US Iran Tensions 2026: Trump Eyes Strike on Iran Nuclear Sites

US Iran Tensions 2026: Trump Considers Strike on Iran's Nuclear Program — What's Really Happening and What Comes Next

Satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear infrastructure as US-Iran tensions in 2026 reach their most dangerous threshold in two decades. — Al Jazeera / Reuters

Published: February 22, 2026 | Category: World Affairs & Geopolitics | Reading Time: 9 minutes

The Middle East is holding its breath. As of February 22, 2026, US Iran tensions 2026 have reached a level of intensity not seen since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 — and by some measures, the situation is more dangerous now than it was then. President Donald Trump has issued a 10 to 15 day ultimatum demanding Iran accept a new nuclear agreement or face what he called "really bad things." In the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, the United States has assembled its largest regional military presence in more than two decades: two carrier strike groups, over 14 warships, more than 200 aircraft including F-35 stealth jets, and strategic bombers within striking range of Iranian targets.

On X — formerly Twitter — US bombing Iran speculations dominate nightly trending lists. Prediction markets have placed the probability of a US military strike at between 54% and 90% depending on the source, and the platforms used to calculate those odds. In Tehran, President Masoud Pezeshkian has declared that Iran will not bow to American pressure. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has warned that any strike would trigger a regional war. And the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway through which 20% of the world's oil supply flows every day — hangs in the balance.

This is the full picture of the US Iran crisis latest news: how we got here, what the military buildup actually means, where diplomacy stands, what social media is saying, and what happens next.

How US Iran Tensions 2026 Reached This Flashpoint: Nuclear Standoff and Domestic Protests

Iran conducted high-profile missile test launches in February 2026 as diplomatic talks with the US collapsed — a direct signal to Washington and Tel Aviv. — Anadolu Agency

The roots of the current US Iran crisis latest news extend back several years, but the immediate trigger has two distinct strands: Iran's nuclear program and its violent domestic crackdown. Since January 2026, Iran has been convulsed by nationwide anti-government protests, the largest and most sustained since the Women, Life, Freedom movement of 2022. The crackdown has been severe — thousands of deaths, mass arrests, and the deployment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in cities across the country. Trump initially threatened punitive action against Tehran to protect protesters, then pivoted to the nuclear issue when it became clear that military threats were the only leverage likely to force Iranian concessions.

The nuclear dimension is the core of the current standoff. Iran has steadily advanced its uranium enrichment program since the collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump withdrew from during his first term. By early 2026, international inspectors estimated that Iran was enriching uranium to 83.7% purity, just a fraction below the 90% threshold required for weapons-grade material. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had accumulated sufficient enriched uranium for multiple nuclear devices, even if the final weapons-production steps had not been taken.

Trump's demand is absolute: zero enrichment. Not reduced enrichment. Not capped enrichment. Zero — a position that Iranian officials across the political spectrum, from reformists to hardliners, have described as a fundamental red line they cannot cross. The gap between these positions is not a negotiating gap. It is a chasm — and both sides know it.

"Iran will not bow to American pressure. Enrichment is our sovereign right and no ultimatum will change that." — Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, February 19, 2026

Indirect talks held in Oman and Geneva produced what diplomats described as "guiding principles" — but no substantive breakthrough. Iran offered limited concessions: diluting its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and permitting increased IAEA inspections. Trump's team dismissed these as wholly insufficient. Israeli officials, whose country's own military preparations are running in parallel with the US buildup, described the diplomatic gaps as "unbridgeable."

Trump Iran Strike February 2026: The Military Buildup in Detail

The USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group — one of two now positioned in the Persian Gulf region as part of the largest US military buildup Iran has faced since 2003. — Business Insider / US Navy

The scale of the US military buildup Iran 2026 has drawn comparisons to the force assembly that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq — and by several metrics, it exceeds even that. The centerpiece is the deployment of two full carrier strike groups: the USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln. Together, these bring to the region more than 14 warships, including cruisers, destroyers, and submarines capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. Over 200 aircraft have been positioned at forward bases in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE — including fifth-generation F-35A and F-35C stealth fighters capable of penetrating Iran's air defense systems, and B-2 Spirit strategic bombers capable of delivering the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the only conventional bomb in the US arsenal with sufficient penetrating power to reach Iran's deeply buried Fordow nuclear facility.

The strategic picture is one of comprehensive coverage. US Air Force planners have reportedly prepared target packages covering not only Iran's primary nuclear sites — Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and Arak — but also missile production facilities, IRGC command infrastructure, air defense batteries, and naval assets including the fast-attack boats that Iran would use to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Senior US officials, speaking anonymously to multiple outlets, have confirmed that the operational plan is ready and that strikes could be authorized as early as this weekend if diplomatic channels produce no movement.

Iran's military response has been calibrated to signal resolve without triggering immediate escalation. The IRGC has conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in the Gulf of Oman — a pointed demonstration of the alliance's depth, even if Russian military support for Iran in any conflict remains uncertain. Iranian air defense systems, including domestically produced variants of the Russian S-300, have been repositioned around key nuclear facilities. And IRGC commanders have publicly inspected the underground missile production facilities that Iran has constructed over the past decade at depths that many analysts believe would survive anything short of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

"If America makes a mistake and attacks us, it will face consequences that will set the entire region ablaze." — Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, February 18, 2026

The threat Iran repeatedly returns to is the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait is a 33-kilometre-wide waterway at its narrowest point between the Omani coast and the Iranian shore. Through it passes approximately 17 million barrels of crude oil per day — roughly 20% of global supply — along with significant volumes of liquefied natural gas. Iran has threatened to close the Strait in response to any military strike, deploying mines, coastal missile batteries, and fast-attack vessels. The impact on global oil markets would be immediate and severe: energy economists project prices could spike to $150 per barrel or beyond in a sustained closure scenario, with cascading effects on global inflation, supply chains, and the economies of every oil-importing nation on earth.

Iran Nuclear Talks Trump: The Diplomatic Deadlock and Trump's Deadline

Diplomatic talks between US envoys and Iranian officials in Geneva and Oman have produced "guiding principles" but no breakthrough — with Trump's military deadline looming. — Al Jazeera / Reuters

The formal diplomatic track of the Iran nuclear talks Trump era has been conducted largely in secret, through third-party intermediaries, with Oman playing its traditional role as back-channel facilitator. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva in the first week of February — the highest-level direct contact between US and Iranian officials since Trump returned to office. The meeting was described afterward by both sides in carefully calibrated language: "constructive" and "substantive" by the American side, "frank and exploratory" by the Iranians.

What it did not produce was a deal. Or even a framework for a deal. Trump's bottom-line demand — zero enrichment, permanent dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure, and Iran's exit from what he calls "the global terrorism business," including the cessation of support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Houthi forces — represents a total transformation of Iranian foreign and domestic policy. It is, in the assessment of virtually every independent regional analyst, a demand that no Iranian government could accept and survive politically.

Iran's counterproposal — reported to include a cap on enrichment levels, dilution of existing high-enriched stockpiles, enhanced IAEA monitoring, and a phased approach to reducing support for regional proxies — was rejected by Washington as "wholly inadequate" before it was even formally tabled. Trump set the 10 to 15 day deadline on February 20, telling reporters at the White House: "Iran has a choice to make. It's a very simple choice. They can make a deal, or they can face the consequences. And the consequences will be very, very bad."

Some analysts have noted that Iran's internal calculus may be more complex than it appears. The nationwide protests that have wracked the country since January have substantially weakened the regime's domestic legitimacy. A foreign military threat — particularly one as overt as the current US buildup — typically produces a nationalist rally-around-the-flag effect that could actually benefit the Iranian leadership in the short term by redirecting public anger outward. If that analysis is correct, Tehran may have less incentive to compromise than Washington assumes.

X Speculations on US Bombing Iran: What Social Media and Prediction Markets Are Saying

While diplomats talk and generals plan, X — the platform formerly known as Twitter — has become the primary arena for real-time speculation about a Trump Iran strike February 2026. The nightly trending patterns on X tell a story of a global public that is both gripped and alarmed by the escalating crisis. Prediction markets, satellite imagery analysts, geopolitical commentators, and ordinary users have combined to create a running commentary on every development — from carrier group movements to Trump's Truth Social posts to leaked details from diplomatic meetings.

