INTERNACIONAL
Supreme Court prepares to confront monumental case over Trump executive power and tariff authority
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Economic imperative or executive overreach? That is the question the Supreme Court is preparing this week to confront, in one of its most monumental appeals over the scope of executive power, a time-sensitive challenge to President Donald Trump’s expansive import tariffs over most countries.
The justices will hear oral arguments Wednesday over lawsuits from a coalition of small businesses and several Democratic-led states, who say Trump has abused his authority by declaring a «national emergency» to impose levies on nearly every country in the world.
At issue is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) gives the president that power.
TRUMP CUTS CHINA TARIFF AFTER XI SIGNALS TOUGHER FENTANYL ENFORCEMENT, RARE-EARTH PAUSE
Lower federal courts have ruled against the Executive Branch, but Trump’s Justice Department warns «denial of tariff authority would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses.»
The financial and political stakes are enormous, with potential immediate effects on the domestic and global economies. Businesses and industries, large and small, are nervously watching how the Court will act.
«The Supreme Court will decide whether or not Congress, in fact, gave the president the fairly broad authority that he’s claimed to impose [tariffs] on, in a way that no president has used it before,» said Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and a former top Justice Department official. «Not to say that’s necessarily impermissible, but it is something that the Supreme Court has not seen in recent years and is going to weigh in on whether or not he’s overstepped the authority that he has under the law.»
The final word
The consolidated, expedited appeals will be the first major test on the merits of the White House’s aggressive second-term agenda to remake large swaths of the federal government, and the outsized role this president has so far played.
The administration has been winning most of the emergency appeals at the Supreme Court since January dealt only with whether challenged policies could go into effect temporarily, while the issues play out in the lower courts — including immigration, federal spending cuts, workforce reductions and transgenders in the military.
The facade of the Supreme Court building at dusk is shown in this file photo. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
In doing so, the 6-3 conservative majority has reversed about two dozen preliminary nationwide injunctions imposed by lower federal courts, leading to frustration and confusion among many judges.
Now those percolating petitions are starting to reach the Supreme Court for final review — and legal analysts say the bench may be poised to grant broad unilateral powers to the president.
The justices fast-tracked the administration’s appeal over sweeping tariffs on nearly every country, which were blocked by lower courts.
A high court ruling on the merits could come quickly, perhaps within weeks. Both sides have urged a quick decision, since the U.S. has been engaged in active, ongoing trade negotiations with dozens of countries over the past months.
This could be the start of several high-profile merits appeals over Trump’s executive actions.
In December, the justices will decide whether to overturn a 90-year precedent dealing with the president’s ability to fire members of some federal regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission.
SENATE REPUBLICANS DEFECT, REJECT TRUMP’S TARIFFS ON CANADIAN GOODS
And in January, the power of President Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors will be tested in another major constitutional showdown. For now, the Biden-appointed Cook will remain on the job.
Other appeals that could be added to the high court argument docket include birthright citizenship and other immigration-related petitions, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies in educational institutions and the environment.
The law in question
Congress is given the power under the Constitution’s Article I to «lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.»
But when Trump in February began issuing a series of executive orders, he relied on the IEEPA, which gives the president the power — under a self-declared national economic emergency — to «investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.»
The Trump Justice Department says the choices are stark.
«President Trump and his advisors have determined that erroneously invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, ‘would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy,’» wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who will argue the case before the justices. Citing Trump’s own words, «The President has emphasized: ‘If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements … the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.»
President Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP Photo)
But the plaintiffs claim no president until now in the law’s five decades has ever used it to impose «sweeping worldwide» tariffs.
«Context, history and common sense all support a more modest understanding of that provision — one that leaves the President ample tools to address emergencies but does not delegate Congress’ tariffing power wholesale,» wrote Benjamin Gutman, Oregon’s solicitor general, who will argue the case for the state plaintiffs. «This Court should reject the President’s bid to seize that power for himself.»
Two categories of tariffs involving a variety of products are being contested: The first are «trafficking tariffs,» on goods from Canada, China and Mexico, imposed after the Trump administration said those nations have not done enough to reduce the flow of fentanyl.
The second, broader category, labeled «reciprocal tariffs,» involves tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on products from virtually all countries.
