President Donald Trump made waves when he invited the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team to his State of the Union address after the men struck gold at the Milan Cortina Olympics this Sunday.

But it’s not just Trump’s invitation that has the left up in arms.

FBI Director Kash Patel was also celebrating the win in the locker room with the team and held a phone up to the players on speakerphone so that Trump could deliver a message.

"We’re giving the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night," Trump said. "I can send a military plane or something, but if you would like to, it’s the coolest night, it’s the biggest speech."

As Trump spoke, one player interjected, “We’re in.”

"I must tell you: We're going to have to bring the women's team. You do know that. I do believe I probably would be impeached, okay?"

BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock was thrilled with the men’s Olympic win and calls the outrage over Trump’s invitation “fool's gold” and “phony outrage.”

“All of these feminists, all of these Marxists that are running around pretending that Donald Trump and the men’s hockey team have done something wrong. All of them running around pretending like, ‘Well, the women, they won gold too,’” he says.

“This whole controversy is a joke. Of course the women won gold in women’s hockey. What are there, like, three countries in the world that take hockey seriously for women?” he jokes.

Unlike women’s hockey, men’s hockey has been a staple of the Olympics since 1920.

“We’ve won three gold medals in men’s hockey over the course of 106 years. It’s a big deal when the men win. We’re not the most talented men’s team. Canada is. Don’t fall for the fool's gold,” Whitlock says.

“And Donald Trump doesn’t have to apologize, and Kash Patel doesn’t have to apologize, and the men’s U.S. hockey team doesn’t have to apologize,” he continues, “because Trump lives in reality and was talking to a group of men who just accomplished something incredible.”

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Larry Summers, an economist and former treasury secretary, announced that he is stepping away from his role as a tenured professor at Harvard University following criticism for his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In November, a document dump of 20,000 pages revealed that Summers communicated with Epstein in 2018 and 2019, including within weeks of Epstein’s arrest, the Wall Street Journal reported.

'I have made the difficult decision to retire from my Harvard professorship at the end of this academic year.'

Epstein described himself as Summers’ “wing man” in one email. Summers and his wife reportedly briefly visited Epstein’s island during their 2005 honeymoon.

Summers served as the treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton from 1999 to 2001. He was also the director of the National Economic Council under former President Barack Obama. Summers held a position as the president of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006.

Shortly after his messages with Epstein came to light, Summers lost his partnerships and positions with several organizations, including the New York Times, the Center for American Progress, BloombergTV, and the Yale Budget Lab. He also resigned from his seat on the OpenAI board.

RELATED: Epstein emails SHAME Obama/Clinton ally: Larry Summers quits public life amid calls for Harvard to cut ties

Larry Summers. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

“I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused,” Summers said in November. “I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein.”

Summers held onto his teaching and leadership positions at Harvard University amid the fallout. However, he has been on leave since November.

Summers announced Wednesday that he would retire at the end of the academic year.

RELATED: 'The mistake I made': Bill Gates reportedly admits to affairs with Russians, apologizes for Epstein fallout

Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images

“I have made the difficult decision to retire from my Harvard professorship at the end of this academic year,” Summers said. “I will always be grateful to the thousands of students and colleagues I have been privileged to teach and work with since coming to Harvard as a graduate student 50 years ago.”

“Free of formal responsibility, as President Emeritus and a retired professor, I look forward in time to engaging in research, analysis, and commentary on a range of global economic issues,” he added.

A spokesperson for Harvard told the WSJ that the school had accepted Summers’ resignation “in connection with the ongoing review by the university of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein that were recently released by the government.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The deranged response to a "girl dad" photo of a hockey player led the National Hockey League to delete a post completely unrelated to President Donald Trump.

The photo showed Washington Capitals center Dylan Strome with his 2-year-old daughter dressed up like a princess at a Disney makeover boutique.

'The comments and messages about my TWO YEAR OLD DAUGHTER are some of the most vile and disgusting things I have ever read in my life.'

While most people found the post adorable, some commenters tied it to the Olympic men's hockey team accepting a call from President Donald Trump after its incredible gold-medal victory. Some of the players laughed when the president joked that he would be called misogynistic if he didn't invite the women's team to the White House as well.

But there was a problem with that criticism — Strome had nothing to do with that call and didn't play in the Olympics. Also, he's Canadian.

A screenshot of some of the responses included:

• "Laughing at a misogynistic joke a rapist and pedophile told — more like worst girl dad ever."
• "Not using the daughter as a human shield my god today."
• "A girl dad would put out a statement that he meant no harm by laughing along with a convicted rapist/pedophile mocking the women's team who has meddled [sic] way more than the men."
• "Oh yea suuuuucha lover of women, think he'll laugh at her accomplishments too??"
• "I feel sorry for the kid ... imagine having THAT as your dad."

"Crazy being a 'girl dad' and worshipping a pedophile," another response reads.

"No. Absolutely not. An ultimate girl dad would NOT disparage & laugh at a women's team who is 10x better than his own. He is obviously a woman-hater, just like Trump. F**k those biggest losers," another user responded.

"Don't hide misogyny behind 'girl dad.' Being a girl dad means fighting for equal pay, equal respect, and equal opportunity — EVERYWHERE. I coach my daughter's team. I elevate women's sports. I fight for their bodily autonomy. That's what it actually looks like. Shame on you, @NHL," another crazed message reads.

"So he watches a video on his phone while wearing a 'girl dad' hat. That's all a girl can ask for, right? Certainly not standing up against misogyny from a pedophile rapist who pooped his pants longer than she did," another critic replied.

The NHL deleted the post from social media but has not indicated a reason for the deletion.

Strome's wife, on the other hand, had much to say to those who irrationally attacked her husband and her daughter.

"We were placed into a narrative that we have absolutely nothing to do with, and we certainly did not choose to have our family used in it. You can debate adults all you want, but dragging my husband and especially my toddler into something that has nothing to do with us is beyond unacceptable," she wrote.

RELATED: Raucous applause erupts for Olympic men's hockey team at State of the Union: 'What special champions you are!'

