions of dollars. They were ripping us so badly, you all know that. Everybody knows it. Even the Democrats know it, they just don’t want to say it. And yet these countries are now happy and so are we. We made deals. The deals are all done and they’re happy. They’re not making money like they used to but we’re making a lot of money. There was no inflation, tremendous growth. And the big story was how Donald Trump called the economy correctly and 22 Nobel Prize winners in economics didn’t. They got it totally wrong. They got it really wrong. And then just four days ago, an unfortunate ruling from the United States Supreme Court, it just came down. It came down.

PEOPLE: [applause]


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Very unfortunate ruling.

PEOPLE: [cheers and applause]

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But the good news is that almost all countries and corporations want to keep the deal that they already made. Right, Scott? Knowing that the legal power that I as president have to make a new deal could be far worse for them. And therefore, they will continue to work along the same successful path that we had negotiated before the Supreme Court’s unfortunate involvement.


So despite the disappointing ruling, these powerful country-saving—it’s saving our country, the kind of money we’re taking in—peace-protecting—many of the wars I settled was because of the threat of tariffs, I wouldn’t have been able to settle them without—will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes, and they have been tested for a long time—they’re a little more complex but they’re actually probably better—leading to a solution that will be even stronger than before.

Congressional action will not be necessary. It’s already time-tested and approved. And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will like in the past substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.

PEOPLE: [applause]


AMY GOODMAN: We are joined now by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist, Columbia University professor, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Professor Stiglitz is also currently the chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute. His latest book just out in paperback this week, The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.


Professor Stiglitz, welcome back to Democracy Now! Your response? You were among the signatories, the economists who have signed a letter against the tariffs. Talk about the president’s State of the Union and his argument for tariffs and against the Supreme Court. Two of his own appointees ruled against him.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, the speech was characteristic of Trump's lies, misleading statements.
I was with a group of a large number of Nobel Prize winners who predicted that he would be bad for the economy and we were right. The tariffs are paid by Americans. They’re not paid for by the foreigners. He says they didn’t have any effect on inflation. We saw inflation was going down, and if we compare where inflation would have been with where we are today, it is estimated the average family is paying somewhere between $1,000 and $1,700 in extra money because of the tariffs.

The irony is he said it was going to bring back manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs are down in the United States in 2025 when they were up under President Biden. He doesn’t talk about that. In fact, last year was one of the slowest growth in jobs ever in recent memory, about a quarter of what it was under President Biden. And interestingly, most or more than 100% of the jobs that were created were in the healthcare sector, nothing to do with his tariffs at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump said in the past, “We have the most people working in history.” What is the state of unemployment, of livable employment, the overall economy?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, when the economy is ”more people in the country? Yes, there are going to be more people working. That’s true. The fact is that labor force participation has not gone up. The unemployment rate has gone up a little bit, not a lot. But what is striking is how weak the job market is. As I said before, we have not created very many jobs, less than a quarter of what we had created under President Biden. And anybody with friends trying to get jobs knows what a difficult labor market today’s labor market is.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to President Trump speaking last night.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Now the same people in this chamber who voted for those disasters suddenly use the word “affordability,” a word they just used it, somebody gave it to them knowing full well that they caused and created the increased prices that all of our citizens had to endure. You caused that problem. You caused that problem.


AMY GOODMAN: “Affordability,” Professor Stiglitz. We are speaking to you here in New York. Of course the new mayor Zohran Mamdani sent the message to people all over the country, especially those who are considering elected office or to diehard politicians, senators, congressmembers, that affordability was the word, was the issue people are most concerned about. What about President Trump mocking it?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think he is mocking the American people when he mocks the issue of affordability. The reason people worry about affordability is things are not affordable. And the other way of putting it is that their real incomes adjusted for inflation are down. Now, one of the striking things about what President Trump has done, he talked about this tax cut, the biggest tax cut in history. He was wrong about that. As a percentage of GDP, it doesn’t even rank near the top.

But where it does rank at the top is that it was the most regressive tax cut. That is to say the benefits went to the millionaires, the billionaires, the corporations, and those at the bottom paid the price. They paid the price with almost a $1 trillion cut in Medicaid. That was why the Democrats had insisted on the government shutdown. They said, “You can’t do that! That’s not right!” That you would be giving a tax cut for billionaires and asking the poorest Americans not to have adequate healthcare in a country where healthcare has been so bad, so bad that life expectancy even before the pandemic was on the down.

AMY GOODMAN: Your final comments, Professor Stiglitz, coming off of what’s considered one of the longest State of the Unions, an assessment of this country, in modern history?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, long speeches like that reminds me of Castro and other demagogues who just loves ”they get the platform and they just talk and talk and talk. But I think the striking thing is that in spite of the tariffs that were supposed to bring back manufacturing jobs, manufacturing jobs are actually down. And in spite of the tariffs that were supposed to eliminate the huge trade deficit in goods, the trade deficit in goods is actually up. So his policies have failed even in the areas where he—in the objectives that he set forth. So, yes, his speech was filled with misleading statements, with lies. We’ve come to expect that. But in the core aspect of his agenda, the numbers show that he has dramatically failed to do what he promised.

AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist, Columbia University professor, and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Professor Stiglitz is also currently the chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute. His new book just out in paperback this week, The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.

In Contrast to Trump’s Claim, Iran Has Openly Vowed to Never Have Nuclear Weapons

Hours before the SOTU, Iran’s foreign minister said: “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon.”


By Sharon Zhang , 
February 25, 2026

President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Win McNamee / Getty Images

President Donald Trump continued to push for war with Iran during his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, falsely asserting that Iranian officials have not disavowed nuclear weapons development.

Trump repeated the claim that his administration “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, adding that Iranian officials are “terrible people” who are “starting it all over.”

“We wiped it out and they want to start it all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions. We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” Trump said. “I will never allow [it].”

Iranian officials have repeatedly insisted that their government is only interested in peaceful uses for nuclear enrichment, a stance that they have maintained throughout negotiations.

Indeed, Iran’s foreign minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi reiterated the government’s position just hours before Trump’s speech in a post on social media.

The White House cites Iran’s nuclear capabilities — while maintaining their nuclear facilities were “obliterated.” By Sharon Zhang , Truthout February 20, 2026

“Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people,” Araghchi wrote. “A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.”

The two countries are slated to have indirect talks in Geneva on Thursday. Trump’s State of the Union comments, however, incensed Iranian officials, who called them “big lies.”

“‘Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth’, is a law of propaganda coined by Nazi Joseph Goebbels. This is now systematically used by the U.S. administration and the war profiteers encircling it, particularly the genocidal Israeli regime, to serve their sinister disinformation & misinformation campaign against the Nation of Iran,” said Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei in a statement on X. “No one should be fooled by these prominent untruths.”

Still, Trump is inching closer to war, and lawmakers appear unwilling to stop him.

Following a classified briefing between party leaders and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, top Democrats signalled that the administration is ready for war.

“I’m very concerned,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Connecticutt), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “Wars in the Middle East don’t go well for presidents, for the country, and we have not heard articulated a single good reason for why now is the moment to launch yet another war in the Middle East.”

“This is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York).

Polls have found that the prospect of a war with Iran is extremely unpopular with the U.S. public. But many Democrats in Congress seem to be in support of a war, and reports say some Democratic leaders are actively pushing against efforts to stop or stymie military action.

Trump’s warmongering remarks earned him a rare bipartisan standing ovation on Tuesday night. It’s unclear how many Democrats stood and clapped, but among them appeared to be even left-leaning figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) as well as the usual suspects like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania).

Analysts say war with Iran would be utterly disastrous like previous U.S. wars in the Middle East. Even Trump’s top military officials, including Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of the risks, reports said this week. Notably, military officials present at the State of the Union, including Caine, appeared to not have stood for Trump’s nuclear weapon remark, unlike other many lawmakers in the room.

Such warnings have not deterred Democrats. Capital & Empire reported Tuesday that Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are working to prevent a vote on Representatives Ro Khanna (D-California) and Thomas Massie’s (R-Kentucky) war powers resolution. seeking to get members of Congress on the record on war with Iran.

Meanwhile, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) are only demanding a better justification for war from Trump.

“Part of the concern that I’ve articulated, and will continue to do so, is that the president made the representation that Iran’s nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated last year as a result of actions that the administration has taken,” Jeffries said after the briefing with Rubio. “And so if that, in fact, was true, what is the urgency as of this moment? That’s an open question, and the American people need a real explanation.”

Schumer, a staunch supporter of Israel – which has long sought a U.S.-led war on Iran – has demurred at calls that he take action to prevent a war. When the Trump administration was discussing whether to strike Iran last June, Schumer taunted Trump, calling him “TACO” Trump, referring to an acronym meaning “Trump Always Chickens Out.”



Op-Ed 

A War With Iran Would Not Be a One-Off Event But a Disastrous Ongoing Rupture


If Congress cedes its power to stop a war with Iran, it will fully erode any lingering promise of democratic restraint.


By Hanieh Jodat , 
February 24, 2026

A group of National Guardsmen walk past the Win Without War Billboard Truck displaying the message "No War With Iran" in front of the U.S. Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Jemal Countess / Getty Images for Win Without War

As the U.S. slowly continues its brokered negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and ballistic missiles, it is also expanding its military posture across the Middle East — amounting to the biggest military buildup in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Indirect talks between Iran and the U.S. took place in Geneva on February 17 with little progress and plenty of details left to discuss. According to U.S. officials, the Islamic Republic offered to come back within two weeks with a proposal which addresses some core issues and gaps in the positions by both parties. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s actions play a different tune. On February 19, Trump announced he would give Iran 10 to 15 days to reach a deal, otherwise the U.S. claims to be fully prepared to take military action, the consequences of which could lead to a regional catastrophe. The next talks are set to take place on February 26.

Ahead of those talks, Donald Trump has deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, which is set to join the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group in the Arabian Sea. The United States has also significantly increased air power in the Middle East; according to open-source intelligence analysts and flight-tracking data, over 120 U.S. aircraft have deployed to the region. With each warship it repositions, each military personnel it places on alert, and all of the air power it has amassed in the region, the U.S. sends a message that diplomacy may no longer be on the table.