Polymarket, the decentralized prediction platform, currently shows a 54% probability of a US military strike on Iran before the end of February — a figure that has moved sharply upward from 23% at the start of the month. Other forecasting platforms show even higher probabilities. Among the most widely shared posts on X this week:

@unusual_whales: "Odds of a US strike on Iran before end of February hit 54% as US warns citizens to evacuate Lebanon and Iraq. Betting markets are moving fast. This is not a drill. #USIran #TrumpIranStrike"

@MarioNawfal: "🚨 BREAKING: High chance US hits Iran after nuclear talks collapse in Geneva. Trump's deadline looms — is US bombing Iran now imminent? Two carrier groups in position. Watch the Strait of Hormuz. #IranNuclear #USMilitary"

@Anyutik_1907: "Axios reporting internal Pentagon assessment puts 90% chance of US strike on Iran within three weeks. Two full carrier groups ready, B-2s repositioned to Diego Garcia. Oil markets are somehow still silent. #USIranTensions2026"

@allaboutwembley: "US military fully prepared for Iran strikes as early as this weekend — Trump has NOT yet given the order but target packages are locked. Strait of Hormuz scenario being actively war-gamed. This is as real as it gets. #TrumpIran #Iran2026"

The X commentary reflects a global audience that is following the satellite imagery showing carrier movements, parsing Trump's Truth Social posts for coded military signals, and tracking the diplomatic back-channel communications that occasionally leak into the press. The combination of prediction market data, open-source intelligence analysis, and real-time news has created a feedback loop in which social media attention itself becomes a factor in how governments calculate the reputational costs of action or inaction.

Global Impacts: Oil Markets, Regional War, and the Worst-Case Scenarios

The potential consequences of a Trump Iran strike February 2026 extend far beyond the military exchange itself. The direct strike scenario — US and Israeli aircraft hitting Iranian nuclear sites, IRGC missile facilities, and command infrastructure — would almost certainly trigger a multi-vector Iranian response. That response would likely include ballistic and cruise missile attacks on US bases in the region, drone swarm attacks on Israeli cities, activation of Hezbollah's missile arsenal against northern Israel, and Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea.

The Strait of Hormuz scenario is the one that most concerns global economists. An Iranian mine-laying operation in the Strait, combined with coastal missile attacks on tankers, would not need to physically close the waterway to cause catastrophic disruption — the threat alone would cause insurers to cease covering tanker voyages, effectively shutting down oil flows within days. The Institute of International Finance estimates that a three-month Strait closure would reduce global GDP by 1.5%, push oil prices above $150 per barrel, and generate an inflationary shock comparable in severity to the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

Gold has already begun climbing as a safe-haven asset amid the uncertainty — rising 4.2% in the past two weeks to near-record levels. Defense stocks across the US and Europe have rallied sharply. And sovereign wealth funds in Gulf states that nominally support the US position are quietly hedging their oil revenue projections upward.

The geopolitical dimension is equally fraught. Russia and China have both issued statements supporting Iran's sovereign right to a peaceful nuclear program and calling for diplomatic resolution. Whether either would provide active military support to Iran in the event of US strikes is the central unknown — but both countries have significant interest in a US military entanglement in the Persian Gulf that would divert American attention and resources from Ukraine and the Taiwan Strait respectively.

Domestically, Trump faces the constitutionally contested question of whether he can authorize military strikes against Iran without Congressional approval. Democrats and some Republicans have signaled they would challenge strikes launched without prior Congressional authorization — though the historical precedent of presidential war powers in such situations is ambiguous enough that litigation would likely not prevent strikes from occurring.

What Happens Next: The Three Scenarios

As of February 22, 2026, three broad scenarios are plausible within Trump's stated 10 to 15 day window. The first is a diplomatic breakthrough — Iran makes a substantive concession on enrichment that gives both sides enough to declare a partial victory and begin a formal negotiating process. Most independent analysts rate this as the least likely of the three options, given the depth of the gaps and the domestic political constraints on both sides.

The second scenario is a limited US strike — targeting Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities and select IRGC missile sites, designed to set back the nuclear program by two to five years without triggering a full regional war. This is the scenario most discussed in Washington policy circles: a surgical operation that Trump could present domestically as decisive action, with the hope that Iran's response would be calibrated rather than escalatory. The risk is that calibration is not guaranteed — and that what begins as a limited strike rapidly becomes something far larger.

The third scenario is continued stalemate — Trump's deadline passes without either a deal or a strike, the deadline is quietly extended or reformulated, and the crisis enters a new phase of frozen tension with the military buildup maintained as permanent pressure. This scenario has significant historical precedent in US-Iran relations, which have repeatedly approached conflict thresholds without crossing them.

"This is not a crisis that resolves neatly. Either Trump strikes and we enter genuinely uncharted territory, or he doesn't and the question of what his red lines actually mean becomes the dominant issue for US credibility in the region for years to come." — Former US Ambassador to the United Nations, speaking to Foreign Policy magazine, February 21, 2026

What is clear is that the US Iran tensions 2026 have moved into a phase where the risk of miscalculation — a missile that kills more people than intended, an IRGC commander who acts without authorization, a tanker captain who fires on a fast-attack boat — is as significant as the risk of deliberate escalation. In a crisis of this complexity, at this temperature, the most dangerous moves are often the ones nobody planned.

The world is watching. And waiting. And hoping that the diplomats, not the generals, find something to work with before Trump's clock runs out.

Stay tuned to our World Affairs & Geopolitics section for daily updates on the US-Iran standoff, military movements, diplomatic developments, and market impacts throughout the critical weeks ahead.

Related Topics: Strait of Hormuz: Why It Matters to the Global Economy | Iran's Nuclear Program: A Complete Timeline | Trump's Middle East Policy Explained | What Would a US Strike on Iran Actually Look Like? | Oil Markets and the Iran Risk Premium

Tags: #USIranTensions2026 #TrumpIranStrike #IranNuclearDeal #StraitOfHormuz #USMilitaryBuildup #IranCrisis #TrumpIran #IranNuclear #MiddleEast2026 #IranProtest2026 #USBombingIran #NuclearStandoff #GeopoliticsNews #IranNuclearTalks #TrumpForeignPolicy

Gordon Brown Hands New Epstein Dossier to Police: Stansted Flights, Prince Andrew's Arrest & What Comes Next

Gordon Brown Hands New Epstein Sex Trafficking Dossier to Police — and the Pressure on Prince Andrew Is Mounting

Former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has escalated his campaign for a full UK sex trafficking investigation, submitting a fresh five-page dossier to multiple British police forces.

Published: February 22, 2026 | Category: World Affairs & Justice | Reading Time: 8 minutes

In a dramatic escalation of the United Kingdom's reckoning with Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking network, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has submitted a fresh five-page memorandum of evidence to multiple British police forces — his second dossier submission in as many weeks. The move intensifies what Brown himself has described as "by far the biggest scandal" of the entire Epstein saga: the alleged use of British airports, particularly Stansted, to transport trafficked women into the UK from Eastern Europe, with the knowledge and participation of some of the most powerful people in the world.

Brown's intervention comes as UK police forces are simultaneously reviewing the newly released Epstein files — millions of pages of documents that have reignited investigations on both sides of the Atlantic — and as Prince Andrew, whose friendship with Epstein cost him his royal titles, faces renewed and intensifying legal scrutiny. The convergence of Brown's submissions, the file releases, and Prince Andrew's situation has placed the UK at the center of the global Epstein investigation in a way it has never been before.

This is the full story of what Brown submitted, what the Epstein files reveal about the UK's role in the trafficking network, and what justice for the victims could look like from here.

The Epstein Scandal: Why the UK Is Now Central

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — whose network used private jet routes through UK airports to traffic women from Eastern Europe.

Jeffrey Epstein, the American financier and convicted sex offender who died in his New York prison cell in August 2019 while awaiting federal sex trafficking trial, ran one of the most extensive and well-connected abuse networks in recorded history. His private jet — widely known as the "Lolita Express" — ferried politicians, business titans, and royalty between his various properties. His associate and long-time partner Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell, was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in the United States.

The UK's role in Epstein's network has been known in outline for years — but the recent release of millions of pages from the Epstein files has provided detail, names, and specifics that have transformed the outline into a documented case. Among the most significant revelations, according to reporting by The Telegraph and The Mirror, are records of flights into Stansted Airport carrying women trafficked from Eastern Europe — Latvia, Lithuania, and Russia among the countries of origin. These flights, Brown argues, represent the heart of the UK dimension of the Epstein scandal, and they are what his dossiers have focused on most directly.

Brown put it plainly in his public statement: "The flights, many of them through Stansted, are by far the biggest scandal of all." The implication is that what happened at Stansted — the importation of trafficked women through British soil, potentially with the knowledge of powerful individuals who used Epstein's network — represents a level of institutional exposure that goes beyond anything previously acknowledged in the UK's handling of the Epstein affair.

What Gordon Brown Submitted — and Why It Matters

Gordon Brown served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 to 2007 and as Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010. Since leaving politics he has focused on global issues including education, poverty, and human rights — and in recent weeks he has become the most prominent British public figure to actively submit evidence to police in connection with the Epstein investigation.