"The comments and messages about my TWO YEAR OLD DAUGHTER are some of the most vile and disgusting things I have ever read in my life," she added. "This isn't about politics. She is a child. Full stop. Do better. [And] to everyone who has reached out or addressed this situation with more than a single brain cell, thank you."

The president invited the U.S. men's team and the women's team to his State of the Union speech Tuesday, and while the men attended, the women's team declined.

Editor's note: This article has been edited after publication to clarify the location of the boutique.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal authorities confirmed media reports that the home and office of the Los Angeles School District superintendent were raided Wednesday but could not offer additional details.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho oversees the second-largest school district in the U.S., with over 420,000 students.

'We can confirm that the FBI is serving a court-authorized warrant.'

Sources told KNBC-TV that Carvalho's home in San Pedro was searched on a warrant. One neighbor reportedly saw as many as 20 agents at the residence.

"We can confirm that the FBI is serving a court-authorized warrant at those locations," said the Los Angeles office of the FBI in a statement. "However, the affidavit in support of the warrant has been sealed by the court and we, therefore, have no further comment."

Carvalho has been a frequent and vocal critic of the Trump administration, especially with regard to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations near his schools.

In June, he said that school police would be deployed to protect the families of students from federal law enforcement agents at graduation ceremonies.

"We stand strongly on the right side of law," said Carvalho at the time. "Every student in our community, every student across the country, has a constitutional right to a free public education of high quality, without threat."

RELATED: LA schools to set up police perimeters to keep ICE away from students and their families

"Every one of our students, independently of their immigration status, has a right to a free meal in our schools. Every one of our children, no questions asked, has a right to counseling, social-emotional support, mental support," he added.

Carvalho has been the LAUSD superintendent since 2022 and previously managed the Miami-Dade School District. He has often cited his experience as a former illegal alien from Portugal when criticizing the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

While President Donald Trump gave the first State of the Union address of his second term on Tuesday night, many Democrats boycotted the speech and opted to engage in some unconventional counterprogramming.

For example, some Democrats attended an event organized by Defiance.org at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C, and at least one of them was joined on stage by some ... special guests.

'Tonight I defy Trump and his authoritarian project by standing in joyful, radical, peaceful resistance with the Portland Frog Brigade!'

Video emerged on Tuesday night showing Oregon Rep. Maxine Dexter (D) speaking at the event, while six inflatable frogs stood beside her and many more stood off to the side.

"Tonight I defy Trump and his authoritarian project by standing in joyful, radical, peaceful resistance with the Portland Frog Brigade!" Dexter said as the frogs jumped around and waved small American flags.

RELATED: VIDEO: Federal agents clash with mob of Antifa-fueled, anti-ICE protesters in Portland

Defiance.org describes itself as a "club for courageous Americans — people willing to take peaceful, lawful, defiant action to defend democracy from a wannabe dictator." The organization partnered with the Portland Frog Brigade for this event, though the group has been making its anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement stance known since last year.

According to its "about" page, the Portland Frog Brigade was created after an anti-ICE activist — apparently known by several names such as Toad, Toad Todd, and antifascistfrog — was sprayed by federal law enforcement outside Portland's ICE facility. The organization emphasizes that the "absurdity" is core to the idea behind the group:

The image of a cartoon frog facing off against a wall of heavily armored men was so strikingly absurd that it cut straight through the noise and brought home the reality that our government is treating peaceful citizens as enemies.

From that moment, the frog became a symbol of resistance that refuses to lose its joy. The Brigade took inspiration from Toad and grew as so many others donned inflatable animal suits and joined actions across the country and around the world.

However, not all is well in inflatable paradise.

The partnership between Defiance.org and Portland Frog Brigade has apparently caused infighting with an adjacent group called Operation Inflation.

Operation Inflation posted a video on Instagram criticizing the partnership and distancing itself from the other organization: "The frog brigade, however, saw the frog and emptied it of context, taking the image without the work, the aesthetic without the politics, and shared it with an establishment that can only function through neutralizing resistance."

"When the loudest voices take the safest route, do not trust them," the spokesperson in a red frog suit said.

Toad, the figurehead, reposted the video on his own Instagram account, seemingly attempting to likewise distance the symbol from the Portland Frog Brigade. He has also previously called the brigade a "business of grifters seeking to piggy off the backs of actual activists."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican and Democrat leaders alike entered Tuesday night anxiously. Each side feared its loudest members would turn the State of the Union into an ugly scene and poison the evening.

Democrats worried about the Squad and about 78-year-old Texas Rep. Al Green, who after 10 terms in Congress seems more comfortable waving signs than writing laws. Republicans worried about the president — specifically, whether he would get dragged into a nasty back-and-forth with congressional activists.

Trump does not pretend the country is more unified than it is. He ran as a builder and a wrecking ball: a candidate with a program and a man eager to force Democrats to defend their most radical positions.

President Donald Trump had another idea.

He had no reason to brawl from the podium, flanked by the vice president and the speaker of the House and standing at the most powerful pulpit in American politics. He set a trap instead. In front of more than 30 million ordinary Americans, Democrats walked into it.

Political junkies live inside the daily partisan trench war. They know the script. The fighting started not long after America’s founding and never really stopped.

Most Americans do not live that way.

They have jobs, kids, bills, errands, sports, church, aging parents, and whatever time remains at the end of the day. With the old monoculture mostly dead, they gather around only a handful of events: a few major sports broadcasts, presidential elections, and the State of the Union.

Viewership has fallen over the decades, but the speech still pulls a massive audience — usually somewhere between 30 million and 40 million people. In modern America, that is a huge number.

For perspective, the finale of “Game of Thrones” drew just under 20 million viewers. The USA-Canada hockey game pulled 18.6 million live viewers. The Super Bowl remains the true annual monocultural event, with around 60 million viewers, but even that scale only underscores the point: the State of the Union still reaches a country-sized audience.

More important than the raw number is who those viewers are.

Many of them do not follow politics closely. They caught the big campaign ads, such as “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,” and responded. They saw headlines about riots, crime, and immigration. Maybe they saw footage of crackdowns. Then they went back to their lives.

On Tuesday night, they tuned in again — and watched Trump stage a live study in contrasts.

