Is the concept of ‘equal time’ outdated on today’s broadcast networks? The Federal Communications Commission put regulations on the books in 1934 requiring equal air time for political candidates during an election season. But that doesn’t extend to cable, or to streaming, or to the booming podcast world. You could get technical and claim the broadcast networks often come to people today via cable or satellite connections, not an antenna.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr recently suggested late-night comedy shows and daytime talk shows like ABC’s ‘The View’ could be evaluated for potential violations of the old equal-time rules. On Monday, Feb. 16, ‘Late Show’ host Stephen Colbert gaudily announced that he invited Texas state Democrat Rep. James Talarico for an interview, but lawyers told him ‘in no uncertain terms’ that he couldn’t do this, so he posted a Talarico interview on YouTube instead. When that YouTube video drew over 8 million views, it was painted by liberal journalists as a great victory over President Donald Trump. But Trump never objected to this interview.

Colbert had to unfurl the nightly rant about being a courageous dissident and all that rot: ‘Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diaper.’

Then, surprisingly, CBS put out a statement that suggested Colbert was a liar, that the interview was not banned: ‘The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.’ On Tuesday, Colbert sputtered. ‘They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’s lawyers.’

Colbert wasn’t in danger of having to invite Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn. He might have to interview Crockett – who appeared on the show last year, before she was a candidate. This whole stunt could be painted as a campaign booster for Talarico, who raised millions of dollars off the appearance. 

Then came the weirdness of CBS News covering this spat, giving both sides equal time and weight. On Wednesday’s ‘CBS Mornings,’ reporter Elaine Quijano ran the opposing views, and then added another liberal view: ‘Monday was the first known time a late night talk show changed its programming since the FCC issued its new guidance. Anna Gomez, the only Democratic-appointed FCC commissioner, worries that decision could enable censorship.’

The ‘PBS News Hour’ also turned to Gomez for an attack on Trump and Carr: ‘Anything they don’t like, they want to control and they want to censor.’ Defunded PBS still sounds bitter.

The supreme irony in this entire kerfuffle is that Colbert represents the exact opposite of equal time. Overall, Alex Christy of NewsBusters reported that from September 2022 through Thursday, Colbert has brought on 230 liberal or Democrat guests, to only one Republican – and that Republican was former Rep. Liz Cheney after she was drummed out of office in a primary. So, let’s wink and say 231 to zero.

CBS could easily change the name of its late-night comedy show to ‘The People’s Republic of Colbert.’ Anyone who wants to end their day by listening to a long interview with Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders is not looking for giggles. But that’s what viewers found on January 20. Colbert announced with fanfare that this was the 19th time he’d platformed Sanders.

This is not a ‘bona fide news interview,’ if we’re going to use FCC lingo. It’s the lamest kind of ‘Sunset Semester’ socialism session. ‘Define oligarchy for us’ isn’t even a question. It’s a prompt.

But Colbert also put this ball on the tee for Bernie:  ‘This is a red-letter day for you. Here you are administering the oath of office to Mayor Mamdani and I just—you’ve been fighting, you’ve been carrying the banner of democratic socialists for a long time. What was that like to swear in the first Democratic Socialist mayor of a major city?’ He found it ‘extremely gratifying.’

When that YouTube video drew over 8 million views, it was painted by liberal journalists as a great victory over President Donald Trump. But Trump never objected to this interview.

It was the same situation with Talarico – two Democrats talking like Democrats. Colbert nudged: ‘It’s not the first time you’ve caused some drama. ‘FCC opening probe into The View after appearance by Talarico.’ Do you mean to cause trouble?’

Overall, the late-night ‘comedy’ show guest count in 2025 was overwhelmingly stacked: 99% of the political guests are liberals or Democrats. It’s the same on ‘The View.’ In 2025, Whoopi & Co. interviewed 128 liberals or Democrats to two Republicans or sort-of conservatives. Again, that’s being generous. The two are now former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was fulminating against Trump, and Cheryl Hines, who was forced into defending her husband, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

These are the shows that are the most passionately painting themselves as brave upholders of Democracy when they practice nothing of the sort. Only one side is worth hearing, and the other side is only worth smearing. 