Last week, Brown submitted an initial dossier to the Metropolitan Police, Essex Police, and Thames Valley Police. This week he escalated, sending a comprehensive five-page memorandum to additional forces: the Metropolitan, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley, and others. In a public statement accompanying the submission, Brown said: "I have submitted a five-page memorandum to the Metropolitan, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and other relevant UK police constabularies. This memorandum provides new and additional information to that which I submitted last week to the Met, Essex and Thames Valley police forces, where I expressed my concern that we secure justice for trafficked girls and women."

The dossier is reported by The New Statesman and Yahoo News to contain specific evidence relating to the Stansted flight arrivals — documenting the movement of trafficked individuals through British airspace and onto British soil, and the networks that facilitated those arrivals. Brown has analyzed the Epstein files extensively, and the memorandum represents his distillation of what he believes constitutes actionable evidence for British law enforcement.

The significance of a former Prime Minister personally submitting evidence dossiers to police cannot be overstated. Brown is not a lawyer, a journalist, or a campaign group. He is a former head of the British government, with the access, the credibility, and the institutional knowledge to understand precisely what weight his submissions carry — and to know that submitting them publicly, with accompanying statements, creates political pressure on police forces to act that a private filing would not.

Prince Andrew: Arrest, Royal Lodge Search, and the FBI Connection

Prince Andrew's connection to Jeffrey Epstein has been under scrutiny for years — and has now escalated into active police investigation and arrest.

No figure sits at the more uncomfortable intersection of Gordon Brown's dossiers and the UK Epstein investigation than Prince Andrew — now formally known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor following his removal from royal duties. Brown has explicitly called for Andrew to be questioned about his associations with Epstein, and his latest dossier is reported to include information directly pertinent to the disgraced royal.

Andrew's arrest this week on related charges has dramatically intensified the pressure. Police have been searching his residence, Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park, for evidence. As reported in The Daily Mail, officers are combing through files, and the FBI's 15-year investigation into Andrew's connections to Epstein's network provides additional documentary context for UK law enforcement. An anonymous source told The Daily Mail: "His home can be linked in some way to Epstein's sex trafficking operation" — a claim that, if substantiated, would represent one of the most significant royal scandals in modern British history.

Andrew's relationship with Epstein has been a source of sustained controversy since 2011, when the Prince's friendship with the convicted sex offender became public. A 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, in which Andrew defended his association with Epstein and expressed no regret for the friendship, was widely described as a catastrophic public relations disaster and led directly to his stepping back from royal duties. He subsequently settled a civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she had been trafficked to Andrew by Epstein and Maxwell — settling without admission of liability, under terms that included a reported multi-million pound payment.

The new criminal dimension — active arrest, police search of Royal Lodge, and FBI cooperation — takes the Andrew situation well beyond the civil and reputational realm in which it has previously operated. Brown's dossiers, timed to coincide with this escalation, ensure that the evidentiary record being built by police includes the former PM's analysis of the Epstein files' UK-specific content.

Police Response: Multiple Forces, Calls for Witnesses

Brown's public submissions have put direct pressure on UK police forces to treat the Epstein files as actionable evidence rather than historical record.

The British police response to both the Epstein file releases and Brown's dossiers has been notably more engaged than in previous years. Surrey Police issued a public statement urging anyone with information about claims of human trafficking and sexual assault from the 1990s that appeared in the Epstein files to come forward — explicitly acknowledging that "the allegations have not yet been formally reported" to them, and opening a channel for witnesses and victims to do so.

The Metropolitan Police — the UK's largest force and the one with primary jurisdiction over many of the most significant potential offenses — has confirmed it is reviewing the Epstein files to assess whether new investigations are warranted. Thames Valley Police, Essex Police, and the other forces named in Brown's memoranda have all confirmed receipt of his submissions and are assessing their contents.

The breadth of forces now involved reflects the geographic complexity of Epstein's UK operations — which allegedly spanned London, the home counties, and international arrival points like Stansted. Coordinating investigations across multiple constabularies, while managing the interface with US federal agencies including the FBI and the Southern District of New York, represents a significant operational challenge. Victim advocates have urged the Home Office to consider whether a dedicated cross-force task force, similar to those established for Operation Yewtree and other major historical abuse investigations, is needed to ensure the investigation has the resources and coordination it requires.

The Victims: Justice Delayed, Justice Demanded

Behind the political drama — the former Prime Minister's dossiers, the royal arrest, the police searches — are the women whose lives were shattered by Epstein's network. Many of them were young, poor, and from countries where economic desperation made them vulnerable to traffickers. The Epstein files describe, in the words of reporting by The Telegraph, "graphic detail" of how women were recruited in Eastern Europe — in Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, and elsewhere — and transported through the UK and other countries to Epstein's properties.

For these women, many of whom have waited years or decades for accountability, the latest developments represent both hope and frustration. Hope, because the scale of police engagement in the UK is greater than it has ever been. Frustration, because Epstein himself is dead, Maxwell is imprisoned, and the powerful men who used and enabled the network have, for the most part, faced no legal consequences whatsoever.

A survivor quoted in related reporting captured the sentiment of many: "We need accountability, not just headlines. Every week there is a new development, a new dossier, a new name. But the men who did this are still free, still respected, still powerful. That has to change." Victim advocates from organizations including Human Rights Watch and survivors' legal teams have repeatedly stressed that the measure of success for this investigation is not whether police review documents — it is whether perpetrators and facilitators face prosecution, and whether the women who were trafficked receive justice and recognition as victims, not footnotes.

What Happens Next

The immediate path forward has several parallel tracks. On the police investigation front, the multiple UK forces receiving Brown's dossiers will need to determine whether they contain evidence sufficient to open formal investigations or support arrest warrants — a process that typically takes weeks to months and involves close coordination with the Crown Prosecution Service. The search of Prince Andrew's Royal Lodge and the analysis of its contents will be central to determining what charges, if any, UK prosecutors believe are sustainable.

On the political front, pressure is building for a public inquiry into the UK establishment's historical relationship with Epstein — similar to the Infected Blood Inquiry or the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in scope and mandate. Such an inquiry would go beyond criminal prosecution to examine how Epstein was able to operate in the UK for as long as he did, what warnings were ignored and by whom, and what reforms to border security, financial regulation, and elite accountability are needed to prevent similar networks from operating in the future.

And on the broader international front, the UK investigation is increasingly intertwined with ongoing US proceedings. The FBI's 15-year investigation into Prince Andrew, the Southern District of New York's continuing review of the Epstein files, and the potential for extradition requests or mutual legal assistance between the US and UK all mean that what happens in British courts and police stations in the coming months will have direct implications for the global accountability picture.

Gordon Brown, in submitting his dossiers, has made one thing unmistakably clear: the political cover that powerful people connected to Epstein may have hoped for — the sense that time and Epstein's death had closed the chapter — is not going to materialize. The files are public. The evidence is being submitted. The police are engaged. And the victims, and their advocates, are not going away.

As Brown himself put it, in the plainest possible terms: securing justice for trafficked girls and women is the only acceptable outcome. Everything else is noise.

Stay tuned to our World Affairs & Justice section for continued coverage of the UK Epstein investigation, Prince Andrew's legal situation, and the global fight for accountability throughout 2026.

Related Topics: Epstein Files: What's Actually In Them | Ghislaine Maxwell: Where Is She Now? | Prince Andrew: Full Timeline of the Epstein Connection | UK Sex Trafficking Laws Explained | How the Lolita Express Operated

Tags: #GordonBrown #EpsteinFiles #EpsteinUK #PrinceAndrew #SexTrafficking #GhislaineMaxwell #StanstedAirport #UKPolice #EpsteinInvestigation2026 #JeffreyEpstein #HumanTrafficking #EpsteinDossier #MetropolitanPolice #RoyalLodge #EpsteinJustice

Taliban Legalizes Wife Beating: Afghanistan's Shocking 2026 Penal Code and the World's Outcry

Afghan women under Taliban rule — a daily reality of fear, restriction, and now legally sanctioned violence.

In a move that has shocked the international community and deepened the plight of women in Afghanistan, the Taliban has enacted a new penal code that effectively legalizes domestic violence against wives and children — provided no bones are broken or open wounds inflicted. Signed by the group's supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, on January 7, 2026, this 90-page document, titled the De Mahakumu Jazaai Osulnama or "Criminal Procedure Code for Courts," has been circulated to provincial courts for immediate implementation across the country.

The code not only permits husbands to physically punish their wives and daughters but also erects near-impossible barriers for any woman seeking justice — effectively making the family home a legal cage. The revelation, first published by Kabul-based human rights organization Rawadari on January 21 after they obtained the original Pashtu document, triggered an immediate global firestorm. The United Nations, world governments, human rights organizations, and prominent public figures lined up to denounce what many are now openly calling gender apartheid — a legally enforced system of sex-based oppression that has no parallel anywhere in the world in 2026.

This is the full story of what that code says, who it is already hurting, and why the world's outrage — however loud — is struggling to find an answer powerful enough to reach inside Afghanistan's courts.

