Political Pistachio

Supreme Court: Emergency Tariffs – History is on Trump’s Side

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The question is simple: Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute, authorize a President to unilaterally impose tariffs on foreign goods during a declared national emergency. Historically and constitutionally, the IEEPA does not matter, and whether or not there is an emergency doesn’t matter.

As President, Donald J. Trump’s duty is to execute the laws of the United States and the other duties of the presidency. As Commander in Chief, national security and diplomacy are among his duties.

Tariffs, argues his opponents, is a tax, and according to the Constitution the taxing power belongs to Congress so it must be legislated. The opposition of President Trump in the case before the Supreme Court, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), argue that Congress never delegated tariff authority through the IEEPA. Doing so would give presidents unlimited power regarding tariffs and the shaping of trade policies.

The Trump administration argues that the IEEPA’s language is broad enough to include tariff actions. National security and economic security are intertwined, according to Trump’s team. They also argue, Congress has historically repeatedly allowed presidents wide latitude in trade emergencies.

As a constitutionalist, I do not like the idea of “emergency powers,” per se. Opponents of the idea that the Constitution only grants limited authorities to government love to use the concept of emergency powers, arguing that emergencies temporarily suspend the Constitution, and to be honest, that’s just not true. Justice Amy Comey Barrett asked during oral argument, can labeling something an emergency fit the IEEPA’s verbs of “regulate,” “prohibit,” and “block?”

President Trump’s opponents argue tariffs are technically taxes, and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is clear that Congress must clearly authorize them, first. They argue, the Constitution does not allow executive taxation without legislative approval. A Separation of Powers provides that tariffs require clear congressional authorization. Shall Congress, then, also micromanage the President’s duties regarding foreign affairs? If he believes he needs to reshape global trade policy, and it must be done quickly, must Congress constitutionally be involved in the process?

If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration regarding tariffs, the U.S. owes importers $168 billion in refunds. Global markets are watching, and tariffs influence supply chains, pricing, and international relations, and while Congress could write a new law clarifying limits, would that process occur fast enough to head off calamity?

One of the arguments given by the Trump Administration during oral arguments is that, “Congress has historically repeatedly allowed president wide latitude in trade emergencies.” While I am not so sure about the “emergencies” part of that argument, the historical record reveals that long before the IEEPA, even back to the Founding Fathers, presidents repeatedly adjusted tariffs, suspended tariffs, or negotiated tariff-based agreements without prior congressional approval. Congress often ratified these arrangements after the fact, or delegated broad authority in advance, but the initial action frequently came from the executive.

All five of the Founding Father Presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe) adjusted tariffs or negotiated tariff-based agreements without Congress approving the specific tariff changes ahead of time. Later presidents did the same, revealing that the President taking the reins regarding tariffs was especially common during the 19th century. It was common for Congress to delegate broad reciprocal trade authority to the executive and presidents used diplomacy to alter tariff schedules before Congress acted. During this period Presidents raised or lowered tariffs, suspended tariffs, imposed retaliatory tariffs, and negotiated reciprocal tariff agreements, all without Congress approving each tariff change ahead of time. This was the norm, not the exception.

During the twentieth century, Presidents adjusting tariffs through diplomacy before Congress acted continued to be a normal duty of the executive. Theodore Roosevelt negotiated tariff reciprocity agreements with Cuba and several Latin American countries, often ratified by Congress after the terms were negotiated. Woodrow Wilson used executive agreements to adjust tariff treatments during World War I blockades and embargoes, never seeking congressional approval. Before the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA), presidents already had broad delegated authority to adjust tariffs in response to foreign actions – an authority both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt exercised a number of times. After the RTAA, presidents negotiated hundreds of tariff-reducing agreements without Congress pre-approving each one.

If one studies the Constitution, and the context of the debates, writings, and actions surrounding its establishment, we realize that the Founding Fathers recognized that while Congress sets the tariff schedules, the President conducts foreign negotiations and treaties or executive agreements that may modify tariff treatment. This dual structure means historically that presidents often acted first, or unilaterally, and Congress in response ratified the treaty later, passed implementing legislation later, or took no action allowing the executive action to stand and self-execute.

