The Trump administration quietly shifted its immigration messaging in the weeks after its violent operation in Minneapolis that included the fatal shooting of two Americans, largely dropping mentions of “mass deportations” as public sentiment shifted against the aggressive tactics. A POLITICO review of social media posts from major official administration accounts shows only one mention of the term in the past month, compared to more than a dozen in the four weeks prior. The analysis examined the social media accounts of top Trump officials and White House-run pages the administration has leveraged to push support for its immigration agenda. The findings suggest an administration recalibrating its message in the wake of wavering poll numbers on what had been one of President Donald Trump’s signature issues. It comes as Republicans have grown worried about the 2026 midterms, with calls for large-scale deportations — a hallmark of Trump’s campaign — now seen by some in the party as a vulnerability, particularly with Hispanic voters who had shifted toward the president just two years ago. “Deportations have a different look after Minneapolis, and we need to reclaim immigration as an issue,” said Michigan-based GOP strategist Jason Roe. “Deporting criminals remains popular, and the fact that the Democrats reflexively take the opposite side of Trump puts them, once again, on the side of criminals.” For months, calls for “mass deportation” were a frequent feature of the Trump administration’s aggressive social media strategy. On X, the White House’s prolific Rapid Response account spent days in mid-January linking “mass deportations” to lower crime, more jobs and lower housing costs. But that account hasn’t used the phrase “mass deportation” since Feb. 12, when it shared clips from a press conference during which border czar Tom Homan, who was dispatched to Minneapolis to deescalate tensions, said mass deportations were still on but emphasized more targeted enforcement. “The message focus is a reflection on where the administration’s strongest arguments have always been, which is an emphasis on border security policies that draw a contrast with the Biden-Harris administration, and a more prioritized and precise focus on illegal immigrants with criminal offenses,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who has worked for House GOP leadership and on presidential campaigns. Last week, Trump picked Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to be the next Homeland Security secretary, moving current DHS chief Kristi Noem to a special envoy role in the face of growing frustrations with her tenure. The official White House account, along with social media accounts tied to other top Trump officials, including deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and press secretary Karoline Leavitt, have also eschewed the phrase after highlighting mass deportations in the past — even as they continue to post when immigrants accused of violent crimes are arrested. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said the rapid response page is not indicative of any policy changes. The account amplifies and engages with major news stories, the official said, noting that there has been less news coverage about immigration since early February. The official said the same applies to other officials’ X accounts. The Department of Homeland Security’s public ad campaign has also started to take a different tact: An ad that began running in February, weeks after the Minnesota shootings, sought to highlight “victims of illegal immigration,” in contrast with ads the agency had previously run that featured footage of arrests. A DHS spokesperson said the agency “remains committed to arresting and deporting the worst of the worst illegal aliens to keep the American people safe, just as President Trump promised.” The spokesperson also shared several DHS press releases from this week highlighting arrests of immigrants who had committed crimes. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the administration’s immigration enforcement isn’t changing, and that the president’s “highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities.” She also said that 70 percent of deportations to date have been unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, and said the administration has had the “most secure border in U.S. history for nine straight months.” This week, White House deputy chief of staff James Blair privately urged House Republicans at their annual policy retreat in Doral, Florida, to focus their immigration message on removing violent criminals instead of “mass deportations.” Blair’s message was first reported by Axios. A senior White House official said Blair’s comments were taken “out of context.” The official said the administration can highlight deportations but that the White House also has to tout the president’s success at the border. “Like the border numbers are astronomical — zero, right?” the senior official said. “Zero people coming in. That’s a great message to push.” A person close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the strategy, said among crucial voting blocs, including Latino voters, moderate Republicans, Independents, and young voters, “mass deportations” is associated with sweeping round-ups in community gathering places. If candidates instead focus on criminal arrests, public safety, and the president’s success in securing the southern border, the person argued, they can turn the issue against Democrats. “Just have to message it a little bit better,” the person said. “If you can go on a campaign, and you can contrast and say, ‘OK, this person wants open borders, this person wants amnesty for criminal illegal aliens — it’s madness.’ It’s just not where the majority of the American people are.” The president, during the State of the Union address, sought to draw that contrast when he asked members of Congress to stand if they agreed that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens” — a standout moment Vice President JD Vance amplified again during a speech in North Carolina on Friday. In the February address, the president only said “deporting” once to emphasize his focus on deporting “criminal illegal aliens.” It was part of a section in which Trump introduced the mother of Lizbeth Medina, a teenager killed by an unauthorized immigrant. It was a departure from Trump’s 2025 address when the president reiterated his vow to conduct the “largest deportation operation in U.S. history.” Promises of “mass deportations” were also a recurring feature of his 2024 campaign — a vow he and his top officials repeatedly amplified during his first year back in the White House. “People know where President Trump stands on immigration, on deportation,” the senior official said, when asked about the president’s SOTU address. “It was a hallmark of his campaign. … We don’t need to explain our immigration position.” The White House’s shift in messaging is infuriating some Trump allies who have launched a lobbying effort to reverse that reversal. Those concerns underscore the GOP divide on how aggressive to be on immigration enforcement. Immigration hardliners want Trump to ramp up deportations but many Republicans worry that would risk a further loss of public support. Recent immigration polling, including a January POLITICO poll conducted before 37-year-old Alex Pretti was killed, has shown growing unease with the president’s deportation campaign. Even among his base, the poll found that more than 1 in 3 Trump voters said that while they supported the goal of his policy, they disapproved of its implementation. Eli Stokols and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

LOS ANGELES — After a year watching Donald Trump muscle his way into Hollywood — getting late-night hosts suspended, bullying news programs into settlements, threatening TV networks — entertainment executives and Democratic politicians say his intervention in the Warner Bros. Discovery sale may have gone too far. It also may be a reason Paramount Skydance reached a deal to acquire the company for more than $110 billion after Netflix backed out of the bidding war Thursday afternoon. The sale to Paramount, whose CEO David Ellison has cultivated ties with Trump, will reset the Hollywood ecosystem and throws into question the fate of Warner Bros.-owned CNN, which Trump has said should be sold. Within hours of the agreement, some industry executives and Democratic lawmakers here said they worry that Trump’s pressure campaign — he demanded last weekend that Netflix fire former Democratic national security adviser Susan Rice from its board or “pay the consequences” — could reshape how political power is wielded over the entertainment industry. “Unequivocally, yes, it will set a bad precedent for Hollywood,” Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Burbank Democrat, told POLITICO. “I don’t have a bone to pick with Paramount per se — my concern remains the influence of the Trump administration.” Hollywood had recoiled after Trump’s ultimatum that Rice be fired ratcheted up pressure on Netflix. There was a sense, though, that the industry could do little about it. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos, who had previously dismissed Trump’s demand, saying the Warner Bros. transaction was not “political,” met with officials at the White House and U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday to seek assurances that his company’s prospective acquisition would get a fair review from regulators, POLITICO reported. Hours later, though, Sarandos couched Netflix’s decision to end its pursuit of Warner Bros. in purely economic terms, saying in a statement that the prospective transaction “was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price.” “We’ve always been disciplined, and at the price required to match Paramount Skydance’s latest offer, the deal is no longer financially attractive,” he said. In fact, some in the entertainment industry saw money as a bigger motivator than Trump. Netflix had reached an agreement with Warner Bros. to acquire its studio and streaming assets for $82.7 billion in December. But Paramount made a hostile bid that month and upped its offer multiple times, culminating in an offer this week that Warner Bros.’ board determined Thursday was a superior proposal. The deal, which requires regulatory approval, includes backing from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, the father of the Paramount CEO and a friend of Trump. But the president’s threat over Rice was viewed by many here as helping Paramount, with Trump’s involvement taking on a new dimension by targeting not just programming choices, but questions of corporate structure once largely insulated from political influence. “It’s horrifying that any president would put his finger on the scale for one company over another,” said producer Bill Gerber, a former worldwide president of theatrical production at Warner Bros. whose company has a first-look deal at the studio. Paramount and Warner Bros. did not respond to interview requests. The sale of Warner Bros., a Hollywood crown jewel known for films such as “Casablanca” and TV series including “Friends,” has for months been a source of tension in Washington and the entertainment industry. Republican attorneys general from 11 states urged U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi this week to examine Netflix’s proposed acquisition, arguing it could lead to “undue market concentration that stifles competition,” while California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, had already begun reviewing the deal. Bonta on Thursday night said that the proposed Warner Bros. sale is “not a done deal,” and that his office would continue its probe of the transaction. “These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny — the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review,” he wrote on X. Meanwhile, lawmakers and industry figures alike worry that Paramount’s acquisition could trigger deep layoffs. Schultz, whose district includes the Warner Bros. lot, said that there is “a lot of angst in our community” over the sale. “It creates a lot of uncertainty among our residents,” he said. “I want to ensure that … we’re going to have jobs staying in our community, that we’re going to see vibrant and consistent production on our studio lot.” Warner Bros. shareholders are scheduled to vote on