In 1839, not long before President Donald Trump’s favorite president, Andrew Jackson, died, an admirer offered him an ancient roman sarcophagus, thought to have once held the remains of an emperor. Jackson, declined the offer, saying, ‘my republican feelings and principles forbid it.’ There may be a lesson here.

Since Trump returned to the White House just over a year ago, it seems like every single day something new is being named after him. The Kennedy Center, the Institute of Peace building, a new class of battleship, the Palm Beach airport and, who are we kidding, eventually the White House ballroom.

Meanwhile, a giant banner featuring Trump’s stern features was placed on the Department of Justice this week, not the first public building to be adorned with the visage of the president glaring down at us.

It all seems to have gone a bit too far, but not for the reasons generally cited. Instead, the pure quantity of Trump-branded government buildings is starting to diminish the meaning and impact of all of them.

To be clear, there is no risk of a major political backlash from voters as Trump’s name and image get plastered around Washington like posters for a Dave Matthews Band concert. People who hate him call it ‘Dear Leader’ fascism and people who love him takes selfies. Everyone else just shrugs and says, ‘Well, that’s Trump.’

Culturally, the question of whether naming everything after yourself is crass or unseemly is subjective and a matter of personal taste. As a priority to voters, it falls somewhere below good taste in music.

And after all, every city has its John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. boulevards, though, in fairness, they were killed, which is a major advantage if your goal is getting stuff named after you.

No, the real question is whether this avalanche of eponymous enterprises are burnishing, or diminishing, the president’s legacy, and in the far-seeing eyes of history, very often, less is more.

I get it, Trump spent his whole life making buildings grow out of the ground so he could slap his name on them, big as life and usually in gold. It is an admirable and very human impulse to leave something lasting.

The president was very good at leaving his mark. Trust me, I lived in New York City for 20 years, and you really can’t miss it. But now it turns out that all of that glass and steel is flimsy and impermanent compared to Trump the man, who, say what you will, will be spoken of and debated for centuries.

It is not in flinty metal or in the cold plastic of physical reality where Trump’s true legacy must now be forged. Rather, it is in the invisible fire of the future, where the man, not the buildings will be judged.

Trump has the immortality shot, with his bold vision not just in America but around the globe. He stands to be the most consequential figure of the early 21st century. We don’t need to name every county courthouse and 1-95 rest stop after him.

Throwing your name up everywhere in giant fonts is actually exactly the kind of eccentric behavior that gets mocked for thousands of years. Like Caligula threatening to make his horse a consul of Rome, it will be used by many to suggest narcissistic mania in Trump, because it already is used that way.

Trump is never going to be the modest Abe Lincoln type with the shawl and aw shucks, ‘Nobody will remember my speech,’ attitude. That’s cool, his braggadocio is fun. But I don’t want to live in a world where I check my Trump watch to see if it’s time for a Trump burger on my way to Trump airport.

As it turned out, ‘Old Hickory’ Andrew Jackson would be buried in a plain pine box, though the ancient treasure he declined is still housed by the Smithsonian. And instead of paying homage to him through a marble masterpiece, we keep little pictures of him in our pockets.

More importantly, our current commander in chief still draws on Jackson’s strength and values to this very day, fancy Roman sarcophagus or not.

The more things we name after Trump, the less it means, and the more it feels forced, when it needn’t be. Nobody, including Trump, has to convince us that he is a figure of historical magnitude. Seeing that advertised again and again starts to make it all seem a little bit cheapened.

For more than a month, Michal Weits has kept suitcases packed by the front door of her house in Tel Aviv.