"No Broken Bones, No Crime": What the Code Actually Says

Taliban fighters patrol Afghan streets, enforcing a legal system that now formally sanctions violence against women.

The penal code spans 119 articles across three sections and ten chapters. The international horror has focused primarily on two provisions: Articles 32 and 34 — which together represent the most explicit legal codification of domestic violence that any government anywhere in the world has attempted to formalize in recent history.

Article 32 states that if a husband strikes his wife resulting in a fracture, injury, or bruising, and the wife can prove her claim before a judge, the husband faces a maximum sentence of just 15 days in prison. Read the logic carefully — this does not prohibit beating. It only punishes "excessive" beating that leaves visible fractures or open wounds. Any beating short of that threshold is, under this law, entirely legal. Classified as ta'zir — discretionary punishment — a husband's right to physically strike his wife is not a crime. It is a right.

The burden of proof clause makes the already-minimal bar functionally unreachable for nearly every Afghan woman. To report abuse under this code, a woman must appear in court in person to display her injuries — while remaining fully covered under Taliban dress codes, and while accompanied by a male guardian who is very likely the same man who abused her. Georgetown's Institute for Women, Peace and Security noted one additional detail that reveals the code's moral framework with devastating clarity: harm to animals carries a harsher legal penalty than domestic abuse of a wife. That is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a direct reading of the document's own sentencing structures.

Article 34 goes further still. If a woman repeatedly visits her parents or relatives without her husband's consent, or refuses to return home on his demand, she faces three months in prison — and criminal liability extends to any family member who sheltered her. In plain terms: if a woman flees domestic abuse and her parents take her in, both she and her parents can be imprisoned. The last informal safety net for abused Afghan women — the family home — has been made a crime scene.

The code also explicitly references slavery, repeatedly using the term "Ghulam" (slave) and granting "masters" the authority to impose discretionary punishments — effectively incorporating a slavery framework into a national legal system in 2026. It establishes a social hierarchy where religious scholars face no criminal consequence whatsoever, while those at the bottom of the class structure face corporal punishment for equivalent offenses. Criticizing the code itself is a criminal offense. Discussing it publicly is prohibited. The law not only enshrines violence — it forbids Afghans from protesting it.

Voices From Inside: What Afghan Women Are Saying

Afghan women and international advocates protest the Taliban's systematic erasure of women's rights.

The voices of Afghan women themselves — those still inside the country and those who have escaped to speak from exile — cut through the legal abstractions with painful clarity.

Zarqa, a 34-year-old former schoolteacher in Kabul who asked that her full name not be published for her safety, described her situation to a human rights researcher in February 2026: "My husband now tells me openly that the law is on his side. He says this in front of our children. What do I tell my daughter, who is twelve and has not been to school in five years? That the law says her body belongs to her father and then her husband, and that is all she is worth?"

Fawzia Koofi, the former Afghan member of parliament who has continued speaking out from exile in Europe, framed the code as the culmination of a deliberate strategy: "This is not culture. This is not religion. This is a political project to eliminate women from public life entirely — and now from the protection of the law itself. They are not done. Every time the world expresses outrage and does nothing, they go further."

Mahbouba Seraj, the Afghan women's rights activist and CNN Hero, who remained in Kabul longer than almost any other prominent advocate before eventually leaving, described the psychological toll in stark terms: "The women of Afghanistan are not broken. But they are being erased — from schools, from courts, from streets, from sound. A woman cannot even let her voice be heard through her own window. And now the law says her husband may beat her, and this is not a crime. Tell me — what word is there for this other than annihilation?"

These are not abstract policy concerns. They are the lived reality of approximately 20 million Afghan women and girls who wake up every day inside a legal system that has formally declared their bodies available for punishment and their autonomy a criminal offense.

What This Code Replaced — and Why That Matters

The 2026 penal code did not emerge into a legal vacuum. It deliberately replaced protections that Afghan women had spent years fighting to establish. Most critically, it officially repeals the 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law — the landmark legislation that had criminalized forced marriage, prosecuted domestic violence, and provided the legal foundation for women's protection in Afghanistan for over a decade.

The EVAW law was imperfect and unevenly enforced, particularly in rural areas. But it represented a legal principle — that women had rights worth protecting, and that the state had an obligation to defend them. That principle has now been formally erased and replaced with its opposite: a legal framework that protects the perpetrator of violence, not the victim.

The code also scraps all previous legislation protecting women's rights, replacing it with a framework in which the Taliban's interpretation of religious law is the sole arbiter of what women may do, where they may go, and what may be done to their bodies. Human rights groups describe it as the completion of a legal transformation that began the moment the Taliban seized Kabul in August 2021 — the systematic conversion of Afghanistan's legal system from one that, however imperfectly, recognized women as rights-bearing persons, to one that recognizes them primarily as dependents subject to male authority.

Afghanistan vs. Saudi Arabia: A Comparison the Taliban Hates

A mural in Afghanistan depicting the reality of gender-based violence — now formally sanctioned by law.

The Taliban frequently invokes Islamic law as the justification for its treatment of women. But a direct comparison with Saudi Arabia — a country that governed under a conservative interpretation of Islamic law for decades — exposes the Taliban's framework for what it actually is: not religious observance, but political extremism dressed in religious language.

Saudi Arabia, just a decade ago, was itself one of the world's most restrictive countries for women. Women could not drive, could not travel without male guardian permission, and faced extensive social segregation. Yet between 2017 and 2023, the Kingdom underwent a remarkable transformation under Vision 2030: women gained the right to drive in 2018, the guardianship system was significantly reformed in 2019, women were permitted to obtain passports and travel independently, and they began entering the workforce in large numbers — with female labor force participation rising from 17% in 2017 to over 33% by 2024. Women now attend football matches, perform at concerts, and hold senior government positions. Saudi Arabia is still far from a model of gender equality — but the direction of travel is unmistakable, and it demonstrates conclusively that conservative Islamic governance is not inherently incompatible with expanding women's rights.

The Taliban has moved in the precisely opposite direction. Where Saudi Arabia dismantled its male guardianship system, the Taliban codified and criminally enforced it. Where Saudi Arabia opened schools, stadiums, and workplaces to women, the Taliban closed them. Where Saudi Arabia removed domestic violence from the realm of private "discretion" and began criminalizing it, the Taliban has formally reclassified it as a husband's legal right. The contrast is not subtle. It is total. And it makes clear that what is happening in Afghanistan is not the result of Islamic law — it is the result of a specific political movement that has chosen to use religion as the instrument of total authoritarian control.

Legal scholar and former Afghan Supreme Court Justice Najla Rahimi, speaking from exile in Germany, put it bluntly: "Saudi Arabia, which the Taliban claims as a model, has moved forward for women. The Taliban has gone backward. They are not following Islam. They are using Islam to build a prison."

The Global Outcry: "Will Anyone Stop Them?"

When Rawadari published the penal code and international media began translating its provisions in February 2026, the global reaction was swift and fierce. UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women Reem Alsalem wrote on X: "The implications of this latest code for women and girls is simply terrifying. The Taliban have understood correctly that no one will stop them. Will the international community prove them wrong? And if so, when?"

That question — when? — has become the defining challenge of the international response. Condemnation has been universal. Concrete action has been limited. Rawadari urged the United Nations and international bodies to immediately halt implementation and use all available legal instruments to prevent enforcement. The Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security published a detailed analysis describing the code as legalizing "slavery, violence, and repression." Human Rights Watch called for the formal recognition of Taliban governance as gender apartheid under international law.

Indian lyricist and public intellectual Javed Akhtar posted on X on February 21, 2026: "Talibans have legalised wife beating but without any bone fracture. If a wife goes to her parent place without her husband's permission, she will be jailed for three months. I beseech the Mufties and mullas of India to condemn it unconditionally because it all is being done in the name of their religion." His words sparked fierce debate across South Asia, with the Population Foundation of India calling the law "shocking and dangerous."

Four countries — Germany, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands — have initiated legal proceedings against the Taliban at the International Court of Justice for violations of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Taliban's spokesman dismissed the proceedings as "absurd," claiming that "human rights are protected in Afghanistan." The proceedings continue, measured in years rather than weeks, while the penal code is enforced today.

The Scale of the Crisis: Numbers That Cannot Be Ignored

The statistics underpinning the Taliban's rule are staggering in their human cost. UN data indicates that 90% of Afghan women experience some form of domestic abuse. Over 2.2 million girls remain barred from secondary education since 2021 — the largest single gender-based education exclusion in the world. More than 50 edicts targeting women and girls have been issued since August 2021. Half of Afghanistan's population faces food insecurity. Mental health crises — depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts among women — have surged to levels that overwhelm the country's already-devastated healthcare infrastructure.

