5 questions heading into Trump’s State of the Union address

posted in: All news | 0

By STEVEN SLOAN and STEVE PEOPLES

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says he has a lot to talk about tonight.

Related Articles


From Cabinet secretary to doomsday president: What being the designated survivor is like


Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs is unlikely to mean an end to trade policy chaos


Trump cites health care issues in Greenland saying he’s sending a hospital ship. His claims are off


Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered


France ups the ante in spat with US ambassador, says ministers will no longer meet him

He’s returning to Congress to deliver a State of the Union address at a consequential moment in his presidency, with his approval ratings near an all-time low and restive supporters waiting for him to deliver more tangibly on their struggles with the cost of living.

On top of that, the Supreme Court just declared illegal the tariffs that have been central to his second term. And the foreign policy challenges he promised to fix easily now don’t look so simple with another potential military strike against Iran looming.

The narrow Republican majority in Congress that has done little to counter Trump’s expansive vision of power is at risk of falling away after this year’s midterm elections, when their respective self interests may collide.

Here are some questions we’re thinking about heading into the speech.

How awkward will things get with the Supreme Court?

Trump did little to hide his rage last week when the Supreme Court struck down his far-reaching tariff policy. He didn’t just say that the justices who voted against one of his signature issues — including two who he appointed — were wrong in their legal reasoning. He said they were an “embarrassment to their families.”

Now many of those justices are likely to be seated at the front of the House chamber as Trump delivers his address.

Will Trump criticize the justices to their faces? Will he somehow show restraint in keeping his criticism limited to the decision itself?

Trump would not be the first president to use a State of the Union address as a chance to criticize the court. During his 2010 address, President Barack Obama said the Court’s Citizens United decision — which opened the way for millions of dollars in undisclosed political spending — would “open the floodgates for special interests,” prompting Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth “not true.”

Since then, attendance by Supreme Court justices has become more sporadic. Alito began skipping them after the 2010 speech, joining fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has long argued the speeches are too partisan. By last year, when Trump delivered a special address to Congress, just four members of the Court — Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were in the House chamber.

At the time, Trump greeted the justices warmly, even telling Roberts “thank you again, I won’t forget it.” The comment was interpreted as Trump showing appreciation for the Court’s decision granting broad-based immunity to the presidency. But Trump said on social media he was merely thanking the chief justice for swearing him in.

Regardless, justices who don’t want a televised bashing from the president may decide to steer clear on Tuesday.

How will Democrats respond?

Democrats were still adjusting to Trump’s return to power when he last addressed Congress — and it showed.

During his 2025 joint address, Democrats entered the chamber with signs containing messages ranging from “Save Medicaid” and “Musk Steals” to simply “False.” Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, heckled Trump at one point, prompting his ejection from the chamber.

The signs were widely criticized as contrived and Green’s protest was something of a distraction. For voters who were outraged by Trump’s aggressive use of power during his opening months in office, the scene didn’t offer much confidence that Democrats were in a position to serve as an effective check on the White House.

Democrats are aiming to avoid a repeat of last year’s tumult. Expect fewer signs and possibly fewer Democrats in the chamber at all. Dozens of lawmakers have said they won’t attend the speech, with some planning to attend rival events in Washington.

That may help avoid some of last years theatrics. But it might do little to encourage frustrated voters that Democrats have a coherent, effective message a decade into Trump’s political rise.

And after Democratic governors boycotted a White House dinner with Trump over the weekend, skipping the State of the Union may only reinforce the sense that America’s two main political parties are charting fundamentally different courses.

Abigail Spanberger, Virginia’s newly inaugurated governor, will give the Democrats’ official response to Trump.

How will Trump address affordability and immigration?

Trump will deliver his speech at the outset of a challenging election year for his fellow Republicans, who are holding on to a tenuous grip of Congress. Much of the GOP’s challenge has centered on a sense among voters that the party hasn’t done enough to bring down prices.