‘We have our bags ready for weeks,’ she said. ‘Three weeks ago, there were rumors that it was the night the U.S. would attack Iran. At midnight, we pulled the kids out of their beds and drove to the north, where it is supposed to be safer.’

Weits, the artistic director of the international documentary film festival Docaviv, is speaking from her own traumatic experience. During the 12-day war, an Iranian missile struck her Tel Aviv home. She, her husband, and their two young children were inside the safe room when it collapsed on her.

‘After an Iranian missile hit our home and we lost everything we had, we also lost the feeling of ‘it won’t happen to me,’’ she said. ‘We are prepared, as much as it’s really possible.’

Weits remembers the surreal contrast of those days. Four days after being injured in the missile strike, while still in the hospital, she was told she had won an Emmy Award for the documentary she produced about the Nova massacre on Oct. 7.

‘Four days earlier an 800-kilogram explosive missile fell on our home and I was injured, and four days later I woke up on my birthday to news that I had won an Emmy,’ she said. ‘It can’t be more surreal than this. That is the experience of being Israeli, from zero to one hundred.’

She says Israelis have learned to live inside that swing. ‘Inside all of this, life continues,’ she said. ‘Kids go to school, you go to the supermarket, Purim arrives and you prepare, and you don’t know if any of it will actually happen. We didn’t make plans for this weekend because we don’t know what will happen.’

That gap — between visible routine and private fear — defines this moment. The fear she describes is now part of the national atmosphere.

On the surface, Israel looks normal. The beaches are crowded in the warm weather. Cafés are full. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange has risen in recent days. Children go to school as Israelis prepare for the Jewish holiday of Purim and costumes are being prepared.

But inside homes and across local news broadcasts, one question dominates: when will it happen? When will President Donald Trump decide whether to strike Iran — and what will that mean for Israel?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed the Home Front Command and emergency services to prepare for possible escalation, with Israeli media reporting a state of ‘maximum alert’ across security bodies.

Speaking at an officer graduation ceremony this week, Netanyahu warned Tehran: ‘If the ayatollahs make a mistake and attack us, they will face a response they cannot even imagine.’ He added that Israel is ‘prepared for any scenario.’

The military message was echoed by the IDF. ‘We are monitoring regional developments and are aware of the public discourse regarding Iran,’ IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said. ‘The IDF remains vigilant in defense, our eyes are open in every direction and our readiness in response to any change in the operational reality is greater than ever.’

Yet the psychological shift inside Israel goes deeper than official statements.

For years, Israelis lived with rockets from Hamas. The Iranian strikes felt different.

‘The level of destruction from Iran was something Israelis had not experienced before,’ said Israeli Iran expert Benny Sabti. ‘People are used to rockets from Gaza. This was a different scale of damage. It created real anxiety.’

Iron Dome, long seen as nearly impenetrable, was less effective against heavier Iranian missiles. Buildings collapsed. Entire neighborhoods were damaged.

‘People are still traumatized,’ Sabti said. ‘They are living on the edge for a long time now.’

At the same time, he stressed that the country is better prepared today.

‘There are feelings, and there are facts,’ Sabti said. ‘The facts are that Israel is better prepared now. The military level is doing serious preparation. They learned from the last round.’

The earlier wave of protests inside Iran had sparked hope in Israel that internal pressure might weaken or topple the regime. Weits told Fox News Digital, ‘I am angry at the Iranian government, not the Iranian people. I will be the first to travel there when it’s possible. I hope they will be able to be free — that all of us will be able to be free.’

Despite losing her home and suffering hearing damage from the blast, she says the greater loss was psychological. ‘There is no more complacency,’ she said. ‘The ‘it won’t happen to me’ feeling is gone.’

Across Israel, that sentiment resonates.

President Donald Trump turned up the heat on progressive Democrats during his public remarks Thursday, including slamming New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her ‘horrible’ efforts at diplomacy during the Munich Security Conference. 