The economic consequences compound the human ones. Before 2021, women constituted a growing share of Afghanistan's workforce, particularly in healthcare, education, and civil society. Their exclusion has removed a critical pillar of the Afghan economy at precisely the moment when the country needs every available human resource to rebuild from four decades of war. The World Bank estimates Afghanistan's GDP has contracted by over 30% since the Taliban takeover, with the exclusion of women from economic life identified as a primary structural driver of that collapse.

None of this has slowed the Taliban's legislative agenda. If anything, the trajectory has accelerated. Each condemnation from the international community has been followed not by concession, but by the next restriction. The penal code of January 2026 is not the end of that trajectory. It is a milestone along it.

What Must Happen Next

The scale of the challenge does not make action impossible — it makes it more urgent. Human rights advocates and legal scholars have outlined concrete steps that go beyond the statements of condemnation that the Taliban has shown it can absorb without consequence.

The ICJ proceedings must be expanded — more countries need to formally join Germany, Australia, Can

SCOTUS Rules Against Trump Tariffs: Prices, Refunds & What Comes Next for America

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs: Challenges and Opportunities Ahead for the US Economy

Published: February 21, 2026 | Category: Economy & Policy | Reading Time: 10 minutes

In one of the most consequential economic rulings in recent American history, the United States Supreme Court on Friday, February 20, 2026, struck down the sweeping emergency tariffs that President Donald Trump had imposed on nearly every trading partner in the world. The 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the 1977 law Trump used as the legal backbone for his tariff agenda — does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. It was a stunning rebuke, not just politically, but economically. And the ripple effects will be felt by every American household, every importing business, and every corner of global trade for months — possibly years — to come.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, was blunt: "Based on two words separated by 16 others in IEEPA — 'regulate' and 'importation' — the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight." Roberts was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented.

The ruling is seismic. Trump's IEEPA tariffs — which included a universal baseline rate plus sky-high "reciprocal" levies on specific countries — had collectively been estimated to raise $1.4 trillion over the next decade. They had already collected more than $160 billion from US importers since going into effect in 2025. Now they're gone. And what replaces them — legally, economically, and politically — is the defining question of 2026.

What the Court Actually Did — and Didn't — Do

Before diving into what this means for your wallet and the broader economy, it's important to understand the boundaries of Friday's ruling. The Supreme Court did not strike down all of Trump's tariffs. What it specifically invalidated were the tariffs imposed under IEEPA — the emergency economic powers statute. That includes the headline-grabbing "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs announced in April 2025, the universal 10% baseline levy on most trading partners, and the associated country-specific rates.

What the court left completely untouched are the Section 232 tariffs — industry-specific duties on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and heavy trucks. These were imposed under a separate legal authority and remain fully in effect. According to the Tax Foundation, these Section 232 tariffs alone will raise an estimated $635 billion over the next decade and amount to an average tax increase of roughly $400 per US household in 2026.

Trump's response was immediate and defiant. Within hours of the ruling, he signed an executive order imposing a new 10% across-the-board global tariff — this time under the authority of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The catch? Section 122 tariffs can only remain in place for 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters that other legal authorities available to the president would "result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026" — a claim that trade analysts are treating with considerable skepticism.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, in a rare moment of public disagreement with his former boss, praised the ruling. "Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Constitution grants Congress — not the President — the power to tax," Pence wrote in a post on X. "This is a Victory for the American People and a Win for the Separation of Powers." Meanwhile, Trump called the ruling "deeply disappointing" and said he was "absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court" who voted against him — specifically singling out two of his own appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

The $175 Billion Question: Who Gets a Refund?

The most immediate economic drama triggered by the ruling isn't about future tariffs — it's about the past. Over the period the IEEPA tariffs were in effect, the US government collected more than $160 billion from importers. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates refund claims could reach as high as $175 billion. The Yale Budget Lab puts the figure at a similar level. And the court's ruling was conspicuously, almost provocatively, silent on whether and how those refunds should be issued.

Justice Kavanaugh, in his dissent, warned that the refund process "is likely to be a 'mess.'" He noted that "the United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others." That's the central complexity here: money flowed from importers to the US Treasury, but much of it was already passed along the supply chain to retailers and ultimately to consumers. Untangling that chain is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

Companies wasted no time. Costco, Revlon, and Bumble Bee Foods had already filed suits seeking refunds even before the ruling came down, positioning themselves at the front of the line. Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center, which led the legal fight for small businesses, said her organization intends to help companies navigate the refund process, including developing "a centralized database, information portal, and referral network to connect affected companies with qualified attorneys." Small business owner David Levi of MicroKits LLC captured the sentiment of many when he said he'd been in "a constant state of worry" since the tariffs were imposed, but now felt he could finally start growing his business again.

Trade lawyers caution that the path to refunds will be slow and contested. TD Securities estimates the refund process could take 12 to 18 months to roll out. Manufacturers may sue for a share of refunds given to suppliers who jacked up raw material prices. Consumers, who ultimately bore much of the cost through higher prices, are almost certainly not going to see any direct compensation. As one attorney put it: "In America, we have the ability to file a lawsuit for anything we want" — but winning a refund as a consumer who paid higher prices at retail is a near-impossible legal challenge. Expect years of litigation.

What It Means for Prices and Inflation

Here's where many Americans hoping for immediate price relief may be disappointed. Economist Stephanie Roth of Wolfe Research gave a one-word answer when asked what the ruling means for prices: "Nothing." That's a stark but largely accurate assessment of the short term. Trump's 10% global tariff signed within hours of the ruling means the broad tariff floor doesn't actually disappear — it just changes its legal clothes. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos remain. The new Section 122 global tariff adds another layer. The net effect on most import costs in the near term is limited.

The Yale Budget Lab's analysis found that the remaining post-SCOTUS tariff regime still represents an effective tariff rate increase of about 6.7 percentage points for the average American import basket. That translates to a short-run consumer price increase of roughly 0.6%, equivalent to a household income loss of about $800 per year in 2025 dollars — or $600 once consumers substitute away to cheaper alternatives. That's down significantly from the $1,000 per household hit that existed under the full IEEPA regime, but it's hardly the clean slate that anti-tariff advocates were hoping for.

The longer-term picture is more nuanced. RSM Chief Economist Joseph Brusuelas pointed out that if the government does proceed with refunds of $130 to $175 billion, the economic stimulus effect would be substantial — comparable to a major tax cut package. "Another $130 billion implies close to one quarter of a trillion dollars of effective stimulus, so the economic implications of this are significant," Brusuelas wrote. That refund wave, if and when it hits, could meaningfully boost business investment and consumer spending heading into 2027 — assuming the legal process doesn't drag it out so long that the economic window has closed.

Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the House Budget Committee's top Democrat, called the ruling "a victory for every American family paying higher prices because of Trump's tariff taxes," framing it as the Supreme Court rejecting what he called "a national sales tax on hardworking Americans." House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal called it "a victory for the American people, the rule of law, and our standing in the global economy." But both Democrats and economists acknowledge that the relief is partial, not total — Trump's tariff architecture, while significantly trimmed, remains standing.

Markets Cheer — But Cautiously

Wall Street's reaction on Friday was positive but measured. The S&P 500 advanced 0.69% to close at 6,909.51. The Nasdaq gained 0.9% to settle at 22,886.07. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 230.81 points, or 0.47%, closing at 49,625.97. The Dow had actually been down 200 points earlier in the session on disappointing GDP data — fourth-quarter growth came in at just 1.4%, well below the 2.5% consensus — before the tariff ruling flipped sentiment.

Market strategist Mark Smith captured the mood: "I think this decision is a green light for the equity bulls as the tariff issue which has been an emotional undercurrent in the stock market since last April." He added that the ruling "may very well be the catalyst that the stock market needs to move out of the narrow trading range that it has been in so far in 2026." Keith Lerner, Chief Investment Officer at Truist Wealth, acknowledged that while markets had been expecting the court to strike down the tariffs, new questions about Trump's replacement tariff actions now create a fresh layer of uncertainty for businesses trying to plan.

The industries most directly benefiting from Friday's ruling are those that bore the heaviest IEEPA tariff burdens — consumer goods importers, electronics, apparel, footwear, and food products. Matt Priest, president and CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, said the ruling "marks an important step toward creating a more predictable and competitive environment for American businesses and consumers," and that it "provides relief at a time when cost pressures have been significant." The Distilled Spirits Council used the ruling to call on the administration to lock in "permanent zero-for-zero tariffs" with major trade partners, arguing that certainty would benefit both exporters and domestic hospitality businesses.

The Opportunity: A More Predictable Trade Environment

Perhaps the most significant economic opportunity created by Friday's ruling isn't the immediate tariff relief — it's the restoration of something American businesses have been starved of since early 2025: predictability. The on-again, off-again nature of Trump's tariff policy — with rates announced, paused, reimposed, tweaked, and renegotiated on what sometimes felt like a weekly basis — created a planning nightmare for supply chains, investment decisions, and hiring plans across virtually every sector of the economy.