Tariffs have historically served as a central tool of foreign policy. Congress has repeatedly delegated tariff authority to the President throughout American History, which means this country has a long tradition of executive-driven tariff action, especially through negotiation. That practice accelerated since the RTAA in 1934, but it has been a continuation of a much older practice.

Presidents, including the Founders, have a long, well-established history of adjusting tariffs through diplomacy and negotiation without congressional pre-approval. This tradition predates the IEEPA by more than two centuries and reflects the constitutional design: Congress sets the framework, but the President executes foreign policy and negotiates the terms. The Trump administration should not only win the case before the United States Supreme Court, but they ought to win regardless of whether or not the IEEPA applies.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tale of Two Climate Voices

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Saw a meme…

Judith Curry: The Climatologist Who Refused to Bow to the Orthodoxy

In an era when climate science has been weaponized into a political bludgeon, Dr. Judith Curry stands out because she refuses to surrender scientific integrity to ideological pressure. Curry, an accomplished climatologist and Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, built her career on the hard sciences: climate dynamics, hurricanes, and the complex behavior of polar systems. She chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, published extensively, and earned the respect of her peers long before she ever became a public figure.

What makes Curry important today is not merely her résumé. It’s her willingness to say what many in her field whisper privately: the climate debate has drifted away from science and into the realm of political theater.

Curry’s shift didn’t come from politics, but from experience. After Hurricane Katrina, she stepped into the public conversation expecting a rational exchange of ideas. Instead, she found what she later described as “craziness”: a climate community increasingly intolerant of dissent, increasingly allergic to uncertainty, and increasingly eager to label any deviation from the approved narrative as heresy.

Rather than retreat, Curry did what real scientists are supposed to do. She questioned assumptions. She examined the data. She refused to treat computer models as sacred scripture. She insisted that uncertainty, an unavoidable feature of any complex system, must be acknowledged, not buried.

Curry’s central argument is simple: climate science is not settled, because the climate itself is not a settled system.

She doesn’t argue for complacency; she argues for clarity. She advocates risk‑based approaches rather than apocalyptic predictions. She calls for humility in the face of complexity. And she warns that when science becomes a political tool, both science and policy suffer.

This is precisely why she draws fire. Not because she is wrong, but because she refuses to play the role assigned to her by the climate establishment.

Curry runs the widely read blog Climate Etc., where she dissects climate research with the precision of a seasoned scholar and the candor of someone who no longer needs tenure committees to approve her existence. She has testified before Congress, spoken on major platforms, and has become a go‑to voice for those who believe climate policy should be grounded in evidence, not fear.

Predictably, the guardians of orthodoxy have tried to paint her as a contrarian, a skeptic, even a traitor to her field. The more they attack, the more obvious it becomes that their real grievance is not with her science, but with her independence.

Through the Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), Curry has taken her expertise into the real world, helping industries and governments manage climate‑related risks with actual data rather than political slogans. It is the kind of practical, grounded work that exposes the gap between climate rhetoric and climate reality.

Judith Curry’s journey is not the story of a scientist who “turned against” her field. It is the story of a scientist who refused to let her field turn against science. She represents the kind of intellectual courage that once defined academia, before conformity became the price of admission.

In a debate dominated by absolutists, Curry reminds us that uncertainty is not weakness. It is honesty. And honesty, in today’s climate conversation, is the rarest commodity of all.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

One Year of Trump: First Year Accomplishments

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On the anniversary of one year in office, President Trump shared his top three accomplishments.

The building of a powerful military (that would include the strikes on Venezuela and Iran).
Economic Investments coming into the United States (about $18 trillion).
Lower drug prices by using most-favored-nation status.