After spending the first hour of the speech reciting accomplishments and laying out goals, Trump turned toward the increasingly agitated Democrat side of the chamber and began forcing choices.

He challenged them to stand if they put American citizens ahead of illegal immigrants and foreign nationals. They sat.

He put a grieving mother before them — the mother of a young Ukrainian woman murdered on a train in North Carolina — and dared them to remain frozen. They did. Iryna Zarutska may be the only Ukrainian in the world Democrats won’t cheer for.

He highlighted a young woman torn from her family as a child by transgender ideology and the institutions that privilege bureaucrats over parents. Democrats reacted exactly as he wanted.

Even when he managed to draw applause from them — despite every congressional instinct telling members to show nothing — he flipped the moment and used it to needle the institution itself, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the chamber’s most famous suspected symbol of insider trading.

State of the Union speeches are usually built for broad appeal. Presidents of both parties use them to sound larger than their coalition. Barack Obama did this well. However radical his policies, he often sounded like Ronald Reagan in these addresses. He studied the Great Communicator, and it showed. Republicans could call him a liar and an ideologue — and did — but many Americans liked the version of Obama they saw on that stage each year.

Trump operates in a different register and in a different era.

He does not pretend the country is more unified than it is. In both 2016 and 2024, he ran as a builder and a wrecking ball: a candidate with a program and a man eager to force Democrats to defend their most radical positions.

That formula worked in both victories. He laid out a positive vision while tying Democrats to policies many voters reject — open borders, soft-on-crime governance, and transgender ideology aimed at children.

Tuesday night, he did not need a campaign ad buy to run the same play.

He had the pomp, the circumstance, and, most importantly, the audience.

And with the instincts of a once-in-a-generation political talent, he let Democrats supply the contrast for him.

In his nearly two-hour State of the Union address last night, President Trump celebrated what he described as an extraordinary "turnaround for the ages" in his leadership, declaring America now "bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever" amid a booming economy marked by declining inflation, reduced gas and mortgage rates, rising wages, and a tightly secured border with no illegal entries reported in recent months.

He spotlighted aggressive immigration enforcement measures, stood firm on his tariff strategy, cautioned Iran against pursuing nuclear weapons while favoring diplomatic paths, floated new proposals like universal retirement savings access and curbs on institutional home buying, paid tribute to military veterans and the Olympic hockey squad, delivered pointed critiques of Democrats and previous administrations, and painted an optimistic picture of renewed national strength heading into the midterm elections.

But there was one singular moment that BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre says was genuinely unforgettable.

“The moment that's going to stay with me for the rest of my life is watching Iryna Zarutska’s mother with Erica Kirk and just the pain on her face in that moment and the fact that Democrats could not even in that moment summon a shred of humanity,” he says.

“I still don’t think that we have dealt with the psychic trauma again of that one-two punch of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska, and so I think that [Trump] highlighting that and, you know, showing the grief that is still there for that mother and knowing that we need justice, we need to end political violence, we need to end the soft-on-crime policy — I think those were all incredibly strong moments for him,” he adds.

Fellow BlazeTV host and SOTU panel member Steve Deace agrees that this was one of the most powerful, albeit enraging, moments of the entire event.

He points to a viral tweet from Turning Point USA Chief Operating Officer Tyler Bowyer that shined a spotlight on the depths of Democrats’ hypocrisy.

Deace calls the close-up snapshot a “devastating” blow to Democrats.

“It’s a post of one of the Democrat members of Congress who did not want to stand during [the honoring of Anna Zarutska], and he’s got a Ukraine flag on his lapel. If that is not a portrait of where we are,” he scoffs.

“This is what the Democrats actually think of the Ukrainian people,” says guest and senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobiec.

To hear more, watch the video below.

Messaging app Discord assured its users that they will not have to show their faces, unless they live in certain places.

In certain regions, users will still be subject to face scans or government ID submission.

'We'll give you options, designed to tell us only your age and never your identity.'

This comes after a data breach in October that saw at least 70,000 images of government-issued IDs stolen through one of Discord's third-party verification services. Proton reported that passports, driver's licenses, names, and IP addresses were stolen, along with user transcripts from conversations they had with support agents.

Still, in February 2025, Discord told users that their profiles would promptly be reverted to teen-level accounts by default, unless they submit to "facial age estimation or submit a form of identification to its vendor partners."

This means that without verification, users could not get message requests, join political chats, or unblur a wide variety of sensitive content.

After some intense backlash, though, Discord is now rolling back its requirements, but only for now.

RELATED: Gamers REVOLT over age-verify scheme subjecting users to 'suspicious entity detection'

Photo by Thomas Fuller/NurPhoto via Getty Images

It seems obvious that Discord still has plans to roll out user verification eventually, but at this time it is leaning toward requiring less intrusive means. However, in some jurisdictions, giving up one's identity is still required by law.

"Where we have legal obligations, we will continue to meet them," the company wrote in a blog post.

In "the U.K., Australia, and Brazil, the law may require platforms to use approved methods like facial age estimation or ID checks," Discord continued, adding that it will be exploring alternative methods of verification in other jurisdictions.

"If you're among the less than 10% of users who do need to verify, we'll give you options, designed to tell us only your age and never your identity."

Simply put, Discord will still be enforcing age restrictions on the user experience.

RELATED: Digital tyrants want your face, your ID … and your freedom

Photo by HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images

Discord floated different verification options like credit card verification, while putting limits on companies that use facial age estimation.

"Any partner offering facial age estimation must perform it entirely on-device. If they don't meet that bar, we won't work with them," the company said.

One company that "did not meet that bar" was Persona. Discord ran a "limited test" with the company customer verification service in the U.K. but has since decided not to move forward with it. It is unclear whether this relates to a recent report that showed Persona was not only performing almost 270 cross-reference checks on user face data, but the platform was allegedly set up for, and compliant with, parameters that allow for government access.

While Discord has promised ongoing transparency, it is still moving toward user data collection and will still be using facial scans to do so.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Epstein files released by the Department of Justice last month painted Microsoft co-founder and vaccine champion Bill Gates in a particularly unfavorable light.