‘Her performance was horrible,’ Trump told the media aboard Air Force One on the way to an event in Rome, Georgia, Thursday. ‘I was surprised, actually. I didn’t know she was stupid.’

Ocasio-Cortez joined the Munich Security Conference last weekend, and faced criticisms for a handful of ‘sputtering’ and ’embarrassing’ responses, including when she was asked, ‘Would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?’

The progressive New York Democrat delivered an answer that included a handful of pauses, punctuated by repeatedly saying ‘uhm.’ 

She ultimately answered: ‘This is, of course, a very long-standing policy of the United States, and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point, and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.’ 

Vice President JD Vance called the response ’embarrassing,’ while social media corticis compared it to ‘Kamala cringe’ or that she ‘SELF-DESTRUCTED’ with her answer. 

Ocasio-Cortez is seen as a potential 2028 presidential contender, with Trump’s sharp critique of the left-wing Democrat lawmaker setting a tone for potential future campaign attacks. 

Ocasio-Cortez made a point to downplay 2028 speculation during the security conference. 

She said she joined the forum that attracts hundreds of world leaders, business titans and celebrities ‘not because I’m running for president, not because I’ve made some kind of decision about a horse race or a candidacy, but because we need to sound the alarm bells that a lot of those folks in nicely pressed suits in that room will not be there much longer if we do not do something about the runaway inequality that is fueling far-right populist movements.’

Earlier Thursday, when Trump held the first Board of Peace meeting, he described Ocasio-Cortez as a weak representation for the U.S. on the world stage. 

‘She was unable to answer a simple question. And she could have said, ‘Well, I’m studying it, and I’ll report back to you next week.’ You know, you can get away with that. But she just went ‘uhhh.’ I think it could be a career ending answer because for 25 years, anybody running against her, I think Susie is going to use that, that little piece of stuff. It was not good. It was not good. That was not a natural,’ Trump said. 

The White House told Fox News Digital on Friday that ‘Trump is always transparent with his thoughts, and he’s right – AOC should be working on behalf of the American people instead of embarrassing our country on the world stage.’

‘It’s ridiculous that third-rate congresswoman AOC decided to frolic around Munich, where no one knows or cares who she is, while New Yorkers are suffering as a result of Democrats’ shutdown, which is cutting off resources to FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard, and thousands of federal law enforcement officers,’ White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said. 

Trump, later that day during a steel event in Georgia, took a shot at Democrats who have promoted a message of ‘affordability.’ Left-wing Democrats such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani carried out a successful campaign in 2025 on a message of lowering costs for New Yorkers, including by increasing taxes on some high-earners in the state. 

Trump has slammed the party for using the term, arguing sky-high inflation under the Biden era was caused by Democrat policies. 

Trump took aim at Democrats again on Thursday for their message of affordability, claiming he hasn’t heard the media specifically promote affordability in weeks because he ‘won affordability.’ 

‘I added $9 trillion, and your retirement accounts and 401 Ks are at the highest level they’ve ever been. And then I have to listen to the fake news talking about affordability. Affordability. Do you notice what word have you not heard over the last two weeks? Affordability. Because I’ve won, I’ve won affordability,’ he said on Thursday from Georgia. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office for additional comment Friday afternoon. 

Most U.S. data breach disclosures explain what information was leaked and any protective steps available to consumers.

At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission advises that after a breach involving sensitive personal information, consumers may consider placing a credit freeze to help prevent new credit accounts from being opened in their name.

Many people place that credit freeze and assume they’re protected. But a credit freeze is not a comprehensive block against identity theft. It stops most new credit applications, but it doesn’t prevent the misuse of your Social Security number or account takeovers.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

What a credit freeze actually does

A credit freeze, also called a security freeze, limits access to your credit report at Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Under federal law, placing a freeze is free. When a freeze is in place, most lenders can’t access your credit file to evaluate applications for new credit cards or lines of credit. If a creditor can’t see your credit report, the application will usually be denied.