Both U.S. officials and international partners have voiced concern over the likelihood of a war with Iran. The United Kingdom has reportedly said that the United States would not be allowed to use British airbases, including Diego Garcia and Royal Air Force Fairford, for strikes against Iran, citing concerns that such action would violate international law.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna have joined forces again to push a war powers resolution. The 1973 War Powers Act grants Congress the authority to check President Trump’s ability and power to enter an armed conflict without legislative approval.


Op-Ed |
As Trump Threatens Iran, We’re On the Brink of a Generational Catastrophe
A US war with Iran would be illegal, immoral, and dangerous. We can still stop it.
By Negin Owliaei , Truthout February 20, 2026


However, with both the House and the Senate under Republican control, the chances of the Iran War Powers Resolution passing remain slim. Senate Republicans Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have all been proponents of striking Iran. While Rubio and Cotton have expressed desire to strike Iran’s nuclear sites in the past, Lindsey Graham has emerged as the strongest MAGA cheerleader for a war with Iran — so much so that he has been urging Trump to ignore the call from his advisors not to strike.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Rep. Jared Evan Moskowitz of Florida have both expressed their concerns with the Iran War Powers Resolution, saying that it would limit United States military flexibility against Iran. While the U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iran, a recent poll conducted in January revealed that 50 percent of Trump voters back military “intervention” in Iran over any other foreign target, including Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, China, and Mexico. That number rose to 61 percent among self-described “MAGA Republicans.”

A military strike on Iran would not be a one-off event, but a catastrophic rupture in the region. Iran is not some isolated target on a map. It is a nation of 90 million-plus people with populated cities, hospitals, universities, and families who have suffered repression for over 47 years under the current regime and sanctions that have destroyed Iran’s economy. Infrastructure damages alone from a war would cascade into loss of electricity, water shortages, and severe impacts to medical care.

During the 12-day war, Israeli forces launched explosive weapons that damaged a children’s facility as well as a number of hospitals, health centers, and emergency health buildings, including Farabi hospital in Kermanshah city. Furthermore, the conflict damaged critical aging water pipes in Tehran and other provinces.

It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.

Iranians living inside the country have become accustomed to harsh repression over nearly half a century. Every bit of hope for reform and every popular uprising has been crushed and silenced by violent crackdowns from the Iranian state. At the same time, opportunistic neocons, influenced by the United States’s biggest ally in the region, Israel, have sought to co-opt the uprisings. They encourage unrest and issue calls of support for Iranian protestors, while at the same time backing hawkish U.S. policies and pushing lawmakers to take a tougher stance toward Iran. This will only create more repression for Iranians seeking freedoms and human rights and drive the country further into chaos.

At the same time, unilateral sanctions imposed during the first Trump administration have hollowed out the economy, driving the rial to record lows against the dollar in Tehran and turning everyday necessities like food, fuel, and medicine into luxuries families can no longer afford. Iranians overseas with families living in Iran can no longer financially help their loved ones due to sanctions and financial restrictions. It is difficult to imagine what a regional war would do to a population already exhausted by decades of loss, but one thing that is clear is that a war with Iran will permanently scar those who survive it.

A war with Iran will not stop at its borders and will not remain where it is aimed. Such impulsive and reckless military actions never do. The Middle East is an ecosystem of lives, alliances, and fragile balances that will draw in neighboring countries and global powers.

And while the momentum towards a war with Iran accelerates, we must be reminded of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, which accomplished little outside the brutalization of one of the most economically starved countries on earth. Similarly, we must remember the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society alongside the imposition of a farcical democracy after the 2003 invasion — a collapse that was fueled in part by years of devastating sanctions that predated the invasion. And, of course, we cannot forget the recent commando abduction and leadership change in Venezuela, which was openly explained by Trump himself as a blatant oil grab. Often, outside powers and hegemonic nations decide what is in the best interest of another nation’s people. They intervene using military force and, when they fail, leave a vacuum of leadership instability and suffering among the general public.

The urgent push toward a military confrontation with Iran may also be shaped in part by domestic unrest in the United States. With an all-time low approval rating, the Trump administration has been pushing attention away from the growing body of evidence emerging from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. After publicly encouraging Iranians to take to the streets, promising his administration’s full backing and support, Trump may have also backed himself into a corner, one he has been ushered toward thanks to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pushing for a war with Iran for decades.

Some argue that now, while the Iranian state might seem particularly vulnerable, is the time to strike. This approach overlooks the reality that Iran is deeply embedded in a global power alliance that includes Russia and China, meaning any attempt at forced regime change would not occur in isolation.

In response to the United States military buildup in the region, Iran and Russia have carried out joint military drills, conducting rescue operations and deploying missile-launching warships, special operations teams, helicopters, and at least one Iranian destroyer. Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow have carried out joint exercises for several years, but the latest military exercise was in direct response to U.S. military pressure. In addition to joint drills, Iran has briefly closed the Strait of Hormuz, which is the waterway separating Oman and Iran and is crucial for transporting global oil supplies in the region.

Rather than a one-off strike or a clean operation, a war with Iran would almost certainly widen conflict in the region and produce consequences far beyond what could be intended or repaired.