I believe that’s a great list. But, let’s add…

The use of tariffs to reverse the trade deficit, cutting it to its lowest level since 2009.
Secured new and improved trade agreements.
Increased tariff revenues, collecting $300 billion under new policies.
Increased U.S. exports to their second-highest value on record.
Resumed construction of the border wall.
Reducing the number of illegal alien entries across the border to zero.
Targeted sanctuary jurisdictions, essentially negating unconstitutional sanctuary laws.
Improved emergency health by reducing the number of illegal aliens abusing hospital emergency rooms.
Removing hundreds of thousands of the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.
Took on entry into this country by terrorists by pausing visas from 75 high-risk countries and restricting the entry of nationals from 39 terror-prone countries.
Audited benefits programs to ensure they were only going to lawful residents.
Expanded ICE through aggressive hiring and redeployment.
Expanded federal detention capacity nationwide.
Enforced English-language proficiency requirements for commercial truck drivers.
Rescued over 60,000 missing migrant children from human trafficking networks tied to illegal immigration.
Cut fentanyl trafficking by more than 50% and forcing Canada and Mexico to also take meaningful steps to address the issue. Overall drug overdose deaths dropped 21% over the last year.
Designated major Latin American cartels as terrorist organizations, expanding U.S. counter-terror authorities.
Encouraged beneficial legal immigration with $100,000 payment to accompany or supplement H-1B petitions.
Revealed and legally pursued Somali systemic fraud in Minnesota.
Signed Laken Riley Act into law, strengthening federal law regarding the apprehension and detainment of illegal alien criminals.
Anchored Supremacy Clause by filing lawsuits against states and cities obstructing federal immigration law.
Signed an executive order ending unconstitutional birthright citizenship policy.
Launched federal crime crackdowns in U.S. cities which has delivered the largest one-year decline in homicides in U.S. History, as well as driving down nationwide percentages of rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Oversaw 25% decrease in on-duty law enforcement officer deaths.
Dismantled foreign transnational gang-related criminal networks.
Oversaw reduction in nationwide traffic fatalities, largely by removing non-English speaking commercial truck drivers from the road.
Took on Antifa, designating the group as a domestic terror organization, and opened investigations into their funding sources.
Captured a record number of FBI Most Wanted List criminals.
Reduced gas prices to a five year low.
Increased private sector jobs by 654,000.
Achieved an increase of real GDP by 4.3% in the third quarter of 2025, with the GDP predicted to be higher for the fourth quarter.
Oversaw largest increase of blue-collar wage growth in nearly 60 years and private sector real earnings by $1,100 annually. Overall nominal private sector weekly wages increased by 4%.
Reduced weekly jobless claims.
Reduced inflation to 2.4%, the lowest over the last five years.
Reversed runaway federal spending growth by eliminating much of the federal government’s wasteful spending, and by launching the largest deregulation initiative in U.S. History killing federal regulations at a 129-to-one rate.
Achieved lowest mortgage rates in three years.
Reduced rent growth to its slowest pace since 2021.
Oversaw increase of home sales at the strongest pace in three years.
Delivered historic stock-market rebound with major stock indexes all hitting new record highs.
Reduced taxes for middle-class workers, and delivered on his No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, and No Tax on Social Security promises.
Reduced small business and other key industry taxes.
Reduced most food prices like egg prices by 89%.
Working with credit card companies to cap interest rates at 10%.
Created Trump Accounts to empower the next generation of Americans through tax-advantaged savings accounts for newborns.
In addition to incoming investment, secured $10 trillion in domestic investment, on-shoring jobs and increasing domestic manufacturing.
Expanded skilled-trade training programs through Labor grants and executive direction.
Provided support for farmers and ranchers to recover after losses induced during the Biden Administration.
Negotiated massive soybean purchase agreements with China and Bangladesh, reopening critical export markets.
Approved $50 billion in rural healthcare funding.
Oversaw the strongest year for new vehicle sales since 2019, while also encouraging price declines for both new and used vehicles.
Reversed fuel economy standards to reduce the cost of the average new vehicle.
Approved major U.S. auto manufacturing expansions following reshoring incentives.
Approved new heavy-equipment and appliance manufacturing facilities across multiple states.
Increased commercial fishing by eliminating Biden-era restrictions, boosting economy of American Samoa and other Pacific islands.
Decreased seafood regulations so that the U.S. could combat unfair foreign trade practices, enhancing domestic seafood production, exports, and competitiveness.
Expanded domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Moved TikTok to U.S. ownership, protecting American data against Chinese leverage.
Stopped production of the penny, eliminating recurring loss for taxpayers.
Reduced, eliminated, or paused various leftist cash funneling programs moving federal tax dollars to leftwing advocacy.
Exposed USAID waste, fraud, and abuse, and shut down the agency.
Began the process of bringing U.S. company operations abroad to American soil.
Paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to better enable U.S. companies to compete abroad.
Took on foreign competitors to defend American companies from discriminatory foreign taxation and regulations.