The court's ruling establishes a clear constitutional boundary: imposing tariffs of this scope requires explicit congressional authorization. That means any future president — or this one — seeking to use sweeping emergency tariff powers will face an immediate and likely successful legal challenge. The "major questions" doctrine that Roberts invoked essentially requires Congress to speak clearly before handing the executive branch extraordinary economic powers of this kind. For businesses, that legal clarity is genuinely valuable, even if the underlying tariff environment remains challenging due to surviving Section 232 duties and the new 10% global rate.

Global trading partners cheered. The European Commission said businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on "stability and predictability," while pledging to remain in close contact with the US administration. French President Emmanuel Macron reportedly noted that the ruling proved the value of an effective judicial counterweight to executive power. A UK government spokesperson said the country would continue working with Washington to understand the ruling's implications for bilateral trade. Taiwan, home to the world's most advanced semiconductor manufacturing, assessed that the new flat 10% tariff would have "limited impact" on its economy compared to the previous reciprocal regime.

For US exporters, the ruling also creates an opportunity to push for reciprocal tariff reductions from trading partners who had imposed retaliatory measures in response to the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs. As of mid-2025, retaliatory tariffs affected roughly $223 billion in US exports. If those retaliatory measures begin to unwind as the IEEPA tariffs fall away, American agricultural producers, manufacturers, and technology companies could see meaningful market access improvements — particularly in Europe, Canada, and Japan.

The Challenges: What Doesn't Go Away

The ruling's limits matter enormously, and any honest accounting of the post-ruling economic landscape requires confronting them. Tariffs on steel and aluminum — which directly affect auto manufacturing, construction, aerospace, and industrial machinery — remain fully intact. Tariffs on automobiles and heavy trucks remain. China still faces tariffs of around 30% on most goods (a combination of "fentanyl" tariffs and surviving reciprocal levies). These are not minor burdens. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the remaining tariff regime still generates a long-run drag on US GDP of approximately 0.1%, or about $30 billion annually in 2025 dollars.

The labor market will continue to feel pressure. Economists at the Budget Lab estimate the unemployment rate will be roughly 0.3 percentage points higher by end of 2026 due to the remaining tariffs — a smaller impact than if the full IEEPA regime had survived, but still meaningful for workers in import-sensitive industries. Manufacturing sectors that had hoped tariff protection would incentivize domestic investment now face the uncertainty of whether the administration can successfully replace IEEPA levies with equivalent rates under other legal authorities — and whether those replacement tariffs will hold up to further legal challenges.

The refund litigation itself introduces a significant challenge. The case has been remanded to the US Court of International Trade to address refunds, a process that trade lawyers universally describe as slow, complex, and uncertain. The government collected $133.5 billion in IEEPA tariffs through December 2025 alone. If refunds are ultimately ordered, the fiscal impact on the federal budget would be enormous — erasing nearly three-quarters of the new revenue generated by the Trump tariff regime. That could force difficult budget decisions, particularly at a time when the administration is simultaneously pursuing major tax cut legislation.

Perhaps most critically, the political uncertainty around trade policy has not ended — it has entered a new and arguably more volatile phase. Trump's immediate imposition of a replacement 10% global tariff signals that the administration intends to use every available legal tool to maintain maximum tariff pressure. That means more court battles, more policy uncertainty, and more difficult planning environments for the businesses and supply chains that simply need to know what the rules are going to be six months from now. The Nik Holm, CEO of Terry Precision Cycling, captured the mixed emotion of the business community: "Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government's refund of these improperly collected duties."

What Congress Needs to Do Next

The Supreme Court's ruling does more than just invalidate Trump's tariffs — it sends a clear signal to Congress that it must step up and exercise its constitutional role in trade policy. The majority's reasoning explicitly rested on the idea that Congress, not the executive, holds the power to levy tariffs, and that any delegation of that power to the president must be specific and carefully constrained. Chief Justice Roberts put it plainly: "When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints. It did neither here."

That creates both a mandate and an opportunity for Congress to engage in the kind of thorough, transparent trade policy debate that has been largely bypassed over the past two decades of free trade deals and executive-driven tariff actions. If the administration wants lasting tariff authority, it will need to work with Congress — the body that actually controls trade law — to craft a framework that can survive legal scrutiny. That's a difficult political task in a divided environment, but it's the kind of outcome the Constitution envisioned when the founders placed tariff authority explicitly with the legislative branch.

House Ways and Means Committee members on both sides have indicated interest in passing legislation that gives the executive meaningful but bounded trade authority — enough to use tariffs as a negotiating tool without enabling the kind of sweeping unilateral action the court rejected. Whether that coalition can come together amid the ongoing political turbulence around this ruling remains to be seen. But the legal landscape is now clear: the era of unchecked presidential tariff imposition under emergency powers is over.

The Bottom Line for 2026

The Supreme Court's ruling on February 20, 2026 is not a clean reset button for the US economy — and anyone hoping it would be is going to be disappointed. The tariff burden on American importers and consumers has been reduced significantly, but it has not been eliminated. A new 10% global tariff has already been signed. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos remain law. The refund battles will drag through the courts for years. And the US-China trade relationship, which was always the most consequential front in the tariff war, remains defined by high and largely surviving tariff walls on both sides.

But make no mistake: this is a consequential turning point. The ruling restores a measure of constitutional order to US trade policy. It creates legal clarity that businesses have desperately needed. It opens the door — perhaps for the first time in years — to genuine, negotiated trade agreements that don't rest on emergency powers and can therefore provide durable market access rather than month-to-month uncertainty. The potential $130 to $175 billion in refunds, when they eventually flow, will provide a meaningful economic boost. And global trading partners, while still wary of US unpredictability, are watching carefully for the opportunity to rebuild trade relationships on more stable legal footing.

The Yale Budget Lab's Natasha Sarin, speaking on PBS NewsHour the evening of the ruling, captured the complexity perfectly: the ruling is significant, but the administration's determination to replace the IEEPA tariffs means the economic battle over trade is far from over. The arena has simply shifted — from the executive branch acting alone, to a three-way contest between the White House, Congress, and the courts. For the US economy, for American businesses, and for families still feeling the sting of the past year's higher prices, the outcome of that contest will shape the economic landscape for years to come.

The courts have spoken. Now it's Congress's turn. And the American economy is watching.

Stay tuned to our Economy section for continued coverage of the tariff ruling's fallout, the refund litigation, and the future of US trade policy throughout 2026.

Related Topics: What Are Section 232 Tariffs? | IEEPA Explained: The Emergency Law at the Center of the Tariff Fight | US-China Trade War 2026 Update | How Tariffs Affect Your Grocery Bill | Congress and Trade: What Comes Next

Tags: #SupremeCourtTariffs #TrumpTariffs #USEconomy2026 #IEEPA #TradePolicy #TariffRefunds #Section232 #SCOTUSRuling #USTradeWar #AmericanEconomy #TariffRuling #ChiefJusticeRoberts #TrumpTradeWar #EconomicPolicy2026

10 Best US Stocks to Buy in 2026: Wall Street Picks

Published: February 17, 2026  |  Category: Markets & Investing  |  Reading Time: 12 minutes  |  equitymidcap.com

Three straight years of double-digit S&P 500 gains. AI capex spending smashing every forecast. And Wall Street's biggest banks — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Bank of America — all converging on the same message: 2026 is a year to be in equities, not hiding from them. But which specific stocks are the professionals actually buying?

We went through the research notes, the TipRanks rankings, the analyst price targets, and the fund manager interviews so you don't have to. What follows are the 10 US stocks with the strongest institutional conviction behind them right now — each one backed by named analysts, real price targets, and the reasoning behind the recommendation. This is not a list of internet speculation. These are the names the biggest money on Wall Street is putting real capital behind in 2026.