Amid uproar over her ex-husband's repeat mention in the files — including in a 2013 email wherein Jeffrey Epstein alleged that he procured for Bill Gates "drugs, in order to deal with consequences of sex with Russian girls" — Melinda French Gates told NPR's "Wild Card" podcast, "It's personally hard whenever those details come up, right? Because it brings back memories of some very, very painful times in my marriage."

'Knowing what I know now makes it, you know, a hundred times worse.'

While French Gates indicated that she has "been able to move on in life," her ex-husband is alternatively still dealing with the consequences of his long-standing association with the notorious child sex offender.

Gates reportedly apologized to the staff of the Gates Foundation for the fallout of his Epstein ties during a town hall on Tuesday, stating, "It was a huge mistake to spend time with Epstein," according to a recording reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

Gates, who has not been accused of wrongdoing by any of Epstein's victims and whose spokesperson characterized the claims in the 2013 email as "completely false," reportedly stressed, "I did nothing illicit. I saw nothing illicit."

The billionaire reportedly had an explanation for the photographs in the files featuring him in the company of women whose faces are redacted. Epstein asked to take pictures of his assistants with Gates after meetings, Gates claimed, according to the Journal.

RELATED: Epstein-friendly lesbians managing fraud-plagued Manhattan club in hot water — again

Photo by Leon Neal - WPA Pool /Getty Images

"To be clear, I never spent any time with the victims, the women around him," said Gates, according to the Journal. He noted, however, that he "did have affairs, one with a Russian bridge player who met me at bridge events, and one with a Russian nuclear physicist who I met through business activities."

Gates reportedly suggested further that despite his ex-wife expressing concerns about Epstein in 2013 — five years after he pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor for prostitution — Gates continued meeting with Epstein.

"Knowing what I know now makes it, you know, a hundred times worse in terms of not only his crimes in the past, but now it’s clear there was ongoing bad behavior," Gates reportedly told staff.

Gates, apparently recognizing that his relationship with Epstein helped boost Epstein's reputation, reportedly apologized "to other people who are drawn into this because of the mistake I made."

Gates also recognized the negative impact his Epstein ties have had on the organization previously known as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which became the Gates Foundation last year following the couple's divorce and previous revelations about Bill's ties to Epstein.

"It definitely is the opposite of the values of the Foundation and the goals of the Foundation," said Gates, who has directly and through his foundation worked to shape public health, the news landscape, education policy, AI, American farmland, the energy sector, foreign policy, and the Earth itself.

"And our work is very reputational sensitive," continued the billionaire. "I mean, people can choose to work with us or not work with us."

When asked about the recording and Gates' remarks, the Gates Foundation told Blaze News in a statement, "This was a scheduled townhall with employees, which Bill does twice a year. In the conversation, Bill answered questions submitted by foundation staff on a range of issues, including the release of the Epstein files, the foundation's work in AI, and the future of global health."

The foundation added, "In the townhall, Bill spoke candidly, addressing several questions in detail, and took responsibility for his actions."

"The harm Epstein inflicted on women and girls was horrific, and no one should ever have to experience what they did," the foundation said in a statement earlier this month. "The foundation regrets having any employees interact with Epstein in any way."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An NFL rule that rewards teams for developing talent along racial lines is getting put in the spotlight.

The rule, know as the Rooney Rule, is causing confusion among the Chicago Bears' C-suite employees, who are expecting compensation for one of their staff members jumping ship to the Atlanta Falcons. In the NFL, if a team develops a "diverse" employee who then lands a certain type of role with another team, the first team is awarded draft picks by the league.

'I'll be honest. I think it is a little strange.'

Bears general manager Ryan Poles was asked about the rule, as the team is currently in limbo about receiving draft picks for former assistant general manager Ian Cunningham, who is now the general manager of the Atlanta Falcons.

"I'll be honest. I think it is a little strange," Poles told reporters at the NFL Scouting Combine. "I mean, at the end of the day, you should want to develop your staff regardless of the color of their skin."

"I think that's important," Poles continued. "I think we take a lot of pride with the Bears on how we have our setup, and I take a lot of pride in that. So to be compensated for that's a little strange. I mean, I saw the Chiefs get a pick because of me, and then I watched that player go and play."

When Poles left the Kansas City Chiefs in 2022 — where he was the executive director of player personnel — to become the Bears' general manager, the Chiefs received two third-round draft picks simply because he is black, NBC Sports reported.

RELATED: Perjury, drugs, and counterfeiting — Trump pardons 5 former NFL players

The bizarre rule comes directly from the NFL's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, previously called the Workplace Diversity Committee. The rule states that teams must conduct in-person interviews with at least two "minority and/or female" candidates when hiring for a general manager or head coach, as well as at least one "diverse" person when hiring for senior-level positions.

Teams are even rewarded if their developed talent takes a job at another team. This comes in the form of third-round draft picks if an employee becomes a head coach or general manager.

The rule states that in 2020, "team owners approved a proposal rewarding teams who developed minority talent that went on to become GMs or head coaches across the league. If a team lost a minority executive or coach to another team, that team would receive a third-round compensatory pick for two years."

The controversy with Cunningham's move to the Falcons is that the Bears are being told they will not be compensated because his new role is not that of a primary decision-maker.

"The policy for receiving picks pertains to the head coach or the primary football executive," chief NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told Fox 32 in a statement.

RELATED: 'We're doing the right thing': NFL to continue diversity initiatives, including forcing interviews with 'minority candidates'

Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

"The primary football executive position was filled by Matt Ryan," the NFL spokesman added.

Poles stopped short of supporting the rule in his recent remarks, saying that if the league thinks "that's what's best to help incentivize, then that's what they wanted to do."

He added, "Like I said, that's not the purpose of why we develop our staff."

However, according to OutKick, the Bears are still submitting a review to the league in hopes of getting their draft picks, with Poles saying that if the Rooney Rule is in place, then he considers it to be "very clear" in terms of what should happen.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In his State of the Union address last night, President Trump delivered a record-breaking, nearly two-hour speech touting a dramatic "turnaround for the ages" under his leadership, claiming the U.S. is now "bigger, better, richer, and stronger than ever before," with a "roaring" economy featuring falling inflation, lower gas prices and mortgage rates, rising incomes, and a secure border with zero illegal entries in recent months.