The arguments
The Supreme Court will hold at least 80-minutes of scheduled oral arguments in its marble-lined courtroom, but the public session is expected to last much longer.
The justices will almost certainly have many questions of counsel from both sides, since they will be confronting a range of novel legal and constitutional questions over Trump’s tariff authority.
TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT FOR URGENT RULING ON TARIFF POWERS AS ‘STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER’
The arguments — audio of which will be streamed live on the court’s website — will consist of the bench posing questions, comments and hypotheticals to lawyers from the federal government, private business and the states.
After the public sessions, the justices will meet privately — perhaps later Wednesday — and vote on the case, at least preliminarily.
The majority and any dissenting opinions will be assigned, and the court go begin articulating a ruling that will serve as precedent for this and future disputes over executive authority.
The court will have no shortage of information to ponder. In addition to the written briefs filed by the opposing parties, about four dozen «amicus» briefs have been filed, offering a range of legal positions from advocacy groups, other state governments and legal and economic scholars.
United States Supreme Court (front row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (back row L-R) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pose for their official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on Oct. 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The impact
The unpredictable, ongoing rollout of tariffs has created global economic uncertainty and fears of higher consumer prices, but Trump has also used them as political leverage to pressure countries into negotiating new trade deals.
«A big fraction of the Supreme Court’s docket will present the question, can President Trump do: fill in the blank? And that includes imposed tariffs,» said Dupree. «Trump is pushing at every limit and the Supreme Court this term is going to be telling us whether he’s exceeded those limits. That is going to be the story of so much of what the Supreme Court is deciding this term is whether the president has [acted] within or has exceeded.»
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Of more immediate focus, the tariff cases will offer a tantalizing «first look» guide of how broadly the conservative majority high court views Trump’s muscular view of presidential power, a template for almost certain future appeals of his executive agenda.
The cases are Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287); Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (25-250).
supreme court,supreme court oral arguments,donald trump,economy,global economy,china,brazil,canada,location mexico,justice department
Ese es el titular y ese es el sentido de los ataques coordinados de Israel y Estados Unidos que este 28 de febrero se han producido contra Irán: no buscan objetivos concretos, como la finalización de la carrera nuclear, o la destrucción de los centros de ensamblaje de los misíles balísticos, sino la caída completa del régimen.
La operación ‘Furia épica’, y su homólogo israelí ‘Rugido del León’ no son una reedición de las operaciones bélicas de junio pasado: el ‘León Creciente’ y su par americano, el ‘Martillo de medianoche”. En aquella ocasión se buscaba amedentrar al régimen, herir sus estructuras bélicas y, sobretodo, atacar las instalaciones nucleares de Natanz, Isafhan y la impenetrable Fordow, después de la constatación del nivel de enriquecimiento crítico del uranio que había conseguido Irán. Fue una operación quirúrgica y, por ende, limitada. Pero esta vez, en palabras del propio Trump, la intención es integral: destruir la industria de mísiles iraní, aniquilar su potencial armado, aniquilar toda opción nuclear, destruir la capacidad de desestabilización de sus aliados terroristas y, en definitiva, eliminar completamente la amenaza que supone el régimen de los ayatolas. Es por ello que Trump ha acabado su vídeo de ocho minutos en Truth Social asegurando al pueblo iraní que “la hora de su libertad está a su alcance” y animándolo a tomar las riendas de su destino. Por si hubiera alguna duda, el primer objetivo del ataque ha sido matar al líder supremo Alí Khamenei, cuya situación al momento de escribir el articulo, aún es confusa.
Si esa es la premisa, la caída del régimen de los ayatolás que aterroriza a su población y desestabiliza a toda la región desde 1978, cabe preguntarse si realmente es un objetivo viable y a qué plazo. Sobretodo porque Irán no es Venezuela: tiene capacidad militar poderosa; su guardia revolucionaria y el resto de cuerpos militares y policiales son compactos y están muy bien entrenados; está situado en un zona de enorme valor geoestratégico, capaz de crear grandes sacudidas económicas; tiene objetivos americanos y al propio Israel al alcance de sus misiles, y sus proxies, pueden atacar a sus enemigos desde muchas posiciones. Con todo ello, no parece que pueda tratarse de una guerra corta (de momento, fuentes de seguridad israelí hablan de más de una semana de ataques), aunque la voluntad americana sea acortarla al máximo y centrarla en los ataques aéreos. Pero si el objetivo es la caída del régimen, ¿será suficiente la batalla aérea? Sin duda a nadie le interesa una guerra con infantería, y menos a Trump, que podría encharcar a Estados Unidos en un nuevo Afganistán. No hay que olvidar que Irán tiene 650.000 efectivos activos, una de las infanterías más grandes del mundo. Pero, si imaginar una guerra con infantería es un pésimo propósito, descartarla es imprudente.