Firmed up and hardened America’s food and agriculture supply chain with the USDA National Farm Security Action Plan.
Lowered energy costs with tax relief and investment.
Solidified U.S. as world leader in artificial intelligence, attracting $2.7 trillion in tech and A.I. investment.
Increased America’s stake in chipmaker Intel.
Expanded spectrum access to lower phone plan costs, while expanding competition and accelerating high-speed infrastructure buildout.
Relocated U.S. Space Command to Huntsville, Alabama which created 30,000 jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in investment.
Launched plans through NASA to return to the moon during his presidency.
Reworked federal government’s relationship with crypto assets, ending Biden-era crackdown on digital assets.
Ended Israel-Hamas war.
Brokered peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Brokered peace between India and Pakistan.
Brokered peace between Congo and Rwanda.
Brokered peace between Cambodia and Thailand.
Brokered normalization between Kosovo and Serbia.
Brokered peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.
Established framework to end Ukraine-Russia war.
Ended Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.
Reduced strength of ISIS in Middle East by eliminating the Islamic State’s Chief of Global Operations Abdallah Makki Muslih al-Rifai and arresting ISIS-K terrorist who orchestrated the murders of 13 U.S. service members at Abbey Gate.
Eliminated Al-Qaeda affiliate leader Bilal Hasan al-Jasim in northwest Syria.
Achieved ceasefire with Houthi terrorists in Yemen, restoring Red Sea route for American ships.
Conducted U.S. strikes against Islamic leadership in Nigeria to protect Christian communities.
Rebuilt Indo-Pacific alliances, restoring U.S. deterrence with new security and trade agreements.
Secured the release of 85 detained Americans abroad.
Initiated process to build Golden Dome missile defense system.
Seized sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers, cutting off funding for Maduro regime.
Captured narco-terrorist dictator Nicolas Maduro.
Secured agreement for NATO member nations to increase their defense spending to 5% of their GDP.
Encouraged Panamanian President to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, protecting Panama Canal from Chinese Communist influence and control.
Initiated programs and agreements to counteract Russian influence in the Arctic.
Welcomed Afrikaner refugees from South Africa after the rise of racial discrimination in their home country.
Expanded Abraham accords to include Kazakhstan.
Secured safe return of NASA astronauts who were stranded for nine months during Biden Administration.
Through Maritime Action Plan has begun an increase in American shipbuilding.
Banned funding to United Nations’ UNRWA agency that employs hundreds of Hamas and jihad operatives.
Sanctioned International Criminal Court, halting its illegitimate intrusion into U.S. matters.
Eliminated use of taxpayer dollars used to support foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion in other countries by reinstating the Mexico City Policy.
Ordered embassies worldwide to only fly the American Flag, eliminating the practice of American facilities flying activist flags.
Rejoined Geneva Consensus Declaration, promoting and strengthening opportunities for women and girls around the world and protecting the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Increased recruitment for all branches of the military.
Modernized military forces with cutting-edge technology and weapons development.
Rebuilt military stockpiles.
Improved overall military readiness, and improved U.S. defense planning and battlefield operations through A.I. integration.
Provided $1,776 Warrior Divident for 1.5 million service members, and improved VA benefits backlog by 60%.
Processed a record three million veterans’ disability claims at the VA.
Opened 25 new VA healthcare clinics.
Permanently housed 51,936 homeless veterans – the highest total in seven years.
Reinstated troops and restored benefits eligibility for service members discharged under Biden-era COVID vaccine mandates.
Barred transgender individuals from enlisting in the U.S. military.
Returned standards to highest level for physical and grooming guidelines for military members.
Stopped taxpayer funded sex-change surgeries among military personnel.
Eliminated DEI and WOKE ideologies from the armed forces.
Reformed VA home loan protections to prevent veteran foreclosures.
Strengthened military family support programs and benefits.
Reworked agreements to reduce U.S. military reliance on foreign suppliers.
Strengthened cyber defenses.
Restored the names or renamed various bases to their former names honoring war heroes.
Expanded U.S. space security to protect satellites.
Eliminated U.S. spending utilized by global terror networks.
Targeted Chinese companies for intellectual property theft.
Strengthened intelligence sharing with U.S. allies.
Unveiled the F-47 sixth generation fighter jet.
Increased leader-level meetings with foreign nations.
Increased recognition of America’s role in the two World Wars by declaring May 8 “Victory Day of World War II,” and November 11 as “Victory Day for World War I.”
Eliminated DEI in federal bureaucracy.
Dismantled federal censorship operations.
Ended federal funding for WOKE ideology, including sex-change operations for minors.
Ended allowance of biological men competing in women’s sports.
Made it U.S. policy that there are only two sexes.
Pardoned pro-life Americans wrongly targeted by the Biden Administration.
Established merit-based federal hiring practices.
Terminated tens of thousands of wasteful unnecessary contracts across federal agencies.
Revoked electric vehicle mandate.
Implemented nationwide election integrity measures.
Returned federal public buildings to classical architecture.
Began the process of ending the Department of Education, constitutionally returning education to the states.