He also highlighted immigration crackdowns, defended tariffs, warned Iran against nuclear ambitions while preferring diplomacy, proposed initiatives like universal 401(k)-style retirement access and barring institutional home-buying, and honored veterans and the Olympic hockey team, while taking jabs at Democrats and past administrations and projecting national revival ahead of midterms.

But amid the gamut of issues the president covered, BlazeTV host Steve Deace says there were three critical lines — and it was Democrats who ironically teed them up.

“Take it from someone who spent a year trying to fight Donald Trump in the 2016 primary as a strategist for the Ted Cruz campaign. Do not give Donald Trump a foil,” he laughs.

“That's like handing Popeye spinach. That's like Hulk Hogan hulkin’ up in the ring. Do not give Trump a foil, okay? And [Democrats] did that tonight.”

In response to Democrats’ behavior — sitting stoically, refusing to stand when Iryna Zarutska’s mother was honored, and even heckling in some cases — Trump threw zinger after zinger, drawing big Republican applause.

“I thought there were three money lines in this speech,” says Deace.

1. “Democrats are for illegal aliens; I'm for America.”
2. “Democrats don’t want voter ID because they have to cheat to win elections.”
3. “We're going to ban child gender mutilation surgeries all over America.”

“Without question, this is the kind of vision-casting our side desperately needed tonight to get back on message, to get back on mission, and I think this is exactly what the doctor ordered.”

To hear more, watch the video below.

The former assistant director of the LGBTQ Pride Center is decrying his firing from North Carolina State University after an undercover investigation showed him bragging about undermining DEI restrictions.

The Accuracy in Media investigation showed Jae Edwards saying that he had to be "careful" in order to support LGBTQ members despite the college undoing its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

'We’re used to going around them and finding ways around.'

Critics of AIM say the video appears to be heavily edited and argue that Edwards did not actually admit to breaking the policy.

"We’re still able to do the things that we want to do, have these events and programs. We have to be a little more careful," he says in the footage.

"As a marginalized group, we’re used to these things," Edwards added. "And we’re used to going around them and finding ways around."

A school spokesperson confirmed Edwards' termination, Carolina Public Press reported, and said in a statement: "The individual seen in the video had no role in policy or compliance decisions and was not authorized to speak on behalf of the university. The staff member no longer works at the university."

After NCSU dropped Edwards, some students began a petition to demand his return, but they only garnered about 700 signatures out of a total student body of more than 39,000 students.

AIM contends that Edwards' comments violate the repeal of DEI standards by the UNC system board of governors. Other AIM investigations have led to the dismissal of two other individuals from the UNC system.

Edwards has also raised $12,600 through donations to his GoFundMe account.

"Scrolling through social media and seeing articles, videos, and hate comments has produced emotions that I cannot begin to put into words," he wrote in part. "Funds would go towards housing, medication, medical appointments, food, utilities, insurance and cat food."

RELATED: The Sierra Club embraced social justice after being flush with cash — then destroyed itself

Even prior to President Donald Trump gaining office and ordering DEI policies to be ended, many diversity officers lamented that corporations appeared to be pulling back their support of the woke movement.

"I wake up every day trying not to be a cynic, but this is frightening,” said Vic Bulluck of the NAACP Hollywood bureau in 2023. "Hollywood seems to be sending a message that these programs that were designed to give more access to African-Americans are no longer needed."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

I grew up measuring time by the turn of seasons. Autumn meant schoolbooks and shorter days. Winter meant stripped fields, wind off the Atlantic, and weekend mornings beside my father in the wild stretch of Connemara, County Galway. Stone walls, peat bog, and low mountains framed the years that shaped me.

We hunted game birds — wing shooting, as my father called it. Pheasants burst from hedgerows in a clatter of bronze feathers. Woodcock came tearing through trees like pilots who had misplaced their maps. Snipe flickered over the marsh, determined to test the dignity of anyone aiming at them. Over time, you learned the land — and with it the humbling truth that even a bird with a walnut-sized brain could make you look foolish.

There was a burst of snarling, then a sound I still hear nearly 20 years later. Two badgers were below.

Nothing about it was hurried. We walked for miles. We watched the wind. We read the ground. We spoke softly, and often not at all.

My first gun

My first gun came later than I wanted and earlier than my mother preferred. I fired my first shot at 13. I still remember the weight of it, the kick, the sudden understanding that I was holding something that demanded respect. I also remember missing completely and nearly falling backward from the recoil. My father didn’t laugh. He checked my stance, corrected my grip, and only then allowed himself a small smile that said "you’ll learn."

And I did.

At first, like any boy, all I wanted was to pull the trigger and fire into the sky. But my father had other ideas.

Learning to shoot, he insisted, was an art. Cheek firm to the stock. Follow through. Don’t rush. Breathe steadily. Safety first, always. A gun was never waved about, never pointed without purpose, never treated as a toy. It was a tool, and tools required competence.

No waste

The first time I hit a clay target, a surge of triumph swept over me. The first time I brought down a pheasant cleanly, I felt pride — and with it a sober awareness of what the shot meant. A life had ended, and I understood my part in it. My father insisted that we retrieve every bird and carry it home. Waste wasn’t tolerated. Nothing was done carelessly.

In those early years, the hunting extended beyond birds. Foxes came too close to the farm in lambing season. They took what they could. When that happened, the task fell to us. I was younger then, and I didn’t relish it, but I understood it. This wasn’t sport but protection. The lambs were vulnerable. The farm depended on them. Badgers, powerful and stubborn creatures, could maim or kill a sheep if they set upon it.

One afternoon, when I was about 15, we brought our two terriers to a sett we had been watching. They were small, fearless dogs — my father’s pride and joy — bred to go to ground and drive out whatever lay beneath. We waited above the hole, listening.

What came back up wasn’t what we expected.

Brief and brutal

There was a burst of snarling, then a sound I still hear nearly 20 years later. Two badgers were below. The fight was brief and brutal. When it ended, both terriers were dead.