the sale on March 20. Paramount began seeking regulatory approval late last year — despite the absence of an agreement with Warner Bros. — an aggressive move that telegraphed confidence in ultimately clearing the process. Rep. Laura Friedman, whose Burbank district also is home to Warner Bros., said in a statement to POLITICO that the “government’s antitrust decisions must be based solely on what is best for hardworking Americans, consumers, and competition.” “We must investigate every instance where there is evidence that Trump meddled or wielded improper influence over what should be neutral regulatory processes,” she said. When David Ellison’s Skydance Media struck a deal to buy Paramount last year for about $8 billion, regulatory approval of the transaction became mired in controversy. The Federal Communications Commission signed off after Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against its CBS News division over a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. Afterward, Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) opened an investigation, warning Ellison that the settlement raised “significant concerns” that Trump had demanded — and Paramount had paid — “an illegal bribe” in exchange for FCC approval. Paramount has denied the allegation, and the FCC has defended its decision. As for Paramount’s control of Warner Bros., the president has made at least one significant preference clear, saying in December that it was “imperative” that CNN be sold as part of a deal. That followed a Wall Street Journal report that said Ellison promised Trump he’d make “sweeping changes” to the network, which has long been targeted by the president. The Paramount CEO has been a frequent visitor to Washington in recent weeks, meeting with Trump at the White House in early February and attending the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday. Netflix had, conversely, already come in for heavy scrutiny — from Trump’s Republican allies on the Hill. When Sarandos testified before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee overseeing antitrust earlier this month, lawmakers from both parties raised concerns about consolidation and competition. But Republicans also pressed Sarandos on culture-war issues, grilling him about “woke” content on the company’s streaming service. The White House and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. A representative of Rice, a former Biden administration official who also served in the Clinton and Obama administrations, also did not respond to a request for comment. The sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount would have profound implications for the entertainment industry. Paramount, whose namesake streaming service is smaller than several of its competitors, would be infused with a trove of content, said Laura Martin, a longtime entertainment and media industry analyst with Needham & Co., making it “a really viable competitor” to Netflix and Disney+. But a sale of Warner Bros. to Paramount could result in “many near-term layoffs,” Martin said, as the enlarged studio would need to pare down debt associated with the transaction. “Paramount … is going to stretch financially to buy Warner Bros., so if they succeed, they’re going to have to cut a lot of costs from the combined company.” Gerber called the sale “unfortunate,” saying it comes as Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav and the studio’s leadership team had begun restoring a culture at the company in which “artists felt looked after, cared about, and supported — where there were decades-long relationships, and movies were about quality, not just exploiting the IP that you own.” It’s working: reporting earnings on Thursday, the company touted a run of nine straight films debuting at No. 1. Gerber, producer of “A Star Is Born” and “Gran Torino,” among other movies, said he’s hopeful that Paramount would preserve that sensibility. Even before the agreement was announced, Wall Street investors on Thursday boosted shares of the company more than 10 percent. Brock Hrehor contributed to this report.

Brady Tkachuk, a bruising winger on the American Olympic men’s ice hockey team, was none too pleased with an AI-generated video the White House released on social media this weekend that appeared to show him criticizing Canada. The video featured Tkachuk, who plays for the National Hockey League’s Ottawa Senators full time, calling the Canadian team “maple syrup eating f—-s” in a press conference, before cutting to highlights from the gold medal match of the Olympics, which saw the U.S. men’s team take down Canada by a 2-1 score in overtime. The White House bleeped the AI-generated profanity in the video. Tkachuk made it clear he didn’t condone the language in the video. “It’s not my voice. It’s not what I was saying,” he told reporters at a media scrum Thursday. “I would never say that. That’s not who I am, so yeah, I guess I don’t like that video because that just would never come out of my mouth.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. With the threat of ever-changing tariffs and a barrage of 51st state rhetoric, President Donald Trump has antagonized Canada since before his return to the White House early last year. He called the American team shortly after they won gold last Sunday, inviting them to the White House and cracking a controversial joke that he’d soon have to do the same for the American women’s team, which also won gold at the Olympics. The women’s team declined Trump’s initial invitation to attend his State of the Union address, according to CNN. The men’s team, including Tkachuk, visited the White House on Tuesday, later making a short appearance during Trump’s State of the Union address. “It just was special,” he said of the visit. Tkachuk is the captain of the NHL’s Senators, who ply their trade in the capital of the Great North. Local fans have had a frosty reaction to his international triumph. But he said he had nothing to do with the administration’s dig on social media. “Well, it’s clearly fake, because it’s not my voice, and not my lips moving,” he said. “I’m not in control of any of those accounts. I know that those words would never come out of my mouth.”

