Monday, February 23, 2026

Even a Little Alcohol Can Harm Your Health!


Recent research makes it clear that any amount of drinking can be detrimental. Here’s why you may want to cut down on your consumption.

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but that nightly glass or two of wine is not improving your health. After decades of confusing and sometimes contradictory research (too much alcohol is bad for you, but a little bit is good; some types of alcohol are better for you than others; just kidding, it’s all bad), the picture is becoming clearer: Even small amounts of alcohol can have health consequences.

Research published in November revealed that between 2015 and 2019, excessive alcohol use resulted in roughly 140,000 deaths per year in the United States. About 40 percent of those deaths had acute causes, like car crashes, poisonings and homicides. 

But the majority were caused by chronic conditions attributed to alcohol, such as liver disease, cancer and heart disease.

When experts talk about the dire health consequences linked to excessive alcohol use, people often assume that it’s directed at individuals who have an alcohol use disorder. But the health risks from drinking can come from moderate consumption as well.

“Risk starts to go up well below levels where people would think, ‘Oh, that person has an alcohol problem,’” said Dr. Tim Naimi, director of the University of Victoria’s Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research. “Alcohol is harmful to the health starting at very low levels.” If you’re wondering whether you should cut back on your drinking, here’s what to know about when and how alcohol impacts your health.

How do I know if I’m drinking too much?

“Excessive alcohol use” technically means anything above the U.S. Dietary Guidelines’ recommended daily limits. That’s more than two drinks a day for men and more than one drink a day for women.
There is also emerging evidence “that there are risks even within these levels, especially for certain types of cancer and some forms of cardiovascular disease,” said Marissa Esser, who leads the alcohol program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The recommended daily limits are not meant to be averaged over a week, either. In other words, if you abstain Monday through Thursday and have two or three drinks a night on the weekend, those weekend drinks count as excessive consumption. It’s both the cumulative drinks over time and the amount of alcohol in your system on any one occasion that can cause damage.

Why is alcohol so harmful?

Scientists think that the main way alcohol causes health problems is by damaging DNA. When you drink alcohol, your body metabolizes it into acetaldehyde, a chemical that is toxic to cells. Acetaldehyde both “damages your DNA and prevents your body from repairing the damage,” Dr. Esser explained. “Once your DNA is damaged, then a cell can grow out of control and create a cancer tumor.”

Alcohol also creates oxidative stress, another form of DNA damage that can be particularly harmful to the cells that line blood vessels. Oxidative stress can lead to stiffened arteries, resulting in higher blood pressure and coronary artery disease. “It fundamentally affects DNA, and that’s why it affects so many organ systems,” Dr. Naimi said. Over the course of a lifetime, chronic consumption “damages tissues over time.”

Isn’t alcohol supposed to be good for your heart?

Alcohol’s effect on the heart is confusing because some studies have claimed that small amounts of alcohol, particularly red wine, can be beneficial. Past research suggested that alcohol raises HDL, the “good” cholesterol, and that resveratrol, an antioxidant found in grapes (and red wine), has heart-protective properties.

However, said Mariann Piano, a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University, “There’s been a lot of recent evidence that has really challenged the notion of any kind of what we call a cardio-protective or healthy effect of alcohol.” The idea that a low dose of alcohol was heart healthy likely arose from the fact that people who drink small amounts tend to have other healthy habits, such as exercising, eating plenty of fruits and vegetables and not smoking. In observational studies, the heart benefits of those behaviors might have been erroneously attributed to alcohol, Dr. Piano said.

More recent research has found that even low levels of drinking slightly increase the risk of high blood pressure and heart disease, and the risk goes up dramatically for people who drink excessively. The good news is that when people stop drinking or just cut back, their blood pressure goes down. Alcohol is also linked to an abnormal heart rhythm, known as atrial fibrillation, which raises the risk of blood clots and stroke.

What types of cancer does alcohol increase the risk for?

Almost everyone knows about the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, but few people realize that alcohol is also a potent carcinogen. According to research by the American Cancer Society, alcohol contributes to more than 75,000 cases of cancer per year and nearly 19,000 cancer deaths.

Alcohol is known to be a direct cause of seven different cancers: head and neck cancers (oral cavity, pharynx and larynx), esophageal cancer, liver cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Research suggests there may be a link between alcohol and other cancers as well, including prostate and pancreatic cancer, although the evidence is less clear-cut.