Quick Reference: All 10 Stocks at a Glance

#	Stock	Ticker	Analyst Consensus	Avg Price Target	Implied Upside	Key Backer
1	Nvidia	NVDA	Strong Buy (37/37)	$257	+37%	Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley
2	Amazon	AMZN	Strong Buy (45 analysts)	$296	+27%	JPMorgan, RBC Capital
3	Microsoft	MSFT	Strong Buy	$650	+34%	Morgan Stanley
4	Alphabet	GOOGL	Strong Buy (27/34)	$327	+18%	JPMorgan, MarketBeat
5	Broadcom	AVGO	Strong Buy (27/29)	$455	+30%	BofA, Goldman Sachs
6	Meta Platforms	META	Strong Buy	$780	+20%	Wedbush, MarketBeat
7	Micron Technology	MU	Buy (consensus)	$135	+50%	CNBC/TipRanks Top Analyst
8	CrowdStrike	CRWD	Moderate Buy	$430	+20%	MarketBeat, Investing.com
9	ConocoPhillips	COP	Buy	$130	+22%	CNBC/TipRanks — Nitin Mehta
10	DoorDash	DASH	Strong Buy	$210	+25%	JPMorgan — Doug Anmuth

📊 Analyst Consensus Price Targets vs Current Price (Feb 2026)

1. Nvidia (NVDA) — The Undisputed King of the AI Trade

NVDA NVIDIA Corporation ⭐ Strong Buy

Current Price

~$187

Consensus Target

$257

Implied Upside

+37%

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target	Date
David Ives	Goldman Sachs	Buy	$250	Feb 5, 2026
Joseph Moore	Morgan Stanley	Buy	$250	Jan 29, 2026
C.J. Muse	Cantor Fitzgerald	Strong Buy (Top Pick)	$300	Feb 3, 2026
Vivek Arya	Bank of America	Buy	$250	Feb 2, 2026
Harlan Sur	J.P. Morgan	Buy	$275	Jan 2026

"Vera Rubin is the clearest way for Nvidia to cut through all the competitive noise in the AI space. Demand for its GPUs remains hotter than expected as businesses race to scale AI models." — Joseph Moore, Morgan Stanley (5-star TipRanks analyst)

If there is one stock that every major institution has on its 2026 buy list, it is Nvidia. The numbers are almost absurdly lopsided: 37 out of 37 analysts covering the stock rate it a Buy as of February 2026. The consensus price target of $257 implies 37% upside from current levels. Cantor Fitzgerald's top pick target of $300 implies 60% upside. Even the most conservative major target — JPMorgan's $275 — implies nearly 50% gains from here.

The bull case is straightforward. Nvidia controls roughly 85% of the AI accelerator market. Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon collectively plan to spend over $650 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 — a 70% jump from 2025. The next generation Vera Rubin platform is expected to cut inference costs by 10 times versus the current Blackwell chip, making AI deployment cheaper and faster, which drives more demand, not less. Goldman Sachs estimates AI capex investment will exceed $500 billion this year. As Morgan Stanley's Joseph Moore put it plainly: the concerns about competitors catching up are "overstated."

📈 NVDA — Analyst Price Target Range (Feb 2026)

2. Amazon (AMZN) — AWS Acceleration + $200B Capex Commitment

AMZN Amazon.com, Inc. ⭐ Strong Buy

Current Price

~$232

Consensus Target

$296

Implied Upside

+27%

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target	Date
Doug Anmuth	J.P. Morgan (Top 2%)	Strong Buy	$310	Jan 2026
Brad Erickson	RBC Capital (Rank #195)	Buy	$295	Jan 2026
MarketBeat Consensus	61 analysts	Moderate Buy	$296	Feb 2026

"Best in-class visibility on AI infrastructure ROIC with compelling product cycle and capacity acceleration cycle coming. AWS has a $200 billion order backlog — the strong top-line results are likely to continue." — Brad Erickson, RBC Capital (Rank #195, 58% success rate, 21.9% avg return)

Amazon is the company that most institutional investors view as simultaneously the most undervalued megacap and the most important AI infrastructure play that isn't called Nvidia. AWS generated a record $33 billion in revenue in Q3 2025, up 20% year-over-year — its fastest growth rate since late 2022. That $200 billion order backlog from customers waiting for data center capacity to come online virtually guarantees continued momentum. Amazon has committed $200 billion in capital expenditure for 2026 — the largest single-company AI investment commitment on record.

MarketBeat tracked 108 bullish analyst updates from 61 analysts covering Amazon. The consensus price target implies 27% upside, with the most bullish targets reaching nearly 50% upside. JPMorgan's Doug Anmuth — ranked in the top 2% of all Wall Street analysts — has Amazon as one of his top internet picks for 2026 specifically.

3. Microsoft (MSFT) — The Large-Cap Software Top Pick

MSFT Microsoft Corporation ⭐ Strong Buy

Current Price

~$487

Morgan Stanley Target

$650

Implied Upside

+34%

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target	Date
Keith Weiss	Morgan Stanley (Rank #400)	Top Pick — Buy	$650	Jan 2026
Analyst Consensus	Multiple firms	Strong Buy	$530	Feb 2026

"Meeting with executives across Microsoft businesses leaves us with conviction on robust demand translating to durable mid-teens top-line growth. Sustained demand and the possibility for further margin expansion are not yet fully valued by the market." — Keith Weiss, Morgan Stanley (Rank #400, 63% success rate, 12.1% avg return)

Morgan Stanley's Keith Weiss made Microsoft his top pick in the large-cap software sector, with a price target of $650 that implies 34% upside. His case: Azure cloud demand is durable, AI Copilot monetization is barely in its early stages, and the market is underpricing Microsoft's margin expansion potential. Microsoft committed to spending over $140 billion on AI infrastructure in fiscal 2026 — an 80% increase in AI capacity year-over-year. CEO Satya Nadella said the company plans to "roughly double our total data center footprint over the next two years." With a market cap of $3.6 trillion and a Strong Buy consensus, this is the definition of institutional conviction.

4. Alphabet (GOOGL) — Google's AI Bet Is Finally Paying Off

GOOGL Alphabet Inc. ⭐ Strong Buy

Current Price

~$316

Consensus Target

$327

High-End Target

$385

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target	Date
Doug Anmuth	J.P. Morgan (Top 2%)	Top Pick	$340	Jan 5, 2026
Multiple analysts	MarketBeat (51 analysts)	Moderate Buy	$385 (high end)	Feb 2026

"Heading into 2026, we remain constructive on overall digital trends. Alphabet is one of our favorite ideas — Google Cloud is becoming a more meaningful contributor, posting $15.16 billion in revenue and growing 33.5% year-over-year." — Doug Anmuth, J.P. Morgan (Top 2% of all Wall Street analysts)

JPMorgan's Doug Anmuth — one of the highest-rated internet analysts on all of Wall Street — named Alphabet a top pick for 2026. The numbers back him up. Google Search revenue hit $74.2 billion in Q3 2025. Google Cloud grew 33.5% year-over-year to $15.16 billion. Gemini models are gaining traction in enterprise. And Alphabet committed $180 billion in capex for 2026 — up 98% from 2025 — signaling extreme confidence in its own AI-driven growth outlook. With 27 out of 34 analysts rating it a Buy, the Street's conviction is real.

5. Broadcom (AVGO) — The Custom AI Chip Empire

AVGO Broadcom Inc. ⭐ Strong Buy

Current Price

~$350

Consensus Target

$455

Implied Upside

+30%

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target	Date
Vivek Arya	Bank of America	Top Pick	$450+	Dec 29, 2025
James Schneider	Goldman Sachs	Buy	$450	Jan 2026
Joseph Shaposhnik	Rainwater Equity (PM)	Strong Buy	AI revenue doubling	Jan 2026

"Broadcom is a critical arms dealer in the AI boom. Its unique ability to dominate custom silicon has further upside from expanding relationships with AI players like Anthropic and OpenAI." — James Schneider, Goldman Sachs (Price target: $450)

Bank of America's Vivek Arya — the analyst who forecast the semiconductor industry hitting a $1 trillion milestone in 2026 — named Broadcom as one of his top six chip picks for the year. Goldman Sachs analyst James Schneider called it a "critical arms dealer in the AI boom." Broadcom posted $6.5 billion in AI semiconductor revenue in its most recent quarter, up 74% year-over-year. OpenAI signed a multi-hundred-billion-dollar deal with Broadcom for custom AI chips. Apple is reportedly working with Broadcom on an AI chip for mass production. With 27 Buys and just two Holds among 29 analysts, the consensus is about as clean as it gets.

6. Meta Platforms (META) — The Cheapest Megacap Tech Stock

META Meta Platforms, Inc. ⭐ Strong Buy

AI Spend 2026

$125B

Ad Impression Growth

+14%

Ad Price Growth

+10%

"Meta is the cheapest megacap tech stock. AI is improving its recommendation algorithm, leading to users spending more time on its sites. Ad impressions jumped 14%, while ad prices climbed 10% — the AI investment is clearly working." — Motley Fool / MarketBeat consensus analysis (119 bullish analyst updates in 2025)

Meta committed to spending $115 to $135 billion in AI infrastructure in 2026 — a massive vote of confidence by Zuckerberg in the AI advertising supercycle. The market's initial nervousness about that spending level evaporated when results proved the case: AI has improved Meta's recommendation engines so dramatically that ad impressions jumped 14% and ad prices rose 10% in a single quarter. Threads and WhatsApp are just beginning to introduce advertising — a revenue stream that doesn't yet exist in financial models. MarketBeat tracked 119 bullish analyst updates in 2025, sentiment is firmed, and Meta remains the largest upside opportunity among all megacap tech names.