The silence afterward felt unnatural. My father said little. He knelt beside the dogs, his hands steady, his face set in a way I had never seen. That day left its mark on both of us.

Within a week, he had tracked the badgers’ movements. He watched their runs, noted their patterns, and returned at dusk when they emerged. He shot them cleanly. I remember the way I looked at him then — not simply as my father, but as someone I deeply admired. Our dogs were gone, and he had set things right.

RELATED: Fishing with my dying father

Tim Graham/Getty Images

A simple nod

After that, our trips to Connemara changed. I was less a child tagging along and more a companion. We walked side by side, reading the land together. He asked what I saw and waited for the answer.

I recently flew back to Ireland to hunt with my father again. Dawn came slowly over the Twelve Bens, washing the valley in a soft silver light.

We walked as we always had. Now in his early 60s, he moved more slowly, but his eye remained sharp. A pheasant burst from cover. I swung, fired, and missed. He said nothing. Another bird rose minutes later. This time the shot landed true. He nodded once — which, from him, amounted to high praise.

There is a caricature of gun culture that reduces it to aggression — the love of noise, the love of power. That was never my experience. Hunting with my father gave me a vocabulary that didn’t rely on words. Approval showed itself in the briefest of looks. Correction came with a hand on the stock. Trust arrived in small responsibilities — carrying the gun, crossing a wall safely, judging distance and wind.

We ended the day as we always did: muddy boots, cold hands, birds cleaned and hung, and a couple of pints at the local pub. Outside, evening settled. Inside, there was warmth and a quiet satisfaction.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made waves at Tuesday night's State of the Union address, even shouting at President Donald Trump as he gave his speech and refusing to stand in support of American citizens. The controversy continued Wednesday after video emerged of the Democrat denying something she said directly into the camera.

Earlier that day, LindellTV posted to X a short interview between a reporter and Omar.

'I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.'

The reporter first asked Omar about her financial records and her alleged connection to a winery, both of which have some question marks lingering around them.

Omar snapped at the reporter and said, "Do you just ask silly questions?"

RELATED: 'You should be ashamed': Ilhan Omar melts down when asked to support Americans

Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The reporter moved on, asking her, "You recently stated that the American people should be afraid of the white man, that they should be fearful of the white man."

"I never said that," Omar replied.

"Yeah, you're on video saying it," the reporter said in disbelief.

The reporter then appears to have shown Omar video of her saying those words, yet Omar again denied it. She then admonished the reporter, claiming she needs to be more prepared because "what I was quoting was an actual study done by the FBI."

In the video, which appears to come from a 2018 interview, Omar was asked about Islamophobia and its true origin.

The interviewer said, "A lot of conservatives in particular would say that the rise in Islamophobia is a result not of hate, but of fear. A legitimate fear, they say, of 'jihadist terrorism.' ... What do you say to that?"

"I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country," Omar replied.

"And so if fear is the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men."

Omar did not make any reference to any study or report from the FBI or other intelligence sources in the clip.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Donald Trump awarded several honors and medals during his historic State of the Union Tuesday night. Here is every honor Trump awarded during the joint address.

'He was a legend long before this evening.'

1. Connor Hellebuyck, Presidential Medal of Freedom

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images

As goalie, Connor Hellebuyck played an integral role on the USA men's hockey team that brought home the gold for the first time in 46 years. Trump hosted the team at the White House on Tuesday, just days after their historic victory, later inviting them to attend the State of the Union.

During his joint address, Trump announced that he would bestow Hellebuyck with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor. Trump also noted that he took a vote from the team members in the Oval Office as to whether he should award Hellebuyck the medal, and they unanimously supported the idea.

Trump's address was a beacon of patriotism, and this moment was no exception.

"What special champions you are," Trump said.

2. Andrew Wolfe, Purple Heart

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Andrew Wolfe was one of the two National Guardsmen who were ambushed and shot, allegedly by an Afghan national, just feet from the White House in November. Wolfe was not expected to survive, but he miraculously pulled through and appeared at the State of the Union alongside his mother.

To commend his service, Trump awarded Wolfe the Purple Heart.

"It was a solemn and unforgettable moment, one that ensured their courage and sacrifice were honored not only by West Virginia but also before the entire nation," West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (R) said in a statement.

3. Sarah Beckstrom, Purple Heart

Photo by Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Sarah Beckstrom was the second National Guardsman recognized at the State of the Union and was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart. Beckstrom was serving alongside Wolfe when she was ambushed and fatally shot in November at just 20 years old.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Beckstrom's parents accepted the award on behalf of their late daughter Tuesday night, marking a solemn moment.

“West Virginia will never forget their service, their bravery, or their sacrifice," Morrisey said.

4. Scott Ruskan, Legion of Merit

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

Scott Ruskan, an aviation survival technician and rescue swimmer for the United States Coast Guard, was recognized for saving nearly 170 people during the floods that devastated central Texas back in July. Those rescued included children attending Camp Mystic.

Trump awarded Ruskan the Legion of Merit for his "extraordinary heroism."

Ruskan accepted the award alongside 11-year-old Milly Cate McClymond, one of the girls he rescued from Camp Mystic.

"As the waters threatened to sweep her away, 11-year-old Milly Cate McClymond closed her eyes and prayed to God," Trump said. "She thought she was going to die. Those prayers were answered when Coast Guard rescue swimmer Scott Ruskan descended from a helicopter above ... and he lifted not just Milly Cate but 164 others to safety."

5. Eric Slover, Medal of Honor

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Chief Warrant Officer Eric Slover was recognized for his role in capturing Venezuelan ex-dictator Nicolas Maduro in January, successfully piloting the Chinook mission despite being shot several times and sustaining severe injuries to his legs.

Despite being severely wounded, Slover stood up in a walker to accept the highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor.

"Chief Warrant Officer Slover is still recovering from his serious wounds," Trump said, "but I'm thrilled to say that he is here tonight with his wife, Amy."

"The success of the entire mission and the lives of his fellow warriors hinged on Eric's ability to take the searing pain. It was unbelievable, what's happened to his legs," he continued.