Took actions to protect religious freedoms.
Took actions to safeguard gun rights.
Released Kennedy assassination records, as well as records related to the killings of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Released previously classified records regarding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Worked to eliminated federal overreach against American’s natural rights.
Began challenge to anti-plastic policies, beginning with an executive order to end the use of paper straws.
Ended federal funding for gain-of-function research in foreign countries.
Improved Social Security Administration customer service.
Adjusted how colleges are allowed to use federal funding.
Canceled Biden-era “Climate Corps” work program.
Ended Federal Executive Institute – wasteful training ground for bureaucrats.
Held colleges accountable for DEI policies and for allowing anti-Semitism to flourish on their campuses.
Barred COVID-19 vaccine mandates in schools receiving federal funding.
Reinstated “Mount McKinley” to North America’s highest peak.
Reversed IRS over-expansion.
Changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
Designated English as the official language of the United States.
Upgraded paper records and storage of records in underground mine to digital storage.
Reduced the size of the federal government workforce, reducing waste and bloat.
Required bureaucrats back into the office, increasing the percentage of federal employees working in-office by 30%.
Revoked over 100 unnecessary security clearances in the deep state.
Initiated the modernization of the American workforce with programs designed to prepare citizens for skilled trade jobs of the future.
Reinstated farming reports canceled by the Biden administration supplying farmers needed data.
Fired WOKE and radical leftwing ideologues from various federal positions and members of the Trump-Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees.
Improved average disaster approval time so as to accelerate recovery for disaster-impacted communities.
Began overhaul of U.S. air traffic control system.
Increased public access to the executive branch through increased press events and other speaking events, and by increasing the scope of credentialed reporters in the White House press briefing room.
Reinstated press privileges for about 440 journalists silenced by Biden administration.
Declassified FBI files related to Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Sought to end WOKE and DEI practices in Corporate America.
Ended Climate Change automotive requirements such as the “stop-start” engine technology in cars, restrictive federal emission standards, allowing states to set their own emission standards, and electric vehicle sales mandates; reversed regulations disallowing the manufacture of “tiny cars.”
Ended Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness program.
Signed executive orders seeking to modernize banking, and disallow politically motivated “de-banking” policies.
Signed executive order ending anti-American propaganda at federal museums and national parks.
Halted Biden-era ban of fossil fuels in federal buildings.
Began work to reduce energy regulations, and to promote energy production and innovation.
Tackled fitness and nutrition, restored milk in schools, phased out artificial food dyes with natural replacements, expanded options regarding infant formula, and oversaw the updating of the food pyramid to a healthier condition through the Make America Healthy Again Commission to strengthen nutrition while also disallowing the use of chemicals with unknown safety data in food. Prioritized real food over processed junk.
Reclassified marijuana to Schedule III.
Modernized the foster care system.
Reduced vaccine recommendations to necessary vaccines, healthy vaccines and promoting parent conversations with their doctors and providing consent while also removing COVID-19 vaccines from the list of shots recommended for healthy children and pregnant women.
Increased access to in vitro fertilization, doubled childhood cancer data initiative funding, approved 67 new drugs, and launched autism initiative.
Withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization.
Directed full enforcement of the Hyde Amendment, barring taxpayer dollars from being used to fund or promote elective abortion.
Began process of domestic energy production, including reversing Biden-era drilling restrictions, reopening hundreds of millions of acres to oil, gas and coal production and expanding leasing and permitting.
Increased the export of liquefied natural gas.
Approved expanded nuclear energy projects.
Investing into and reinvigorating America’s clean coal industry.
Terminated Green New Deal projects and programs.
Empowered consumer choice regarding products restricted and water pressure standards based on Biden-era climate change legislation.
Withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Expedited infrastructure projects by slashing federal red tape.
Eliminated Diesel Exhaust Fluid requirement, benefiting farming operations by saving family farmers about $727 million annually.
Halted construction of offshore wind turbines.
Eliminated solar panel subsidies.
Reformed federal permitting, and pushed back on environmental regulations stalling growth and the mining of critical minerals.
Increased energy export deals.
Fast-tracked uranium mining.
Cut bureaucracy interference and red tape for building and purchasing of new Department of Energy laboratories.
Initiated process of strengthening the reliability and security of the electric grid.
Repealed Biden-era natural gas tax.
Overrode bureaucratic red tape limiting water availability in California.
Held geothermal lease sale while also scrapping Biden-era rules and regulations on greenhouse gases.
Increased U.S. production of critical minerals, reducing reliance on China.
Increased hunting opportunities across 87,000 acres of federal lands.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