You can manage your credit freeze with each bureau individually. With Experian, for example, you sign in to your free online account at Experian’s credit freeze page and then place, lift, or schedule a thaw; you can also call Experian’s toll-free number (888-397-3742). If you plan to apply for credit, you must lift the freeze beforehand.

A credit freeze blocks most new accounts that require a credit check. It does not extend beyond your credit file.

Some identity protection services offer a credit lock feature that allows you to restrict access to your credit file through a mobile app. Like a freeze, it can limit new credit checks. The main difference is convenience, as you can typically turn it on or off quickly without logging into a bureau’s website or calling by phone.

Credit freezes can’t stop every form of identity theft

A credit freeze blocks new credit accounts, but it does not stop many common forms of identity theft that do not require a credit check.

• Account takeovers: If someone has access to an existing credit card or bank account, they don’t need to open a new line of credit. They can change the email address, phone number, or mailing address tied to the account and begin making charges.
• Tax identity theft: A fraudulent federal tax return does not need a credit check. If someone files a return using your SSN before you do, the IRS may reject your legitimate filing.
• Employment fraud: If your SSN is used for employment, it will not appear as a credit inquiry. Instead, the earnings may be recorded under your Social Security record.
• Government benefits fraud: Unemployment insurance and other state-administered benefits do not require a traditional credit check.
• Medical identity theft: A stolen identity can be used to get medical treatment. Bills may not appear until the provider sends the account to collections.

What happens when the fraud doesn’t involve a credit inquiry?

When identity theft happens outside the credit approval process, there is no automatic reversal. Each category of fraud is handled by a different agency or company.

• If a fraudulent tax return is filed, you must work directly with the IRS and submit Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit. The IRS may require identity verification before releasing a refund.
• If your SSN is used for employment, you must contact the Social Security Administration to correct your earnings record.
• If government benefits are fraudulently claimed in your name, the state agency is involved. There is no federal clearinghouse.
• If medical debt appears in collections, you must dispute it with both the provider and the collection agency, often in writing.

There is no single agency coordinating these corrections. You’re responsible for identifying the fraud, filing the appropriate reports, and tracking responses across agencies.

If a freeze isn’t the end, what is?

A credit freeze addresses risks tied to new credit applications. Identity theft often goes beyond that. Comprehensive identity protection typically includes credit monitoring across all three major bureaus, alerts for new inquiries or accounts, and monitoring for exposed personal information such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, passport details, email addresses, and passwords.

Some services also monitor public records, address changes, identity verification activity, and even suspicious financial transactions when accounts are linked. Early alerts can help you spot fraud before it spreads.

If identity theft does occur, recovery can be complicated. Some identity protection plans provide access to fraud resolution specialists who help contact creditors, place fraud alerts, dispute unauthorized accounts, and prepare required documentation. Many also include identity theft insurance to help cover eligible recovery expenses, such as lost wages or legal fees.

No service can prevent every form of identity theft. But layered monitoring, fast alerts, and guided recovery support can make the damage easier to contain and resolve.

See my tips and best picks on Best Identity Theft Protection at Cyberguy.com.

Kurt’s key takeaways

A credit freeze is a smart move after a data breach, but it is only one layer of protection. Many forms of identity theft do not involve a credit check, which means they can happen quietly and take time to fix. Real protection comes from understanding the gaps, monitoring your accounts, and acting quickly if something looks wrong. The more proactive you are, the easier recovery becomes.

Have you placed a credit freeze, and did you know it does not protect against every type of identity theft? Let us know your thoughts by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will suspend TSA PreCheck and Global Entry beginning Sunday as a partial government shutdown continues.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Saturday blamed Democrats for shutting down the government, saying they were causing ‘serious real world consequences.’

‘This is the third time that Democrat politicians have shut down this department during the 119th Congress,’ Noem said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. ‘Shutdowns have serious real world consequences, not just for the men and women of DHS and their families who go without a paycheck, but it endangers our national security.’

