A federal appeals court ruled most of Trump's global tariffs are in fact illegal, striking a massive blow to his trade policy, if you want to call it that. Trump reacting in typical Trump fashion, writing on his truth social site in part, quote, "Today, a highly partisan appeals court incorrectly said that our tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our nation. Joining ...

Central Bank Independence & Political Influence - The core issue revolves around whether the Federal Reserve (Fed), a fundamental institution for American economic strength, should remain free from political influence [7] - Concerns exist that politicized central banks could negatively impact economies globally, a responsibility the Supreme Court may not want to bear [6] - The current situation is viewed as a potentially damaging conversation regarding the independence of the central bank [7] Lisa Cook Case & Supreme Court Involvement - The case involving Lisa Cook is expected to reach the Supreme Court, with a previous case, Trump versus Wilcox, offering insights into the court's potential stance [1] - The Supreme Court appears uncomfortable with a politicized Fed, but its precedents regarding specialized economic agencies and presidential firings are being questioned [1][2] - The Supreme Court will decide whether to prevent the president from exerting full control over the Fed or to endorse a unified executive with the power to define "cause" for dismissal [2] - The administration is allegedly hoping the Supreme Court will back down from previous warnings against firing Fed governors [9] Presidential Power & Agency Control - The president seeks the ability to fire Fed governors without cause, a power the Supreme Court grants for most other agencies [5] - The administration believes in consolidating power and responsibility with the president, aiming for complete control over independent agencies [10] - The legality of firing a Federal Reserve governor is questioned, with arguments suggesting the Supreme Court has previously restricted presidential power in this area [8] Timeline & Economic Uncertainty - The Supreme Court is expected to act swiftly due to the potential for economic uncertainty [11][12] - A resolution is anticipated within weeks, but no more than a couple of months [12]

National Guard Deployment & Legal Basis - The deployment of the National Guard is being framed as addressing lawlessness, referencing the historical concept of "Posse Comitatus" [1] - The President's authority to deploy the National Guard, especially in Democratic-controlled cities, is questioned as potentially a political move rather than a necessity to fight crime [2][4] - The use of federal Title 32 orders for National Guard deployment in Washington D C raises concerns about the appropriateness of using armed troops not trained in police work in civilian settings [5][6][7] - Governors are pushing back against the deployment of troops in their states, raising potential legal challenges and invoking historical parallels to the Civil War [9][10][11] - The use of the National Guard is contrasted with historical examples like the Civil Rights Movement, where there was a clear federal interest in enforcing constitutional rights [13] Federal Reserve Independence - The President's attempt to influence or remove a Federal Reserve governor is seen as a challenge to the Fed's independence and a potential overreach of executive power [15][16][17] - The Federal Reserve was created as an independent agency to insulate monetary policy from political pressures that could harm the economy [18][19][20] - The debate over the President's power over the Federal Reserve raises constitutional questions about the balance of power and the role of independent agencies [20][21][24] - The Supreme Court's stance on the independence of the Federal Reserve is being scrutinized, particularly in light of past rulings on other independent boards [25][26][27] - Maintaining an independent central bank is considered crucial for the stability of the US economy and the attractiveness of the US dollar as a global investment [28] Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement - The President's suggestion of the death penalty for murderers in Washington D C is met with skepticism regarding its effectiveness as a deterrent and its potential application to other cases [29][30][31] - The presence of federal agencies like ICE and DEA at checkpoints in Washington D C raises questions about priorities and resource allocation, especially given crises in other areas like the Arizona-Mexico border [32][36] - Individuals have constitutional rights when encountering law enforcement checkpoints, including the right to remain silent, but asserting those rights may have consequences [33][34][35]

When it comes to this injunction, What will Lisa Cook learn. I think that she's likely to prevail. You know, the purpose of injunction typically is to balance a variety of things, you know, harm to the parties, likelihood of success on the merits, and as is usually designed to fashion a remedy intended to preserve the status quo. The status quo is she's fed member on the likelihood of success on the merits.It's very hard to see how Trump's attempt to be jury, judge and executioner on mere allegations at thi ...

