A Senate Democrat is demanding that the Trump administration refund billions in tariff revenue to Americans following last week’s Supreme Court decision, according to a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump charging that he was concerned over the White House’s ‘lack of action’ to issue refunds to families and small businesses impacted by tariffs.
His appeal to the president comes after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision last week that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law undergirding his sweeping duties, ‘does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.’
‘The invalidation of these IEEPA tariffs is a chance to make American families and small businesses whole — not to retain unlawfully collected funds or enable additional corporate profit,’ Gallego wrote.
Gallego’s letter comes as Congress wrestles with its next move on tariffs and as Trump has vowed to sidestep lawmakers in his quest to continue levying duties on other countries.
Some Republicans want to see Trump’s tariffs considered through budget reconciliation — the same party-line move used to pass his ‘big, beautiful bill’ last year — to meet the deliberative parameters established in the court’s decision.
Others think Trump doesn’t need to come to Congress. The president already moved to reinstate 10% tariffs that are set to last for 150 days and will require lawmakers to weigh in on continuing them.
Several congressional Democrats want to see the administration tender full refunds from the billions raked in under Trump’s tariffs — 25 Senate Democrats back a newly introduced bill led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to refund all duties with interest.
And Gallego specifically wants guardrails to ensure that money ends up in the hands of families and small businesses.
‘Absent action from this administration, over $100 billion in tariff revenue collected under those unlawful tariffs will not make it into the hands of American families and small businesses but instead will remain either in government coffers or in corporate accounts,’ Gallego wrote.
Since the start of the current fiscal year in October, Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are estimated to have generated roughly $155 billion, according to data from the Treasury Department.
He also raised concerns about large corporations taking advantage of the ‘chaotic and expansive nature of the IEEPA tariffs’ to crank up prices on products in response to the duties.
Gallego included several requests of the administration in his letter to be met no later than March 4, including whether the administration will issue tariff refunds, who will be eligible, how much revenue has been collected as of Feb. 20 and whether corporations will be required to disclose tariff costs passed on to consumers, among several others.
He also warned that corporations, armed with the financial firepower to hire ‘high-priced lawyers and lobbyists,’ would have a leg up on Americans without the same means.
‘Without your administration providing a structured process to determine how refunds should be distributed, American families and small businesses will once again be left behind,’ Gallego wrote.
Related Article
Democrats cheer Supreme Court move blocking Trump tariffs — despite past support for trade duties
January saw Americans grow markedly more pessimistic about the economy. The Conference Board reported that its Consumer Confidence Index fell almost ten points in one month, reaching its lowest level since 2014. Consumers reported worsening views of current market conditions, as well as a sharp reduction in expectations regarding job prospects and income for the upcoming months.
Upon initial review, this pessimism appears hard to square with recent headlines. Employers seem to be adding jobs; measured output has not fallen; consumers in the aggregate are still spending more in nominal terms than they were last year. This has led commentators to label this drop in confidence merely a perception problem.
Market participants, however, do not react to abstract aggregates. They are responding to what they are directly experiencing: rising prices, tighter budgets, and uncertainty about future opportunities and job prospects. This is not the result of some vague uneasiness. Rather, it captures concrete concerns that broad economic averages often smooth over.
Yes, the index regarding current conditions fell, and fell sharply. According to the Conference Board, the share of respondents who said jobs are “plentiful” fell to 23.9 percent, while the share saying jobs are “hard to get” rose to 20.8 percent. These data do not come from individuals attempting to judge macroeconomic trends. Rather, they were evaluations of lived labor-market constraints. Even if employment totals remain positive in the aggregate, such a tallying cannot capture changes in perceived difficulty in finding or changing jobs. People do not consult nationwide aggregates when considering whether it is easy or difficult to find jobs. Almost no one searches for “a US job,” but for specific jobs in specific locations requiring specific skill sets.