Con todo, la superioridad militar de americanos e israelíes en mar y aire está fuera de toda duda y por tanto es imaginable que consigan colapsar el régimen destruyendo todos sus centros estratégicos, tanto militares, como políticos. Lo cual no significa que Irán no pueda ser letal en las próximas horas y días. El éxito militar de USA e Israel se da por seguro. El cuándo se produce y qué consecuencias políticas tiene, es más difuso.
En este sentido, ¿es el momento de atacar Irán? Sin ninguna duda. Primero, porque es el punto final de la guerra que empezó el 7 de octubre de 2023, con la masacre de Hamás en Israel, auspiciada por los ayatollahas. A partir de aquel punto de inflexión, Irán pasó, de ser el enemigo a vigilar, a ser el enemigo a abatir, no solo para Israel, sinó para otros países preocupados por la carrera nuclear y por el potencial que Irán había aconseguido a través de sus proxies: chiitas iraquíes, la Siria de los Asad, el Hezbollah en el Líbano, los huties del Yemen, y los grupos terroristas que actuaban en Gaza. Y ello sin contar con la penetración iraní en América Latina. No había opción para la negociación. Pero la guerra con Irán solo podía producirse si se ocurrían tres grandes sacudidas: si Israel ganaba su propia guerra en el Líbano contra Hezbollah y en Gaza contra Hamás; si caía el régimen sirio; y si llegaba Trump a la Casa Blanca. Todo pasó, y ahora està ocurriendo lo que entonces ya estaba predestinado.
Pero hay más motivos que han desencadenado la decisión final. Por un lado, la constatación de que China y Rusia no tienen ninguna intención de intervenir. Al contrario, necesitan una situación de estabilidad en la región. Por otro lado, la mayoría de países de la región quieren pasar del momento Irán al momento Acuerdos de Abraham, y al consecuente potencial económico que puede generar. Finalmente, la grave crisis económica del país sumada a la extraordinaria y heroica revuelta de los iraníes, cuya valentía han pagado con miles de muertos, han mostrado la extrema debilidad de un régimen enloquecido y delirante que se aguanta por el terror, con la mayoría de la población en su contra. Con un añadido final: la aparición de Reza Pahlavi, cuya popularidad lo convierte en posible referente para el proceso democrático. Estados Unidos no tiene una Delcy en Irán, pero con Pahlavi tiene un puente de transición.
Conclusiones finales, aunque precarias, dada la volatilidad de la situación: la guerra es total y tiene como objetivo el final del regiment de lo ayatollas; Estados Unidos e Israel han desencadenado una fuerza militar colosal, que Irán no puede vencer; la guerra puede durar más de lo que quisiera Trump, porque el régimen la vivirá como una “guerra existencial” e intentará morir matando; es el gran momento de la oposición al régimen, que siempre consideró necesaria la intervención para poder derrocarlo. Finalmente, lo más importante: si cae el régimen, además de liberar al pueblo persa, habrá ganado la causa de la mujer, la causa de los derechos humanos y la siempre eterna y frágil causa de la libertad.
X: @RaholaOficial
Web:
Instagram: pilar_rahola/
Business,Civil Conflict,Demonstrations,Riots,Corporate Events,Europe,Civil Unrest
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump’s joint strikes on Iran are exposing a divide in both parties, as several Democrats come to the president’s defense while a handful of Republicans question his constitutional authority.
Trump announced U.S. and Israeli forces targeted Iranian leadership and military sites in the early hours of Saturday morning, catching millions of Americans — and the majority of lawmakers in Congress — by surprise.