This is why the War Powers Resolution exists, not as a symbolic gesture but as a bulwark to slow the rush towards catastrophe. The framers of the Constitution understood what modern politicians seem to ignore: that war is too consequential to be left in the hands of one person, one branch of the government, or an executive order. The power to start a war with another country was placed in the hands of Congress to ensure transparency, force dialogue, and demand accountability.

If Congress fails to take action now, before Trump strikes the first town, before the first city loses power and water, before a mother loses a child, then the promise of democratic restraint becomes hollow and meaningless.

Even though some Iranians may hope for war as the means to collapse a regime that has trapped them for decades, Iran is not a single voice. Iran is a country of over 90 million people who want their basic needs to be met, and even in their desperation no foreign intervention or strike could deliver the revolution they hoped for. History has shown time and time again that wars imposed from without will destroy hospitals, schools, and other vital infrastructure before the bombs ever reach those in power.



This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Hanieh Jodat

Hanieh Jodat is a political strategist and a key strategist with Defuse Nuclear War, an initiative of RootsAction. She also serves as the Chair of Progressive Democrats of America – Middle East Alliances, focusing on fostering dialogue and progressive policies on critical global issues.

Trump Admits War Would Be Disastrous for Ordinary Iranians as He Weighs Military Assault

“The stakes are clear,” said the National Iranian American Council. “There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out.”



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine speaks during a press conference with US President Donald Trump on January 3, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Feb 24, 2026
COMMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump admitted Monday that a US assault on Iran would be disastrous for the Middle East nation’s people as he considers options for a military attack, reportedly drawing private warnings from the United States’ top general.

In a Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against reports that Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has voiced concerns about the potentially massive risks of attacking Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. Trump has previously claimed that Caine believed any military conflict with Iran would be “something easily won.”

“He has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack,” Trump wrote of Caine in his Monday post.

The US president—who blew up a landmark diplomatic agreement with Iran during his first term—added that if a new deal with the Iranian government doesn’t materialize, “it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them.”

Trump’s acknowledgment that a US military assault would likely be devastating for ordinary Iranians runs counter to the narrative pushed by supporters of war, who claim conflict and regime change is necessary to aid Iran’s population.

“The stakes are clear,” the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy organization that has vocally opposed a US attack on Iran, wrote late Monday. “President Trump himself says that war with Iran will mean a ‘very bad day’ for Iran and ‘very sadly, its people.’ There’s a chance to avert war and disastrous outcomes for the people of Iran, but time may be running out.”

Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives are expected to vote this week on a resolution aimed at preventing war with Iran without congressional authorization, but the measure stands little chance of reaching Trump’s desk.

The president, meanwhile, has shown no indication that he intends to seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. One poll conducted earlier this month showed that just 21% of Americans would support the Trump administration “initiating an attack on Iran.”

The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump is considering an “initial targeted US attack” on Iran followed by “a much bigger attack in the coming months” if the nation’s government doesn’t capitulate to Washington’s demands, principally that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Negotiators from the US and Iran are scheduled to meet in Geneva later this week.

“Behind the scenes, a new proposal is being considered by both sides that could create an off-ramp to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could carry out solely for purposes of medical research and treatments,” the Times reported. “It is unclear whether either side would agree. But the last-minute proposal comes as two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of fighter jets, bombers,k and refueling aircraft are now massing within striking distance of Iran.”

Multiple outlets reported Monday that Caine, the top US general, has offered warnings about the potential risks of attacking Iran. According to the Washington Post, Caine voiced concerns at a recent White House meeting that “any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the US munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine.”

The Trump administration’s march to war with Iran has also drawn significant outside opposition.

Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Monday that “like the June 2025 bombings that failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, another US strike would be an illegal act of war.”

“As with his false claims that last year’s attack had ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear capacity, the president has now dropped the pretense that military intervention would be aimed at protecting Iranian protestors who bravely faced a deadly crackdown to demonstrate against the regime’s many human rights violations,” said Duss.

“With Trump sending mixed signals over the timing and scope of possible strikes—and given his record of attacking even when active diplomacy is taking place—Congress must act swiftly to make clear that the president does not have its authorization for the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran,” he added.
Republican Lawmakers’ Bid to Execute Tennessee Abortion Patients Slammed as ‘Christofascism’

“This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming,” said one critic.


Abortion rights activists protest after the overturning of Roe Vs. Wade by the US Supreme Court, in downtown Nashville, Tennessee, on June 24, 2022.
(Photo by Seth Herald/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Feb 23, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


“If you kill a baby from embryo on up with a pill or a scalpel, we oughta execute you.”


That’s not social media rage bait by some random zealot, it’s the premise of legislation recently introduced by Republican state lawmakers in Tennessee to make abortion a capital offense, as voiced by one of the measure’s sponsors. And it’s setting off alarm bells in recent days across a nation in which attacks on remaining reproductive rights have been accelerating in the years since the right-wing US Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling nearly four years ago.

An amendment to HB 570/SB 738 was filed by primary sponsors Rep. Jody Barrett (R-69) and Sen. Mark Pody (R-17) and co-sponsored by five of their GOP colleagues, all men, including Rep. Monty Fritts (R-32), who is also running for governor—and who is the source of the quote in this article’s lede. Fritts spoke those words at a meeting in Jonesborough, where TN Repro News publisher Rachel Wells last year interviewed a pregnant woman who was allegedly denied prenatal care under Tennessee’s Medical Ethics Defense Act because she is unmarried to her partner of 15 years.