America’s ambassadors in Europe are targeting just one person with their charm offensive: President Donald Trump. Everyone else — including key U.S. allies — can expect little charm and plenty of offense.  The American president’s friends, fellow real estate developers and political donors who have been awarded EU ambassadorships during Trump’s second term are ruffling feathers in their host capitals.  Their coarser style of diplomacy — America’s answer to China’s wolf warriors, who also relished defying convention and skewering their hosts — is not a bug in the system. It is the new system.  For Trump’s envoys, “the target audience is always one person. One person only,” said Eric Rubin, the former head of the American Foreign Service Association who served as ambassador to Bulgaria during Trump’s first term. The feelings of their hosts are incidental to the key tasks: courting Trump’s attention and approval — and shifting the center of European politics sharply toward the right.  The two most conspicuous envoys riling European governments are Charles Kushner in Paris and Tom Rose in Warsaw. When Charles Kushner decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace but wrote it in the Wall Street Journal. | Julien De Rosa/AFP via Getty Images Rose tagged Trump twice in a post announcing he was severing ties to the speaker of Poland’s parliament, Włodzimierz Czarzasty, over “outrageous and unprovoked insults.” Czarzasty had said that Trump did not deserve to win a Nobel Peace Prize.  When Kushner, the ambassador to Paris who is father-in-law to Trump’s eldest daughter, decried French antisemitism in a letter to President Emmanuel Macron, he didn’t send it to the Élysée Palace, nor to Le Monde. He wrote it in the Wall Street Journal.   Last week the relationship soured further after the U.S. embassy in Paris offered pointed political commentary during the aftermath of the killing of a far-right activist. Kushner further angered the French by ignoring a summons to the foreign ministry, before a “frank and amicable” phone call smoothed things over, according to the U.S. mission in Paris on Monday.   U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Bill White, who describes the president as a friend, set three Trump-friendly priorities for embassy staff for 2026, according to two people with knowledge of the internal dynamics at the mission. Like others in this article, they were granted anonymity to protect their jobs or relationships.  Fully in line with Trump’s emphasis in his State of the Union address on commemorating the 1776 declaration of independence, White insisted on big parties to to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary. He also hosted a February screening for a film about first lady Melania Trump and has prioritized media appearances that will keep him on the president’s radar. Similarly keen to keep a high profile on the channels Trump favors, NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker, widely viewed as one of Trump’s least abrasive ambassadors in Europe, prefers to appear on Fox News and Newsmax above other media. Visitors to the residence of the U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg Stacey Feinberg, who was a close friend of the slain rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, will find red MAGA hats adorning the furniture, according to photos shared with POLITICO.   Multiple U.S. embassies in Europe and the State Department either declined to comment for this article or did not respond. UNDIPLOMATIC CORPS U.S. diplomats stepping on European toes is nothing new. During Trump’s first term ambassadors Richard Grenell in Berlin and Gordon Sondland in Brussels kicked hard against diplomatic norms. While Joe Biden’s man in Hungary David Pressman repeatedly criticized the government of Viktor Orbán. Nor is it unusual for the U.S. to hand plum European posts to big donors and other political appointees, rather than career diplomats. But State Department officials, former and current, complain these latest breaches of diplomatic behavior go a step further and undermine American interests and relationships nurtured for over two centuries.  “If you refuse to go to a meeting when summoned so you can work on improving the relationship, why are you even there? It’s childish, it’s embarrassing, and it drops any pretense you’re there to help your country,” one U.S. diplomat said.   “I mean, frankly, it’s rude,” a former senior State Department official added.  In the past, policy decisions and public statements would be carefully calibrated and run through multiple departments via the National Security Council and the huge State Department bureaucracy.   That process has largely been replaced by freelancing ambassadors communicating with a small group of political appointees in the White House, said Rubin.   “This is the first time in certainly our history, but probably in modern history, where a big power is attempting to conduct diplomacy without diplomats and without experts and without analysts,” he said.  The marching orders for every flashpoint involving U.S. ambassadors can be found in the lines of the National Security Strategy, published in December. It set American diplomats the task of “cultivating resistance” to the path set by Europe’s current set of leaders and celebrated the rise of “patriotic” far right parties, seen as aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement.  It takes two to have a diplomatic fight, however, and not all European countries have taken the bait.  U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Warren Stephens has “key themes he is keen to speak on” including energy and free speech, according to one U.S. official, and is “not afraid to speak his mind.” He voiced many of those during a dinner speech while standing within arms reach of British Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy in November. These interventions have raised eyebrows inside the British establishment, but so far the U.K. government has soaked up the punches.  In Greece too, Kimberly Guilfoyle the former fiancée of Trump’s son Donald Jr., has charmed and bemused in equal measure. Despite goading the Greeks over the sale of the port of Piraeus to China, her relations with her hosts in Athens are, in her telling, exceptionally rosy.   “We see each other probably three or four times a week,” she said of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis during an event last week. The same went for multiple government ministers, she added. “They always take the call. It doesn’t matter if it’s the weekend, they will come over if we meet at my house, they show up.”  Esther Webber contributed reporting from London, Nektaria Stamouli from Athens and Victor Jack from Brussels.

