Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, occupies a unique position following a 6-3 decision against the president on tariffs, according to Harvard Law School professor Richard J. Lazarus.
Lazarus argued in a Washington Post column that Kavanaugh should use his current favor with Trump to defend the Court's institutional integrity after the president attacked his colleagues.
Following the ruling, Trump posted on Truth Social, "My new hero is United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and, of course, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Trump likely singled out Kavanaugh for his dissenting opinion, in which the conservative justice agreed that refunding tariff revenue would create a "mess' for the Trump administration. Thomas and Alito were also in the minority in the ruling.
Trump subsequently attacked other justices, calling them "fools and lapdogs," "a disgrace to our nation," "unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," "swayed by foreign interests," and "slimeballs."
Lazarus suggested Kavanaugh issue a formal statement defending the Court. "Kavanaugh should consider seizing this historic moment by issuing a formal statement supporting the court, the integrity of his colleagues and the legitimacy of the court's rulings, even those with which he disagrees."
Lazarus employed a bullying analogy to explain why Kavanaugh's intervention matters. "It is when those in the bully's presumed community make clear their objection and distance themselves that the bully is rendered powerless. This is no less true for the president's bully pulpit."
Lazarus concluded, "Kavanaugh can meet his moment in history by affirming that his overriding allegiance lies with his colleagues on the court and in their shared mission to work together to promote the rule of law."
A recent 6-3 vote against Trump's tariff policy sent the president into a spiral earlier this week, with the administration hitting back by bringing in a global tariff rise of 15%. This percentage increase turned out to be 10% in practice, but it defied the Supreme Court ruling, which states Trump must ask for Congressional approval when instigating his economic plan.
Amanda Marcotte, writing in Salon's Substack, suggested the ruling against Trump's tariffs is more a chance for the Republican appointees to the court to protect the party — and the president — from further damage.
She wrote, "Make no mistake: the three Republican justices who signed off on this decision — Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts — are trying to save Trump from himself. Voters hate the tariffs, because they correctly perceive them as a tax that American consumers pay — rather than foreign governments, as Trump falsely claims.
"People are already mad that prices are high, and they can see that Trump is just adding to their woes. Even Fox News polling shows that this is one of Trump’s weakest issues. A smart politician would be grateful that the court gave him a way to drop a terrible policy, without having to admit he screwed up.
"But Trump is nothing if not a painfully stupid narcissist. So he spent the weekend whining about the decision, ultimately imposing a 15% global tariff. Admitting that he’s wrong, even to himself, is intolerable — even if that makes his own voters start to look for ways to pretend they were never all-in on the whole Trump/MAGA thing."
Marcotte went on to suggest Trump may "shoot himself in the foot" by mentioning the tariffs vote in his State of the Union address. But it may be a droll affair all the same for Trump's speech later today.
"I don’t think we’ll see Trump reject his staff’s advice and go way off script, like he does at rallies," Marcotte wrote. "I don’t think we’re going to hear one of his extended rants about how bored he is by all this talk about 'affordability' or how everyone needs to shut up about Jeffrey Epstein.
"I predict that he’ll read off the teleprompter in that bored, sing-songy voice he uses when he’s trying to sound “presidential.” It will be annoying and put people to sleep, but that’s pretty much the idea."
President Donald Trump was given a dressing-down by the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board for persisting with his tariffs policy after the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down.
The court ruled 6-3 last week that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs without congressional approval. He has raged against the decision for days and threatened to implement the levies using alternative legal means.
"Well, that will show the Supreme Court — or something," the op-ed opened. "President Trump is reacting to his Friday tariff defeat not by calming the trade waters but by roiling them further. He is aiming in fury at the Supreme Court, but he will end up hitting the economy and Republicans in Congress."
"The smart play after his legal defeat would be to take an off-ramp and forgo or pause new tariffs," the board added. "Instead, the White House this weekend dusted off Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a work-around."
That provision – which the board notes is a "holdover from a bygone era of the gold standard, fixed exchange rates and periodic panics about global liquidity" – allows presidents to impose 15 percent tariffs for up to 150 days to manage balance-of-payments deficits, but the board said that encompasses an economy’s total international position, not just its trade balance.