A teacher searches for openings in a particular district. A laid-off marketing analyst seeks firms hiring in his specialty. The welder wants fabrication work within driving distance. No individual experiences the labor market in aggregates, but through concrete localized opportunities. An economy can add jobs on paper while many struggle to find positions suited to their skills and geography. This reality does not make their pessimism purely emotional.
Perhaps the more striking deterioration was in expectations. Consumers’ outlook for income, business conditions, and employment over the coming six months deteriorated to levels typically associated with an impending recession. More specifically, the Expectations Index dropped to 65.1, well below the 80 that often signals an upcoming downturn. Only about 15 percent of respondents expect business conditions to improve. These expectations will obviously shape household decisions about major purchases, savings, and career moves.
Moreover, the decline was not contained to certain socio-economic demographics. Reuters reports that sentiments fell across income and age groups, including higher-income households that typically are a little more optimistic than other groups during moderate economic stress. This hints that the collapse is not merely the result of lower-income hardship but a more generalized perception that economic conditions are less favorable.
This is further illustrated by the qualitative responses in the survey. Consumers cited high prices — namely, necessities like groceries and gasoline — as persistent concerns. As noted by Peter Earle, consumer goods like coffee, eggs, and chicken are still priced well above pre-COVID levels. Even a three-percent reduction in gasoline prices in the last year is outweighed by the 21 percent increase since 2019.
Mentions in survey responses of trade policy, tariffs, and political uncertainty rose as well, as did labor-market insecurity and health-related costs. Manufacturing employment continues to fall in this tariff era, shedding roughly 70,000 jobs after tariffs were raised from about 2.4 percent to around 10 percent. Even if these jobs are offset by job gains in some other sector elsewhere, displaced workers still have reason to be less confident about their own prospects.
These concerns reflect specific and notable pressures on households’ budgets and long-term planning.
Here enters one of the major issues of the aggregates. Measures like GDP, average wages, and employment totals merely summarize overall activity, obviously. What they fail to capture are economic realities like distribution and sustainability — and whether growth positively impacts a household’s ability to plan for the future. Nominal consumption can rise as real purchasing power stagnates; employment can grow as job mobility declines. Aggregate output can increase while economic freedom and flexibility decrease. When we understand this, then divergences between consumer confidence and aggregate economic indicators become more intelligible.
Even assuming aggregate statistics are well-suited to measure motion in an economy (a point not necessarily granted, but simply set aside for the sake of this article), they cannot measure coordination or economic viability. They tell us how much supposed economic activity is occurring, but not whether such activity reflects consumer preferences, actual economic realities, or even economic resilience. Consumer confidence, while also an aggregate of sorts, seeks to provide a general judgment about opportunity, security, and constraint. When assessments of conditions and expectations simultaneously deteriorate, that hints at a more fundamental issue than mood swings by consumers.
To be clear, consumer confidence is not a comprehensive measure of economic health. Survey responses reflect personal experience and expectations, which can be incomplete or mistaken, but still have relevant impact because individuals act upon those attitudes. But the primary trap here is the treatment of low confidence as simply irrational pessimism. When consumers consistently report anxiety about the job market, income, and future conditions, they are not necessarily misunderstanding the economy. Instead, they may be pointing to specific structural pressures aggregates cannot detect. Rising costs, reduced labor mobility, and policy uncertainty all weigh heavily on confidence while remaining somewhat invisible to headline economic data.
So, we return to the central question: when consumer confidence collapses amid positive economic aggregates, which one is lying? Perhaps neither, but they are both needed if we wish to understand the state of the economy. Aggregate statistics are intended to measure total activity. So be it. But total activity is not the end-all, be-all of economic health. Consumer confidence seeks to reveal whether such activity is translating into security, flexibility, and confidence about the future.
If economic growth increasingly takes the form of superficial statistical expansion rather than authentic improvements in economic coordination, then falling confidence is not a puzzle, nor something to ignore. It is, instead, a warning that the economy is possibly wasting resources in the name of increasing numbers. This, of course, completely inverts the entire purpose of the economy — the proper coordination of scarce resources in accordance with people’s needs.