For some cancers, such as liver and colorectal, the risk starts only when people drink excessively. But for breast and esophageal cancer, the risk increases, albeit slightly, with any alcohol consumption. The risks go up the more a person drinks. “If somebody drinks less, they are at a lower risk compared to that person who is a heavy drinker,” said Dr. Farhad Islami, a senior scientific director at the American Cancer Society. “Even two drinks per day, one drink per day, may be associated with a small risk of cancer compared to non-drinkers.”

Which condition poses the greatest risk?

The most common individual cause of alcohol-related death in the United States is alcoholic liver disease, killing about 22,000 people a year. While the risk rises as people age and alcohol exposure accumulates, more than 5,000 Americans in their 20s, 30s and 40s die from alcoholic liver disease annually.

Alcoholic liver disease has three stages: alcoholic fatty liver, when fat accumulates in the organ; alcoholic hepatitis, when inflammation starts to occur; and alcoholic cirrhosis or scarring of the tissue. The first two stages are reversible if you stop drinking entirely; the third stage is not.

Symptoms of alcoholic liver disease include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and jaundice — a yellow tinge to the eyes or skin. However, symptoms rarely emerge until the liver has been severely damaged.
The risk of developing alcoholic liver disease is greatest in heavy drinkers, but one report stated that five years of drinking just two alcoholic beverages a day can damage the liver. Ninety percent of people who have four drinks a day show signs of alcoholic fatty liver.

How do I gauge my personal risk for alcohol-related health issues?

Not everyone who drinks will develop these conditions. Lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise and smoking all combine to raise or lower your risk. Also, some of these conditions, such as esophageal cancer, are pretty rare, so increasing your risk slightly won’t have a huge impact.

“Every risk factor matters,” Dr. Esser said. “We know in public health that the number of risk factors that one has would go together into an increased risk for a condition.” A pre-existing condition could also interact with alcohol to affect your health. For example, “people who have hypertension probably should not drink or definitely drink at very, very low levels,” Dr. Piano said.

Genes play a role, too. For instance, two genetic variants, both of which are more common in people of Asian descent, affect how alcohol and acetaldehyde are metabolized. One gene variant causes alcohol to break down into acetaldehyde faster, flooding the body with the toxin. The other variant slows down acetaldehyde metabolism, meaning the chemical hangs around in the body longer, prolonging the damage.

So, should I cut back — or stop drinking altogether?

You don’t need to go cold turkey to help your health. Even reducing a little bit can be beneficial, especially if you currently drink over the recommended limits. The risk “really accelerates once you’re over a couple of drinks a day,” Dr. Naimi said. “So, people who are drinking five or six drinks a day, if they can cut back to three or four, they’re going to do themselves a lot of good.”

Light daily drinkers would likely benefit by cutting back a bit, too. Try going a few nights without alcohol: “If you feel better, your body is trying to tell you something,” said George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

Notably, none of the experts we spoke to called for abstaining completely, unless you have an alcohol use disorder or are pregnant. “I’m not going to advocate that people completely stop drinking,” Dr. Koob said. “We did prohibition, it didn’t work.” Generally, though, their advice is, “Drink less, live longer,” Dr. Naimi said. “That’s basically what it boils down to.”

-Dana G. Smith
NY Times, January 13, 2023
 

Sunday, February 22, 2026

USA's Men's Hockey Team Wins Gold Medal: Hughes delivered an overtime goal for the ages!

 


MILAN — This wasn’t a miracle. It was a moment of magic.

Forty-six years to the day after a bunch of unheralded amateurs stunned the heavily favored Soviet Union in route to winning Olympic gold, the U.S. men’s hockey team engineered another epic victory. The Americans won a battle of the sport’s superpowers on Sunday, toppling longtime nemesis Canada 2-1 in overtime to win their country’s first Olympic gold in men’s hockey since the famed 1980 “Miracle on Ice.”

Jack Hughes scored the decisive goal, ripping a shot past Jordan Binnington less than three minutes into 3-versus-3 overtime.


JACK HUGHES DELIVERS AMERICA'S GOLDEN MOMENT IN OVERTIME. pic.twitter.com/4foFDOri53

The Americans forced overtime only because Connor Hellebuyck withstood target practice from Canada’s all-world forward corps. Hellebuyck made incredible save after incredible save against constant Canadian pressure, turning away 41 of the 42 shots he faced.

To win gold was a dream fulfilled for the American players. To do it at Canada’s expense made it all the more satisfying and cathartic.