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos will attend meetings at the White House Thursday, underscoring the political dynamics involved in the company’s proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, according to two people familiar with the discussions, granted anonymity to speak candidly. Top of the agenda: Netflix’s bid for the media giant and President Donald Trump’s demand that Netflix fire board member Susan Rice, a former Biden administration adviser, the people said. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Sarandos would meet with Trump, one person said. The meeting comes as a bidding fight over the deal intensifies. Warner Bros. has said a revised bid from Paramount — now increased to $31 a share from $30 — could outbid Netflix’s current offer, raising the prospect that political pressure and a bidding war are colliding in real time. The Warner Bros. board of directors said on Tuesday that no final decision has been made. If Paramount gets the nod, Netflix will have four business days to come back with a higher bid. The timing adds to Netflix’s exposure. The company is under scrutiny from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, which has been probing Netflix’s market power and dealmaking. President Donald Trump has also waded in. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump publicly called for Rice to be fired, warning that if she remains on the board, Netflix will “pay the consequences.” On a podcast last week, Rice warned that corporations, media outlets and law firms that “bent the knee” to Trump could face consequences if Democrats return to power. Netflix declined to comment. Speaking to the BBC, Sarandos downplayed the clash saying: “This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal.” The rhetoric marks a shift, as Trump previously said he would stay out of the deal, leaving the matter to the Justice Department, which is examining whether a Netflix takeover of Warner Bros. would create a monopoly. Just hours after his studio raised its bid, Paramount CEO David Ellison appeared at the State of the Union as a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally. Sarandos, for his part, met with Trump privately in November, according to one of the people familiar with the meeting.

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address was defined in many respects not by what he said but by what he avoided saying. There were the mistakes he avoided making: Trump did not attack the Supreme Court. He did not blitz members of his own party who have criticized him. He avoided rambling, angry digressions from the script. Then there were the issues he avoided addressing: Trump offered no new ideas on housing or health care, two defining issues of the midterm campaign. He made no mention of the Jeffrey Epstein scandals consuming politics in Washington and far beyond. He did not clarify his policy toward Iran, even as he masses air and naval forces in the region. It was, for better or worse, a speech not likely to change the political trajectory of Trump’s second term. The historically long address was, in some ways, nearly indistinguishable from Trump’s daily patter in the Oval Office, on Air Force One or in the White House driveway. For some leaders in the president’s party, mindful of his capacity for political self-harm, that might be cause for relief. Republicans wake up on Wednesday morning with no political problems they did not have the day before. Yet the status quo of the midterm campaign does not favor the GOP: Trump is on the defensive on many of the issues driving the election cycle so far. That, too, did not change. “In some ways, this was Trump’s finest — it was a full patriotic projection,” said GOP strategist Matthew Bartlett, who served in Trump’s first administration. “It was aspirational, emotive. Yet in terms of a political speech there was no policy prescription that will guide Republicans towards safer ground in the midterms.” Another Republican operative, granted anonymity to discuss the president’s performance, expressed concern that the speech didn’t do enough to look forward. “It’s all look behind, as great as it all is,” the operative said. “I wish we had more detailed steps to take, directing Congress to do more for people who are hurting.” For some, Trump did exactly what he needed to do — offering plenty of red meat to a base hungry for the president to call out Democrats for their hypocrisy about inflation, blame former President Joe Biden and talk tough on illegal immigration. Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, said talking to so-called persuadable voters is a losing strategy that failed in 2018. “Tonight changes that,” he said. “The president is not reaching out , he’s leading forward—game now on!” The speech was replete with Trump’s usual flourishes — braggadocio, hyperbole, unscripted asides and anecdotes. He talked about the wars he stopped, the prices he has helped bring down and the “hundreds of billions of dollars” he’s brought in from foreign investments through tariffs and negotiations. “We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it,” Trump said. “People are asking me, ‘please, please please, Mr. President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore. We’re not used to winning in our country until you came along. We were just always losing.’” Still, 13 months into a second term defined largely by the president’s outsized ambition and focus on personal prerogatives, be it his quest for a Nobel Peace Prize or determination to remodel and redecorate the White House complex, the remarks were also notable for their uncharacteristic restraint. The president remained disciplined even as he broke his own record for the longest State of the Union ever. There was no mention of owning or annexing Greenland, which caused international chaos and strained the transatlantic alliance, just last month. In fact, foreign policy made up a relatively small part of his remarks given what a huge part of his agenda it has been. With his approval rating stuck around 40 percent and Republicans increasingly nervous