ONLINE Constitution Class: Disability Clause

Tuesday Online Constitution Class

Online Mr. Constitution Class
www.mr-constitution.com

Ratified in 1967 in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes clear procedures for presidential succession, vice-presidential vacancies, and presidential disability. It was designed to ensure there is always a functioning president and to resolve perceived ambiguities regarding incapacitated leaders.

Get the handout regarding the Final Amendments which includes the 25th Amendment at the following link: https://douglasvgibbs.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/21-Lesson-Final-Amendments.pdf

Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel

President Trump May Invoke the Insurrection Act

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Trump is weighing the use of the Insurrection Act in response to escalating violence against federal ICE agents. His political opponents accuse both ICE and the President of acting unconstitutionally, yet the actual violations stem from activists obstructing lawful federal operations.

Article VI of the Constitution declares that the Constitution and all federal laws made in pursuance of it “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” binding every State “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In plain terms, constitutionally authorized federal law, such as immigration law, supersedes all conflicting state or local measures, as well as any contrary international norms or agreements.

Article II, Section 3 charges the President with the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” When a law is federal, it is the President’s responsibility, using the tools of the executive branch, to execute it.

The Constitution grants Congress explicit authority over immigration through Article I, Section 8’s Naturalization Clause and Article I, Section 9’s Migration Clause, empowering the federal government to create and enforce immigration law.

Article I, Section 8 also authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions,” while Article IV, Section 4 obligates the United States to protect each State against invasion, including unlawful entry into the country.

Taken together, these provisions affirm President Trump’s actions regarding immigration law as legal and constitutional.

In 1807, Congress enacted the Insurrection Act, giving the executive branch statutory authority to act on the Constitution’s provisions for suppressing rebellion and enforcing federal law. Signed during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the Act permits a president to deploy U.S. military forces on American soil when necessary to quell unrest, uphold federal authority, or protect civil rights (an issue highlighted recently when anti‑ICE protesters trespassed into a church to protest a pastor they accused of supporting ICE). In response to escalating, unlawful violence against ICE agents in Minneapolis and other cities, President Trump has indicated he is considering invoking the Insurrection Act to restore order.

The First Amendment enumerates some natural rights, such as peaceable assembly. When demonstrations turn into assaults on federal officers, those actions are neither lawful nor legally protected. The ICE rioters, through their violence, are violating both federal law and the Constitution, while the agents they attack are carrying out their duties within constitutional authority.

The Insurrection Act empowers the President to deploy U.S. Armed Forces domestically when federal law is obstructed, when insurrection or rebellion arises, or when State authorities cannot – or refuse to – address natural rights (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255). Although critics argue that the Posse Comitatus Act bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement, the Insurrection Act is the primary statutory exception.