6. Royce Williams, Medal of Honor

Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images

Retired Navy Captain Royce Williams was also awarded the Medal of Honor Tuesday night, commending the 100-year-old veteran's service in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. First lady Melania Trump, who sat beside Williams, bestowed the award on the war hero during the address.

In 1952, Williams found himself in a 35-minute dogfight against the Soviets, where he downed four enemy aircraft, survived a 37mm cannon, and still returned to the deck of the USS Oriskany just off the coast of North Korea. His fellow servicemen later counted 263 holes in the frame of his F9F-5 Panther.

"Tonight, at 100 years old, this brave Navy captain is finally getting the recognition he deserves. He was a legend long before this evening," Trump said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the sanctuary state of New Jersey after its governor banned Immigration and Customs Enforcement from some state property.

On Feb. 11, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) signed Executive Order No. 12, which declared that federal immigration agents cannot access “nonpublic areas of State property for the purpose of facilitating federal enforcement of civil immigration law” without a judicial warrant or order.

'Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement.'

The governor claimed that the action would “protect against ICE raids on state property.”

“I take seriously my responsibility to keep New Jersey residents safe, and as a Navy veteran and former federal prosecutor, my commitment to upholding the Constitution will never waver,” Sherrill stated. “This executive order will prohibit ICE from using state property to launch operations. To strengthen public safety, we will also give New Jersey residents the tools to report ICE activity to the attorney general’s office and ensure residents know their constitutional rights.”

The governor’s office accused the Trump administration’s ICE agents of “violently abusing power and violating Constitutional rights.”

The DOJ responded to Sherrill’s executive action by filing a lawsuit against New Jersey on Feb. 23, stating that the state’s leadership has insisted “on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement.”

RELATED: 'She is putting a target on their backs': New Jersey governor launches online portal to track ICE agents

Photographer: Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The complaint claimed that Sherrill aimed to “intentionally obstruct federal law enforcement,” adding that she “celebrates thwarting the constitutional obligation of the President of the United States to take care that federal immigration law be faithfully executed.”

The DOJ argued that Sherrill’s executive order obstructs and intentionally discriminates against the federal government. Prosecutors also claimed that the action violated the Supremacy Clause, which “prohibits a state from usurping Congress.”

“Federal agents are risking their lives to keep New Jersey citizens safe, and yet New Jersey’s leaders are enacting policies designed to obstruct and endanger law enforcement,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “States may not deliberately interfere with our efforts to remove illegal aliens and arrest criminals — New Jersey’s sanctuary policies will not stand.”

RELATED: Exclusive: ‘Best of the best’: DHS torches leftist media myths about ICE training

Mikie Sherrill. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sherrill reacted to the lawsuit, stating, “I think what the federal government needs to be focused on right now instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe is actually training their ICE agents with some modicum of training, like any law enforcement officer in the state of New Jersey would have, so they can operate better and more safely.”

New ICE recruits receive 56 days of training and an average of 28 days of on-the-job training, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) released a Spanish-language video Tuesday urging families to enroll their children in the city’s free 3-K and pre-K programs before Friday’s deadline, explicitly emphasizing that eligibility applies “regardless of ... immigration status.”

The roughly two-and-a-half-minute video, posted to Mamdani’s official X account, features the two Democrats speaking entirely in Spanish in a studio setting with American and New York City flags behind them. Mamdani called his Spanish “rusty” before both promote what they describe as free, full-day early education for children turning 3 or 4 years old in 2026.

'No Social Security number is required and that applications are available in more than 200 languages.'

Ocasio-Cortez states directly in the video, “Any New York City parent, regardless of your occupation, income, or immigration status, is eligible to sign their child up.”

RELATED: 'This is disgraceful': Mamdani raked over the coals for attack on NYPD

They stress that no Social Security number is required and that applications are available in more than 200 languages. Parents can apply online, by phone, or in person at Family Welcome Centers. The deadline for the 2026-2027 school year is Feb. 27.

While city officials frame the initiative as part of New York’s long-standing universal early education policy, critics argue the messaging shows how taxpayer-funded benefits are being promoted without regard to legal status at a time when the city is struggling with the financial impact of a historic migrant influx.

RELATED: 'Despicable attack': Brazen mob pelts NYPD officers with snowballs, multiple cops reportedly injured — and it's all on video

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The programs are funded through a combination of city, state, and federal dollars. City leaders have previously touted the effort as returning an average of $26,000 annually to families by eliminating child-care costs.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats desperate to take the wind out of President Donald Trump's sails and torpedo his State of the Union address Tuesday with heckles, boycotts, and low-energy critiques may be upset to learn that the Americans who tuned in were overwhelmingly receptive to the speech and its contents.

A CNN poll found that a near-supermajority of "speech-watchers" said that Trump's policies will move the country in the right direction.

'Look at the growth President Trump made over the speech.'

David Chalian, the network's political director, told talking head Jake Tapper, "64% say Trump's policies would move the country in the right direction, 36% say the wrong direction."

"Look at the growth President Trump made over the speech," said Chalian. "So pre-speech, it was 54% of speech-watchers said his policies will move the U.S. in the right direction. After the speech, that number goes up 10 percentage points. So Donald Trump made some progress with people watching the speech from their pre-speech expectations to what they saw in the speech itself."

Trump said a great deal on the policy front:

• his tariffs might one day "substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax";
• legislation should be passed "barring any state from granting commercial driver's licenses to illegal aliens";
• he is "restoring American security and dominance in the Western Hemisphere, acting to secure our national interests and defend our country from violence, drugs, terrorism, and foreign interference";
• he prefers a diplomatic resolution to mounting tensions with Iran;
• he is "ending the wildly inflated costs of prescription drugs";
• his administration is leaning on major tech companies to provide for their own power needs;
• he is "making it easier for Americans to save for retirement"; and
• he is keeping "large Wall Street investment firms from buying up, in the thousands, single-family homes."

In an apparent effort to reassure the network's liberal viewers, Chalian suggested that "it is a much more Republican universe that got polled here because Republicans tune in in greater numbers for a Republican president's State of the Union address."

Chalian added that CNN's "poll of the overall electorate is the exact opposite of that."