In the biggest moments, Canada had previously owned this rivalry since NHL players began participating in the Olympics in 1998. Canada won gold-medal matches against the U.S. at the 2002 and 2010 Olympics and shut out the Americans in the 2014 semifinals. The U.S. did beat Canada in round-robin play at last year’s 4 Nations Face-Off, but when it mattered, the Americans lost again.

A winner-take-all showdown between the U.S. and Canada has long been the most enticing potential matchup at these Olympics, but neither hockey superpower had the luxury of just strolling to the gold-medal match. The U.S. needed an overtime game winner from Quinn Hughes to survive Sweden in the quarterfinals. Canada rallied to overcome third-period deficits against Czechia in the quarters and Finland in the semis.

That set up the gold-medal matchup that the hockey world has waited a dozen years to see on an Olympic stage. Bars opened before sunrise in New York, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and other hockey hotbeds. Fans across the U.S. watched “Miracle” on Saturday night to hype themselves up, set their alarm clocks for an early wakeup and then gathered over early-morning beers and bloody marys.

The scene was even more festive across the Atlantic. The Milan metro was awash with Canada and U.S. jerseys of every era, Eruzione, Gretzky, McDavid and Tkachuk. Chants of “U-S-A” and “Let’s go Canada” rang out as the train hurtled toward Santagiulia Ice Hockey Arena. One particularly brazen fan in a USA cap playfully tried to start a chant of “51st state.” Outnumbered by Canadians, he was quickly shouted down.

The combination of speed, skill and physicality on display lived up to pregame expectations once the puck dropped. There were ooohs and ahhhs every few seconds from fans on both sides as the Americans and Canadians generated scoring chances.

It was American fans who had reason to cheer first. Six minutes into the first period, Matt Boldy scored a goal that was a product of both individual stickhandling brilliance and defensive negligence.

With Cale Makar and Devon Toews between him and the Canadian net, Boldy deftly flipped the puck over both their sticks and skated unencumbered right between two of the NHL’s top defensemen. Then he deked a stunned Binnington and beat the Canadian goaltender with a backhand.

THE USA STRIKES FIRST. MATT BOLDY PUTS THE AMERICANS ON THE BOARD. ‼️ pic.twitter.com/oO5Am72qa7

The Americans withstood unrelenting Canadian pressure for most of the second period, even killing off the 5-on-3 power play that lasted 93 seconds. Hellebuyck made a series of massive saves at close range, even stuffing the Olympics’ leading points scorer Connor McDavid on a breakaway.

Then, just when it seemed like a period of squandered opportunities for Canada, Makar beat Hellebuyck with a wicked wrist shot from the right faceoff circle. It was an absolutely perfect shot from Makar, just over Hellebuyck’s right pad but just under the blocker.

CALE MAKAR FOR CANADA. ALL TIED UP IN THE GOLD MEDAL GAME. 🚨 pic.twitter.com/UZ6frtsWeG

That set the stage for a pressure-packed third period with the Canadians pushing hard for a game winner and the Americans desperately trying to withstand it long enough to give themselves the chance for a moment of magic.

In the opening minutes of the third period, Hellebuyck robbed Toews at the last possible moment, reaching behind his back with his stick to keep the Canadian defenseman’s point-blank shot from crossing the goal line. Minutes later, Macklin Celebrini had a clear breakaway, but Hellebuyck denied him with a pad save.

THAT WAS ONE HELLEBUYCK OF A STOP. 😳 pic.twitter.com/N3wCimdBGw

Let's not forget Zach Werenski's pass to Hughes!

Let's not also forget how Hellebuyck withstood the onslaught!


And now the U.S. Gold Medal drought is over!

-Yahoo Sports + Twitter Photos


The Week Ahead by Joyce Vance

 


The Week Ahead: The celebration of President’s Day was subdued with Donald Trump in office. We discussed whether DOJ would try again to indict the six Congress members who made a video advising members of the military they didn’t have to follow illegal orders (they haven’t yet but could still try); upcoming SCOTUS decisions days, and the Epstein Files.

Context Matters: Trump Administration Summons Secretaries of State: State officials don’t work for Trump. So why has his administration summoned state election officials to a meeting in advance of the midterms? The context makes it clear that this is about Trump’s continued push to “nationalize” elections.

Seizing the Moment: I took a break from the newsletter for some family time with my husband and our amazing daughter. (If you want to recreate the Five Spice Duck Breast she made for us, the recipe is here.)