"The larger reality is that Mr. Trump is so bull-headed about tariffs that he’s going to re-impose them any way he can," the board wrote.
Trump will likely fire off other tariffs under sections, 201, 301 and 232, which the board dismissed as "pea shooters" compared to the International Emergency Economic Powers Ac tariffs struck down buy the court, but those duties could still create uncertainty for businesses and do other harm to the economy – and Republican congressional candidates.
"With the midterm elections coming soon, this timing is fraught for Republicans," the board wrote. "Amid an 'affordability' panic, Mr. Trump says he is going to impose more border taxes on enough imports to make up for his lost emergency tariffs. Democrats must be thrilled at their dumb luck."
"Mr. Trump is so ideologically fixated on tariffs that he is willing to bet his Presidency on them," the op-ed added. "This looks increasingly like a losing wager for Republicans."
Of all the legal problems Donald Trump faced, from accusations of sexual assault to business fraud, he most feared the Florida stolen government documents investigation by special counsel Jack Smith that ended up being dropped when he won re-election.
That is according to “Morning Joe” co-host Jonathan Lemire, who reported on the president’s terror at being convicted during a discussion on U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon's Monday ruling that permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing Smith’s final report.
With MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin once again saying “all bets” would be off if the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decides to intervene, Lemire pointed out that Trump knew he was fortunate that his appointee covered up for him.
After noting there was considerable second-guessing going on after Smith elected to pursue the case in Florida, which led to Cannon’s courtroom, Lemire reported, ”Judge Cannon ended up putting a thumb on the scale significantly for Trump down the line. And you're right, Joe [Scarborough], we've talked about it on this show, Trump has privately told people, you know, more or less that he [Smith] was dead to rights on that one.”
“That was the case, the classified documents case that he feared the most,” he added. “And I know there will be second-guessing for all time in terms of the sequencing of those cases. The one in Manhattan went first, got a conviction, but it seemed to many to be the least serious, and we will never know if things had gone quicker or if the order was changed, what would have happened.“
“But you're right, Cannon, certainly at every opportunity, seems to be deferential to Trump and Trump's wishes,” he added.
President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda is decimating the Rio Grande Valley economy, threatening to flip Republican gains in the region back to Democratic control just a year after the president's historic win in a traditionally blue area, according to a report.
Construction, retail, real estate, and hospitality sectors are collapsing as Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids disrupt the undocumented workforce that anchors the regional economy. Ronnie Cavazos, president of the South Texas Builders Association, warned bluntly: "This will put us out of business if it continues," reported NBC News.
And Mario Guerrero, executive director of the South Texas Builders Association, said "he’s not alone in his 'disappointment' with the president’s immigration enforcement," the network reported, "and he thinks that sentiment is setting an ominous tone for GOP prospects in the region, both in the midterms and beyond."
“I can guarantee you, the Valley will never be red again,” Guerrero said. “At least not anytime soon.”
ICE raids targeting construction sites have arrested framers, foundation pourers, drywallers and stucco crews, leaving builders unable to complete projects. Homebuilder Xavier Vazquez reported that ICE officers arrested "almost all" of his stucco crew, and finding replacements has proved impossible.
Luis Rodriguez, a flooring sales manager, said he has orders that customers won't pick up because "they don't have anybody to install them."
The economic ripple effects extend far beyond construction. Real estate agent Jaime Lee Gonzalez reported an investor hesitating on 100 residential lots, fearing "by the time they start construction they would not be able to complete the project."
Paul Rodriguez, CEO of Valley Land Title Co., documented a dramatic slowdown in construction loans beginning last summer, worsening in fall — a pattern that doesn't align with typical seasonal variations but instead tracks with ICE enforcement escalation.
Household budgets are shrinking. Maria Vasquez, whose husband's construction work has slowed dramatically, described cutting groceries: "Where you can adjust is in the food — you remove from your list, juices, things the kids want. Chips? No." Working families face reduced hours and diminished income with no relief in sight.
An NBC News poll shows 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's immigration handling, with nearly three-quarters wanting ICE reforms. Even among Trump-supporting business owners, frustration percolates.
Isaac Smith, a Republican and building materials co-owner, acknowledges the economy-wide damage while defending immigration enforcement philosophically — illustrating the cognitive dissonance between ideology and lived economic pain.
