President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue salute to America’s bravest warriors with a stroke of his pen.
On Monday, Trump signed the Medal of Honor Act, H.R. 695, boosting the monthly pension for the nation’s highest military award recipients from roughly $1,406 to a far more respectable $5,625.
This isn’t just pocket change—it’s a nearly fourfold increase, taking the annual payout from about $16,880 to $67,500 for the 61 living recipients among over 3,515 honored since 1863.
Let’s be real: in a world obsessed with handing out participation trophies, it’s refreshing to see actual heroes get their due.
These Medal of Honor recipients, who’ve risked everything for our freedoms, have been scraping by on pensions that started at a measly $10 a month back in 1916, per the Army and Navy Medal of Honor Roll.
Even after bumps to $100 in 1961 and $1,000 in 2002, it’s been a slow climb—hardly matching the sacrifice of those who’ve earned this rare distinction.
Credit where it’s due: Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, who’s retiring soon, championed this cause with the Medal of Honor Act, proving not all politicians are out of touch.
“Medal of Honor recipients truly embody the best of our nation,” Nehls declared. Well said, but let’s hope this isn’t just lip service—actions like this bill speak louder than any speech.
“My bill, the Medal of Honor Act, eases their financial burden by increasing their special pension — ensuring they know that America is grateful for all they’ve done to serve our country and defend our freedoms,” Nehls added. It’s a solid step, though one wonders why it took so long to value valor over virtue-signaling pet projects.
Trump didn’t stop at one bill on Monday; he also signed the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025, tackling substance abuse and mental health programs under the Department of Health and Human Services.
But let’s keep the spotlight on our heroes—Trump’s approval of the Medal of Honor Act is a rare bipartisan win in a swamp of endless bickering. It’s a reminder that some things, like honoring sacrifice, should transcend petty politics.
While progressive agendas often prioritize trendy causes, this move cuts through the noise to focus on those who’ve bled for the flag, not just waved it.
Think about it: only 61 living souls bear the weight of the Medal of Honor, a legacy stretching back over 160 years. That’s a tiny fraction of the thousands who’ve served, yet their impact is immeasurable.
This pension hike isn’t charity; it’s a debt we’ve owed for decades, finally paid with interest. In an era where government spending often feels like a black hole, here’s a cause conservatives and patriots can rally behind without hesitation.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow just predicted that the GOP will push for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's resignation, a move that could shake up the Department of Defense.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, during her show “Deadline,” Maddow tackled a troubling report about alleged misconduct by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tied to drug boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea, forecasting that Republican lawmakers will soon call for his resignation over the escalating controversy.
Let’s unpack this with a clear head, because the progressive media machine loves to spin a narrative faster than a fidget spinner.
Maddow didn’t hold back, questioning the very foundation of the military actions in question with a tone that suggests she’s already written the obituary for Hegseth’s tenure.
She mused, “I don’t understand why we’re going to war with Venezuela, and I’m not sure the administration is even bothered to try to come up with anything, even internally coherent,” as reported on MSNBC’s “Deadline.”
While it’s fair to ask tough questions about foreign policy, Maddow’s framing seems to ignore the complex reality of drug trafficking threats—perhaps she’d prefer we send the Coast Guard with a polite “please stop” instead of decisive action?
The core of the issue, as Maddow sees it, is a report alleging impropriety in how Hegseth has overseen operations targeting suspected drug boats in the Caribbean.
Her criticism implies a reckless approach, but let’s be honest—defending national security isn’t a game of patty-cake, and sometimes tough calls must be made against dangerous cartels.
Still, if the allegations hold water, conservatives must demand accountability, not because we’re swayed by MSNBC’s outrage, but because integrity in leadership isn’t negotiable.
Maddow went further, painting a picture of needless violence in the operations, as if the military is playing target practice with innocent fishermen.
She questioned, “So what are we doing there in the first place? Why are we blowing out of the water and killing people in boats with outboard motors, some of which aren’t even pointed towards the United States, let alone verified to have drugs on them?” as aired on “Deadline.”
Her rhetorical flourish might score points with the anti-military crowd, but it sidesteps the harsh truth that drug smuggling isn’t a harmless hobby—though, admittedly, transparency on targeting protocols would go a long way to ease public concern.
Perhaps the most striking part of Maddow’s segment was her bold prediction that Hegseth’s days as Secretary of Defense are numbered.
She didn’t mince words, stating on “Deadline” that this situation is “a catastrophe” and that Republican lawmakers will ultimately demand his resignation after digging into the matter.