A handful of House Democrats are justifying the operation, bucking most of their party, who are calling the operation a reckless and illegal action. On the other hand, at least three Republican lawmakers are signaling that the news gave them some pause as of Saturday morning.
Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, said that the strikes «are targeting military infrastructure —- with warnings to Iranian civilians to take shelter away from these military targets.»
Democrats like Rep. Josh Gottheimer are breaking from their party to justify President Donald Trump’s joint operation with Israel. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
«I want a lasting peace for everyone in the region — from the Iranian people to the Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Israelis. I hope these targeted strikes on the Iranian regime’s military assets ends the regime’s mayhem and bloodshed and makes way for this lasting peace in the region,» Landsman said.
«Thank you to our brave service members who are leading this effort, and I pray their work will finally free the people of Iran and those in the region from more violence or war.»
Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., similarly put the onus on Iran, as did Sens. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and John Fetterman, D-Pa.
ISRAEL LAUNCHES PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST IRAN, DEFENSE MINISTER SAYS
On the Republican side, Reps. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., are concerned about how actions against Iran could run afoul of Congress’ own constitutional authority.
«We need a government small enough to fit within the Constitution. We need a government effective enough to solve problems and serve its own people. Or, we need a new Constitution,» Davidson posted on X.
When another user asked if he supported Trump’s actions against Iran, Davidson replied, «No. War requires congressional authorization.»
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., questions Attorney General Pam Bondi before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 11, 2026. (Robert Schmidt/AFP via Getty)
ISRAEL TARGETS IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER IN SWEEPING STRIKES AS US JOINS ‘OPERATION EPIC FURY’
Massie, a longtime critic of foreign intervention, went so far as to introduce a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to rein in Trump’s war powers. House Democrats are demanding a vote on that resolution as soon as next week.
Landsman told NOTUS that he would vote against such a measure if it came to the House floor.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., while similarly praising the military’s moves, refused to tell Fox News Digital if he would support the resolution via a spokesperson.
«Today, the United States, with our key democratic ally Israel, took decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies, and stand with the Iranian people who have been massacred in the streets for demanding freedom from the murderous Iranian regime,» Gottheimer said in a statement.
«I applaud the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of our servicemembers and pray for their safety as Iran and its terrorist proxies retaliate against American bases and our partners in the region.»
He, like Suozzi and Rosen, called for a classified briefing on the operation’s details.
GULF STATES CONDEMN IRANIAN RETALIATORY STRIKES ON THEIR TERRITORIES FOLLOWING US-ISRAELI OPERATION
«I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities. The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East,» Suozzi said in his own statement.
Fetterman, meanwhile, has been among the Democrats most full-throated in his support.
«President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel,» he posted on X early Saturday morning, among the first lawmakers to sound off.
A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters)
He said of the war powers vote, «I’m a hard no. My vote is Operation Epic Fury.»
It’s a stark contrast to the majority of Democratic lawmakers who have lambasted Trump for not getting authorization from Congress before the strikes.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused Trump of moving to «abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions.»
In the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, «Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity. Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy.»
Related Article
congress,war with iran,house of representatives politics,foreign policy senate,donald trump,politics
INTERNACIONAL
Did they get him? Khamenei’s fate remains unknown after Israel strike levels his compound
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As the smoke was still clearing over Tehran, one question dominated the region and Washington alike: Did they get him?
In the immediate aftermath of the Israel-U.S. strikes, with the Israeli Air Force targeting senior Iranian leadership infrastructure, rumors swirled that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s 86-year-old supreme leader, had been killed.
Satellite images showed heavy damage to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fortified compound, including buildings believed to house his residence and the so-called House of Leadership. Parts of the complex appeared reduced to rubble.
Regional reports indicated a high-level meeting of Khamenei’s top lieutenants may have been underway when the strike hit. Iranian semi-official media also reported missiles struck near the presidential palace and other leadership sites north of the capital.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei makes first public appearance in weeks with fresh U.S. threats. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader Credit/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Addressing the nation on Saturday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in Hebrew, «There are more and more signs indicating Khamenei is gone.»
Israeli officials told Fox News Digital they were still assessing the results and said it was too early to confirm the fate of the 86-year-old supreme leader. They did not rule out the possibility that he was killed.