Federal Reserve Independence & Economic Policy - The report highlights President Trump's efforts to exert partisan pressure on the Federal Reserve (Fed), including attempts to fire a member, Lisa Cook, and influence the board's majority, raising concerns about the Fed's independence [1] - Financial experts widely view Trump's reference to investigating Lisa Cook for a mortgage application as a pretext to consolidate power over the independent Fed [1] - The Fed released a statement reaffirming its commitment to accountability and independence, indicating less compliance with Trump's desires [1] - The report emphasizes that politicians who interfere with the independence of central banks are "playing with fire," as historical examples show that autocratic control over economies often leads to market crashes, shortages, and even famine [1][2] - The weakening dollar, down 10% over the year, and increasing long-term borrowing costs are cited as practical effects of undermining the Fed's independence, leading to less purchasing power and higher loan rates for Americans [11][12] - The report mentions that short-term focused presidents may push for looser monetary policy, which might be good in the short term but bad for all in the long term if prices go up [15] Trump Administration & Power Consolidation - The report suggests Trump's actions are part of a wider effort to undermine career independence across the federal government, reminiscent of purges aimed at ousting career prosecutors and labor statisticians [1] - The Trump administration's desire to buy up private companies to exert more control is highlighted, exemplified by taking a tenth stake (10%) in chipmaker Intel [2] - The report mentions Trump musing about a dictatorship, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic norms [3][4] Epstein Case & Political Implications - Congress will question former Trump labor secretary, Alex Acosta, about the secret deal he cut in the Epstein case [29] - Ghislaine Maxwell's interview, where she claims to have never seen any problems from Trump, is viewed with skepticism, with some suggesting it was a scripted effort to seek a pardon [31][40] - The report highlights conflicting claims about the existence of an Epstein client list, with Trump's former attorney general claiming it existed and Maxwell denying its existence [36][37][38] Cultural & Political Commentary - The report touches on Trump's desire to control Hollywood and pop culture, viewing him as one of the most anti-First Amendment presidents in history [58][61]

Trade Policy & Legal Challenges - A federal appeals court is hearing arguments about whether President Trump overstepped his authority to impose tariffs, potentially rendering trade deals illegal [1] - Piper Sandler suggests the administration is struggling to justify the tariffs, arguing the President is claiming national emergency powers without statutory authority [2][3] - The legality of tariffs is questioned, citing Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to impose tariffs [4][5] - The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court, with potential rulings in the coming months and a decision possibly by June [6][7] - There is a possibility that the Supreme Court may strike down the tariffs, with originalist and liberal judges potentially aligning against broad presidential authority [7][8][9] Market Impact & Investor Sentiment - The market's reaction to a potential overturning of trade deals is uncertain, with investors seemingly unconcerned about the tariffs [10][11] - The market consensus appears to be that the worst of the tariffs is over, but this view is challenged as deals are raising, not lowering, tariffs [11][12][13]

Geopolitical Implications - US Secretary of State revoked the visa for Brazilian Supreme Court Justice [1] - The revocation is linked to the Brazilian high court's actions against ex-President Jair Bolsonaro [1]

Joining us now, NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles, New York Times chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst Peter Baker, and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Ryan, um, I'm not quite sure I've ever seen anything quite like what happened in the judiciary committee today. Um, am I wrong.Is this normal practice. It's certainly not normal practice, Katie. Not saying it's unprecedented, but it is uh certainly out of the norm to see an entire panel of a hearing break apar ...

How Stephen Miller Won—And Lost—At The Supreme Court This Term https://t.co/0gSs6xnSe1 ...

How Stephen Miller Won—And Lost—At The Supreme Court This Term https://t.co/oF3dkzifT5 https://t.co/oF3dkzifT5 ...