The White House counters that apprenticeships and H-2B visa expansions address worker shortages, claiming "there is no shortage of American minds and hands." Yet builders operate in economic reality: About 23 percent of Texas construction workers are undocumented, with the Rio Grande Valley percentage significantly higher. The American Immigration Council estimates this dependency, not ideological preference, drives employment patterns.
Trump's deportation agenda has created an unintended consequence: threatening the electoral coalition that delivered the Rio Grande Valley to Republicans.
As Donald Trump prepares to give his State of the Union speech, he will do it under a cloud of record-low approval numbers that he seemingly refuses to acknowledge — and that has Republicans living in fear.
But the president doesn’t care, reported Axios's founder Jim VandeHei on MS NOW just hours before the national address.
Appearing on “Morning Joe,” VandeHei told the hosts that the president has convinced himself that he is doing a great job and will try and make that case in his speech, regardless of the sour mood in the country.
With co-host Jonathan Lemire claiming that it appears inevitable that Republicans will lose control of the House and that Democrats plan to make Trump’s life “miserable” after assuming power, VandeHei said things are far worse for Trump and Republicans than the polls show.
“You guys have painted a pretty bleak picture,” the Axios founder told the hosts. “For Republicans, I actually think it's worse than what you painted, because it's not just that he's losing independents. It's not just that he's underwater in terms of his popularity, it's that you see a massive gap in the enthusiasm among Democrats, which is high, and Republicans, which is low.”
“So he's losing independents,” he elaborated. “He has an unmotivated Republican Party and a highly motivated Democratic Party. If you look at all of the local and state races over the last couple of months, Democrats are routinely outperforming their performance two years ago. That is a bad, bad sign.”
“I can't find a single Republican I talked to that doesn't think they're not going to get clobbered in November, that maybe even the Senate, which looked like it wasn't in play, could be in play,” he reported. “And here's the thing: Trump does not seem to care.
"When I talk to his aides, when I talk to Republicans who are going in there, they're like, ‘Please, please, please stop talking about tariffs. Stop talking about Venezuela, stop talking about Greenland. Please talk about affordability. We've got to win the House. We've got to win the Senate.’ And nothing! He just does not care. I think he thinks he's killing it. And I think you're going to see that in the State of the Union where he's going to say we're crushing it.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas alarmed a retired judge Tuesday as he broke from all of his colleagues on a question that poses an existential threat to the U.S.
Writing in Newseek, Ex-Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher wrote that Thomas shrugged when asked if Congress should hand its entire power to the president of the U.S.
Moukawsher's observation came days after the court slapped down Trump's tariffs as illegal in a 6-3 ruling. Thomas was in the miniority.
"Several justices wrote opinions supporting the basic result and two wrote in opposition," Moukawsher wrote. "But too many of the words throughout the 164 pages of discussion were about how to use the major questions doctrine and whether it’s a doctrine, a bit of pragmatism, or unnecessary. A fascinating bit of scholarship, but it missed the chance for a clear ruling on a major question for our time: Can Congress allow presidential dictatorship?
"Worryingly, for Justice Clarence Thomas, the answer appears to be 'yes.' Thomas argued that with but a few exceptions, Congress can give its entire power to the president.
"We can be grateful he was alone in this view."
Overall, the latest ruling goes a long way to improving the Supreme Court's recent abysmal approval ratings, he wrote.
The tariff ruling emerged from Trump's reinterpretation of trade law language. Existing legislation granted presidential emergency powers to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports during national security, foreign policy, or economic crises, the ex-judge wrote.
" Trump interpreted "regulate" to encompass tariff authority. He declared fentanyl and unfavorable trade balances national emergencies, then deployed tariffs globally as negotiating leverage. Compliant nations received tariff relief, while those Trump viewed unfavorably faced increased rates.
Six justices recognized this as constitutional overreach—replacing policy judgment with personal preference. Chief Justice John Roberts led the majority in two critical holdings: rejecting Trump's argument that tariffs differ from taxation, and invalidating his claim to unilaterally impose taxes without Congressional authorization.