about the possibility of a midterm tsunami, Trump stuck to politically safer ground. He interspersed his remarks with several feel-good set-pieces, diverting the audience’s attention to the House balcony in an effort to rise above partisan politics: he cheered the gold-medal olympic hockey team; praised the Coast Guard rescue swimmer who saved an 11-year from the central Texas flooding, pinned medals and ribbons on war heroes and servicemen and prayed for a woman trying to conceive through IVF, whose drugs were cheaper because of TrumpRX. That last point, a focus on economic issues and affordability, was an effort to shore up a growing liability. Trump outlined the tax cuts enacted by Republicans last year and outlined additional policy proposals for Congress, urging lawmakers to aid prospective homeowners by preventing private equity firms from buying up single-family homes and to lower prescription drug costs for seniors. But with the GOP holding such slim legislative majorities and the focus quickly turning to the campaign trail, the prospects for major legislative action this year are slim. Asserting that consumer prices are coming down, Trump continued to attack Democrats as hypocrites for “suddenly” emphasizing affordability issues. “You caused that problem,” Trump said to the Democratic side of the aisle. “Their policies created the high prices. Our policies are rapidly ending them.” His hectoring, especially when he turned to immigration issues, provoked a stronger reaction from a few Democratic lawmakers who weren’t able to stay quiet. “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Trump said to Democrats, over their refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats are demanding changes to how federal agents operate in the wake of the deadly shootings of protesters by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers carrying out raids in Minneapolis and several other cities. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — both frequent targets of the president’s attacks — shouted back. “You have killed Americans,” Omar shouted, referencing Alex Pretti, the nurse who was killed by federal agents in Minneapolis last month. “Alex wasn’t a criminal,” she said. When some Democrats didn’t heed Trump’s call for lawmakers to stand at various points to show support for crime victims attacked by undocumented immigrants or parents seeking to prevent their children’s sexual transition, the president dismissed the entire party. “These people are crazy,” he said. “They’re crazy.” Trump looked to frame his dizzying return to the Oval Office — the upheaval caused by his predatory foreign policy, his punishing, unpredictable tariff regime and even the violence sparked by his immigration enforcement efforts — as a modern corollary to America’s original revolution, filling his speech with references to 1776 and the milestone 250th anniversary the country will mark in July. “These first 250 years were just the beginning,” Trump said as he wrapped his speech. “The golden age of America is upon us. The revolution that began in 1776 has not ended. It still continues because the flame of liberty and Independence still burns in the heart of every American patriot. And our future will be bigger, better, brighter, bolder, and more glorious than ever before.” Lisa Kashinsky, Dasha Burns, Megan Messerly and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Was steckt in Donald Trumps erster richtiger Rede zur Lage der Nation zu Iran, zu den Zöllen und Europa? Eine Einschätzung von Gordon Repinski und von Julius Brinkmann von POLITICO in Washington. Parallel dazu blickt die Bundesregierung nach Peking. Kanzler Friedrich Merz zwischen Partnerschaft, Wettbewerb und Systemrivalität. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview erklärt CDU-Staatssekretärin und Mittelstandsbeauftragte Gitta Connemann, warum Deutschland auf Dialog setzt, aber mehr Schutz vor Investitionsverboten, Joint-Venture-Auflagen und erzwungenem Technologietransfer fordert. Vizekanzler Lars Klingbeil hat währenddessen die Leitung der Kabinettssitzung. Eine seltene Gelegenheit. Mit einem Konzept gegen organisierte Kriminalität, inklusive früherer Vermögensbeschlagnahmung bei Geldwäscheverdacht, setzt er ein Signal in der Innen- und Finanzpolitik. Rasmus Buchsteiner berichtet. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Roche Deutschland: Deutschlands Zukunft entscheidet sich bei Innovation. Darum investieren wir heute Milliarden in Forschung, Produktion und Wertschöpfung in Deutschland – für Souveränität, Sicherheit und Unabhängigkeit. Denn klar ist: Wo Innovation ausgebremst wird, verliert eine Schlüsselindustrie an Tempo. Und Deutschland an gesunder Zukunft.**

President Donald Trump came to Capitol Hill to deliver his State of the Union speech needing to sell his tariff agenda to a skeptical public. He did so by touting the trade accords he reached with foreign countries, the peace deals he said tariffs helped them reach — and by saying that the money the levies generate could one day replace the current income tax system. “As time goes by, I believe the tariffs paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern day system of income tax taking a great financial burden off the people that I love,” the president said Tuesday night. He decried the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling that struck down his sweeping emergency tariffs as “very unfortunate,” and said that he would soon institute a new tariff regime under federal authorities he said have been “time tested and approved.” While some of the tariff statutes under consideration by the administration have been previously invoked, he is for the first time invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement 10 percent global tariffs, a number he said he may soon raise to 15 percent. Trump also said that he would move forward with his tariffs without the help of Congress, even as some members of his own party have voiced opposition to the sweeping nature of the duties he has opposed — and at times voted against them. “Congressional action will not be necessary,” he said.