If passed, Barrett and Pody’s amendment—which was still adding co-sponsors as of Monday—would classify abortion as “homicide of an unborn child,” punishable by life imprisonment with or without parole—or even death by lethal injection. The measure contains very narrow exceptions, including for spontaneous miscarriage or when abortion is needed to save a mother’s life. The amendment is currently under committee review has not yet been scheduled for a vote.

Tennessee already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, with a near-total ban on the procedure in effect since Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed it in August 2022. Abortion is banned from fertilization, with limited exceptions.

While religious groups including the Southern Baptist Convention and Foundation to Abolish Abortion hailed the proposal as a life-saving measure that serves the will of the Abrahamic deity figure “God,” reproductive rights defenders expressed alarm and outrage.

“We are talking about a gubernatorial candidate openly calling for women who end their pregnancies to be charged with a capital crime and spend their life in prison or for the to get the death penalty. That is where we’re at right now,” Abortion, Every Day publisher Jessica Valenti said in a video posted on social media.

“This is not just about this one guy,” she continued. “This is about the future of the anti-abortion movement in the Republican Party and the way that they are embracing extremism at a rate that is so fucking alarming.”



“Saying that women should be punished for having abortions was once... an unthinkable thing to say within the anti-abortion movement,” Valenti added. “Now they’re openly embracing it. Over a dozen states over the last year have introduced or advanced equal protection legislation... that would punish abortion patients as murders, which in some states can mean the death penalty, it could mean life in prison.”

“This is not some fringe element,” she stressed. “This is becoming the mainstream of the movement. Right now in Texas... the Republican Party platform calls for equal protection. It calls for the execution of women or life in prison for women who have abortions. This is not fringe.”

In South Carolina, where a bill to execute people who have abortions garnered more than 20 GOP votes on its way to defeat but performing the procedure is a felony, the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office last week launched an investigation into a fetus that was found at a water treatment plant. Investigators will test tissue samples from the fetus “to determine the race and locate the mother.”

Numerous deaths have been attributed to abortion bans in states including Texas and Georgia.

Back in Tennessee, Fritts—who is polling at around 5-7% in the GOP gubernatorial primary, depending on the survey—has been busy defending his proposal to kill people who have abortions.

“Murder is murder. I know that’s hard for people to hear, and I don’t mean to be hard with it, I promise,” he told the Tennessee Holler, comparing abortion pills to cyanide capsules.

Fritts’ campaign slogan is “liberty & less government.”

Responding to Fritts’ co-sponsorship of the death penalty amendment, Jon Tate’s Daily Practice publisher Jon Tate wrote, “Disgusting.”

“While I was busy and not paying attention, my state was apparently becoming ground zero for white-supremacist Christofascism,” he added. “It breaks my brain and my heart.”



Former ICE Lawyer Says Agency Is Teaching Recruits to ‘Violate the Constitution’

“Never in my career had I ever received such a blatantly unlawful order,” said Ryan Schwank, who blew the whistle last month on a “secretive” ICE memo directing agents to enter homes without judicial warrants.



A former US Immigration and Customs Enforcement instructor responsible for educating new ICE officers, Ryan Schwank, speaks during a forum on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Dirksen Senate Office Building at the US Capitol on February 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Feb 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “lying to Congress and the American people” and directing new recruits to “violate the Constitution,” according to a whistleblower who testified on Capitol Hill Monday.

Ryan Schwank, a former ICE lawyer who worked at the federal government’s law enforcement training academy, stepped down from his post last week after submitting a whistleblower complaint about an agency policy directing agents to enter homes and arrest people without a judge’s warrant.

“I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” Schwank said at a joint forum on ICE’s constitutional violations hosted by Senate and House Democrats. “I followed that oath for four-and-a-half years, working side by side with ICE officers. And I followed it when I resigned on February 13, 2026, a little over a week ago, so I could speak to you today.”

He had joined ICE in 2021 as a senior lawyer for the agency, tasked with advising agents on immigration laws and the Constitution. In September 2025, amid President Donald Trump’s “surge” in recruitment to carry out his “mass deportation” crusade, Schwank became an instructor for new recruits at the ICE Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.

“On my first day,” Schwank said, “I received secretive orders to teach new cadets to violate the Constitution by entering homes without a judicial warrant.”

Schwank said he was “instructed to read and return a memo” that claimed ICE agents had this power in the presence of his supervisor. “Before I was shown this memo, my supervisor warned me that two previous ICE instructors had been dismissed because they questioned senior ICE management over the legality of the memo.”

That memo, which was sent to US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials in May, was revealed to the Senate last month through a whistleblower disclosure by Schwank and another official whose identity has not yet been made public.

“The acting ICE director authorized the very conduct that DHS—in 2025 legal training materials—has called ‘the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed’—that is, ‘physical entry of the home’ without consent or a proper warrant,” Schwank said.

His testimony confirms previous reporting from the Associated Press, which found that these orders were distributed in a highly unusual way: DHS officials like Schwank were shown the memo before being required to return it to their supervisors and relay the information verbally to new recruits without showing them the directive.