While historical record is extensive, several modern examples illustrate how presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. In 1957, Eisenhower used it to enforce desegregation in Little Rock after refusal to comply with federal court orders. Kennedy relied on it in 1962 and 1963 to ensure desegregation at University of Mississippi and University of Alabama. Johnson deployed troops during the 1967–68 unrest in Detroit and Chicago to restore order. In 1992, George H. W. Bush invoked the Act during the Los Angeles riots.

President Trump now suggests invoking the Insurrection Act in Minnesota may be necessary because protests against ICE have escalated into violence, injuring federal agents and leading to shootings that would not have occurred had demonstrators remained peaceful. Instead, well‑funded progressive groups are orchestrating coordinated violent “resistance” intended to provoke conflict and create the conditions for a Marxist‑style upheaval. Their aim is disruption. They manufacture chaos to obstruct federal agents from carrying out their lawful duties, a stark contrast to states where protests remain nonviolent and local authorities cooperate. Compounding the unrest, Minnesota’s state and local officials have inflamed tensions with rhetoric demanding ICE leave Minneapolis and by threatening to use state resources to confront and obstruct federal personnel.

Despite claims to the contrary, executive actions taken are fully consistent with Federalism. State sovereignty is vital, but the division of authority between the States and the federal government depends on where the Constitution assigns authority. Under the Tenth Amendment, States retain authority over matters not delegated to the federal government. The Constitution grants immigration authority to the federal government. Enforcing those laws, including apprehending and detaining those who violate it, is a concurrent power. Local law enforcement has a duty to assist until federal agents arrive to take custody. The relationship is no different from a bank robbery: local police pursue and secure, then turn the case over to federal authorities once they arrive. They don’t stand by and let criminals escape simply because the crime falls under federal jurisdiction.

Concerns naturally arise whenever the federal government operates within a State. If Washington exceeds its authority, States are right to respond through reasonable, peaceable dialogue. In a virtuous society, the deployment of military forces on U.S. soil would never be necessary. When citizens or local leaders object to federal actions in their region, there are constructive ways to engage aside from increased federal presence and violent street protests.

Democrats are correct comparing military boots on city streets to images of totalitarian crackdowns. It raises legitimate concerns about due process, excessive force, and the chilling of lawful protest. But that is not what is happening here. ICE agents are not randomly selecting people, nor are they targeting individuals based on ethnicity or skin color. They are not even pursuing most illegal aliens on the streets. Their focus is narrow: the worst offenders – those with established criminal records. Despite claims from Trump’s opposition, these operations are not “white supremacists” hunting “brown people” – a baseless, last‑ditch narrative of radicals fueling unrest. ICE and the Border Patrol are not goon squads or a modern Gestapo; they are immigration officers apprehending individuals who have already demonstrated, through criminal activity, that they pose a danger to the public. It is also worth noting that roughly 24% of ICE agents are Hispanic/Latino, and the U.S. Border Patrol has long had a majority‑Latino workforce, with Hispanics comprising more than half of all agents.

The Insurrection Act’s language grants broad presidential discretion. As Commander in Chief, the President is responsible for national security. The Founders, though wary of standing armies and concentrated executive power, understood that protecting the homeland sometimes requires swift action free from delay or interference.

The dilemma is stark. If the Insurrection Act is not invoked, violence will continue to escalate, with more churches, federal buildings, and pro‑ICE locations targeted, and with rising injuries and shootings. If the Act is invoked, something agitators appear to be provoking, It’ll escalate the chaos, intensify the rhetoric, and trigger even more violent confrontations. Disorder is not incidental to their movement; it is the goal. They are no longer seeking another Kent State‑style flashpoint. They are pursuing something far more catastrophic: a revolutionary clash that leaves hundreds dead, a moment they can present as the event that “justifies” their violent insurrection.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Supreme Court: Bans on Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Little v. Hecox, a case pitting a transgender Boise State University student against an Idaho law prohibiting biological males from competing on female sports teams from elementary school through college, has now reached the United States Supreme Court. The High Court heard oral arguments on January 13, 2026. The case carries enormous weight because it tests whether state laws barring males who identify as females from participating in women’s sports violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The final ruling regarding the law at issue, the 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, could shape national policy on sex classification, athletics, and the legal status of transgender identity in sports.