While it’s tempting to dismiss this as left-leaning wishful thinking, conservatives should take note—if the facts reveal a failure in judgment, loyalty to principle must trump loyalty to any one figure, no matter how aligned with the cause.
In a move that’s got Massachusetts politicos buzzing, Rep. Ayanna Pressley has decided to sidestep a high-profile Senate challenge and stick to her House seat.
Pressley announced on Tuesday she won’t be gunning for Sen. Ed Markey’s Senate spot, choosing instead to run for reelection in Massachusetts’s 7th Congressional District, The Hill reported.
Her decision, shared in a public statement, came after much speculation about a potential clash in the Democratic primary against Markey, a progressive heavyweight.
Pressley didn’t shy away from personal reasons, emphasizing her daughter’s senior year of high school as a key factor in staying put.
“I do want to be able to sit around the dinner table and be there for my daughter’s dance performances when I can,” she told The Boston Globe. Call it heartwarming, but in a political climate where every move is scrutinized, it’s a reminder that even the most ambitious sometimes prioritize home over headlines.
She also hinted at unfinished business in the House, suggesting her district needs her now more than ever amid national tensions.
While passing on this Senate run, Pressley made it clear she’s not ruling out a future bid for higher office.
“I’m not closing the door to a Senate run down the line,” she confided to The Boston Globe. That’s a classic political hedge—keeping options open while dodging the immediate fight.
Her statement about being “deeply humbled” by encouragement to run for Senate reads like a polite nod to supporters, though it’s hard not to wonder if she’s just biding her time.
With Pressley out, the Democratic primary for Markey’s seat still promises drama, as Rep. Seth Moulton emerges as the leading challenger.
Moulton, at 47, is pushing a narrative of generational change, pointing to Markey’s age—79, soon to be 80—as a reason for fresh blood in the Senate.
His campaign’s focus on Markey’s half-century in Congress as out of touch with today’s crises raises eyebrows, especially when younger Democrats echo similar calls against entrenched incumbents.
Markey, who fended off a primary challenge from Joe Kennedy III in 2020, isn’t backing down, even as some Democratic colleagues opt for retirement.
The broader trend of younger party members questioning the effectiveness of veteran lawmakers, especially in countering conservative policies, adds fuel to Moulton’s argument, though it risks fracturing party unity.
Pressley’s choice to stay in the House might just be the smartest play—avoiding an awkward progressive showdown while keeping her powder dry for another day.
Brace yourself for a jaw-dropping revelation: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has announced rampant visa fraud in Minnesota that’s costing taxpayers dearly.
During a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, Noem exposed that half of all visa holders in Minnesota submitted fraudulent applications, while separate probes uncovered massive scams involving Somali immigrants and over $1 billion in misused taxpayer funds.
This isn’t just a paperwork glitch— it’s a systemic failure.
According to Noem, a recent two-week investigation by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found that nearly half of at least 1,000 immigrant households visited were entangled in some form of immigration deception.
USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow detailed a laundry list of violations, including marriage scams, overstayed visas, fake employment claims, forged papers, and misuse of H1B and F1 visa programs.
It’s a bureaucratic mess that raises serious questions about oversight and accountability in Minnesota’s immigration processes.
Noem didn’t hold back in her assessment, suggesting this isn’t mere incompetence but possibly intentional negligence at the state level.
“You told me to look into Minnesota and their fraud on visas and their programs: 50% of them are fraudulent, which means that that wacko Gov. (Tim) Walz either is an idiot or he did it on purpose — and I think he’s both, sir,” Noem stated during the Cabinet meeting.
While her words are sharp, they reflect a growing frustration among conservatives about lax policies that seem to prioritize optics over security— a fair critique when billions are at stake.
Noem also claimed that those behind the fraudulent visa applications enrolled in government programs, siphoning off hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars.
She vowed action, stating, “Those who submitted fraudulent visa applications signed up for government programs, took hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers, and we’re going to remove them and get our money back.”
That’s a bold promise, and if delivered, it could restore some faith in a system that feels broken to many hardworking Americans.
Adding fuel to the fire, the U.S. House Oversight Committee and Treasury Department are investigating a separate fraud scheme involving Somali immigrants, allegedly defrauding over $1 billion through a COVID-era food relief program meant for schoolchildren in Minnesota.
Reports indicate that nonprofits, especially around Minneapolis, funneled taxpayer money to employees who splurged on luxury cars and real estate, with some funds reportedly tied to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab— a connection that’s deeply troubling and demands answers.