Democrats are frothing at the mouth to center President Donald Trump’s tariff chaos in their affordability messaging as they charge into the midterms. The party was already planning to slam Republicans over the economy on the campaign trail, riding the playbook that helped propel New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani to victories last year. Then, on Friday, the Supreme Court in a remarkable rebuke slapped down Trump’s tariffs — declaring illegal his favorite lever to bend the global economy to his will. But for Democratic strategists and party officials who spoke with POLITICO, it’s not just the high court’s ruling that could open a new avenue — it’s also Trump’s doubling down, moving to levy 15 percent tariffs worldwide under a different authority. “Now we have a new data point that Trump is not going to relent,” said a person familiar with Democrats’ strategies, granted anonymity to speak candidly. Democratic operatives see it as a massive windfall. “It’s such a gift,” the person familiar said. “The gift of it is how politically inept it is.” Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist based in California, said Trump’s renewed tariff saber-rattling provides “tailor-made” messaging on affordability for Democrats. “Every American has borne the cost of these Trump tariffs,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that everybody needs to take advantage of in their campaigns.” The crop of potential Democratic 2028 presidential candidates leapt into action immediately. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker released an “invoice” demanding that the White House pay more than $8.6 billion in “past due” tariff revenue, which he calculated out to $1,700 per family in his state. “The President owes you an apology — and a refund,” Pete Buttigieg said on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters that Trump “should return that money immediately.” “They imposed a sales tax on the American people,” veteran Democratic strategist James Carville told POLITICO. “What did you get? Nothing.” That messaging — branding the tariffs as illegal taxes that Trump must repatriate to voters (which, he said Friday, he did not intend to do) — is expected to become a core component of Democrats’ strategy as they fight to retake majorities in Congress. “I wouldn’t be surprised if tariffs made it in 50 percent of our paid advertising,” said one Democratic strategist working on House campaigns. Another who works on Senate campaigns said they’re preparing to rev up their ads on affordability as well. “We have a very clear line that we can draw from [voters] struggling to make ends meet, and things that Trump is doing intentionally,” Third Way’s Matt Bennett said. “It is a uniquely easy story for Democrats to tell.” It’s also not lost on the party that the states whose economies have been hit hardest by the tariffs are home to some of the most contentious Senate races that could make or break the GOP’s majority. “We’ve not only lost our markets and gotten lower prices selling corn and soybeans, particularly soybeans, but we have also, at the same time right now, we have the misfortune of having very high inputs, a lot of uncertainty,” Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart told POLITICO. “We’re talking about real hardship where people are going to be really negatively affected financially.” Trump, of course, is not on the ballot in November, but multiple Democratic operatives told POLITICO they’re planning to skewer any Republican who has defended his tariffs. “It’s this very, very easy to understand action that the president took, and that congressional Republicans backed,” the Democratic strategist working on Senate races said. So the line for Dem candidates will be cut and dried: “This is where my opponent is not fighting for you,” they said. The RNC is fully prepared to defend against any Democratic attacks. “The Supreme Court’s decision does not change the reality: President Trump’s trade agenda is working, and Republicans are united in strengthening the economy for American families,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement. “His tariffs have helped lower inflation, raise wages, and drive historic investment into U.S. manufacturing and energy. As we head into the midterms, Republicans are focused on building on these gains and putting workers first — while Democrats oppose the policies bringing jobs back home.” The White House, too, is brushing off the idea that Democrats have been handed a messaging victory. “President Trump has powerfully used tariffs to renegotiate broken trade deals, lower drug prices, and secure trillions in manufacturing investments for American workers — all things Democrats have promised to do for decades,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “It’s not surprising Democrats care more about having a phony talking point than these tangible victories for the American people, because talking is all Democrats have ever been able to do.” But the economic picture over the last year has soured, with key indicators released Friday showing slowed growth and rising inflation. Recent polls find that costs and the economy remain a central concern going into November. And though Trump is visiting battleground states to pitch his economic message, he has thus far struggled to acknowledge voters’ concerns. In Georgia on Thursday, the day before the Supreme Court’s ruling came down, Trump claimed he had “won affordability” and told voters his tariffs were “the greatest thing that’s happened in this country.” On Tuesday, Trump will stand before Congress for his State of the Union address — one of the largest platforms that the presidential bully pulpit provides. Trump said last week he would focus on the economy in those remarks. Democrats have a tsunami of counterprogramming planned — including anti-SOTU rallies. Multiple Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, will bring as their guests some small business owners who’ve been affected by Trump’s tariffs, guaranteeing the issue will be front and center, regardless of the substance of the president’s remarks. DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) previewed what this messaging will sound like on the campaign trail. “House Republicans rubber stamped President Trump’s tariffs and are responsible for the painful affordability crisis they have unleashed on American families,” DelBene said in a statement. “Voters will not soon forget Republicans are the reason everything is more expensive.”

