Trump Says He's Still Looking 'Seriously' At Sending $2,000 Tariff Rebate Payments

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has said in a recent interview that his administration is still considering sending out $2,000 payments to Americans derived from his tariffs.

During an interview with Trump on NBC News published on Feb. 4, host Tom Llamas noted that the president “floated the idea of $2,000 rebate checks for Americans from tariff revenue” and asked him, “Who’s going to get that and—when is that going to happen?”

Trump responded by saying that he is “looking at it very seriously” and that he is “the only one” who can issue such payments because his administration is “taking in hundreds of billions of dollars of money from tariffs.”

When pressed by Llamas on whether he would “promise some Americans” could get the payments, Trump said, “I can do that. I haven’t made the commitment yet, but I may make the commitment,” without elaborating.

The president then pivoted to saying that his administration provided a $1,776 dividend payment to members of the military in a move that was detailed by the IRS and the Pentagon last month.

Dividend payments derived from the administration’s sweeping tariff regime were floated by Trump in November 2025.

While some White House officials have said the $2,000 payments would need an act of Congress, Trump signaled last month he can unilaterally issue them.

He and others in the administration have indicated there would be limits on income and said that the payments would be sent to non-wealthy Americans.

“I don’t think we would have to go to the Congress, but we’ll find out,” Trump told reporters on Jan. 20, adding that “the reason we’re even talking about it is that we have so much money coming in from tariffs.”

But he added that with the tariffs, the administration “will be able to make a very substantial dividend to the people of our country.”

Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that Congress would need to pass legislation before the payments could be sent, while National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett made a similar comment in November that legislation would be needed first.

Some Republican lawmakers have said they would be willing to support legislation to send tariff rebate checks to people. Among them is Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who introduced a measure in 2025 that would send rebates to workers, although the payment appears to be lower—$600 per adult and $600 per dependent child, totaling $2,400 for a family of four—than the checks proposed by Trump.

Trump’s tariffs are still being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling on a lawsuit challenging the legality of the import taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. It’s not clear when the high court is slated to rule on the tariffs.

Tariffs could still be imposed by the administration, said Trump and Bessent, under different authorities. However, Trump has warned that imposing them would be more cumbersome and a slower process without using the 1977 law.

Last April, Trump imposed tariffs on nearly every country in the world and has argued that the United States has been victimized by other nations for decades on trade. In other instances, he’s said the tariffs can be used to end wars and to put pressure on countries that aren’t aligned with U.S. national security interests.

Democratic lawmakers have been critical of the tariff policies. During a contentious House hearing this week, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told Bessent that she believes the tariffs have increased “prices across the board,” including for housing and lumber, and claimed the administration has been “waging a war” against U.S. consumers.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 15:00

Pam Bondi's DOJ Is Sabotaging The Trump Coalition

Authored by John Velleco, Executive Vice President Gun Owners of America,

In November 2024, the American people decisively elected President Trump to a second term in office. After four intolerable years of controlled national demolition under the Biden autopen, the newly elected 47th President was poised to keep his promises and fulfill his mandate.

President Trump had the opportunity to stop the federal government’s leftward push, steer the government back in the right direction, and make significant and lasting progress in that new direction. That third point is the most critical. Indeed, without permanent change, President Trump’s historic election – and this nation’s generational opportunity to course-correct – will turn out to have been nothing more than a momentary pause in America’s long-term decline.

Yet inexplicably, the Trump Administration has failed to take even basic steps to effect permanent change. For example, the Administration often has taken the easy path of using temporary Executive Orders rather than insisting on permanent legislation. Of course, Executive Orders are temporary, and can be undone by any future President with the stroke of a pen.

The same dynamic exists in the world of litigation, where Pam Bondi’s DOJ has chosen the temporary fix over the permanent solution. In addition to having repeatedly bungled implementation of President Trump’s agenda, Bondi’s DOJ has deliberately avoided letting cases reach final judgment.

For example, DOJ has repeatedly attempted to moot litigation involving Biden-era policies, even after a judge seems on the verge of striking down those bad policies through a precedent-setting decision. Yet all this tactic does is ensure that a future Democrat administration will be able to put these Biden policies right back into effect.