Stephen Colbert and the First Amendment: Trump is clearly no fan of the First Amendment. His administration’s continued attempts to weaken it via the FCC, a historically independent agency that no longer operates as such under Brendan Carr, are the context for CBS’s decision not to air a segment on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert with Texas Democrat James Talarico. We explore why this matters more than ever.

Live with Katie Phang and Mary Trump: Ahead of next week’s State of the Union address, Katie, Mary, and I discussed where we are as a country. Listen in to hear our takes on what is really happening with the “draw-down” in Minneapolis, developments at DOJ (or is it Trump’s personal law firm?), and ways to handle “triple Trumpers” along with other thoughts about the midterms.

Arresting Andrew: With Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest in connection with the Epstein Files, the country with a king shows us that it still subscribes to the belief that no man is above the law—and we in the US can use the reminder of what accountability for public officials looks like.

Live with Former Ohio Governor John Kasich: The newsletter is called Civil Discourse for a reason. Former Ohio Governor John Kasich and I disagree on a lot of issues. So I valued the opportunity to sit down with him, air both sides of an argument, and then see where we could find common ground, which we did in the rule of law and the importance of country over party. If you missed us live, I hope you’ll listen in to this interesting conversation.

Five Questions with Nils Lofgren: Musician Nils Lofgren joined us to share his new protest song, “No Kings, No Hate, No Fear.” In addition to being a songwriter, Nils is a guitarist and member of Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band. The song he wrote with his wife, Amy, is the “street anthem for freedom’s gladiators,” we all need for the next No Kings marches.

The Context You Need to Understand the Supreme Court’s Tariffs Decision: SCOTUS is finally pumping the brakes on the runaway presidency. Read here for a preliminary breakdown of what the holding in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariffs case, means and why it is so important.

The Pernicious Myth of Voter ID Laws: Explained by Stacey Abrams & Joyce Vance: The legendary Stacey Abrams and I work through the explanation of what’s wrong with the push for ID rules, in light of Donald Trump’s determination to make it more difficult for people to vote. Please listen or watch along—next time a friend or neighbor asks, “What’s wrong with needing to show your ID to vote?” you’ll be prepared to respond.

And a bonus article: I wrote my monthly column for Cafe this week. It’s about the importance of remembering what this administration did in Minneapolis, even as they claim (I’m a skeptic) that they’re leaving. 

“We cannot afford to forget Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and the other people and incidents, even, perhaps especially, those we do not have names or faces to attach to because of the sheer volume. 

When a government shoots and kills its own citizens—citizens exercising essential constitutional rights lawfully and in public, we must not forget. When that government lies about what happened, demonizes the victims, calls them terrorists, and opens an investigation into one of their family members instead of the law enforcement agent who pulled the trigger, we cannot afford to look away. 

If we do, if what happened in Minneapolis becomes just one more horror to be tossed with the rest of the trash at the end of its news cycle, we will forever lose a big, significant piece of what it means to be an American.” Read it here.

These are complicated legal times, and it’s easy for the truth to get lost in the chaos. Civil Discourse doesn’t just track today’s headlines—it connects them to the legal and political history that explains why they matter. We won’t forget what’s at stake or let Trump and his allies rewrite the past. 

You can subscribe to Civil Discourse for free and get clear analysis that helps you see the whole picture, delivered straight to your inbox. If you’re in a position to, your paid subscription helps me devote the time and resources it takes to write the newsletter. That means everyone has access to information they can share with friends and family—a constructive act we can all participate in right now, helping more Americans understand how critical this moment is.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

Saturday, February 21, 2026

Cubans Struggle Against a Tightening US Noose

HAVANA — Cuban women cooking dinner in the dark with charcoal. Images of these scenes have become representative of the especially harsh period the country is going through at the moment, but they also highlight resourcefulness and resilience. 

“Blackouts are lasting more than 24 hours. Sometimes we get three hours of electricity, but that’s not enough time for things to cool down in the refrigerator. You have to cook what you’re going to eat that day because it will spoil. And how do you do that when you work and have to go to the city, eight kilometers away, to buy what you need?” says Caridad Curbelo Crespo. 

With the U.S. stopping other countries from selling oil to Cuba, there’s no fuel for the transport to cover those eight kilometers.  