A CNN poll conducted last week found that 38% of respondents said that the policies being proposed by Trump would move the country in the right direction, and 61% said they would move the country in the wrong direction.

RELATED: 'You should be ashamed': Ilhan Omar melts down when asked to support Americans

Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On the question of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court has spoken. In the court’s view, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs during a declared emergency, namely, the massive trade deficits that threaten our economic security.

But the court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was highly fractured. Only three justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — held that the law, under normal principles of statutory construction, does not give the president authority to impose tariffs.

A tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, quite persuasively demonstrates why that is not the case. As Justice Thomas noted in his separate dissent, the power to “regulate … importation” has throughout American history “been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”

The other three justices who formed the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — resorted to the major questions doctrine. This principle of statutory interpretation holds that Congress must speak with super clarity on issues of “economic and political significance” for the Court to approve a delegation to the executive.

The turn to the major questions doctrine implies that the statute, under normal principles of statutory construction, authorizes the president’s action, a point that Justice Gorsuch explicitly conceded in his concurring opinion.

But here’s the rub. The court has never previously applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign policy arena — and for good reason. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the core responsibility for foreign policy. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged as much, stating in the part of his opinion that garnered only three votes that “as a general matter, the President of course enjoys some ‘independent constitutional power[s]’ over foreign affairs ‘even without congressional authorization.'”

That’s quite an understatement. The failure to recognize the full measure of that fundamentally important piece of constitutional law is the first fatal flaw in the chief justice’s opinion.

The key Supreme Court case on this point is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which Roberts does not mention. In that case, Justice George Sutherland, writing for a near-unanimous court, articulated the principled distinction between foreign and domestic powers: “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.”

Then, quoting John Marshall’s “great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives,” Sutherland added, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”

The main issue in the case was whether Congress could delegate to the president the authority to prohibit the sale of arms to either side in a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. But Sutherland did not rely solely on the act of Congress. He wrote:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations — a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.

In other words, President Roosevelt had the power to ban the sale of arms even without the act of Congress at issue.

The same should be true in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Thomas’ dissenting opinion convincingly demonstrates why that is the case. While the chief justice claimed that Solicitor General D. John Sauer conceded that “the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” that’s not exactly what Sauer said. Rather, he argued that the statute delegated such authority to the president. Under Curtiss-Wright, a claim of inherent authority over foreign policy should still be viable.

In the part of the Curtiss-Wright opinion I elided above, Sutherland noted that the president’s power over foreign affairs, “like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.”

For Roberts, the fact that the taxing power is vested exclusively in Congress — and that any bill “for raising revenue” must originate in the House of Representatives — further confirmed that Congress had not delegated to the president any authority to impose tariffs. The point lands a bit oddly, given Roberts’ earlier willingness to treat Obamacare as a tax even though the bill originated in the Senate.

RELATED: ‘Even stronger’: President Trump optimistic even after SCOTUS strikes down tariffs

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

That move exposes the court’s second fatal flaw: a tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

President Trump’s tariffs plainly fell into the latter category, even if they also happened to raise substantial revenue. This dual character is not unique to presidential tariffs; the Constitution itself recognizes it in a related provision. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.”

That clause reflects the same two-hat reality. An impost or duty — akin to a tariff — can be a revenue measure, but it also can serve a regulatory end tied to a state’s police power. Congress’ exclusive authority to impose taxes under Article I, Section 8, does not erase the states’ limited ability to levy duties for a different purpose: enforcing inspection laws to protect health and safety.

So too with tariffs. The fact that duties and imposts fall within Congress’ taxing power does not negate the president’s authority to use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy — a “plenary and exclusive” power that Curtiss-Wright describes as vested in the president as the nation’s “sole organ” in external affairs.

That distinction drives Thomas’ characteristically insightful dissent. He points, in effect, to a path by which the president may continue using tariffs while negotiating with and responding to foreign nations in his role as the sole organ of American foreign policy. Time will tell whether the court, if the president takes that route, will remain faithful to its landmark Curtiss-Wright precedent. It should.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

The New York City Police Department released photos of two people wanted in Monday's mob attack on cops amid a snowball fight, which reportedly caused multiple injuries to officers.

The NYPD Facebook post indicates that "two uniformed police officers were inside Washington Square Park when two individuals intentionally struck the officers multiple times with snow and ice causing injury to their head, neck, and face. Anyone with information is asked to contact @NYPDTips or 800-577-TIPS."

'That doesn’t look like a snowball fight to me, Mamdani.'

The NYPD post adds that the pair are "wanted for assault on a police officer."

Police told WABC-TV that officers responded to the park around 4 p.m. for a report of a number of people atop a roof — but officers were soon hit with snowballs, and multiple officers were taken to a hospital with facial cuts.

RELATED: 'Despicable attack': Brazen mob pelts NYPD officers with snowballs, multiple cops reportedly injured — and it's all on video

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) faced criticism Tuesday over the assault on officers, with a number of political figures noting that the mayor's history of anti-police rhetoric contributed to the mob attack.

When asked at a news conference if he supports the police department's intention to criminally prosecute suspects in the case, Mamdani replied, "I don't. From the videos that I've seen, it looks like a snowball fight."

RELATED: 'This is disgraceful': Mamdani raked over the coals for attack on NYPD

The NYPD's Facebook post concerning the two individuals wanted in the matter has received more than 17,000 comments as of Wednesday morning — and it appears after a cursory read that many of them actually mock police over the incident. One wrote, "They showed up for a snowball fight. What did they expect? I'm sure there were mass casualties."

Others, however, weren't happy with those caught on camera attacking cops:

• "That doesn’t look like a snowball fight to me, Mamdani," one commenter noted.
• "A snowball fight is when you have 2 opposing sides," another user stated. "NYPD was not throwing snowballs as far as I can see."
• "The cops didn’t think it was funny. They push a couple of people who were very aggressive," another commenter wrote. "This idea that is being pushed by some that we do not have to respect or obey law enforcement is getting out of control. Those officers showed tremendous restraint."
• "The mayor would demand the arrest of the officers if they threw snowballs back at the thugs," another user observed.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!