But why would the Bondi DOJ work so hard to prevent lasting victories in court for Trump Coalition interests? Indeed, with DOJ friends like that, who needs enemies? If the Bondi DOJ’s hostility to the groups that made up the Trump Coalition in 2024 continues, it will seriously damage any chance of success in the 2026 midterms. This article will examine the Bondi DOJ’s infuriating pattern of obstruction, sabotage, and outright friendly fire against the Trump Coalition and ask one simple question: Why?

DOJ’s Failure to Implement the President’s Mandate

But first, let’s examine what DOJ could have done in service of the American people during this past year. As it turns out, DOJ has a number of legal tools available that it inexplicably has declined to use.

Consider the role litigation plays in shaping domestic policy. A court order can bind the government to a certain legal interpretation or specific course of conduct, and generally will survive a change in administrations. Thus, if the federal government is a party to a lawsuit, a court order against it can codify policy – good or bad.

So what happens when a new administration inherits an ongoing lawsuit that was originally brought by its political allies against the prior administration? Well, in the past, DOJ often has simply settled cases, either privately or via court-enforceable consent judgment. Perhaps to no one’s surprise, this tactic has been a favorite of Democrat administrations.   The Biden DOJ’s handling of a prior Trump-era lawsuit illustrates the point.

When Biden took office in 2021, his DOJ inherited a pending ACLU-led lawsuit against the first Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration enforcement policy. Rather than litigate the case any further, the Biden DOJ settled with its friends at the ACLU, barring the federal government “from reenacting the zero-tolerance policy” until 2031, and agreeing to pay the ACLU some $6 million in attorneys’ fees to boot.

In addition to settling cases, DOJ also can (and has) let its friends’ lawsuits play out. For example, if a judge appears poised to rule in favor of an outcome the administration wants, DOJ can simply wait for that ruling. Then, not only will the federal government be bound by that ruling, but also it will generate favorable legal precedent for use in future cases.

The same options would be available if new lawsuits were to be filed during the administration – settle with allies when they are right, or let the courts issue decisions on the merits. But we are not talking about using the Democrat tactic often dubbed “sue and settle.” Democrat administrations have abused this tactic to “compel government action that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to achieve.”

In fact, During the Obama years, many of the administration’s environmental regulations came about from these sorts of “sue and settle” pre-arranged consent decrees. Although we are not urging the use of such sham lawsuits, it’s worth noting that this is the tactic the Democrats use to get what they want.

In stark contrast to the Democrats’ underhanded “sue and settle” tactics, Pam Bondi’s DOJ has refused to allow Trump Coalition victories even in legitimate litigation that has been ongoing for years. Instead, Pam Bondi’s DOJ has fought tooth and nail to make suits filed by Trump Coalition groups simply go away.

Gun Rights

We at Gun Owners of America (GOA) have experienced DOJ’s inexplicable resistance firsthand. Although our Second Amendment lawsuits are by no means the only Trump Coalition causes torpedoed by Pam Bondi’s Justice Department, they are quintessential examples of this worrying trend.

During both his 2024 election campaign and when taking office in January of 2025, President Trump made a number of promises to gun owners, a massive contingent of his voters. First, President Trump promised that Biden-era ATF regulations – what he called “disasters” for gun owners – would be “ripped up and torn out” his “first week … in office.”

GOA applauded this news, since we were the only Second Amendment advocacy group to have challenged every one of Biden’s anti-gun rules in court. But we knew that merely rolling back existing infringements would do little to regain the miles of ground lost during the left’s decades-long war of attrition against the Second Amendment.

And so, much to his credit, President Trump went on offense, announcing a comprehensive Department of Justice-wide initiative to review all federal actions for consistency with the Second Amendment. Once again, GOA applauded this historic undertaking, and looked forward to working with DOJ to end unconstitutional gun restrictions for good. Key words – for good.

But sadly, DOJ has taken precisely the opposite approach. At almost at every turn, elements within the Bondi DOJ have resisted permanent victories in GOA’s cases. And without something permanent like a settlement, consent judgment, or a court order on the merits, any future leftist administration can simply reimplement Biden’s infringements at will.

Take GOA’s challenge to the Biden ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule. After Democrats promulgated this rule to criminalize all private gun sales, GOA secured a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the rule. But after taking power, rather than allow the district court to finalize its preliminary pro-gun ruling into a permanent one, the Bondi DOJ worked to undermine our pro-gun victory. For more than a year, DOJ stalled progress in our litigation, both in the district court and on appeal. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit recently denied DOJ’s most recent request to stall the case even further.

DOJ also aggressively sought to moot GOA’s challenge to ATF’s 2020 refusal to allow Michigan Concealed Pistol Licensees to avoid redundant federal background checks. DOJ could have allowed GOA to obtain a binding ruling in court.   Instead, DOJ had ATF simply rescind its policy, and then immediately sought dismissal of GOA’s case as moot. By taking this “nothing to see here” approach, and avoiding a permanent judicial ruling or settlement, DOJ’s actions have ensured that a future Democrat administration is free to simply reimplement ATF’s old policy.

The same is true for GOA’s challenges to ATF’s Biden-era “zero tolerance” license revocation policy for gun dealers. As the Trump White House acknowledged, this policy “undermine[d] the Second Amendment” by “shut[ting] down small businesses across the Nation” over inadvertent and inconsequential paperwork errors. But rather than recognizing the need to permanently block “zero tolerance” now and in the future, DOJ just rescinded the policy and moved to dismiss. Again, this leaves a future Democrat administration free to reimplement this Biden policy at will.

But what about GOA’s challenge to the federal ban on mailing pistols using the U.S. Postal Service?   After GOA moved for summary judgment in December 2025, DOJ actually agreed in an Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that the statute violates the Second Amendment.

So, DOJ settled with GOA, right?

Wrong.

Instead, DOJ once again moved to dismiss, on the curious theory that its brand-new OLC memo meant that GOA lacked standing to challenge the statute’s constitutionality in the first place. Of course, all this tactic does is reserve the right of a future Democrat DOJ to reverse course. OLC memos are not set in stone, and many have been reversed by subsequent administrations. And left without any permanent victory, when (not if) a future Democrat administration simply rescinds OLC’s memo, GOA will have to challenge the statute all over again.

DOJ’s pattern is clear:

• First – avoid siding with gun owners even when they are clearly right.
• Second – delay, deny, and avoid pro-gun rulings.
• Third – don’t settle meritorious cases – in fact, work to prevent pro-gun decisions by mooting challenges so that gun owners can’t get permanent relief, thus preventing lasting victory for gun owners.

This begs the question: Who is the Bondi DOJ working for? It’s doesn’t appear to be the current President, and it certainly isn’t the tens of millions of gun owners who elected him. Rather, it must be the “swamp,” the “deep state,” or Permanent D.C. – whatever you want to call it.

Under Pam Bondi’s DOJ, it is the interests of the federal government – not the people – that are being protected at all costs.

That would explain why DOJ even sought to moot GOA’s First Amendment appeal of an unprecedented Biden-era gag order blocking GOA’s First Amendment right to print the news – with DOJ “intentionally” breaking the law in the process.   And it may also explain why GOA can’t even get a fraction of the attorney’s fees that Biden’s DOJ was thrilled to award its friends at the ACLU – in a case we won fair and square.

Speaking privately with GOA in recent months, the Attorneys General of two deep red states – as pro-Trump as they come – have told us that they have observed a similar pattern of Bondi DOJ resistance to litigation brought by their states and other Republican Attorneys General.

So it is not just pro-gun cases that this Bondi DOJ has resisted tooth and nail. Rather, her DOJ is actively opposing many of the groups that formed the Trump Coalition that elected her boss.   The following examples are only illustrative of the broader problems that have been shared with us, in matters where GOA does not lobby.

Undermining Trump Coalition Causes

Just last month, DOJ sought to pause the State of Louisiana’s challenge to Biden-era regulatory rollbacks on mifepristone, an abortion drug. Rather than agree with Louisiana that this abortion drug should not be accessible via mail order, DOJ sought to wait for the FDA to reverse itself, which DOJ claims will make Louisiana’s requested relief “unnecessary” and moot the case. Once again, DOJ is hoping to undermine a challenge by the President’s political allies, reserving the right of future Democrats to reverse and reimplement.

The same is true for another lawsuit led by Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri against the telehealth prescription of this same drug. In May 2025, DOJ sought to deprive plaintiffs of access to a judge who previously had ruled against the pro-choice cause. In that case, DOJ attorneys “stayed the legal course charted by [the] Biden administration,” arguing that the deep red states should sue in other, less favorable jurisdictions.

DOJ also has undermined the President’s energy agenda, defending a pretextual Biden-era national-monument designation that blocked uranium mining in Arizona. Rather than come to the aid of Republican plaintiffs challenging Biden’s designation, DOJ has argued they lack standing to sue.

Making matters worse, DOJ allowed Democrats to take a victory lap against President Trump’s order to freeze approvals of costly and unreliable wind energy projects.   When a district court ruled the President’s wind order “unlawful,” vacating it nationwide, left-wing Attorneys General from states like Connecticut and Washington celebrated.   DOJ never appealed this final ruling, allowing the Democrats to continue implementing their anti-energy agenda.

Conclusion

The pattern is clear. And it appears that gun owners are not the only group from the 2024 Trump Presidential Coalition that Pam Bondi’s DOJ has been working to undermine in court. In fact, the Bondi DOJ is resisting litigation by Trump Coalition groups almost as much as the Biden DOJ did.

This is no way for Pam Bondi’s DOJ to treat the voters who elected the same President who appointed her to office. And something needs to change.   Like a ratchet gear and pawl, this country for decades has moved to the left. By preventing rightward movement, this DOJ appears to be the pawl.

The hour grows late for President Trump to deliver on the promises he made to voters. So long as Pam Bondi’s DOJ continues to actively undermine litigation by Trump Coalition groups nationwide, there will be no permanent victories to cement the President’s agenda.  And all the next Democrat administration will have to do is reimplement old policies.  On many fronts, Bondi’s DOJ is fighting hard to empower the next Democrat to do just that.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 14:55

HGP Partners With Shaw To Deploy Navy's Nuclear Reactors On Land

HGP Intelligent Energy is partnering with the Shaw Group to deploy U.S. Navy submarine and aircraft carrier nuclear reactors at the DOE's Paducah, Kentucky facility.

Back in December, we covered their initial proposal to the U.S. government to utilize reactors from the Navy in an effort to find the quickest means of deploying new nuclear energy to support AI demand for government efforts like Project Genesis.

The U.S. Navy has operated the most successful nuclear program in history with over 7,500 reactor years of safe operation. It is abundantly clear that if there is a way to bring their technology and operational success to other efforts and venues, these possibilities should be pursued.

Shaw will be utilizing its previous experience with nuclear projects, including their involvement at Vogtle Units 3 and 4, to advance HGP’s CoreHeld Project through engineering, procurement, and fabrication services. Shaw's potential scope of work includes “balance-of-plant module fabrication, piping systems, structural components, pressure vessels, and related nuclear-grade equipment.”

The Paducah, Kentucky, site has been a hotspot of nuclear fuel chain activity over the past couple years. Formerly the site of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the last commercial-scale, American uranium enrichment facility that closed in 2013, is being utilized by multiple companies. 

General Matter, led by Founders Fund's Scott Nolan, is developing one of the newest uranium enrichment facilities in Paducah after being awarded $900 million from the DOE in an effort to increase domestic production capacity. Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) is also working on uranium enrichment, but with a next-generation laser technology that hopes to provide lower-cost enrichment and a smaller footprint. GLE additionally looks to re-enrich some of the byproduct of previous enrichment processes with enough material stored on-site in Kentucky for GLE to become one of the largest uranium producers in the world. 

With naval nuclear reactors now potentially being deployed at Paducah, it creates the perfect recipe for Kentucky to participate in the recently announced Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses program. This program aims to create mega-campuses and partnerships between state and federal governments to house the entire nuclear lifecycle within a single fence line. Considering the only uranium conversion facility in the United States is located just across the river from Paducah and owned by Solstice Materials, Kentucky appears to be taking shape as one of the leading candidates for the first campus. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 14:20

White House Says Trump Has No Plans To Deploy ICE At Polls, Won't Rule Out Federal Presence

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The White House said on Feb. 5 that President Donald Trump has not discussed any “formal plans” to deploy U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at polling locations during November’s midterm elections, while declining to guarantee that federal agents would not be present near voting sites.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made the remarks during a press briefing in response to a question referencing a comment from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

A reporter asked Leavitt for comment on Bannon’s recent remark that ICE agents would “surround the polls come November,” and whether the president was considering such action. Bannon made the remarks during an episode of his “War Room” podcast released Feb. 3.

“That’s not something I’ve ever heard the president consider. No,” Leavitt replied.

Pressed on whether she can “guarantee to the American public” that ICE will not have any presence near polling locations in the November mid-term election, the press secretary declined to offer such blanket assurances.

“I can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November. I mean, that’s frankly a very silly hypothetical question,” Leavitt said. “But what I can tell you is I haven’t heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. It’s a disingenuous question.”

Earlier this week, Trump suggested that Republicans should assert greater control over elections in areas the president has claimed are affected by fraud.

Speaking on Feb. 2, Trump said Republicans should “nationalize” and “take over” voting in at least 15 unspecified locations, repeating claims that U.S. elections suffer from widespread illegal voting.

Trump has long argued that noncitizens vote illegally in U.S. elections.

A 2014 academic study found evidence of noncitizen participation—“less than fifteen percent, but significantly greater than zero” in the 2008 presidential election and “more than three percent” in 2010. By contrast, a research review by the Brennan Center for Justice found that verified cases are “vanishingly rare.”

Voting booths are set up at a polling place in Newtown, Pa., on April 23, 2024. Matt Rourke/AP Photo

Federal law prohibits the president from deploying military troops at locations holding general or special elections “unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” according to 18 U.S. Code § 592, and bars any sort of interference in elections by armed forces. ICE agents are civilian law-enforcement officers and are not covered by the same prohibitions that apply to the armed forces, although other laws still limit intimidation or interference at polling places.

Lawmakers from the Democratic Party and some voting-rights groups have said that any visible presence of federal immigration enforcement near polling locations—especially in communities of color—could intimidate lawful voters and deter turnout.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, said in November 2025 that any deployment of federal immigration agents in or around polling places on Election Day would amount to “illegal voter intimidation” and an attempt to “suppress voting.”

Trump administration officials have rejected such characterizations, saying federal involvement is aimed at protecting election integrity rather than suppressing turnout.

“Interference in U.S. elections is a threat to our republic and a national security threat,” National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard said in a recent letter to Congress.

She said the administration is committed to ensuring that “neither foreign nor domestic powers undermine the American people’s right to determine who our elected leaders are.”

Democrats in Virginia have advanced legislation that would bar federal immigration enforcement activity near polling places.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he is not in favor of federalizing elections and that he believes Trump’s remarks were limited to expressing support for the SAVE Act.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) noted that administering elections has historically been the responsibility of the states.

The SAVE Act, which Trump and congressional Republicans have cited as a priority, would impose nationwide requirements for voter identification and proof of citizenship, steps supporters describe as critical election-integrity safeguards.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 13:40

Homebuilders Tumble On Report White House May Launch Antitrust Probe Into House Affordability

Homebuilder stocks are tumbling after Bloomberg reported that Trump administration officials are exploring opening an antitrust investigation into US homebuilders as the White House focuses on tackling the country’s housing affordability crisis.

The Department of Justice could open the probe in the coming weeks Bloomberg reported, quoting people familiar with the discussions. It adds that so far no decision has been made and the administration may abandon the effort without launching an investigation.

One potential focus is on how information is shared through an industry trade group called Leading Builders of America, according to the people. Officials have grown concerned that the trade group - whose members include Lennar and DR Horton - could be used to restrict housing supply or coordinate pricing.

The administration’s interest in homebuilders comes during a period where the cost of buying a home is at its most expensive in decades, with the Covid-era housing boom and subsequent interest rate hikes weighing heavily on buyers. It’s also a precarious time for the builders themselves, with the inventory of unsold homes hovering at high levels.

President Donald Trump put the industry on alert in October, when he used a social media post to compare big homebuilders to OPEC, a cartel which control the oil market.

“It wasn’t right for them to do that but, in a different form, is being done again — This time by the Big Homebuilders of our Nation,” Trump wrote. “They’re my friends, and they’re very important to the SUCCESS of our Country, but now, they can get Financing, and they have to start building Homes.”

Builders have been seeking ways to work with the White House to improve housing affordability. One option being discussed is a massive program — dubbed “Trump Homes” — that would seek to add as many as 1 million units of new supply, Bloomberg previously reported.

Ironically, just a few days ago, we reported that the White House is working with some of the the same homebuilders (Lennar and Taylor Morrison) which Trump is now supposedly going after criminally, as the president is working on a massive rent-to-own program to build up to 1 million "Trump Homes" in a boost to affordability. As part of the program, and which would sell entry-level homes to Americans as part of a pathway-to-ownership program funded by private investors. The drawback of this program, we said, is that such a program would be complicated to implement, and may not gain enough support to move forward as it would require substantial capital commitment from the homebuilders. 

Well, what better way to convince homebuilders it's in their best interest to participate in the program than to threaten them with criminal charges on something totally separate...

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/06/2026 - 12:43