On Jan. 29, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency regarding Cuba and establishing a system of tariffs on products from countries that supply, directly or indirectly, oil to the Caribbean nation. Since then, everything has become more difficult, Curbelo says.

Two weeks after the executive order, Cuba is experiencing a critical fuel shortage. At the start of February, the Financial Post reported the country had only 15 to 20 days’ worth of oil remaining. As a result, gasoline is being rationed and most transport services have been suspended, which in turn affects distribution of food and other goods. Patients can’t get to hospitals due to lack of transportation. 

Cuba now produces about 1,000 megawatts of electricity — 38% of its daytime output — from solar panels. For the rest, it counts on oil. Cuba does produce some oil itself, but the amount is minimal. The lack of power has led to long daily blackouts, with cooking, refrigeration and food production harshly impacted. Water pumps and communications are severely affected, and school and work hours have been reduced. 

Cuba is experiencing a critical fuel shortage. The Trump administration’s stated goal is to pressure the Cuban government. The real effect, as documented by the testimonies of those who live on the island, is the collective punishment of a population already worn down by six decades of U.S. sanctions.

This type of mass “punishment is a crime,” said Carlos Fernández de Cossío, the Cuban foreign affairs minister, on X, referring to collective penalties and methods of intimidation that are prohibited under international law in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Curbelo is 80 and lives with her brother on the road to Viñales, Pinar del Rio, in the west of the country. She is retired, but she continues to work. “We have both wanted to stay active, and our health has allowed us to do so,” Curbelo explains to Truthdig, speaking of herself and her brother. “Plus, we need that money to make ends meet, because the pension isn’t enough to live on, especially with this crisis.”

Curbelo works in an office of the Credit and Services Cooperative, an agricultural production organization in Cuba, several kilometers from her home. Her brother is a guard at a medicinal plant cooperative. When she talks about the current difficulties, she doesn’t separate work and domestic struggles: They are one and the same, she insists.

“Women feel it twice as much, because in addition to working outside the home, we also have to worry about household chores. I, for example, am the one in charge of everything: cooking, washing, cleaning, even the shopping. In my house, it was always like that, and now that we’re old, things haven’t changed.”

The blackouts, Curbelo says, have added to her burden. She normally cooks with electricity because cooking gas is rationed. “Sometimes I can only buy one gas canister a year,” she says. Now, she’s had to return to using charcoal. “It’s more work, but it’s not new to me. My mother always had her charcoal stove. The thing is, a sack of charcoal is very expensive now; 1,500 pesos [$58] is the cheapest option,” she says.

Suffocation as a strategy: The energy crisis is not an isolated phenomenon. It compounds already existing problems — inflation, currency shortages, deteriorating infrastructure — and increases the impact of financial and commercial restrictions by the United States that already make importing fuel, as well as basic supplies and medicines, expensive and difficult.

“The tightening of the U.S. blockade against Cuba is part of the Trump administration’s strategy of territorial control over the American continent,” Pável Alemán Benítez tells Truthdig. He is a professor and researcher at the University of Havana and an analyst on international affairs.

“They saw a window of opportunity in the weakening of international institutions, especially if we take into account what has happened in Gaza, where they have literally flouted the United Nations. They have tried to replicate that model of action in the Americas.”

With the Jan. 29 executive order, they are aiming for the collapse of Cuban society, a breakdown of its social fabric based on the population’s exhaustion from all the restrictions that the lack of energy imposes on daily life, Alemán says. “It makes life very uncomfortable for the ordinary citizen. In any country, this tends to be reflected in an increase in social protest, and that is what they are seeking in order to destabilize the government,” he said....   

Lisandra Fariñas /T       -Truthdig

Cubans Struggle Against a Tightening U.S. Noose


"The average American household spent an extra $1,000 this year thanks to tariffs"

 


The Supreme Court emerged from its winter recess on Friday, and the justices appear to have spent that break with pens in hand. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that President Donald Trump had no authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose sweeping tariffs.

Roberts was joined by conservative justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and the court’s three liberal justices: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling totaled 170 pages, including a 63-page dissent from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and several concurrences. As SCOTUS blog’s Amy Howe wrote after the decision, “In a part of the opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts said that Trump’s reliance on IEEPA to impose the tariffs violated the ‘major questions’ doctrine – the idea that if Congress wants to delegate the power to make decisions of vast economic or political significance, it must do so clearly.”