Federal authorities have already prosecuted 78 individuals and convicted 59 in the Feeding Our Future scandal, a nonprofit that pocketed at least $250 million in taxpayer funds, showing the scale of this betrayal of public trust.
Former Minneapolis Sheriff Rich Stanek weighed in, noting Minnesota’s historically hospitable stance may have blinded officials to these issues, a “Minnesota nice” attitude that’s charming until it costs billions.
Meanwhile, as investigations continue, the spotlight remains on state leadership to explain how such widespread fraud— whether in visas or relief programs— went unchecked for so long.
Hold onto your wallets, folks—nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money may have vanished under Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s watch in what’s being called the biggest COVID-19 fraud fiasco in the nation.
The House Oversight Committee has launched a hard-hitting investigation into Walz’s oversight of a pandemic-era food-aid program meant for low-income children, alleging staggering losses to fraud, with federal probes hinting at funds possibly reaching terrorist hands.
This mess started with a well-intentioned relief effort during the pandemic, designed to feed struggling kids in Minnesota.
But things went south fast—federal prosecutors now claim the program became a cesspool of deceit, with losses nearing $1 billion.
A nonprofit called Feeding Our Future is at the center, accused of diverting around $300 million in taxpayer cash, with over 70 defendants already entangled in the case.
Minnesota education officials noted claims exceeding $500 million from Feeding Our Future and its partners, painting a picture of systemic abuse that somehow slipped through the cracks.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, isn’t mincing words, pointing the finger squarely at Walz for dropping the ball despite red flags waving early on.
“Minnesota Governor Tim Walz was warned about massive fraud in a pandemic food-aid program for children, yet he failed to act,” Comer declared, as reported by the New York Post.
“Instead, whistleblowers who raised concerns faced retaliation,” Comer added, suggesting a troubling pattern of silencing those trying to sound the alarm.
Nearly 500 employees from the Minnesota Department of Human Services have come forward, accusing Walz’s administration of not just ignoring fraud alerts but actively punishing those who spoke up.
On X, these employees vented their frustration, stating, “We let Tim Walz know of fraud early on, hoping for a partnership in stopping fraud but no, we got the opposite response.”
They further claimed Walz undermined oversight by sidelining the Office of the Legislative Auditor, allowing agencies to brush off critical audit findings—a move that, if true, smells like negligence at best.
Here’s where it gets even uglier: both the House Committee and the Treasury Department are digging into whether some of this money ended up with al-Shabaab, a known terrorist group.
While federal indictments haven’t yet confirmed terror links, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has promised a thorough investigation, and unnamed sources cited by the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal suggest some funds may have crossed dangerous borders.
With Comer’s committee wielding subpoena power and the ability to refer cases to the Justice Department, this probe could turn up heat Walz didn’t see coming—especially if any terror funding claims stick, though official confirmation remains absent for now.
A stunning public feud has erupted within House Republican leadership, exposing deep fissures over a critical defense policy issue.
This clash between Rep. Elise Stefanik and House Speaker Mike Johnson centers on a contentious provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which sets annual defense and national security priorities, Fox News reported.
The drama kicked off on a Monday evening when Stefanik, a senior GOP leader and chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, took to social media to blast Johnson for allegedly blocking her measure.
Stefanik’s provision aims to mandate congressional disclosure whenever the FBI launches counterintelligence probes into presidential or federal candidates, a response to past controversies like the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation.
She didn’t hold back, accusing Johnson of caving to Democratic influence and failing to combat what she calls government overreach. Her frustration is palpable, and it’s clear she sees this as a betrayal of core Republican principles to root out bureaucratic abuse.
By Tuesday morning, Stefanik doubled down after a briefing, claiming her suspicions were confirmed and pointing fingers at Johnson for aligning with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., to shield entrenched interests.
Johnson, for his part, seemed blindsided by the public attack, insisting to reporters that Stefanik’s claims are unfounded. He emphasized his support for her proposal, expressing confusion over why she’s targeting him.
“Well, all of that is false,” Johnson told reporters, adding that he even texted Stefanik while campaigning to offer help in resolving the issue.
Johnson explained that the NDAA process requires provisions to pass through relevant committees, and Stefanik’s measure, falling under judiciary jurisdiction, hadn’t secured the necessary bipartisan approval.
This isn’t just a policy spat—it’s a window into the razor-thin majority Republicans hold in the House, where every internal disagreement risks derailing major legislation. Stefanik’s role on the House Armed Services Committee, which crafts the NDAA, gives her opposition extra weight.
Stefanik has drawn a line in the sand, threatening to vote against the NDAA if her provision isn’t included, calling it “dead on arrival” without her reform. That’s a bold move, considering the bill’s importance to national security policy.