The suspension of the programs, which allow some travelers to quickly get through airport security, was first reported by The Washington Post, which noted the changes would begin Sunday at 6 a.m. EST.

Noem said the department was making ‘tough but necessary workforce and resource decisions to mitigate the damage inflicted by these politicians.’

She said TSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would be ‘prioritizing the general traveling population at our airports and ports of entry and suspending courtesy and special privilege escorts.’ The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), she added, will halt all non-disaster-related response to prioritize disasters.

Noem noted the suspension comes as a major storm is expected to hit the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the Trump administration for ‘idiotically’ shutting down the programs ‘to punish the American people.’

‘This is Trump and Kristi Noem purposely punishing the American people and using them as pawns for their sadistic political games,’ he said in a statement. ‘TSA PreCheck and Global Entry REDUCE airport lines and ease the burden on DHS staff who are working without pay because of Trump’s abuse of the Department and killing of American citizens.’

He called on the administration to immediately reverse the decision.

The third government shutdown in under half a year began on Feb. 14 after Democrats and Republicans were at an impasse on reaching a deal regarding President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

DHS was the only department left without federal funding after Democrats walked away from a bipartisan plan released last month in response to the deaths of two U.S. citizens at the hands of federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis during anti-ICE demonstrations.

DHS is the third-largest Cabinet agency with nearly 272,000 employees. Roughly 90% of DHS workers were expected to continue working, many without pay, according to the department’s Sept. 2025 government shutdown plan.

DHS has jurisdiction over numerous agencies and offices, including CBP, TSA, FEMA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind and Alex Miller contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump has reportedly reacted to the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

President Donald Trump slammed the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision that ruled he does not have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs under a specific emergency powers law, noting he will pursue ‘alternatives’ to tariffs under emergency law.

‘Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,’ Trump said during a White House press briefing Friday afternoon. ‘We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.’

The president also announced he is imposing a 10% ‘global tariff’ following the court’s decision.

‘Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,’ Trump said. ‘And we’re also initiating several section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.’

The high court blocked Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in what amounts to a major test of executive branch authority. 

Trump called the ruling ‘deeply disappointing,’ saying he was ‘ashamed’ of certain members of the court.

‘I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,’ the president said. ‘In actuality, I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because… I wanted to be very well-behaved.

‘I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy. I have very effectively utilized tariffs over the past year to make America great again,’ he said.

A source outside the Trump administration told Fox News that an aide came into the closed-door White House breakfast with governors earlier Friday and handed Trump a note about the Supreme Court ruling.

The source said Trump ‘called it a disgrace, and then he went on with the remarks.’

Some of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience when the president delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

‘The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no,’ Trump said during the news conference. ‘They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation… They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.’

In the opinion, the high court declared, ‘Our task today is to decide only whether the power to ‘regulate… importation,’ as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not.’

Trump has made tariffs a key plank of his economic agenda since retaking the Oval Office last year, but his policies have not come without controversy.

Republican reaction to the ruling has been mixed.

Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., slammed the high court’s decision.

‘The Supreme Court just undercut the President’s ability to defend American workers. President Donald Trump was elected to fight unfair trade and stop the United States from being ripped off. I’m outraged by this decision; it’s clearly judicial overreach,’ Carter asserted in a post on X.

But Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., welcomed the ruling.

‘In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism,’ Paul noted in a post on X.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., also hailed the decision.

‘The Constitution’s checks and balances still work. Article One gives tariff authority to Congress. This was a common-sense and straightforward ruling by the Supreme Court. I feel vindicated as I’ve been saying this for the last 12 months. In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court. Besides the Constitutional concerns I had on the Administration’s broad-based tariffs, I also do not think tariffs are smart economic policy. Broad-based tariffs are bad economics,’ Bacon wrote in a post on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Congress and the administration will determine the ‘best path forward’ in the coming weeks.