The White House insists it is aware of the economic anxiety among voters and is working to address it. But Trump consistently has trouble staying on message. During a trip to Georgia last week that was intended to focus on the economy, the president instead highlighted debunked claims of election fraud and pushed his proposal for voter identification requirements. When he addressed affordability, he said it was a problem created by Democrats that he has now “solved.”

Trump’s tone on immigration could also be notable. Republicans found themselves on defense after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month by federal agents who were conducting an aggressive immigration enforcement operation. While Trump has kept up his hardline rhetoric on undocumented immigrants, his administration has begun to draw down agents in Minneapolis. The president told New York Gov. Kathy Hochul last week that he would direct future immigration enforcement surges where they were wanted.

An image is projected onto the exterior wall of the National Gallery of Art near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Monday, Feb. 23, 2026, ahead of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

What does he say about foreign policy?

Trump promised a quick and easy end to conflicts across the globe when he was elected. A year later, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to rage, there’s a fragile ceasefire in war-torn Gaza and Trump is threatening a major military strike against Iran just eight months after he claimed the U.S. had “obliterated” the nation’s nuclear facilities.

And let’s not forget about his military action in Venezuela less than two months ago in which U.S. forces snatched leader Nicolas Maduro. Trump has said repeatedly that he’s going to run the country.

Trump supporters may cheer his America First rhetoric, but the Republican president is showing far more globalist tendencies one year into his second term.

And the prospect of war with Iran is real. Trump has already built up the largest U.S. military presence in the Middle East in decades. Last week he warned the Iranian regime that “bad things will happen” soon if a nuclear deal is not reached.

How long will he go?

Trump is rarely one to self edit. His speech last year — technically a joint address and not the State of the Union — clocked nearly one hour and 40 minutes. That was the longest speech to a joint session of Congress — and Trump may want to notch another record.

“It’s going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about,” he said on Monday.

Trump administration sues New Jersey over restrictions on immigration arrests

posted in: All news | 0

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The Trump administration is suing New Jersey over a state order that prohibits federal immigration agents from making arrests in nonpublic areas of state property, such as correctional facilities and courthouses.

The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Trenton, challenges Gov. Mikie Sherrill ’s Feb. 11 executive order, which also bars the use of state property as a staging or processing area for immigration enforcement.

Sherrill, a Democrat who took office Jan. 20, “insists on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement,” the lawsuit said, accusing her of attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Sherrill’s executive order “poses an intolerable obstacle” to immigration enforcement and “directly regulates and discriminates” against the federal government, said the lawsuit, which misspelled her name as “Sherill.”

Asked about the lawsuit Tuesday, Sherrill said: “What I think the federal government needs to be focused on right now, instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe, is actually training their ICE agents.”

The state’s acting attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, said the Trump administration was “wasting its resources on a pointless legal challenge.” New Jersey will fight the lawsuit and “continue to ensure the safety of our state’s immigrant communities,” she said.

Related Articles


From Cabinet secretary to doomsday president: What being the designated survivor is like


Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs is unlikely to mean an end to trade policy chaos


Trump cites health care issues in Greenland saying he’s sending a hospital ship. His claims are off


Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered


France ups the ante in spat with US ambassador, says ministers will no longer meet him

The lawsuit is the latest in the Trump administration’s fight against state and local level restrictions on immigration enforcement.

Last year, the Justice Department sued Minnesota and Colorado, as well as cities including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Denver over so-called sanctuary laws, which are aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration agents.

Last May, the Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities — Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken — over such policies. That case is pending.

Democrats bet on Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s cost-focused message to counter Trump

posted in: All news | 0

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are betting that Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s affordability-focused message, which helped her flip a Republican-held office last November, will resonate with the country when she delivers their party’s response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Related Articles


From Cabinet secretary to doomsday president: What being the designated survivor is like


Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs is unlikely to mean an end to trade policy chaos


Trump cites health care issues in Greenland saying he’s sending a hospital ship. His claims are off


Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered


France ups the ante in spat with US ambassador, says ministers will no longer meet him

The rebuttal gives Democrats a prime opportunity to make their case against Trump and his policies ahead of the midterm elections. Spanberger’s double-digit victory in Virginia last November was viewed by party leaders as validation of a disciplined message centered on lowering costs — one they now want to elevate in campaigns nationwide.