Under this new directive, the whistleblower report said “newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on” an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.

“No court has ever found that any law enforcement has this type of authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant under such circumstances,” said David Kligerman, the senior vice president and special counsel for Whistleblower Aid, the group that sent the disclosure to Congress.

“Never in my career had I ever received such a blatantly unlawful order—nor one conveyed in such a troubling manner,” Schwank said on Monday. “I was being shown this memo in secret by a supervisor who made sure that I understood that disobedience could cost me my job. ICE is teaching cadets to violate the Constitution, and they were attempting to cloak it in secrecy.”



Schwank also said that top ICE and DHS officials were deceiving Congress and the public when they claimed that the new officers and agents brought on as part of the agency’s hiring spree were receiving the same basic training as in the past, even as agency syllabi showed that their training hours had been slashed by about 40%.

Testifying before Congress earlier this month, ICE’s acting director, Todd Lyons, said that while hours have been cut, “The meat of the training was never removed.”

“This is a lie,” Schwank said. “ICE made the program shorter, and they removed so many essential parts that what remains is a dangerous husk. No reasonable person would believe a training program suddenly cut nearly in half could meet the minimum legal requirements.”

The Trump administration has said the reduction of ICE training by more than 240 hours was mostly the result of eliminating Spanish-language classes.

However, according to dozens of pages of internal documents released by Senate Democrats, which were reviewed by the New York Times, the agency’s February syllabus had also eliminated classes about the proper use of force, handling the property of detainees, filling out paperwork alleging someone is in the United States without authorization, taking a “victim-centered approach,” and “integrity awareness training.”

The number of exams agents must take has also been drastically reduced, from 25 in 2021 down to just nine. Some of the exams no longer required are ones on “Judgment Pistol Shooting” and “Determine Removability,” which the Times said was “a reference to how agents decide if people they encounter have legal status in the United States.”

Schwank’s testimony comes after immigration agents shot and killed three United States citizens in recent weeks, causing heightened scrutiny of ICE and other DHS agencies. Since Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, at least 32 people have been shot by agents, resulting in nine deaths.

In areas where ICE has been surged, such as Minnesota—which was swarmed by around 3,000 agents late last year—numerous instances have been documented of what appear to be uses of unnecessary force, racial profiling, and violations of constitutional rights.

“I am here because I am duty-bound to report the legally required training program at the ICE academy is deficient, defective, and broken,” Schwank said. “Deficient training can and will get people killed... It can and will lead to unlawful arrests, violations of constitutional rights, and fundamental loss of public trust in law enforcement.”

Schwank’s testimony came as a partial shutdown of DHS entered its second week, after Democrats refused to fund the agency without significant reforms to ICE, including requirements that they obtain judicial warrants and carry out their duties without masks.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who chaired Monday’s panel, said he hopes Schwank’s testimony will encourage other whistleblowers to come forward.

“We know about the Trump administration’s decimation of training for immigration officers and its secret policy to shred your Constitutional rights because of the brave Americans who are speaking out today,” Blumenthal said. “They are coming to Congress because we have the responsibility to not only bear witness to these crimes, but to do something to make sure they don’t happen again.”

“To anyone else who is repulsed by what you’re seeing or what authorities are asking you to do, please know that you can make a real difference by coming forward,” he added. “You’ll meet a moral imperative. Our door is open, we are here for you when you are ready, and we will do everything within our power to protect your rights.”
Praising Denver and Other Cities for Leading the Way, Sanders Renews Call for National Data Center Moratorium

“We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue,” said the senator. “The time for action is now.”



Prime Data Center is seen in Vernon, California on December 25, 2025.
(Photo by Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 24, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


Although Denver Mayor Mike Johnston is a vocal supporter of artificial intelligence and has pushed to adopt AI-driven products to power the city’s infrastructure, he joined City Council members on Monday in announcing a moratorium on the construction of massive AI data centers—the latest sign, said US Sen. Bernie Sanders, that the push to stop corporations from building the energy-guzzling, pollution-causing facilities is not “radical, fringe, and Luddite” as some claim.

Johnston, a Democrat, and other local officials across the country who are pushing to block the construction of data centers “are right,” said Sanders (I-Vt.). “Data centers will have a profound impact on land and water use, and will drive up electricity costs.”



‘What a Surprise’: Sanders Undeterred by Bezos-Owned Washington Post’s Dismissal of AI Data Center Pause

As grassroots community groups and experts have warned, AI will also “likely have a catastrophic impact on the lives of working-class Americans, eliminating tens of millions of blue- and white-collar jobs in every sector of our economy,” said the senator, who proposed a nationwide moratorium on AI data centers in December.

He renewed that call after Johnston and the Denver City Council announced the city would halt any plans for new data centers for at least several months and would require projects that are already permitted or under construction to follow new guidelines once they’re finalized by local officials.

“We need a federal moratorium on AI data centers,” said Sanders.




Johnston said in a statement that he believes “data centers power the technology we depend upon and strengthen our economy,” but stressed that “as this industry evolves, so must our policies.”

“This pause allows us to put clear and consistent guardrails in place while protecting our most precious resources and preserving our quality of life,” said the mayor.

The city plans to review regulations for data centers that would target “responsible land, energy, and water use as well as zoning and affordability for ratepayers.”