Free-market capitalism still delivers the goods. But its political coalition is fracturing — and that should worry anyone who cares about prosperity and freedom.
Recent Gallup polling on Americans’ views of capitalism and socialism shows that just 54 percent now view capitalism favorably, the lowest Gallup has recorded. Views of socialism remain much lower at 39 percent, but the direction matters. Support for capitalism has fallen notably over time, especially among independents and younger Americans.
The partisan breakdown is even more revealing. Republicans remain strongly pro-capitalist, though support has softened slightly. Independents now only narrowly favor capitalism. And among Democrats, fewer than half view capitalism positively, while nearly two-thirds view socialism favorably. As earlier Gallup polling on capitalism and socialism shows, this pattern has been developing for years.
Here’s the hard truth: those of us who defend free-market capitalism are unlikely to persuade most Democrats anytime soon. The data confirm it. Democrats often like the outcomes of capitalism — jobs, innovation, higher living standards — but reject the label, associating it with inequality or corporate power.
That alone wouldn’t be alarming. Political disagreement is normal. What is alarming is where capitalism is losing ground next.
A System of Liberty, Not Privilege
True capitalism is grounded in private property, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law. It treats individuals as decision-makers in their own lives — not subjects of top-down control. It decentralizes power, rewards value creation, and invites experimentation, allowing people to say “yes” to opportunity without asking permission from bureaucrats or politicians.
This idea is old — and proven. Adam Smith’s explanation of voluntary exchange captured it 250 years ago in The Wealth of Nations: “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker that we get our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In a system of voluntary exchange, people seeking to serve themselves must first serve others. Prices convey information, profits signal value creation, and losses expose waste — the core of the price mechanism in a free-market economy.
The process isn’t perfect, but it’s far superior to the alternatives. As Milton Friedman argued in his critique of big government, markets work because they respect people’s ability to decide, adapt, and improve through cooperation — not central command.
The Real Warning in the Gallup Data
The most troubling signal in the Gallup polling isn’t Democratic skepticism. It’s the erosion among independents and younger Americans — groups that historically decide elections and shape long-term political trends.
Independents still lean pro-capitalist, but their support has fallen. Younger Americans overwhelmingly support small business and free enterprise, yet are increasingly ambivalent toward “capitalism” as a system. That suggests confusion, not rejection.
Even more concerning is what’s happening on the right.
A growing faction of Republicans — often labeled “national conservatives” or “populists” — is openly abandoning free-market principles in favor of state-directed outcomes. They argue for industrial policy, trade protectionism, expanded subsidies, and heavier regulation, all justified as necessary to achieve cultural, national, or political goals.
This matters because it breaks the traditional coalition that defended markets across parties.
When Both Sides Drift Toward Bigger Government
Gallup’s data show Americans are overwhelmingly positive toward small business (95 percent) and free enterprise (81 percent), while holding deeply negative views of big business. That gap tells us people still believe in markets — but not in a system that feels rigged and political.
The left responds by calling for more government control. Some on the right now respond by calling for different forms of government control. The mechanism is the same.
Whether it’s progressive redistribution or nationalist industrial policy, the solution offered is top-down power — politicians picking outcomes, overriding prices, and directing capital. History shows this doesn’t fix capitalism’s problems; it replaces markets with politics.
As the fallacy of corporate subsidies makes clear, once the government starts steering the economy, competition weakens, insiders win, and ordinary people lose. Bigger government doesn’t become more precise — it becomes more entrenched — regardless of which party is in charge.
Capitalism’s Problem Is Not About Performance
The Gallup results don’t show a rejection of capitalism’s benefits. They show a rejection of cronyism mislabeled as capitalism. Americans like choice, competition, small businesses, innovation, and opportunity — all products of free-market capitalism.
What they don’t like are bailouts, favoritism, barriers to entry, and rules that protect the powerful — outcomes caused by policy distortions, not markets. Policies such as occupational licensing that create barriers to opportunity or housing restrictions raise costs and block entry, especially for younger Americans. When those failures are blamed on “capitalism,” skepticism grows.