While there remains some uncertainty—the justices did not address whether anyone who’d paid tariffs were due refunds, and Trump could try to implement tariffs again under different statutes—businesses across the country that rely on imported goods were undoubtedly relieved.

In a piece we published Friday morning just hours before the decision, John McCormack interviewed Beth Benike, a small-business owner who’d invented the “Busy Baby Mat” to keep toddlers occupied while dining out and had been selling her product since 2019. John wrote:

Things had been looking up for Benike and her small business’s five employees—until President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, 2025. At the time, Benike had a container ready to ship from China with $160,000 of product. “My tariff was going to be like an additional $230,000 on top of that,” Benike recalled. “I would have had to come up with that money within the 30 to 45 days it takes for this stuff to get to America.”

Benike could not afford the $230,000 tariff, so her product languished in China until Trump later reduced tariffs below their “Liberation Day” highs (yet still higher than they were at the start of the year). But the damage had been done: For two months, her product was out of stock. Over the past year, Benike had to cut staff from five employees to three. “I cashed in my retirement and didn’t pay myself all summer, went through all my family savings to just stay afloat,” Benike said. “I would say, conservatively, we had half a million in lost revenue because of the tariffs.”


In the weeks leading up to the ruling, a few data points had brought home how clearly Trump’s trade policy has been hurting Americans. Earlier this month, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation published a report finding that the average American household spent an extra $1,000 this year thanks to tariffs. And on February 12, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a study showing that, contrary to what Trump has claimed since first imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs, that the burden of paying the tariffs has fallen almost exclusively to Americans.


In Wanderland, Kevin D. Williamson noted that while Americans are paying $94 out of every $100 in tariff revenue, there are plenty of other, hidden costs to tariff policy:

A tariff that adds $10 to the price of a tire does not necessarily mean that the price of a tire in the shop goes up $10, but it may mean that there are no tire-shop employee bonuses at the end of the year, that employees are expected to take on additional work at no additional pay, or that the tire store owners decide to wait another year to have the shop painted and the parking lot resurfaced. The guy who owns the local restaurant that used to be a favorite of the tire shop manager will not be conscious of the fact that a tariff schedule is the real reason the manager takes his family to dinner there once a month instead of two or three times a month—and that the commercial painter and the guy who owns the asphalt company are not making up the difference but instead are cutting back, too—but he will notice that it is a little bit harder to come up with the money to send his kids to summer camp this year.


Trump has long claimed that the threat of tariffs has enabled him to secure pledges of foreign investment, and in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote, “I have successfully wielded the tariff tool to secure colossal Investments in America. …In less than one year, we have secured commitments for more than $18 trillion, a number that is unfathomable to many.”

In Capitalism, Scott Lincicome agreed with one aspect of Trump’s claim—the part about the number being unfathomable— “because it’s completely—and impossibly—untrue.”

Scott debunked, on a number of fronts, the notion that Trump had secured $18 trillion in foreign investment—starting with the fact that the White House itself touts only $9.6 trillion in pledges that it attributes to the “Trump Effect.” And within that $9.6 trillion, some spending is for expenses, not investment; some likely won’t happen (India’s pledge to buy more U.S. liquid natural gas); and some can’t happen (as with promises from the EU, “because government officials in these places don’t have the authority to control private firms’ purchasing decisions.) ... 

-The Dispatch Weekly


Friday, February 20, 2026

"More Chaos": Trump Hammered for Plan to Double Down on Tariffs After Supreme Court Ruling

 


Donald Trump defiantly vowed to continue slapping tariffs on imported goods on Friday after the US Supreme Court overturned the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs he implemented last year. In a press conference held hours after the Supreme Court ruled against the president’s tariff regime, Trump said that he had other tools at his disposal that allowed him to hit foreign products with taxes.

Among other things, Trump said he was going to issue a 10% global tariff using his authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 that allows the president to levy tariffs to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits with foreign nations.

However, as a Friday analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute explains, any tariffs enacted through Section 122 expire after 150 days without authorization from Congress, which in theory could put vulnerable congressional Republicans on the spot to vote for or against the president’s signature policy this summer right before the 2026 midterm elections.

The president’s decision to plow ahead with his politically unpopular tariffs drew immediate criticism from SenAmy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who said during an interview with MS NOW that Trump was creating even more economic uncertainty. “What he’s done is just doubled down and tried to make it worse,” Klobuchar explained, “which, of course, is going to create more cost and chaos for the American people.”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman also predicted more chaos in the months to come from Trump’s trade policies, particularly when it comes to businesses that will now lobby to get back the money illegally seized from them by the president’s unconstitutional tariff regime.