Soaring electricity bills across the country have been linked to the build-out of data centers, which have cropped up as President Donald Trump has pushed to preempt state and local regulations on AI. As CNBC reported last year, residential utility bills rose 6% in August nationwide, but much higher price hikes were reported in states with high concentrations of data centers, like Virginia (13%) and Illinois (16%).

Sanders’ office issued a report last October showing that AI, automation, and robotics could replace nearly 100 million jobs over the next decade, including 40% of registered nurses, 47% of truck drivers, 64% of accountants, and 89% of fast food workers.

And a study published in Nature Sustainability last year found that data centers could consume as much water as 10 million Americans and emit as much carbon dioxide as 10 million cars.

At a forum last week at Stanford University, Sanders joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in warning that the expansion of AI data centers is meant to increase the wealth of billionaire tech moguls with no regard for how working Americans are affected.

“The question that we should be asking day after day… is who is pushing this revolution, who benefits from it, and who gets hurt?” Sanderss said.

In Denver, the moratorium was announced ahead of a planned community meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening at Geotech Environmental, where neighbors are planning to speak out against the 170,000-square foot DE3 data center being built in the Globeville-Elyria-Swansea (GES) area by the Denver-based company CoreSite.

The burden that will be placed on locals if the project is completed “is not accidental,” reads a petition by the local grassroots community organization GES Coalition. “It is the outcome of colonial dispossession and extraction, then decades of zoning, redlining, highway construction, and industrial siting that concentrated pollution next to working-class homes alongside the legacy of the Vasquez Boulevard/I-70 Superfund site, a 4.5-square-mile smelting contamination footprint affecting multiple neighborhoods.”

Meanwhile, state legislators have introduced at least two bills regarding AI data center development. One, House Bill 1030, would offer sales and use tax exemptions for data center builders—and would slash state general fund revenue while also triggering a $106 million reduction in tax credits for low-income households.

Another, Senate Bill 102, would require data centers to use renewable energy sources and ensure their energy use does not raise rates for consumers.

Grassroots efforts to block the construction of data centers have taken off in places including Saline, Michigan; Port Washington, Wisconsin; and Tucson, Arizona, where community members successfully blocked plans for a new center owned by Amazon.

State lawmakers in Maine, South Dakota, and Oklahoma are also considering moratoriums or limits on new data centers.

“We need serious public debate and democratic oversight over this enormously consequential issue,” said Sanders. “The time for action is now.”

Please Advise! Is Trump’s Brain Totally Pucked?

Why else vow to block the Gordie Howe bridge while proclaiming China will ban the Stanley Cup?
17 Feb 2026
The Tyee

Donald Trump’s threats to halt the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge would have drawn a sharp elbow from the hockey legend. Howe photo by Doug Ball, the Canadian Press. Trump photo via Shutterstock.

[Editor’s note: Steve Burgess is an accredited spin doctor with a PhD in Centrifugal Rhetoric from the University of SASE, situated on the lovely campus of PO Box 7650, Cayman Islands. In this space he dispenses PR advice to politicians, the rich and famous, the troubled and well-heeled, the wealthy and gullible.]

Dear Dr. Steve,

Donald Trump has threatened to block the opening of the new Gordie Howe International Bridge linking Detroit and Windsor over his continued complaints about Canada. “I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them,” Trump wrote. The president posted his online rant shortly after Matthew Moroun, the billionaire owner of the nearby tolled Ambassador Bridge, met with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick.

Will the bridge ever open, Dr. Steve?

Signed,

Red Kelly


Dear Red,

Before discussing this further, let’s pause first to consider Trump’s online post. Like farmers who learn to distinguish hail clouds from incipient tornadoes, we have all become unwilling experts in Trump storm fronts. At this point it’s common knowledge that, morally, Trump has no bottom, but that observation does not convey the astonishing breadth of his absurdity. This guy is giving dementia a bad name. His bridge babble was one for the ages.

After some preliminary spittle about perfidious, predatory Canada, the stupidity of “Barack Hussein Obama” and the absence of American poison from Canadian liquor store shelves, Trump’s Truth Social ramble turned to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trade deal with China. “The first thing China will do is terminate ALL ice hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate the Stanley Cup,” he wrote.

Eliminate the Stanley Cup? Why? Is China cutting a deal with Florida? And if China truly intends to destroy the game of hockey, could that explain what’s been going on with the Canucks? Did China trade Quinn Hughes to those troublemaking socialists in Minnesota?


Billionaires Don’t Control Us


Get The Tyee’s free daily newsletter in your inbox.

Journalism for readers, not profits.

EmailSubscribe

Trump also opined that China will “eat Canada alive! We’ll just get the leftovers.”

“The leftovers?” So Canada is a half-empty Styrofoam container of moo shu pork with a couple of stale wraps? In the world according to Trump, it seems the United States and China are a jackal and a hyena barking over a water buffalo carcass, or two drunken frat bros staring at the last remaining slice of Domino’s Pepperoni Feast. Canada is not the 51st state — we’re the fifth plate of jumbo shrimp at the Sizzler in Grand Rapids.