This is why the fight matters most outside the Democratic base. If independents, young people, and market-friendly conservatives drift toward bigger government — just with different slogans — the long-run prospects for freedom dim.
The Moral Case — and the Evidence
Beyond efficiency, capitalism rests on a moral foundation. Markets respect individuals’ dignity to pursue their own conception of the good life. They reward service, not status. They generate progress through experimentation and feedback. And they decentralize power, protecting against tyranny.
The evidence is overwhelming. In 1820, more than 90 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is under 10 percent, as shown by data on extreme poverty over time. Life expectancy has doubled. Child mortality has collapsed. Access to goods and services, once considered luxuries, has become common.
What drove this transformation? Not redistribution or industrial planning. It was the spread of market institutions: open trade, secure property rights, sound money, and the freedom to invest and innovate. The comparisons are instructive — East v. West Germany, North v. South Korea, Venezuela v. Chile. Where markets are embraced, prosperity follows. Where they’re suppressed, poverty and repression prevail.
Reclaiming Capitalism
The polling tells us the challenge ahead is not convincing Democrats who already favor more government. It is rebuilding confidence among the persuadable middle and preventing the right from abandoning markets in favor of control.
The path forward isn’t to redefine capitalism, but to reclaim it: restore sound money, limit government favoritism, secure property rights, open competition, and remove barriers that trap workers and families. And we must explain — not just defend — why free-market capitalism remains the best path to prosperity.
Public skepticism is rising, yet the moral and empirical case for capitalism has never been stronger.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said Thursday that his country could ‘completely destroy’ South Korea if it feels threatened, escalating rhetoric while ruling out renewed talks.
Speaking at North Korea’s week-long Ninth Congress of the ruling Workers’ Party in Pyongyang, Kim labeled South Korea the ‘most hostile enemy’ and said ‘the conciliatory attitude that South Korea’s current government advocates on the surface is clumsily deceptive and crude,’ according to state media Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
Kim said North Korea ‘can initiate arbitrary action’ if South Korea engages in ‘obnoxious behavior’ directed at his country, dismissing recent efforts by Seoul to improve relations.
‘South Korea’s complete collapse cannot be ruled out,’ Kim said, according to KCNA.
During the congress, Kim outlined sweeping five-year policy goals centered on expanding North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. The country is believed to possess around 50 warheads and enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more, according to an estimate last year from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
The North Korean leader said the country’s ‘international status has risen extraordinarily.’
‘It is our party’s firm will to further expand and strengthen our national nuclear power, and thoroughly exercise its status as a nuclear state,’ Kim said, according to KCNA. ‘We will focus on projects to increase the number of nuclear weapons and expand nuclear operational means.’
Kim laid out plans for North Korea to develop more advanced intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of underwater launches, along with artificial intelligence-driven weapons systems and unmanned drones, KCNA reported.
Kim, who met with President Donald Trump three times during Trump’s first term, signaled he may be open to future negotiations with Washington but placed responsibility squarely on the United States.
‘Whether it’s peaceful coexistence or permanent confrontation, we are ready for either, and the choice is not ours to make,’ he said.
Kim said that if the U.S ‘withdraws its policy of confrontation’ with North Korea and acknowledges the country’s ‘current status,’ there would be ‘no reason why we cannot get along well with the U.S.’
Following the congress, Kim’s teenage daughter attended a military parade in Pyongyang on Wednesday, according to KCNA. Ju Ae, believed to be 13 or 14, was photographed standing beside her father and senior military leaders.
Her appearance comes after South Korean media reported that Kim recently gave her a leadership role in the regime’s powerful ‘Missile Administration,’ which oversees Pyongyang’s nuclear forces.
Fox News Digital’s Emma Bussey, along with Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Related Article
Trump says he’d be willing to extend Asia trip to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un
Precious metals are recovering their safe-haven demand appeal this week.
Gold, silver and platinum are up this week, all still down from the all-time highs recorded in January. Escalating geopolitical tensions and US trade policy shifts are once again at center stage in this sector of the commodities market.
Let’s take a look at what’s got the precious metals moving over the past week.
Gold price
After dropping as low as US$4,400 per ounce on February 2, this past week gold has taken another run well above the key psychological US$5,000 mark; albeit still hundreds of dollars away from its record high of close to US$5,600 reached on January 28.
After trading in a tight range of US$4,985 to US$5,000 for much of Thursday (February 19), the price of gold managed to rise as high as US$5,107 on Friday. That upward climb continued on Monday (February 23) to an intraday high of US$5,248 — a level gold hasn’t seen in a month.
The yellow metal lost that steam by Tuesday’s close with the precious metal trading back down at US$5,143. By Wednesday morning, gold was once again making a run at the US$5,200 level to reach an intraday high of US$5,217.58 at 9:10 a.m. PST. However, it couldn’t hang on for long, sinking back down to US$5,166.25 as of 1:40pm PST on profit-taking and a stronger dollar.
Gold price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.
Here are the primary drivers for gold this past week:
Dips this week were brought on by slight downward pressure due to profit-taking and a stronger US dollar.
In other gold news, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) raised its gold forecast to US$6,300 by the end of 2026, citing a ‘reserve currency paradigm shift’ as countries diversify away from the dollar, and ‘significant investor diversification’.
Looking at major events in the gold mining sector, Kinross Gold’s (TSX:K,NYSE:KGC) Great Bear development in the Red Lake district of Ontario, Canada, has been designated for a reduced permitting timeline under the provincial government’s One Project, One Process (1P1P) framework. 1P1P is a streamlined approval system aimed at reducing government review times by 50 percent. The high-grade, combined open-pit and underground operation is expected to produce more than 500,000 ounces of gold annually during its peak years.
Silver price
The price of silver is still well below its all-time high of more than US$120 per ounce it reached on January 29, 2026. For the most part, the white metal continued to track the same trends as gold this week.
Like gold, silver traded sideways Thursday (February 19) in the US$77.50 to US$78.50 range, and then surged the following day to an intraday high of US$84.61.
For most of Monday (February 23), silver continued higher but at a much slower pace, to reach as high as US$88.96. Tuesday brought another day of tight trading in the US$86.70 to US$88.10; however, by Wednesday morning the silver price had managed to break through the US$90 level on the same safe-haven demand forces pushing gold prices higher this week.
The price of silver hit an intraday high of US$91.15 at 11:55am PST before sliding back down below US$89 in the afternoon session.
Silver price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.
Silver may still not be back into the triple digits, but its showing strong support despite a slump in artificial intelligence (AI) tech stocks. Silver, the most electrically and thermally conductive metal on the planet, is considered a key material for AI tech, particularly in data centers and high-performance computing. Silver is also in a structural supply deficit which continues to provide upward pressure on silver prices
In silver mining news, Lundin Gold (TSX:LUG,OTCQX:LUGDF) announced a US$670 million silver stream deal with LunR Royalties (TSXV:LUNR) on its Fruta del Norte mine.
Platinum price
Platinum continues to be one of the top performing metals, reaching a 12-year high in recent weeks. This past week it has gained more than 8 percent. Sideways trading on Thursday (February 19) turned into an upward climb on Friday with prices for platinum rising from a low of US$2,060.10 to a high of US$2,117.40 per ounce.
The first few days of this new week were marked by volatility with wider price swings. The platinum price reached a three week high of US$2,226.30 in late day trading Tuesday. The jump was driven by a combination of geopolitical tensions, trade uncertainty, and structural supply constraints.
Platinum continued its ascent in overnight trading, reaching as high as US$2,360.50 in early morning trading, and managed to finish off the day just below the US$2,300 level.
Platinum price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.
Platinum prices are benefitting from renewed tariff jitters, geopolitical safe-haven demand, and persistent supply tightness from major producer South Africa.
The emerging hydrogen economy is also adding to demand for the metal on top of robust demand from the auto sector. Consumers are shifting back toward internal combustion engine and diesel vehicles as hurdles to EV adoption remain challenging. This is highly supportive of demand for platinum as its primary use is in automotive catalysts.
On the supply side, global platinum reserves remain critically low, especially as the world’s biggest producer South Africa continues to be plagued by power shortages and operational disruptions.
In platinum mining news, Valterra Platinum declared a dividend of 45 rand a share for a total 2025 payout of 12 billion rand (US$757 million) after its net income more than doubled to 15.4 billion rand. Bloomberg reported that the size of the dividend “smashed analyst expectations as earnings jumped last year on soaring metals prices”.
Palladium price
Palladium has been the black sheep of the precious metals family for the past few years, remaining well below its March 2022 all-time record of US$3,440.76 per ounce.
On Thursday (February 19), unlike its sister metals, palladium rallied 4.8 percent to an intraday high of US$1,767.50. The metal closed out last week with another nearly 3.9 percent gain to US$1,836.
On Monday, palladium lost some of that ground to close out the day at US$1,820. After dipping to a low of US$1,763 in early morning trading on Tuesday, the price of the metal regained those losses and more by the end of the trading day reaching as high as US$1,843.
Wednesday (February 25) morning brought a spike in palladium prices to US$1,935 as the metal went along for the same ride as platinum, before falling back to the US$1,860 level in afternoon trading.
Palladium price chart, February 18, 2026 to February 25, 2026.
As is the case with platinum, demand for palladium is getting support from the auto sector. Rising prices for platinum are leading automakers to make the swap to palladium.
The US Department of Commerce’s preliminary statement of support for anti-dumping duties of approximately 133 percent on unwrought Russian palladium imports is still shaping the outlook for palladium on the supply side. This follows a petition from Sibanye-Stillwater (NYSE:SBSW) over allegations that Russian metal is being sold in the US at less than fair value. A final decision is expected in the case by June of this year.
Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Dubbed a “central bottleneck of the electrified future,” copper demand is expected to far exceed supply. A recent outlook from S&P Global projects the market could face a shortfall of up to 10 million metric tons by 2040.
Against this backdrop, Domestic Metals (TSXV:DMCU) offers a timely opportunity for investors. Listed on TSX Venture Exchange, OTCQB and Frankfurt Stock Exchange, the company is advancing its flagship Smart Creek Project in Montana, targeting discovery of a porphyry system and a carbonate replacement deposit (CRD).
Smart Creek’s potential is further bolstered by its proximity to significant discoveries like Ivanhoe Electric’s (NYSEAmerican:IE,TSX:IE) Hog Heaven project, which announced the intersection of a porphyry copper-gold-molybdenum system within a large, deep anomaly.
Company Highlights
Exceptional Surface Grades: The 2025 field campaign returned high-grade samples, highlighted by 102 g/t gold, 23.1 percent copper, and 3,810 g/t silver.
World-Class Team: Dr. Peter Megaw, a globally recognized authority on Carbonate Replacement Deposits (CRDs) and discoverer of MAG Silver’s Juanicipio, has joined the team to guide exploration, together with President & CEO Gordon Neal who has had a successful track record building MAG Silver and New Pacific Metals
Mining-Friendly Jurisdiction: Operations are focused in Montana, USA, a mining-friendly state ranked 6th in 2024 by the Fraser Institute for investment attractiveness, with a legacy of massive production at the nearby Butte Mine.
This Domestic Metals profile is part of a paid investor education campaign.*
Click here to connect with Domestic Metals (TSXV:DMCU) to receive an Investor Presentation
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin were involved in a heated back and forth during a Senate hearing Tuesday that sparked immediate reactions across social media.
‘Everybody we bring up here, you guys chastised for trying to make changes,’ Mullin said during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing Wednesday. The committee was discussing issues with Obamacare during a hearing on the nomination of Casey Means as U.S. surgeon general.
‘God forbid we change and try to fix our broken system,’ Mullin continued. ‘Anyway, I ranted too long.’
As Mullin was attempting to return to the topic, he was cut off by Sanders, who said, ‘Yes, you did.’
Mullin responded, ‘I’m sorry. I didn’t ask your opinion on that, and if I cared about your opinion I would ask you. But I don’t care about your opinion. You’re part of the system. You’re part of the problem. You’ve been sitting here longer than I’ve even been alive. This is your problem. You should have fixed this a long time ago. You’ve been railing on it for so long. What have you been doing?’
Sanders responded by sarcastically saying, ‘I decided not to run for surgeon general, You’re the nominee I’ve decided.’
‘That is definitely something we would never accept,’ Mullin said before moving on.
The exchange was quickly picked up by conservatives on social media, including from ‘Charlie Kirk Show’ executive producer Andrew Kolvet, who wrote in a post on X that ‘things did not end well for the octogenarian socialist’ after he took a ‘cheap shot’ at Mullin.
‘That’s what his commie supporters can’t figure out,’ comedian Tim Young posted on X. ‘Bernie has been in office so long that he should have solved their problems by now.’
‘Finally,’ journalist Anna Matson posted on X. ‘Someone put Bernie Sanders in his place. He’s all talk and no action. He’s been in office longer than I’ve been alive and he has nothing to show for it.’
‘Swamp being DRAINED,’ political and sports commentator Dan Dakich posted on X.
‘HOLY SMOKES,’ conservative journalist Eric Daughterty posted on X. ‘Sen. Markwayne Mullin just PUMMELED Bernie Sanders to his FACE.’
Senate clashes involving Sanders and Mullin have been increasingly common in recent years, including a viral moment in 2023 when Mullin and Teamsters President Sean O’Brien almost came to blows during an exchange Sanders was in the middle of.
In December, the two clashed on the Senate floor, also over Obamacare, in an exchange that Mullin posted on X in which he referred to Sanders as ‘The Grinch’ and said the Vermont senator ‘blocked our bipartisan bill, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act, to give kids fighting cancer more treatment options.’
Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Mullin and Sanders for comment.
Related Article
Medical watchdog challenges key study used to justify DEI health policies: ‘Scientifically unsound’
Prominent figures from across the media, business and political landscapes showed up as guests to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening.
Notable attendees included Erika Kirk, the widowed wife of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, David Ellison, the media mogul and CEO of Paramount, and Kevin O’Leary, the Shark Tank media personality and businessman.
Several of the more notable attendees were highlighted by Trump during his address.
Kirk received a mention from the president as he condemned political violence of all kinds in his address.
‘We must all come together to reaffirm that America is one nation under God, and we must totally reject political violence of any kind,’ Trump said.
Charlie Kirk, who was just 31-years-old at the time of his death, was killed by a gunman on Sept. 10, 2025, while conducting a political debate event at Utah Valley University.
The U.S. men’s hockey team also made an appearance on Tuesday, receiving praise from Trump fresh off their gold medal victory in the 2026 Winter Olympic Games.
‘Congratulations to team U.S.A.,’ Trump said as the players streamed into the chamber during the address.
Trump also highlighted guests brought by others, like First Lady Melania Trump. She invited 10-year-old Everest Nevraumont, a youth advocate for education through artificial intelligence.
‘I challenge keeping America’s next generation positioned to succeed and strongly succeed in the future,’ Trump said.
Trump also used guests like Enrique Márquez, a former political prisoner of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, to remind audiences of his international achievements under his second administration.
In early 2026, the U.S. stormed Venezuela’s capitol city and captured Maduro, giving Trump newfound leverage in negotiations over the country’s future.
‘We’re working closely with the new president of Venezuela to unleash extraordinary economic gains for both of our countries,’ Trump said.
The White House reunited Márquez with his family at the State of the Union.
Trump also awarded the Purple Heart to Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe and deceased Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, two National Guard members who were critically injured and fatally shot by a gunman who ambushed them while on duty last year in Washington, D.C.
‘I’m going to ask a highly respected General James Seward to present Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe and the great family of Sarah Beckstrom, with the award created by our late, great president, George Washington himself,’ Trump, who invited her parents as his State of the Union guests, said. ‘It’s called the Purple Heart. We love you all.’
As Trump spoke, Major General James ‘Jim’ D. Seward, Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard, presented Specialist Beckstrom’s medal to her parents and pinned the Purple Heart on Staff Sergeant Wolfe in the viewing gallery above.
Guests like O’Leary and Ellison did not receive a shoutout from the president, but mingled with multiple lawmakers.
O’Leary, primarily known for his television presence on ABC’s Shark Tank, owns companies like O’Leary Ventures and O’Leary Fine Wines.
In recent years, O’Leary has surfaced as a political commentator, giving his thoughts on the effectiveness of political party messaging, voter sentiments and more.
Ellison is the current chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance Corporation keeps a relatively low political profile but, in the past, has made several high-dollar donations to many Democratic candidates despite now calling himself a friend of President Trump.
Trump has boasted publicly about a personal relationship with Ellison.
Most recently, Ellison has made headlines for his attempt to purchase Warner Bros. Discovery — a move that would solidify Ellison and Paramount as titans in the media world.
He was seen walking into the House of Representatives on Tuesday alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who invited him.
‘Honored to have David Ellison as my guest to POTUS’ State of the Union address this evening,’ Graham said in a post to X.
Related Article
5 times Democrats disrupted Trump’s State of the Union address
Russian-operated shadow tankers carrying millions of dollars in sanctioned oil are transiting the English Channel, raising warnings of a potential military confrontation in NATO waters, according to reports.
The movements came amid heightened tensions between Russia and NATO, with the Royal Navy stepping up surveillance of U.S.- and allied-sanctioned vessels in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.
Sky News reported Wednesday that as many as 800 shadow tankers had passed through the channel, and continue to bankroll Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.
Several Russia-linked oil tankers — including the Rigel, Hyperion and Kousai — have been tracked by VesselFinder and are known to be under Western sanctions.
The outlet reported that three of the vessels were monitored this month as they transited loaded with sanctioned crude.
The Rigel, an 885-foot Suezmax-class tanker sailing under a Cameroonian flag, left the Russian port of Primorsk on Feb. 2, with up to one million barrels of oil, a cargo valued at around $55 million.
Sanctioned by the U.K., the EU and Canada, it is barred from using port facilities in those jurisdictions but is still permitted ‘innocent passage’ under maritime law.
The Kousai, sailing under a Sierra Leonean flag, left Ust-Luga on Feb. 2, and was warned by authorities to provide proof of insurance within 24 hours.
The Hyperion, also sanctioned by the U.S., switched flags after delivering oil to Venezuela, to obscure ownership and evade enforcement, according to reports.
Security experts warned of an increased risk of geopolitical escalation in the region.
]Professor Michael Clarke told Sky News that there may come a point when Britain and its allies ‘get much tougher with these Russian ships,’ adding that a ‘militarized confrontation at sea’ this year is a real possibility, in the Channel or the North Sea.
A U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) spokesperson said: ‘Deterring, disrupting and degrading the Russian shadow fleet is a priority for this government.
‘Alongside our allies, we are stepping up our response to shadow vessels — and as the Secretary of State set out, we will continue to do so,’ the spokesperson said.
The MoD said it has requested proof of insurance from more than 600 suspected vessels since October 2024.
The U.S. has also taken a firm stance, seizing at least seven tankers linked to sanctioned oil trades since December 2025, including several in the Caribbean.
Related Article
Second tanker seized near Venezuela as US enforces oil blockade
Clem Chambers, CEO of aNewFN.com, explains why he sold his gold and silver, and where he’s looking next, mentioning the copper and oil sectors.
He also speaks about the importance of staying positive as an investor: ‘The media negativity is the most wealth-crushing thing you can fall for. So be positive. Work hard at it. Be on the front foot. Look for opportunities. Think hard about it. Study. You will do so well.’
Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