Writing on his Substack, Krugman argued that Trump finding alternative means to levy tariffs would not “obviate the need to refund the tariffs already collected,” because “if you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal.”

David Frum, staff writer at The Atlantic, predicted that the coming lawsuits aimed at getting refunds for the illegal tariffs would be a massive mess. “The post-tariff litigation is going to be nightmarish,” he wrote on social media. “Wrongfully taxed plaintiffs will now sue for return of their illegally taken money. Can their customers then sue for a portion of the higher prices caused by the wrongful taxes? More Trump chaos.”

However, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the possibility of American businesses and consumers getting refunded for the tariffs. While speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, Bessent was asked if he expected a “food fight” for the $175 billion in tariff revenues that government has illegally collected since April. “I’ve got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” Bessent said of the tariff money.

However, some Democrats indicated that they were not simply going to let the administration getting away with money they unlawfully confiscated from US businesses and consumers. “Donald Trump illegally stole your money,” wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “He should give it back to you. Instead Trump is scheming up new ways to force Americans to pay even more.”

Democrats on the US House Ways and Means Committee wrote that “Trump does not want to refund the money he illegally stole from you,” vowing the party “won’t stop fighting to get your money back.”

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker wrote Trump a letter after the Supreme Court ruling demanding that the president provide every family in his state a $1,700 refund for the tariffs, which he said “wreaked havoc on farmers, enraged our allies, and sent grocery prices through the roof.”

-Brad Reed, Common Dreams

 

Are we "being led to another war in the Middle East by our newest coterie of buffoons"?

 


The Laurel and Hardy negotiating team of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, coupled with Trump’s appalling ignorance of world affairs and megalomania, seem set to push the U.S. into yet another debacle in the Middle East, one the Congress has not approved, and the public does not want.

The demands imposed on Iran by the Trump White House are no more acceptable to the regime in Tehran than those imposed on Hamas in Gaza under Trump’s sham peace plan.

Trump’s demand that Iran shut down its nuclear program and give up its missile capabilities in return for no new sanctions is as tone deaf as calling on Hamas to disarm in Gaza. But since we have long dispensed with diplomats, who are linguistically, politically and culturally literate, who can step into the shoes of their adversaries, we are being led to another war in the Middle East by our newest coterie of buffoons.

The U.S. and Israel foolishly believe they can bomb their way to decapitating the Iranian government and installing a client regime. That this non-reality-based belief system failed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya eludes them.


The promise of no new sanctions will not incentivize Iran to broker an agreement. Iran is already crippled by onerous sanctions that have gutted its economy. This will do nothing to break the economic stranglehold. 

Iran will not give up its nuclear program, which has the potential to be weaponized, or its ballistic missile program, which Israel said it would target in an air attack. Israel’s reputed nuclear arsenal of some 300 warheads is a powerful incentive for Iran to retain the capacity to build a nuclear arsenal of its own. Iran, like Hamas, is never going to render itself defenseless against those seeking its annihilation.

An aerial attack on Iran will not be like the 12-day assault last June against Iran’s nuclear facilities and state and security facilities. Then Iran calibrated its response with symbolic strikes on Al Udeid air base in Qatar in the hopes that it would not lead to a wider, protracted conflict. 

If an aerial assault is launched, Iran will have nothing to lose. It will understand that appeasing its adversaries is impossible.

Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not Afghanistan. Iran is not Lebanon. Iran is not Libya. Iran is not Syria. Iran is not Yemen. Iran is the seventeenth largest country in the world, with a land mass equivalent to the size of Western Europe. It has a population of almost 90 million — 10 times greater than Israel — and its military resources, as well as alliances with China and Russia, make it a formidable opponent.

Despite Iran’s relative military weakness, when set against the combined forces of the U.S. and Israel, it can inflict a lot of damage. It will do this as swiftly as possible. Hundreds of American troops will likely be killed. Iran will certainly shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint that facilitates the passage of 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. This will double or triple the price of oil and devastate the global economy. It will target oil installations along with U.S. ships and military bases in the region.

Mounting losses and a huge spike in oil prices will provide the fodder for Trump, and his vile counterpart in Israel, to ignite a sustained regional war. This is the cost of being governed by imbeciles. God help us.


The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Buy my new book “A Genocide Foretold"