Here’s what happened on Monday:

* Trump announced the deal on social media following a call with Modi. The deal slashes U.S. tariffs on Indian goods to 18% from 50% in exchange for India halting Russian oil purchases and lowering trade barriers.

* He noted that India would now buy oil from the U.S. and potentially Venezuela. A White House official told Reuters that the U.S. is rescinding a punitive 25% duty on all imports from India over its purchases of Russian oil that it had stacked on top of a 25% tariff rate.

* Modi expressed “Big thanks to President Trump on behalf of the 1.4 billion people of India” in a social media post on X.

* U.S.-listed shares of major Indian companies rallied on the news.

* Trump’s Truth Social message provided few details, including on the start date for the lower tariff rates, the deadline for India to end Russian oil purchases, trade barrier reductions and which U.S. products India had committed to purchasing.

* As of late Monday afternoon, the White House had not issued a presidential proclamation nor a Federal Register notice required to make the changes official. India’s commerce and foreign ministries did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent after working hours.

This is typical: Trump announces a major policy achievement on Truth Social rather than through traditional channels. Also typical is Trump’s strategy of announcing a major change–in this case, a big increase in tariffs on Indian goods–followed by a negotiation that results in a more moderate policy that is good for the United States. I am not sure whether there are actually reporters who have not yet figured this out, or whether they are all being deliberately obtuse.

Finally, Trump’s power to impose tariffs under various statutes is currently being litigated in the Supreme Court. I think the Court likely will hold (probably correctly) that Trump does not have at least some of the authority over tariffs that he has exerted, thus limiting a tactic that has done considerable good. This is a valuable reminder that a correct interpretation of the statutes at issue does not necessarily yield what is best, in policy terms, for the U.S. But opening the door to good policy, regardless of statutory language, is not the Supreme Court’s job. Laws say what they say. They do not say what we–or the Democrats!–might wish them to say.

The office of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference has released its annual state immigration report revealing that in 2025, illegal migrants committed 2,183 violent offenses, including 41 homicides, 145 sexual offenses, 11 child rapes, and more.

This table tells the story:

Tennessee has a little over two percent of the U.S. population, so, assuming Tennessee’s illegals are no more violent than the norm, that would translate to something like 100,000 violent offenses, 2,000 murders, and so on. There were about 14,000 or 15,000 murders in the U.S. in 2025, so illegals probably accounted for around 1/7 of them. These are the people whom the Democratic Party is determined to keep within our borders. One might reasonably ask why.

The AP headline refers to the whole shebang as “the immigration story.” It mentions that publisher Steve Grove is a former Google executive. Need I add that the AP story makes no mention of Grove’s former service as commissioner in the administration of Tim Walz?

I have made the case that the Star Tribune has covered the local hositilities involving ICE with an incessant fog machine. The hostilities have arrayed an organized resistance and state DFL establishment against ICE. The Star Tribune has yet to get to the organized resistance, let alone the DFL support for it.

Mr. Huntley writes that he “found [the AP story] jaw-dropping given what I know from Power Line about the newspaper’s poor performance.” I’m thinking the AP and the Star Tribune have a lot in common, if you know what I mean. Bauder’s story can serve as an example.

Quotable quote: “The whole ecosystem is pretty darn good,” said Kathleen Hennessey, senior vice president and editor of the Star Tribune, “and I think people are seeing that now.”

Tired of living in fear, this family decided to deport themselves.

The Star Tribune reports,

Segundo, 43, his wife Maria, 40, and their five kids were on a path to legal status and say their immigration case was up-to-date. But the Ecuadorian family was increasingly afraid to go to work, school or to the store for food and diapers for their grandson.

The key to the above paragraph is the use of the past tense, were/was. As we learn,

Asylum cases are always a long shot, so on the advice of an attorney, the family dropped their claim and instead applied for U visas, a temporary legal status for crime victims that is a pathway to permanent residency.

So, the family dropped their no-chance asylum claim and pinned their hopes on crime victim status. What crime(s) are they victims of? The Star Tribune does not say.

As far as I can tell, except for an anchor baby grandchild, none of the extended family have any claim to current legal status. So, they appear to have a reasonable basis for their fear of deportation.

Meanwhile, ICE goes about its business in the Metro area. Local Fox 9-TV reports,

Immigration operations continue in Minnesota on Monday.

No sign of a pullback, yet. Border Czar Tom Homan’s offer to reduce forces was always contingent on more cooperation from the locals. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board endorsed this approach last week, under the headline,

Tom Homan Makes a Good Offer to Minneapolis.

WSJ writes,

“More agents in the jail,” Mr. Homan said, “means less agents in the street.” That’s safer for both ICE and Minneapolis residents, and it also means fewer “collateral arrests.”

And there is some evidence of local popular support for the idea. American Experiment’s John Phelan writes about a recent opinion poll,

KSTP poll finds that Minnesotans favor local law enforcement helping federal immigration authorities by 14 points

The poll (Question 15) shows a 5o-36 margin for the question,

Should state and local law enforcement in Minnesota do more to help the federal government with its immigration enforcement?

Among political independents, the margin was 43-40 in favor of more cooperation.

The people have spoken.

Costa Rica elects a conservative as Latin America shifts to the right.

I’ve been documenting this phenomenon for a while now: worldwide, politics appear to be moving to the right, especially in Central and South America.

The Journal reports,

Hondurans late last year elected right-wing candidate Nasry Asfura, whom Trump publicly supported. Chileans in December voted in conservative José Antonio Kast. Bolivia in October ended two decades of socialist rule with the election of President Rodrigo Paz. And Argentina’s libertarian leader, Javier Milei, cemented his hold on power in a crucial midterm election in October after Washington provided a financial bailout.

A right-wing candidate is expected to win Peru’s presidential election in April, polls show.

On the march!