But a significant concern remains unaddressed, he wrote. Congress should never voluntarily surrender core constitutional powers to the president, regardless of good intentions. Such abdication would effectively eliminate Congress and undermine democracy itself.
Justice Neil Gorsuch approached this issue most directly, asserting that legislative consensus produces wiser taxation policy than individual presidential judgment. However, no justice adequately emphasized this fundamental danger.
The decision focused on whether Congress granted Trump specific tariff authority rather than whether Congress could constitutionally grant such power. The Court applied the "major questions doctrine," requiring Congress to explicitly authorize major powers rather than assuming such intent. Two justices dissented from this framework.
But Thomas dissented, arguing that Congress can delegate virtually all its powers to the president except in a few very narrow circumstances.
Donald Trump's words have come back to haunt him as Jon Stewart ripped into the president for a claim he made last year.
The president bragged about Iran's nuclear capabilities being "totally obliterated" in June 2025 — but it seems the threat is still very real, Stewart said Monday. Steve Witkoff, the United States' Special Envoy to the Middle East, is now claiming Iran is just a week away from having "bomb-making capabilities," despite the strikes.
The talk show host grilled the president's team on these claims, questioning whether the public should believe what the administration claims about Iran. Stewart said, "I remember Trump saying we 'totally obliterated their nuclear program,' yelling at people who questioned it.
"Which makes me wonder, how obliterated was it?" A clip of Trump saying Iran's nuclear capabilities were "obliterated like nobody has ever seen before" was then played.
Stewart continued, "So the kind of obliteration that, somehow, rebliterates? Almost immediately? No one has ever seen that before. So is our plan now to re-obliterate their nuclear program every few months? Or is there a longer-term strategy?
"Our peace through strength will force Iran, let's call it, an Iran nuclear deal. I think I remember that phrase from when we made a nuclear deal with Iran. Whatever happened to that?" A clip of Trump confirming the US had withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal then plays.
An expert previously told Raw Story that Trump's plan for Iran is unpredictable. Professor Anthony Glees said, "It is not at all clear what would happen if Trump decided to take on the Islamist rulers of Iran. By toppling Maduro but replacing him with someone from his side of the political divide in Venezuela, Trump showed a canniness of some quality.
"However, he can't do this in Iran. There are no US-friendly ayatollahs. It is, however, perfectly possible that he will run out of road and be forced into military action."
An executive order approved by Donald Trump has undermined RFK Jr.'s support, with Make America Healthy Again supporters turning on the Health Secretary.
Jillian Michaels, a health and wellness expert who previously said RFK Jr sincerely "wants to make America healthy again," has turned on the Health Secretary after he backed Trump's order that will see glyphosate, a controversial chemical used in weed killer, allowed for use in the food supply.
"Donald Trump’s executive order puts America first where it matters most—our defense readiness and our food supply," RFK Jr. had said. "We must safeguard America’s national security first, because all of our priorities depend on it."
Health experts and former advocates for RFK Jr.'s plan for American fitness have since criticized the Trump administration. Michaels, speaking to The Hill, said, "This is actually devastating; it is not a conspiracy theory that glyphosate is linked to cancer.
"There are hundreds of studies that have illustrated now it increases risk significantly for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
"We also know through whistleblowers and numerous lawsuits, of which there have been over 170,000, that the chemical company knew this and tried to bury the information, tried to go after the independent researchers, created ghost studies to try to tell a different story and essentially, they now have to pay $7.25 billion the makers of glyphosate to the victims.
"I don’t buy that we we have a bevy of ultra processed crops, corn, soy, wheat; there’s unfortunately no shortage, which of course has to do with hundreds of billions in the subsidy dollars, and I think that somebody powerful called up someone else powerful after paying out $7.25 billion and essentially saying this is an existential threat we need to call in this favor, and they did and it’s exceptionally upsetting.
"This doesn’t just affect farmers, this is omnipresent. It’s you, they would probably find it in yours and my urine right now if they tested for it."
Fellow industry insiders aired their concerns over glyphosate being used in food production. Kelly Horton, senior vice president of public policy and government relations at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, said, "It’s an exciting time where nutrition has become a real national dialogue, but at the same time, the resources to be able to do that and to effect the changes we want to see are being pulled out from underneath us."
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs policy brought Ohio farmer Chris Gibbs into the national spotlight in Trump's first term, when he sent a message asking Trump to consider how his global trade war hurt American agriculture.
After Trump returned to the White House last year and enacted a stream of even more aggressive — if fluctuating — tariffs on global trade, Gibbs felt the need to speak out again.
“It’s such a déjà vu moment,” Gibbs said, “because we're right back in the same situation, right back there, right now, the same doggone thing as 2018.”
Gibbs was then a Republican but told Raw Storyhe came out “swinging pretty hard” in Trump’s first term when retaliatory tariffs caused the value of his soybeans to plummet 20 percent overnight.
“The party didn't want to stand behind that. They wanted to stand behind the president. I said, ‘No, I gotta protect my business,’ so I ended up leaving the party,” Gibbs said.
Chris Gibbs (provided photo)
Last Friday, after the U.S. Supreme Courtissued a 6-3 decision striking down Trump’s attempt to justify his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump proceeded to announce a new global tariff of 10 percent, then 15 percent, under different legislation.
After blasting the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him in virulent terms, Trump seems certain to focus on the issue again in his State of the Union address, to Congress at the Capitol on Tuesday night.
Gibbs said: “The one thing I agree with Trump, and that is the Supreme Court got it all wrong, and what I mean by that is it should have been 9-0, not 6-3 because the president … never had that authority, and why there were still three Supreme Court justices that couldn't see that is disconcerting to me.”
‘I’m not going back’
Now chair of the Ohio Democratic Party Rural Caucus, Gibbs is continuing to speak out against tariffs, featuring in a new $5 million ad campaign from the Small Businesses Against Tariffs, a project from Defending Democracy Together Institute, an advocacy group formed by anti-Trump conservatives.
“I'm justified,” Gibbs said. “I'm not going back. I am where I'm going to be. I'm in the Democratic Party. I can make a difference here.
“I'm a Democrat because I want to be part of a party that looks for solutions for people, not retribution or revenge against individuals. It's just that simple.”
Gibbs has farmed in Maplewood, Ohio, for nearly 50 years, growing soybeans, corn and wheat and raising cattle. He said tariffs raise the prices of steel, lumber, machinery and other materials used on his farm.
Uncertainty fostered by Trump’s tariffs also strains relations with overseas trading partners, which in turn hurts the grains and agriculture industry in the U.S., Gibbs said.
“We’re on the verge of not becoming the first choice for agricultural supplies. We're now in an agricultural deficit, a trade deficit, which is very odd,” he said.
“The whole time that I've been in farming we were always proud of the trade surplus that agriculture had, and now we’ve moved that back to a trade deficit, so when we have adverse relationships with trading partners, that's how that backs up to me.”
Undeterred by the Supreme Court’s decision, on Monday, Trump said countries who “play games” over U.S. trade deals will face even higher tariffs under different laws.
“This has thrown the whole supply chain, trading sector, trading partners into absolute chaos,” Gibbs said.
Small businesses especially suffer under “ad hoc” and “unpredictable” trade policies, he added.
For the past four years, Gibbs said, his farm’s cost of production has been higher than his income.
“We don't know where we're at, as a farmer, number one for things that we use that come from overseas, but what about the crops that we want to sell into these other countries based on these handshake deals?” Gibbs said.
“It's chaos, and we are in limbo.”
‘Worst thing you can do’
Even as an established farmer with other sources of income such as a federal retirement account from working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gibbs said he is struggling to pay his monthly bills.
Thinking about farmers with less cash flow who might need to rely on government assistance “makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat,” he said.
“That's the worst thing you can do for an independent rancher is to put the government in a place where it's their only choice to seek relief is the taxpayer.
“There is nothing more demeaning, nothing more heart-wrenching. I call it the silent killer of the soul. That's what's happened before our eyes, to our nation's farmers.”
Donald Trump's ambassador to France and Monaco has had his access to French government officials revoked after failing to commit to the role.
Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot confirmed Charles Kushner — the father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner — would no longer have direct access to French politicians after no-showing a summons order from the government. The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs confirmed the ban on Kushner earlier on Monday.
"In light of this apparent failure to grasp the basic requirements of the ambassadorial mission and the honor of representing one's country, [Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot] has requested that he no longer be allowed direct access to members of the French government."
The reason for the ban on Kushner's contact with ministers appears to be the US ambassador's failure to appear for a summons.
A source reported by France24 said, "Following the publication by the US embassy of comments on a tragedy that occurred in France and concerns only our national public debate – which we refuse to allow to be exploited – ambassador Charles Kushner was summoned today to the ministry. He did not show up."
The ministry has made it clear it would welcome Kushner back should he enter into discussions with the government to work through the issues of the current administration.
Their statement reads, "It remains, of course, possible for Ambassador Charles Kushner to carry out his duties and present himself at the Quai d’Orsay, so that we may hold the diplomatic discussions needed to smooth over the irritants that can inevitably arise in a friendship spanning 250 years."
The French ministry's move against Kushner comes after the death of a right-wing activist in Lyon on February 14. Quentin Deranque, 23, died from head injuries following clashes during a demonstration against the left-wing France Unbowed party.
Six men suspected of involvement in Deranque's death have been handed preliminary charges over the incident. Trump condemned the killing with a Truth Social post, suggesting it was an example of "violent radical leftism" in France.
The US embassy in France also confirmed it was monitoring the case, while the US State Department's Bureau of Counterterrorism echoed Trump's "radical leftism" claim.
Barrot challenged the claims made by Trump and the admin, saying on Sunday, "We are going to summon the United States ambassador to France, since the US embassy in France commented on this tragedy ... which concerns the national community."
Donald Trump has suffered the biggest loss of his presidency to date, according to talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
The comedian returned to his late-night show after a week-long absence and said that during his vacation, the president suffered one of the most grueling blows to his term so far after the Supreme Court voted 6-3 against Trump's use of tariffs.
Speaking during the opening monologue of his show, Kimmel said, "As just about everyone except him expected, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs he is so inexplicably proud of are unconstitutional, the very conservative Supreme Court ruled against him 6-3; this was Donald Trump's most humiliating legal defeat yet.
"Even more than the one with the porn star, where he farted through the whole trial. Trump was angry, he lashed out at his own campaign justices, he called them fools and lapdogs and said they were an embarrassment to their families, and as father to Eric and Don Jr., that is a man that knows an embarrassment to his family."
Kimmel says the loss in the Supreme Court is just the start of trouble for Trump, who must now ease business worries.
The talk show host continued, "The whole thing is a mess because these companies want refunds for the tariffs they paid, but no one knows how to go about getting one, and Donald Trump doesn't give refunds.
"If he gives a refund, it's like when Rumpelstiltskin says his own name. He shrivels up and disappears. So what do you do in a situation like that? You get smacked down very publicly by your own conservative court."
Kimmel went on to mock Trump's dwindling approval rating, with the president seeing some of his lowest polling figures to date.
He said, "This guy has a weird pathological reflex to jack up the numbers. It's so automatic that even when it's like, a bad number, he jacks it up to a slightly less bad number. '36%? How dare you say 38%, there's no way I'm at 40%.'"
A former federal pardon attorney flagged the "cynical purpose" of President Donald Trump's latest batch of pardons during a podcast interview on Monday.
Liz Oyer, the former pardon attorney in the Biden Department of Justice, discussed Trump's decision to pardon five former NFL football players, one of whom was deceased, last week during a new episode of "The Daily Beast Podcast" with Joanna Coles. She argued that there was no legally justifiable reason for the pardons and noted that the five players were surprised to have been granted pardons because they had not applied for them.
But there seemed to be a higher purpose for the move, Oyer argued.
"He clearly thought that there was some constituency that he could ingratiate himself with by pardoning these former football players, but there really wasn't any specific request," Oyer said. "It seems like for the pardons, there wasn't any specific need that he was addressing. He just decided to do it, probably for some cynical purpose that involved appealing to a certain constituency of maybe NFL fans."
The move occurred as Trump and the Republican Party are gearing up for a midterm election that is shaping up to be contentious, at best. Trump has alarmed election experts with his efforts to take election data from the Fulton County, Georgia, election offices. He also threatened to send ICE agents to polling centers during the midterm election itself.
Chris Gibbs (provided photo)