“Virginians and Americans across the country are contending with rising costs, chaos in their communities, and a real fear of what each day might bring,” Spanberger said in a statement. “I look forward to laying out what these Americans expect and deserve — leaders who are working hard to deliver for them.”

Spanberger will deliver the speech from Colonial Williamsburg, a living history museum with restored 18th-century buildings, drawing on the site’s role at the heart of Virginia’s early opposition to British rule and connecting that legacy to the current political moment, according to her team.

She will have will have far less time than the Republican president to deliver her rebuttal. Trump’s speech before Congress last year stretched to an hour and 40 minutes, while Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s Democratic response lasted just over 10 minutes. Spanberger’s speech will be the fifth consecutive response to a president’s address to Congress delivered by a female senator or governor.

Trump on Monday told reporters that his State of the Union is “going to be a long speech, because we have so much to talk about.”

As viewership tends to drop the later the speech runs, the response has become one of the more perilous assignments in politics. Now–Secretary of State Marco Rubio was widely mocked for reaching for a water bottle during the GOP response in 2013. Other rebuttals have quickly faded from memory.

Even with the time disadvantage, Democrats argue the political winds are shifting in their favor. Spanberger’s win in Virginia was followed by other high-profile Democratic victories, including a special election earlier this month in Texas, where a Democrat flipped a reliably Republican state Senate district that Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California will deliver the party’s Spanish language response. Padilla, who in June was forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles as he tried to speak up about immigration raids, said in a statement that there is a better path than the one Trump has offered: “one that lowers costs, safeguards our democracy, and reins in rogue federal agencies.”

Some Democrats are choosing to make their point by skipping Trump’s address. Counterprogramming events are planned, including a “State of the Swamp” featuring Democratic lawmakers alongside state and local leaders and celebrities.

Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs is unlikely to mean an end to trade policy chaos

posted in: All news | 0

By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs means he can’t conjure up new import taxes on a whim anymore.

But the justices’ ruling on Friday is nonetheless unlikely to ease the uncertainty over Trump’s trade policy that has paralyzed businesses over the past year. “It’s only gotten more complicated for everybody,’’ said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

Vexing questions remain: How will the president use other laws to reconstruct the tariffs the Supreme Court knocked down, and will those attempts withstand legal challenges? What does the decision mean for the trade deals Trump strong-armed other countries into accepting, using his now-defunct tariffs as leverage? Can importers collect refunds for the tariffs they paid last year, and if so, how?

Then there’s Trump’s own unpredictability. Even though he had weeks to prepare for an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling, his response was still chaotic: On Friday, he said he’d use other legal authority to impose 10% levies on imports from other countries. Saturday, he ratcheted it up to 15%.

Normally, lower tariffs arising from the Supreme Court’s decision might be expected to give the economy a little lift. But “any benefit you would get from that is more than offset to a modest negative from the uncertainty front,” said Mike Skordeles, head of U.S. economics at Truist, a bank.

Trump looks for new import taxes

Gone for good are the sweeping tariffs Trump justified under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), mainly to combat America’s persistent trade deficits. But that doesn’t mean the president can’t invoke other laws to rebuild much of his tariff wall around the U.S. economy.

“Tariff revenues will be unchanged this year and will be unchanged in the future,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox News interview Sunday.

Trump reached for a stop-gap option immediately after his defeat Friday at the Supreme Court: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. But any extension beyond 150 days must be approved by a Congress likely to balk at passing a tax increase as November’s midterm elections loom.

Section 122 has never been invoked before, and some critics say the president can’t use it as a stand-in for the IEEPA tariffs to combat the trade deficit.