Republican tariff skeptics on Capitol Hill celebrated Friday after the Supreme Court struck down the core authority behind President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs — dealing a blow to a major plank of the president’s agenda but offering a welcome off-ramp to GOP lawmakers who viewed the levies as a political loser. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) broke with Trump and GOP leaders a week ago to help overturn Trump’s Canada tariffs. On Friday, he hailed the “common sense ruling” by the high court that essentially invalidates those and many other tariffs. “The checks and balances our Constitution puts in place works,” Bacon said in an interview Friday morning shortly after the decision, adding, “I feel vindicated.” Another Republican who backed the effort to overturn the Canada tariffs, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, also praised the ruling. “On its face, this case was obvious, because the Constitution vests the power to tax with the legislative branch, not the Executive branch,” Massie said in a text message. “No contrived emergency can undo that.” Speaker Mike Johnson sidestepped any praise or criticism of the ruling, saying that Trump’s tariffs had “brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy.” “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” he said in a statement. Johnson later Friday postponed a trade briefing for a group of House Republicans, including tariff skeptics, that he had scheduled for Monday evening, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private plans. The lawmakers were set to meet in the speaker’s office with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who has played a lead role in assuaging wary Republicans about Trump’s sweeping tariff regime as Democrats push to bring the matter to the House floor. A staffer in the speaker’s office said a new date and time for the discussion would be set “soon.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) in a statement said his members would “continue working with the administration and our colleagues in the House to advance our shared goal to strengthen rural America, including South Dakota’s farm and ranch communities, and the broader U.S. economy.” But Trump, during a news conference Friday afternoon, made clear he had no interest in engaging Congress further on the matter. In announcing his plans to slap a new “10% global tariff” on goods coming into the U.S., Trump said he would not ask lawmakers to take additional action: “I don’t need to. It’s already been approved. I mean — I would ask Congress and probably get it.” He added, “I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs.” In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump appeared visibly upset at the decision, according to two people in the room granted anonymity to describe the private event, cutting short remarks he was delivering to governors upon hearing the news at a White House breakfast Friday morning. “He was not happy. He got the info in real time,” one of the people said. The ruling comes just four days before Trump is set to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress and an audience that will include the Supreme Court justices who rebuffed the cornerstone of his economic and foreign policy agendas. Trump said during his Friday news conference that the six justices who ruled against his tariffs were “barely” invited to the address and “I couldn’t care less if they come.” A few GOP backers of the tariffs quickly spoke out, with Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio decrying the ruling as “outrageous” and saying it “handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades.” “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win,” Moreno added in a social media post Friday. The ruling also prompted tough questions for both parties about what comes next. Bacon indicated the decision could put an end to a flood of additional tariff disapproval votes headed to the House floor in the coming weeks. “We’ll see if it’s necessary,” he said. But House Democrats could keep hammering Republicans on the topic in the weeks ahead. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Foreign Affairs Committee Democrat who has orchestrated the tariff disapproval votes, said he would “continue to review the SCOTUS ruling to assess future legislative steps,” though there are no plans at the moment to force additional disapproval votes next week, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Senate Democrats, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss private strategy, are waiting to see how Trump responds to the decision before determining whether to force more votes disapproving of individual emergency declarations. Democrats in the Senate had hoped to put up the House-passed Canada resolution for a vote in the coming weeks, but there are ongoing internal conversations over whether it qualifies for special fast-track procedures allowing for a quick simple-majority vote, according to a second person granted anonymity to describe the matter. Other Democrats said further action was needed to forestall the Trump administration from sidestepping the ruling, possibly by invoking separate national security powers. Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs the House Democratic campaign arm and sits on the chamber’s main trade panel, noted that the White House “has promised to use other avenues to maintain these illegal tariffs.” “Congress must step up to put an end to this chaos and protect our economy,” she added. Asked about the prospect of Trump trying to implement his tariffs through other avenues, Bacon said, “I think they’ll try, but it would not be advisable.” Friday’s ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts broadly defended Congress’ sole power under the Constitution to levy taxes. Congress might also end up having to wrangle with the question of whether refunds are due to businesses or consumers who paid levies now found to be illegal. “The Court has struck down these destructive tariffs, but there is no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted in a statement. “Instead, giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves.” Some Republicans are also urging congressional action in response to the ruling, with Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, who chairs the Select Committee on China, pressing for a revocation of Beijing’s permanent normal trade relations status. But to the handful of GOP lawmakers who stuck to their free-trade guns as Trump unleashed his global tariff campaign, the overwhelming sentiment has been relief and praise for the high court. Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), who joined Bacon and Massie in opposing the Canada tariffs last week, said in an interview that the ruling was “an example of our institution working” and called on Congress to set trade policy in concert with Trump. “We need to make sure that when it comes to trade policy that we have stability and predictability,” he said. “And the way that we get that predictability and stability is through congressional action.” Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated the confirmations of several justices who participated in the ruling in his former role as Republican leader, said the justices “reaffirmed authority that has rested with Congress for centuries.” “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear,” he said in a statement. “Convince their representatives under Article 1” of the Constitution. Jordain Carney, Daniel Desrochers and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.