The legal battle began in 2020 when a federal district court blocked the law as unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2023. The Supreme Court took up the case in 2025 and began hearing arguments in 2026. Idaho contends that the state has a compelling interest in preserving fair competition and athletic opportunities for women, interests long recognized under Title IX, which has always distinguished athletes based on biological sex, not gender identity.

Hecox argues the law unfairly targets transgender women, triggering heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection. Without saying it directly, Hecox is arguing for Civil Rights Law protection. The respondent further claims Idaho has not demonstrated that transgender athletes pose a systemic threat to women’s sports, that the law is overbroad (reaching even children and intramural sports), and that it violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

But, the Equal Protection Clause does not require states to enact special protections for any group. It simply forbids laws that violate Equal Protection. The central question, then, is whether Equal Protection applies when a claimed identity departs from biological reality and exists solely in the mind of the claimant.

Based on the justices’ questioning, the Court appears inclined to affirm that states have broad authority to define sex categories in athletics. The Court may also revisit Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which held that discrimination based on transgender status is discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII. One wonders if Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in 2019 Garland v. United States, as well as being a recurring argument that surfaces often that courts should overturn wrong precedents if they conflict with the Constitution, not just follow them, will become a part of the discussion. He has said a number of times, “It is not the job of judges or justices to abide by wrong precedent, but by the Constitution and existing law”, viewing precedent as non-binding if it lacks constitutional grounding, urging courts to correct errors rather than perpetuate them.

The ruling of Little v. Hecox will clarify whether Title IX’s use of the word “sex” includes gender identity in sports. With many states enacting similar laws, the Court’s decision will likely settle their constitutionality nationwide.

Although I cringe when federal courts decide whether state laws may continue to exist, given that striking down legislation is a legislative power and the judiciary was meant to only wield judicial powers as per the concept of a Separation of Powers, I also recognize the need for national clarity on this issue.

One moment in the oral arguments was particularly striking: Justice Samuel Alito’s exchange with Kathleen R. Hartnett, attorney for Hecox. His questioning cut through political rhetoric and landed squarely on legal ground, exposing the ideological and mental contortions required to deny biological reality. It echoed the “What is a woman?” question raised in Matt Walsh’s documentary and posed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2022. For both Justice Jackson and the activists in Walsh’s film, the answer amounted to a circular claim that a woman is simply anyone who says they are. In a recent street interview, a transgender individual gave the same answer: I am a woman because I think so “In my mind.”

Justice Alito asked Hartnett, “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”

Hartnett responded that the statute’s definition was tied to “birth,” which “categorically excluded” her client from women’s teams. Yet her argument attempted to accept biological reality for practical purposes while still claiming discrimination.

Alito then offered a simple hypothetical: a student with male genes, male reproductive anatomy, no puberty blockers, no hormones, no surgeries – who simply declares, “I am a woman.” Could a school bar this student from the girls’ team?

After frantic circling around the question, Hartnett finally conceded that the school could.

Alito pressed further: If the student sincerely believes he is a woman, is he a woman? Hartnett replied that she would “respect their self-identity,” but ultimately admitted that such a person would retain a “sex-based biological advantage” making competition unfair.

In other words, identity in the mind does not override biological reality.

Alito then delivered the decisive point: “So what you seem to be saying is yes, it is permissible for the school to discriminate on the basis of transgender status…” because barring a transgender-identifying male from the girls’ team is, by definition, differential treatment based on transgender status.

Hartnett struggled to reconcile her position, insisting the case did not require the Court to decide whether transgender women who went through male puberty could play on men’s teams.

Ultimately, the arguments made clear that the Equal Protection framework, like weight classes in boxing and wrestling, exists to protect those at a disadvantage. It was never intended to apply in reverse, nor to validate differences grounded solely in subjective identity. Cultural Marxism’s notion of “equity” collapses under biological reality. One cannot invoke biology for fairness while denying it for identity.

Equal Protection applies to biological realities, not to self-declared identities formed in one’s mind.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary