🌮“TACO” Edition

At Davos, the global elite gathered as usual to sip espresso, swap buzzwords, and pretend the world is a spreadsheet you can fix with a panel discussion. Then Donald Trump showed up and turned the World Economic Forum into a hostage video, starring the Western alliance as the hostage, which is a little bit like holding your own family for ransom.

For more than an hour, Trump unleashed a verbal airstrike on Europe’s leaders, NATO, trade norms, and basically the entire post–World War II world order. He mocked allies, demanded Greenland like it was a scarf he left at the coat check, and scolded everyone, insisting that without the U.S. in WWII they’d all be “speaking German and a little Japanese.” The crowd responded with a mix of groans, gasps, grimaces, and the haunted look people get when they realize they’re trapped on a carnival ride with Jack the Ripper.

European officials reportedly scrambled afterward to find anyone—Lindsey Graham, random Americans, a coat rack—who could explain whether Trump was serious or just blustering again. The vibe across Davos was less “shared future” and more “does America still exist as an ally, or did we hallucinate the last 80 years?”

And then, right on schedule, came the twist ending: TACO.

After threatening tariffs, economic warfare, and eternal vengeance if Europe didn’t cooperate with his Greenland fantasy, Trump did what he does best. He backed off. By evening, he’d softened his biggest threats and floated a “framework” with NATO over Greenland, pulling the whole thing back from the brink like a man yanking his hand away from a hot stove he insisted he meant to touch.

The Davos crowd, bruised and exhausted, reacted the way trauma victims do when the yelling stops: relief. Some attendees even texted each other a single word—“Taco!”—short for Trump Always Chickens Out, the emerging global shorthand for, “he’ll threaten the apocalypse, then declare victory as he beats a hasty retreat.”

The old world came to Davos looking for stability. Trump gave them chaos, then served it with a side of TACO.

Dave Whamond - cagle.com/whamond

Nick Anderson - Substack and Tribune Content Agency

Clay Jones - Substack and Claytoonz

Chris Britt - Creators

Graeme MacKay - cagle.com/mackay

Rob Rogers - Tinyview Comics and Andrews McMeel

Mike Luckovich - Creators

Jack Ohman - Substack and Tribune Content Agency

Bill Bramhall - Tribune Content Agency

Drew Sheneman - Substack and Tribune Content Agency

In a shocking outbreak of institutional self-respect, the Supreme Court appears poised to tell Donald Trump that the Federal Reserve is not one of his reality-show contestants, and that he can’t just fire Lisa Cook because he got bored, annoyed, or needed a new scapegoat for the economy.

During arguments over Trump’s attempt to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook, even conservative justices sounded alarmed at the administration’s theory of executive power: that the president can declare “cause,” refuse judicial review, skip due process, and treat the central bank like it’s staffed by Miss Teen USA interns.

Brett Kavanaugh, of all people, basically looked at Trump’s lawyer and said, Do you hear yourselves? Warning that once you unleash the “we can fire anyone for anything” tool, the next president will use it too (duh), which is the closest this court has come to realizing the consequences of their rulings on executive power.

Chief Justice John Roberts also seemed unimpressed by the administration’s “gross negligence” narrative, gently noting that real estate paperwork is, in fact, a stack of confusing forms that most Americans don’t fill out with the precision of a Supreme Court brief. Even Samuel Alito reportedly bristled at how hastily the firing was handled, because when Alito is complaining the process was too sloppy, you’re not merely overreaching, you’re way out over your skis.

Trump’s Justice Department tried its usual move: arguing courts should stay out of it entirely. But the justices appeared to recognize what that would mean in practice: Trump gets to decide what “for cause” means, courts can’t question it, and the Fed becomes a political pet. Kavanaugh spelled it out bluntly: that would “shatter” the Fed’s independence (NOW they get it).

Meanwhile, Cook’s legal team emphasized the obvious: if Trump can purge Fed officials whenever he wants, markets get spooked, rate policy becomes partisan, and America starts drifting toward the “emerging market” model of monetary policy—where the currency is as stable as the leader’s mood.

The vibe at the end wasn’t “Will Cook win?” so much as “How will the Court write this without setting off another Trump tantrum?” A narrow procedural ruling could kick the can down the road. A broader decision could slam the door shut on Trump’s attempt to turn the Fed into a White House accessory.