‘No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,’ Johnson wrote in an X post.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democratic claims that their marquee voter ID legislation would wreak havoc on elections in the country.

Congressional Democrats have panned the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act as a tool of voter suppression — saying it’s a bill that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to monitor Americans’ voter information and create barriers for married women to vote, among several other claims.

Along with requiring photo ID to vote, the bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, mandate states to actively verify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls, expand information sharing with federal agencies, including DHS, to verify citizenship, and create new criminal penalties for registering noncitizens to vote.

Trump has time and again pushed voter ID, calling the election reforms in the bill a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’ 

Some of the bill’s strongest proponents fact-checked those claims in interviews with Fox News Digital.

‘If you look at what it actually says, rather than what Democrats aggressively and, I believe, disingenuously are arguing right now — they’re overlooking the requirements of the SAVE America Act — those requirements are actually really generous,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re really flexible.’

Here’s a closer look at some of the most common claims Democrats have made about the SAVE America Act — and how Republican supporters of the bill are responding.

Claim: ‘Federalizing voter suppression’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., routinely has bashed the SAVE America Act as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ — the segregationist laws of the Deep South largely done away with by the Civil Rights Act.

‘It has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression,’ Schumer said earlier in February on the Senate floor.

But Republicans argued that Democrats were being ‘hypocritical’ in their voter suppression charge, particularly when it comes to voter ID.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., whose home state is one of 36 that either requests or requires a form of photo identification before voting, argued that voter ID laws across the country had no effect on turnout.

‘This idea that they’re saying that it’s going to suppress any vote — it’s never done that anywhere,’ Scott told Fox News Digital. ‘They said that when Georgia passed it, and they had record turnout. So it’s not true at all. I mean, how many people do you know who don’t have an ID?’

Claim: DHS will have access to legal voters’ data

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued during a press conference that this iteration of the SAVE Act — with its new name — is ‘worse’ than the version that passed the House in April because it gave DHS access to Americans’ voter data.

He appeared to be referring to a provision that would allow DHS to begin potential deportation proceedings against a noncitizen found on a state’s voter rolls.

‘This version, as I understand it, would actually give DHS the power to get voting records from states across the country,’ Jeffries said earlier in February. ‘Why would these extremists think that’s a good idea? That we as Democrats are going to accept at this moment in time? We’d want DHS and ICE, who have been brutally, viciously and violently targeting everyday Americans, to have more data about the American people? It’s outrageous.’

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who led both the SAVE Act and SAVE America Act in the House, argued Democrats were ‘really reaching’ for criticism.

‘This actually allows and empowers states to be able to — as many of them want to do — check their voter rolls against the citizenship database that they’re currently prohibited from doing under a judicial interpretation of federal law,’ Roy said.

‘So, long-winded way of saying, no — the SAVE system exists, we have citizenship data, and we’re simply going to allow the checking of voter rolls against citizenship data.’

Claim: Suppresses married women’s right to vote

Another oft-repeated argument by Democrats is that the legislation would make it harder for American women to vote — specifically married women whose last names are now different from those on their birth certificates.

That’s because the bill would require proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a Real ID, to register to vote.

‘Republicans aren’t truly afraid of noncitizens voting, which we all know is already illegal, already grounds for deportation,’ House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said earlier this month. ‘They’re afraid of women voting.’

Rep. Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, said during the same press conference, ‘If your current name does not exactly fit and match the name on your birth certificate or citizenship papers, you could be blocked from registering to vote, even if you are a lifelong naturalized or American-born citizen.’

But Roy again said this was untrue.

‘This is absolute nonsense, and we specifically allow for a provision to make sure that no one can possibly be left behind,’ he said.

‘If a woman tried to register to vote with different names on her birth certificate and driver’s license,’ Roy said. ‘We literally put in the statute that all you have to do is sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that, ‘I am that person. This is my birth certificate … and this is my driver’s license that is reflecting my married name.’’