Bryan Riley of National Taxpayers Union, for example, argues that Section 122 is meant to give the president a tool to fight what it calls “fundamental international payments problems,’’ not the trade deficit.

The provision arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, putting alarming downward pressure on the dollar. But the U.S. currency is no longer linked to gold, so Section 122 has been “effectively rendered obsolete,’’ Riley wrote in a commentary.

“Given the amount of money at issue for U.S. businesses, it is not hard to imagine a new wave of litigation attacking Section 122, and again seeking refunds of Section 122 duties collected,” said trade lawyer Dave Townsend, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney.

A sturdier alternative is Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act, which gives the United States a handy cudgel with which to smack countries it accuses of engaging in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. In a statement Friday, in fact, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration was launching a series of 301 investigations after the loss at the Supreme Court.

Trump invoked Section 301 in his first term to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports in a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics that Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. Those tariffs were upheld in court and kept by the Biden administration.

“We’re eight years in, and those China tariffs are still here,” King & Spalding’s Majerus said. “They’re sticky tariffs.’’

Confusion surrounds Trump’s trade deals

The Supreme Court’s decision also raises questions about the lopsided trade agreements Trump negotiated last year, using the threat of potentially unlimited IEEPA tariffs to squeeze concessions out of U.S. trading partners from the European Union to Japan.

Will countries try to back out of their commitments, now that the IEEPA tariff threat is gone?

The European Union’s trade deal with Trump is already on hold amid confusion following the Supreme Court’s ruling — and Trump’s decision to respond to it with the 15% Section 122 global tariff.

Related Articles


Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered


France ups the ante in spat with US ambassador, says ministers will no longer meet him


Hegseth and Anthropic CEO set to meet as debate intensifies over the military’s use of AI


FACT FOCUS: A look at Trump’s false and misleading claims ahead of the State of the Union


Trump’s State of the Union will seek to calm voters’ economic concerns ahead of midterm elections

European lawmakers on Monday delayed a vote on ratifying the pact to seek clarification. They are worried that Trump’s new import tax will stack on top of the “most favored nation’’ tariffs the United States charges under pre-existing World Trade Organization rules — and lift U.S. tariffs on EU imports above the 15% the Europeans had agreed to last year.

“A deal is a deal,” said commission spokesman Olof Gill. “So now we are simply saying to the US, it is up to you to clearly show to us what path you are taking to honor the agreement.”

Then there’s the United Kingdom, which had reached a deal with Trump last year for 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States. Will they really go to 15%?

Still, trade analysts largely expect U.S. trade partners to stick by the deals they reached with Trump last year. For one thing, the United States could wallop them with hefty Section 301 tariffs, which are potentially unlimited, for violating trade agreements.

“They’re going to pretty leery of rocking the boat on their deals,” Majerus said. “Violations of trade agreements can be a basis for taking 301 action. So you could see Section 301 become an enforcement mechanism’’ for the United States.

“We are confident that all trade agreements negotiated by President Trump will remain in effect,’’ U.S. Trade Representative Greer said in his statement.

A messy refund process

In its ruling, the Supreme Court didn’t bother to say what would happen to all the money collected from the IEEPA tariffs, $133 billion as of mid-December. It left the messy issue of refunds to importers — but likely not to consumers — to lower courts and the Customs and Border Protection agency, which collects import taxes. But they’re likely to be overwhelmed — hundreds of companies are already lined up to get their money back — and the refunds could take months or years to be paid.

“The whole thing’s going to be a mess,’’ Majerus said.

It’s possible that Congress will order Customs to take an “easy ‘one-click’ approach to refunds,’’ wrote strategists Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry at the investment bank Macquarie. Otherwise, they warned, the Trump administration could “make the refund process as burdensome as possible, requiring every importer to file stacks of paperwork, if not file a lawsuit, to get its money back. That would be costly for businesses.’’

AP Economics Writers Christopher Rugaber in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany, contributed to this report.