Opening comments.
On the eve of Martin Luther King Day 2026, peaceful protesters are once again facing militarized law enforcement intent on provoking violence. In the 1950s and 1960s, the violent tactics of police officers and sheriffs turned the American people against the institutionalized racism embedded in state and local governments, leading to the great civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The thuggish tactics of ICE are pushing American politics to a second generational backlash against race-based, institutionalized violence. Multiple polls show that immigration enforcement is driving Trump’s favorability ratings to historic lows.
Because there are no “cool heads” or “adults in the room” in the White House, it will likely take a GOP revolt in Congress to bring an end to ICE’s reign of terror. Sadly, the chances of another tragic incident are essentially 100%. Eventually, the tipping point will be reached, and the groundswell of resistance will become irresistible. While Trump still has 85%+ support among Republicans, he has lost significant support among independents. See The Hill, Donald Trump’s immigration stance sees declining voter support. (Summarizing various polls.)
Critically, Trump’s 2024 election support among independents—46%—has dropped to 37% today, with only 28% of independents believing that the killing of Renee Good was justified. Independents constituted the largest voting bloc in the 2024 election. To the extent that declining support for Trump’s ICE policies will affect all Republican candidates in the midterms, congressional Republicans have great cause for concern about their prospects in 2026.
When Trump’s favorability ratings drop into the 20s and below, Republicans will either decide to abandon Trump or go down with the ship in 2026. Either way, we have a path to constraining Trump. The better path is continuous national protests that erode congressional support for Trump before the midterms.
The next few weeks will determine which direction the tide of history will take. At the moment, Trump controls the troops, we control the hearts and minds of the American people. In a contest between the two, the outcome is clear.
Trump stumbles toward trade war over Greenland
Trump is on the verge of igniting a global trade war in which most of the world’s developed economies will be arrayed against the United States. The cause of the impending war is Trump’s delusional effort to take Greenland by military or economic force.
Over the weekend, Trump threatened to sanction eight European nations that engaged in military exercises intended to show support for an independent Greenland. The reaction was swift. The nations of the European Union held emergency meetings over the weekend to discuss retaliation against the United States. The most likely response is the imposition of €93 billion against the US. See Politico, EU explores €93B Trump tariff retaliation over Greenland threats.
France has raised the option of using the EU “trade bazooka” against the US, which would invoke a variety of non-tariff economic sanctions, including restrictions on intellectual property, quotas, and closure of EU markets to US companies. See Euractiv, Why the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the US.
The EU would resort to the “trade bazooka” sanctions only if negotiations fail to avert disaster. Trump is heading to the World Economic Forum’s summit in Davos, Switzerland, this week. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. Trump seems to have acted irrationally and without the benefit of advice from trade advisers in issuing threats with globe-shaping consequences.
For example, although Trump singled out only eight European nations for punitive sanctions over Greenland, seven of those nations are members of the European Union. As a result, all 27 members of the European Union will impose reciprocal sanctions against the US. The combined economy of the EU is roughly equivalent to that of the US. So, while Trump may have thought he was picking a fight with eight smaller economies, he is in fact taking on the entire European Union. See WSJ Editorial, The Greenland War of 2026 | Trump’s lesson in how to turn U.S. allies into China’s friends. (Gift article, accessible to all.)
As the WSJ editorial board notes, the military consequences of conquering Greenland are equally dire. Although Greenland is strategically important to the US, so too are the NATO countries of Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, which give NATO significant strategic control over Russia by hemming in the ports of Murmansk and Kaliningrad, which provide Russia’s fleet with its only ice-free access to the Atlantic.
Per the WSJ editorial board:
Mr. Trump is taking reckless risk with the NATO alliance that advances U.S. interests in the arctic. If he doesn’t believe us, he can look up Norway, Sweden and Finland in an atlas. The latter two joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization recently and already are discovering that with Mr. Trump no good strategic deed goes unpunished.
So, Trump’s Greenland folly and punitive tariffs are threatening a global trade war with the EU and a split with NATO, which would drastically weaken US defenses against Russian expansionism in Europe and the Arctic.
US military and economic advisers must be in full panic mode. Hopefully, they will talk some sense into Trump as he travels to the WEF meeting in Davos. Otherwise, we are in for a very bumpy economic ride. Or perhaps the Supreme Court will save us from Trump’s tariff madness?
Why the delay in the Supreme Court’s tariff decision?
The Supreme Court accepted a challenge to Trump’s reciprocal tariffs last September. It placed the case on an expedited schedule for briefing and argument. A decision was widely expected in the last several weeks. But the opinion has been delayed for unknown reasons. That hasn’t stopped intense speculation in the legal press and social media about reasons for the delay. The truth is that we cannot rationally infer any information from the delay itself.
The speculation on the internet centers on the theory that the Court is taking longer than expected because it is drafting a major opinion granting Trump new powers that do not appear in the Constitution. Recognizing that the Court has issued shocking opinions in the past, the few pieces of information we have about the Court’s thinking suggest it is not preparing to create new presidential powers.
An alternative explanation is that some members of the Court are drafting lengthy, angry dissents because the majority will not go along with Trump’s extreme vision of the “unitary executive theory” that essentially posits that “Trump can do whatever he wants.”
During oral argument, most justices seemed skeptical that Trump could impose worldwide reciprocal tariffs on the basis of a manufactured emergency. See SCOTUS Blog, Court appears dubious of Trump’s tariffs.
Moreover, Trump has been blasting the Supreme Court on social media, saying that a decision invalidating tariffs would “screw” the US. It’s almost as if Trump has been tipped off by a justice, law clerk, or spouse of a justice to expect an adverse decision. While that would be wrong, there have been several high-profile cases of leaks from the Supreme Court in advance of the release of important opinions. See Wikipedia, List of United States Supreme Court leaks.
If the Court were to invalidate Trump’s authority to issue tariffs under the International Economic Emergencies Powers Act, the opinion would invalidate most of the tariffs imposed by Trump during his first year in office—including the threatened tariffs against the eight European countries that participated in joint military exercises in support of Greenland.
Reports regarding “ready to deploy” orders to 1,500 paratroopers
Reports emerged over the weekend that the Army had issued “ready to deploy” orders to 1,500 members of the 11th Airborne Division, based at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. See Axios, Pentagon prepares troops as Trump considers Minnesota deployment: reports.
It is not clear when those orders were issued. Last Friday, Trump appeared to back down from threats to invoke the Insurrection Act—which is the only way that members of the 11th Airborne Division could be deployed in the US. Because ICES continues to arrest and detain immigrants subject to deportation, there is no evidence that protesters have prevented the operation of federal law. In the absence of that element, there is no good faith basis to invoke the Insurrection Act.
Alternatively, some readers have emailed to ask whether the paratroopers might be deployed to Greenland. I doubt it. The last option the Trump administration wants to pursue regarding Greenland is military invasion. Indeed, the US already has a base on Greenland, so the troops could simply be sent to an existing base—not as conquerors taking over a sovereign nation.