Trump’s latest Mad Libs effort apparently followed a conversation with Lutnick. The commerce secretary had been lobbied by Matthew Moroun, member of the Billionaire Brotherhood and owner of the Ambassador Bridge. The Gordie Howe International Bridge will cut into Moroun’s toll revenues, so Lutnick probably endorsed the plan to stop truck traffic over the new crossing. Considering the recent revelation that Lutnick was chummy with Jeffrey Epstein, you wouldn’t expect him to have a problem with trafficking. In fact they should probably call it the Epstein Bridge, since it’s sitting right there but Trump doesn’t want it open.

To be fair, Detroit-Windsor isn’t the only crossing point targeted for closure recently. Last week, airspace over El Paso, Texas, was briefly closed, apparently because U.S. Customs and Border Protection used lasers to shoot down some party balloons. Overreaction? Maybe. But maybe the party had been a quinceañera. Maybe they had been speaking Spanish and playing the music of Bad Bunny. For U.S. border agents, that’s triggering.



Trump’s America Comes for Alberta read more

As for Gordie Howe, he spoke Canadian, often with his fists. It was Howe who inspired the defiant “Elbows Up” slogan. Historically, he is Even Worse Bunny. Clearly, Trump has been triggered too.

How to placate the president? Qatar bribed Trump with a $400-million jet. The bridge reportedly cost $3.8 billion. Seems a bit much.

There’s another Gordie Howe Bridge in Saskatoon though. We could give him that and hope he won’t notice. Kind of like a box of Kirkland chocolates on Valentine’s Day. Just as good, really.

Trump says he will keep the Gordie Howe International Bridge closed until the U.S. is “fully compensated” for all they have given Canada. Great. Not only do we get more measles, but now we get charged for them too.

Come to think of it, maybe we need to rethink this. Maybe we need to seriously consider Trump’s remark about all we have received from the U.S. And maybe that bridge ought to stay closed. 


Steve Burgess writes about politics and culture for The Tyee. Read his previous articles.



Why We ‘Wackos’ Want Alberta to Stay in Canada

The case against tying our fate to the US is simple: Sorry, not that.

Lisa Young 
17 Feb 2026
The Tyee
Lisa Young is a professor at the University of Calgary.


Who’s making sense? In Oyen, Alberta, a truck flies a modified Alberta flag with the word ‘Republic’ and an upside-down Canadian flag with a ‘No’ symbol. Photo by Don Denton, the Canadian Press.

[Editor’s note: This first appeared in political scientist Lisa Young’s Substack What Now?!? and is republished with permission.]

Faced with polling data that suggests that many Albertans have no desire to remain in an independent Alberta, apologists for the separatists have started to shout that “wacko” opponents of separation have no right to threaten to leave. (Let’s pause for a moment and appreciate the irony.)

Rather, they insist that federalists make “clear, well thought-out arguments for Alberta staying in Canada.” If only the federalists could possibly match the clear, fact-based case the separatists make! Like this document on the Alberta Prosperity Project webpage that makes the dubious promise that there would be no sales, income or corporate income taxes in a free Alberta. It’s magical thinking for the win!

Happily, Alberta federalists have been making the positive case for some time, without having to resort to magical thinking. Senator Paula Simons has written a beautiful piece in Alberta Views magazine: “The Case for Sticking Around.” A couple of paragraphs worth quoting:



Has Separatism Gone Mainstream in Alberta? read more

We are privileged to live in a country that values peace and inclusion and the rule of law. A country that encourages entrepreneurship and economic opportunity. A country that strives to balance individual rights and freedoms with the good of the collective community. A country where healthcare and public education are rights and gun ownership is not. A country where women control their own bodies and choose their own clothing, whether that’s a niqab or a bikini.

We’re not a country of polarization, but a country that values creative compromise, because we were born out of creative compromise.

On Valentine’s Day, Duane Bratt rose to the challenge and made his case. I was making the case way back in 2021! And the list goes on.

Having said all that, I want to disagree with the idea that it’s up to federalists to make a positive case for staying in Canada. It is a perfectly reasonable — and very Canadian — approach to argue simply that the status quo is preferable to the alternative.



The Wild Claims of Jeff Rath, Separatist Firebrand read more

If we look back to the years leading up to Canadian confederation, the impetus for joining together into the Canadian federation can be summed up as: “sorry, not that.” Having fought its (first?) civil war, the United States was well armed and feeling a bit expansionist. This was one of the motivators for the fathers of confederation to come together and make a deal.

The leaders of the contemporary separatist movement have made it quite clear through their words and actions that they see separation as a way to ally Alberta closely with the United States, if not to join it altogether. A “free” Alberta, they claim, would be able to build a pipeline through Montana, Idaho and Washington. It would benefit from loans from the Americans. Its sovereignty would be guaranteed by the United States.

Just as the Fathers of Confederation back in the 1860s looked south of the border, shook their heads and got busy confederating, a majority of Albertans today look at the spectacle that is Trump’s America and echo the sentiment: “Sorry, no, not that.”

Whether it’s the shorter life expectancy, lower level of life satisfaction, less functional democracy, or higher rate of economic inequality in the U.S., state-sponsored violence in the streets, or the utter dysfunction of the political system, most of us “wackos” are prepared to give that a hard pass.


Read more: Alberta