Iranian officials, however, insisted the country’s leadership — including Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian — remained safe, according to The Guardian, despite what they described as an assassination attempt. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told the BBC that he was not in a position to confirm whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been eliminated.
IRAN FIRES MISSILES AT US BASES ACROSS MIDDLE EAST AFTER AMERICAN STRIKES ON NUCLEAR, IRGC SITES
In this picture released by an official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stands as army air force staff salute at the start of their meeting in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Feb. 8, 2019. Khamenei is defending «Death to America» chants that are standard fare at anti-U.S. rallies across Iran but says the chanting is aimed at America’s leaders and not its people. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)
The long-serving cleric has survived decades of internal unrest, assassination plots and foreign pressure. He rarely appears in public without layers of security and is believed to operate through a tightly controlled network of loyalists embedded across Iran’s military, intelligence and political institutions.
In an exclusive Fox News Digital report earlier this week, researchers described how Khamenei runs what amounts to a parallel state within Iran’s formal government structure.
«The Bayt is the hidden nerve center of the regime in Iran… it operates as a state within a state,» Kasra Aarabi, director of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) research at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), told Fox News Digital.
IRAN COULD ‘ACTIVATE’ HEZBOLLAH IF US TARGETS REGIME, TRUMP’S INNER CIRCLE TO DECIDE: EXPERT
Smoke rises on the skyline after an explosion in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
Even if Khamenei himself were removed, Aarabi warned, the institutional machinery he built — involving roughly 4,000 core staff and a broader network of tens of thousands — could continue functioning.
«Even if he is eliminated, the Bayt as an institution enables the Supreme Leader to function,» Aarabi said. «Think of the Supreme Leader as an institution rather than just a single individual.»
That reality complicates the picture.
For decades, Khamenei has positioned himself not merely as a political leader but as the apex of a system designed to survive shocks — whether from protests at home or military pressure abroad.
The 86-year-old cleric has faced repeated waves of unrest, including mass protests in 2009, 2022 and again in early 2026. Each time, his regime cracked down forcefully, consolidating control rather than fracturing.
He has also weathered years of covert operations, cyber campaigns and targeted strikes against key Iranian figures across the region.
Still, the scale of the latest strike appears unprecedented.
If confirmed dead, Khamenei’s killing would mark the most significant decapitation of Iranian leadership since the 1979 revolution. It would also raise immediate questions about succession inside a system he carefully engineered to avoid sudden collapse.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026. (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters)
If he survived, it would reinforce his reputation for resilience — and underscore how difficult it is to eliminate the core of Iran’s power structure.
For now, officials say assessments are ongoing, and the question may be answered in the very near future.
Related Article
ali khamenei,war with iran,iran,israel,bombings
Canales para ver el Boca vs. Gimnasia de Mendoza por el Torneo Apertura
Sin que casi nadie se dé cuente, Microsoft ha actualizado una tecnología que beneficiará a millones de jugadores de PC
Giro de timón: un gobernador vedado por Milei va a adherir al RIGI y anunciará un proyecto propio con alivios fiscales
Vuelven a subir los alquileres: de cuánto serán los ajustes en marzo y cómo están los precios
Objetivo: Acabar con el régimen
Ruta del dinero AFA: antes que Javier Faroni, tres empresas fantasma de un amigo de Pablo Toviggino recibieron más de US$ 50 millones
Jorge Macri prepara su discurso para abrir el año legislativo: el deseo de reelección y el espejo en Bukele
Crisis en la industria: otra multinacional se achica y cierra una planta en la Argentina
Catherine Fulop contó el difícil momento que atraviesa su madre en Venezuela: “Está postrada”
Alarma por la salud de Divina Gloria tras salir de Gran Hermano: “La internaron directamente en terapia intensiva”
CHIMENTOS3 días agoCatherine Fulop contó el difícil momento que atraviesa su madre en Venezuela: “Está postrada”
- CHIMENTOS2 días ago
Alarma por la salud de Divina Gloria tras salir de Gran Hermano: “La internaron directamente en terapia intensiva”
- CHIMENTOS1 día ago
¡Titi revolucionó Gran Hermano! Cuáles son las 5 cosas que ya extraña: «Accesorios, pilates, bondiola, auriculares y bailar»