7. Micron Technology (MU) — The Cheapest AI Trade on Wall Street

MU Micron Technology, Inc. ⭐ Buy

P/E (Next 12M)

<6x

DRAM Growth 2026

+20%

Price Target

$135

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Key Argument
Top analyst (Rank #350)	TipRanks tracked	Buy	Trades at less than 6x next-12-month EPS. Industry supply constraints driving price. DRAM+NAND shipments growing 20% in 2026.

"After another round of positive estimate revisions, the stock trades at less than 6x my next-12-months EPS estimate. Despite industry supply constraints, Micron expects both DRAM and NAND bit shipments to increase by 20% in 2026." — TipRanks Rank #350 analyst, as reported by CNBC (January 4, 2026)

Micron is the contrarian pick in this list — a stock that looks optically expensive until you run the actual earnings math. Trading at less than 6x next-12-month earnings estimates, it is one of the cheapest pure-play AI infrastructure stocks in the market. The reason: Micron makes the HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) chips that every major AI accelerator — from Nvidia's Blackwell to Google's TPUs — requires. Supply is constrained. Demand is exploding. Prices are rising. MarketBeat tracked 42 bullish analyst revisions for Micron, with the consensus price target up over 110% in 2025 and continuing to trend higher.

8. CrowdStrike (CRWD) — Cybersecurity's AI-Native Leader

CRWD CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. ⭐ Moderate Buy

Revenue Growth 2026

+22%

RPO Growth (Q3)

+37%

Consensus Target Upside

+20%

"CrowdStrike has had industry-leading growth, client acquisition, and retention. The 2026 outlook is for another 22% revenue growth and wider margins — and is likely a lowball estimate given the trends and outlook for increased cloud use." — Investing.com analysis (MarketBeat: 114 bullish revisions from 52 analysts in 2025)

CrowdStrike's Q3 fiscal 2026 results showed something remarkable: remaining performance obligations — the forward-looking revenue indicator — grew 37% year-over-year, suggesting the next few quarters could see growth accelerating above 30%. That's extraordinary for a company already generating billions in annual revenue. With 43 analysts covering the stock, a consensus Moderate Buy, and the high-end price target implying 50% upside, CrowdStrike is the pick for investors who want AI exposure without paying Nvidia multiples.

9. ConocoPhillips (COP) — Tom Lee's Energy Conviction Pick

COP ConocoPhillips ⭐ Buy

FCF Target by 2029

+$7B

Cash Return Target

45%

2026 FCF Target

+$1B

Analyst	Firm	Rating	Price Target
Nitin Mehta (Rank #559)	TipRanks tracked / CNBC	Buy	$130
Tom Lee	Fundstrat Global Advisors	Sector Top Pick	Energy sector leader

"I think energy stocks are where you want to be. Data centers are going to put massive upside into future oil prices. Everything from AI power demands to this shift away from alternatives is going to be putting upside into energy — and that's why energy stocks are cheap right now." — Tom Lee, Fundstrat Global Advisors (correctly called the 2025 rally)

Tom Lee — the Fundstrat analyst who correctly called investors to buy stocks at near-bear market lows in spring 2025 and stayed bullish through the entire rally — made energy stocks his biggest contrarian call for 2026. ConocoPhillips is his favored vehicle: a world-class operator with four major growth projects coming online (North Field East, North Field South, Port Arthur, and Willow), a target of $7 billion in incremental free cash flow by 2029, and a management team committed to returning 45% of cash from operations to shareholders. The stock is cheap relative to its peers precisely because energy has been out of favor — which is exactly the setup Lee has built his career finding.

10. DoorDash (DASH) — JPMorgan's Under-the-Radar Internet Pick

DASH DoorDash, Inc. ⭐ Strong Buy

Analyst Rating

Strong Buy

Key Market

UK + France

Implied Upside

+25%

"DASH's strong performance in the core business has been driven by platform investments, and we expect the current wave to also generate substantial ROI over the next few years. Concerns around re-platforming execution risk are likely overstated." — Doug Anmuth, J.P. Morgan (Top 2% of all Wall Street analysts, Jan 5, 2026)

DoorDash is the most surprising name on this list — and the one with the highest potential for a re-rating surprise. JPMorgan's Doug Anmuth, ranked in the top 2% of all Wall Street analysts, picked DoorDash alongside Alphabet and Amazon as his top three internet stocks for 2026. The thesis: DoorDash's core US business is generating strong ROI from prior platform investments, its international expansion through Deliveroo is gaining share in the UK and France, and consensus estimates have priced in the investment costs for 2026 without pricing in the likely returns. That asymmetry — costs visible, upside not — is precisely the setup institutional investors look for.

Which Stock Has the Most Analyst Upside? The Full Picture

📊 Implied Upside to Consensus Price Target — All 10 Stocks

What Could Go Wrong: The Honest Risk Assessment

Every one of these picks comes with real risks that honest analysis requires acknowledging. For the AI-heavy names — Nvidia, Broadcom, Micron, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta — the single biggest risk is an AI spending slowdown. The hyperscalers have committed to $650 billion in capex, but that commitment is only as durable as their confidence in AI ROI. If AI monetization disappoints — if enterprises don't convert AI pilots into paid contracts at scale — spending could decelerate faster than current models assume, and these stocks would reprice down sharply.

For CrowdStrike, the risk is competition: Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks are both building AI-native security platforms. For ConocoPhillips, it's oil prices — OPEC's production increases have already pushed crude lower, and a global demand slowdown would compound that pressure. For DoorDash, the risk is execution on the international expansion through Deliveroo, where the competitive landscape in Europe is tougher than in the US.

Goldman Sachs expects GDP to grow 2.6% in 2026. Fundstrat's Tom Lee is more optimistic at 5%. The base case is constructive — but the consensus also said AI hyperscaler capex would rise 19% in 2025, and it actually rose 64%. When the consensus is consistently wrong in one direction, that's worth noting. It could be wrong in the other direction too.

The Bottom Line: What This List Tells You About Where the Market Is Going

Look at the ten names on this list and a pattern emerges immediately: the dominant theme is AI infrastructure and the companies building, enabling, and monetizing it. Seven of the ten stocks — Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Broadcom, Meta, Micron — are directly in the AI infrastructure value chain. The other three — CrowdStrike, ConocoPhillips, DoorDash — represent either the AI security layer or the contrarian energy/consumer plays that sophisticated fund managers use to diversify a tech-heavy portfolio.

What unites all ten is genuine institutional conviction backed by named analysts with track records. These aren't message board speculation or influencer tips. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Bank of America, RBC Capital, and Cantor Fitzgerald — the biggest research operations on Wall Street — have all put price targets and Buy ratings behind these names in writing, within the last 90 days, with their professional reputations attached.

That doesn't mean they'll all work. Analyst consensus is right more often than not, but it isn't infallible. What it does mean is that if you're building a long-term portfolio in 2026 and want to know where the sharpest minds with the most resources are putting their money — this is the list.

Follow EquityMidCap's Markets & Investing section for weekly coverage of analyst upgrades, institutional moves, and the stocks Wall Street is actually buying — not just talking about.

⚠️ Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All price targets and analyst recommendations are sourced from publicly available research as of February 2026 and may have changed. Stock investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Always conduct your own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. EquityMidCap.com is not a registered investment advisor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the best US stocks to buy in 2026?
According to Wall Street analyst consensus as of February 2026, the top-rated US stocks are Nvidia (NVDA), Amazon (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Broadcom (AVGO). All carry Strong Buy ratings with double-digit upside to consensus price targets.

What is Goldman Sachs' top stock pick for 2026?
Goldman Sachs has reiterated Buy ratings on Nvidia with a $250 price target and Broadcom with a $450 price target, citing both as critical beneficiaries of the AI infrastructure supercycle. Goldman Sachs also forecasts AI capex spending will exceed $500 billion in 2026.

Is Nvidia a good buy in 2026?
37 out of 37 analysts rate Nvidia a Buy as of February 2026, with a consensus price target of $257 implying 37% upside. Cantor Fitzgerald has a top-pick Street-high target of $300. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs both have $250 targets with Buy ratings.

Which non-tech stocks are fund managers recommending for 2026?
Tom Lee of Fundstrat Global Advisors has made energy his top contrarian call, with ConocoPhillips as a favored pick. Lee argues AI data center power demand will drive long-term oil price upside while current crude prices keep energy stocks cheap relative to their fundamentals.

Related Topics: KOSPI Up 76%: Why Investors Are Rushing Into South Korea | Why FPIs Are Fleeing India | NFT Crash: How 96% of Collections Became Worthless | Is Your College Degree Worthless in the Age of AI?

#BestStocks2026 #WallStreetPicks #NvidiaStock #AmazonStock #MicrosoftStock #BroadcomAVGO #AIStocks2026 #GoldmanSachsPicks #MorganStanley #JPMorgan #StockMarket2026 #InvestingIn2026 #FundManagerPicks #MetaStock #MicronMU #CrowdStrikeCRWD #ConocoPhillipsCOP #DoorDashDASH