Her reference to past FBI missteps, including testimony from former Director James Comey about notification failures during the 2016 investigation, underscores why she believes this transparency measure is non-negotiable.
Adding fuel to her fire, Stefanik highlighted revelations about Special Counsel Jack Smith accessing Republican lawmakers’ phone records without notice during probes into former President Donald Trump. It’s a stark reminder of why many conservatives distrust federal overreach.
Johnson, meanwhile, maintains he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and assist Stefanik, claiming the exclusion isn’t final and wasn’t even on his radar until the dispute erupted. His tone suggests a desire to mend fences, but the public nature of this rift makes reconciliation tricky.
Ultimately, this showdown isn’t just about one provision—it’s about whether Republican leadership can unify around a shared vision to curb what many see as a weaponized bureaucracy. With Stefanik’s accusations of Johnson “protecting the deep state” still ringing, the GOP must navigate this fracture carefully to avoid handing Democrats an easy win.
Brace yourselves—Donald Trump just turned Truth Social into his personal battleground with a jaw-dropping posting spree!
On a chaotic Monday night, Trump fired off over 160 posts between 7 p.m. and midnight, diving into conspiracy theories and political attacks, the Daily Mail reported.
The frenzy began with reposts from MAGA allies like YouTuber Benny Johnson and commentator Scott Jennings, setting a combative tone. Trump didn’t hold back, amplifying wild claims from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. One theory, in particular, stood out for its sheer boldness.
Trump shared a video alleging, without evidence, that Michelle Obama might have used President Joe Biden’s autopen to issue last-minute pardons. The caption read, "Michelle Obama may have used Biden's autopen in the final days of his disastrous administration to pardon key individuals." Frankly, it’s a claim that sounds more like fiction than reality.
Trump has often criticized Biden for supposedly using an autopen for executive orders and clemency in his final days. Biden did grant clemency to figures like General Mark Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci, both critics of Trump. But linking Michelle Obama to this process feels like a leap with no landing.
Trump’s posts also targeted a wide range of political foes with unrelenting focus. He shared videos criticizing California Governor Gavin Newsom, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and former President Barack Obama. It’s vintage Trump—never subtle, always direct.
Democratic Arizona Senator Mark Kelly caught heat, with Trump calling him a “traitor” over a video urging military members to reject illegal presidential orders. Trump wrote, "Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did, and they know it!" While the frustration is palpable, such strong language might overshadow the underlying debate about authority.
Trump continued his critique of Kelly, cautioning against undermining presidential directives. It’s a valid concern for chain-of-command integrity, but the tone risks framing disagreement as betrayal.
Elsewhere, Trump slammed Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over immigration policies, revisiting past criticisms about resettlement practices. The policy debate is worth having, though focusing on specific groups can sidetrack broader solutions.
Trump pushed his “reverse migration” policy to limit legal immigration from developing nations, citing a tragic shooting near the White House. Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, is accused of killing 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom and injuring 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe. The incident has intensified scrutiny on border security.
In response, the administration halted immigration services for Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban, a decision Trump likely supports. Balancing safety with humanitarian obligations is a tightrope walk, and both perspectives merit consideration.
Returning to the digital deluge, Trump’s habit of reposting his own content within seconds showed relentless energy. It’s as if he’s racing against the internet itself to keep his message front and center.
Some view Trump’s late-night posting as a brilliant way to energize his base, while others see it as a chaotic mess. Mixing unproven theories with policy critiques might dilute the impact of real issues.
Still, Trump’s ability to dominate online discourse is undeniable, even if the delivery raises eyebrows. The blend of conspiracy claims and pointed attacks keeps everyone guessing what’s next.
Ultimately, Trump’s Truth Social rampage highlights the evolving nature of political dialogue in the digital era. Between baseless autopen accusations and sharp policy disagreements, there’s much to dissect, but one thing is clear—Trump remains the maestro of keeping the spotlight on himself.
President Donald Trump had harsh words for Eric Holder's plan of expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to water down its conservative leanings, Breitbart reported. The president was specifically reacting to a video that echoed the sentiments of many on the left.
Democrats have been trying to undermine the court since the balance shifted to 6-3 in favor of conservatives. Since justices are appointed for life, the only way the left can retake the court is by adding more justices until the balance comes back to their side, so they can push their radical agenda items through without resistance.
Although there are currently nine justices on the court due to tradition, there's no rule against adding as many as an administration sees fit. Meanwhile, Holder, who served as attorney general under Barack Obama, called the Supreme Court "a broken institution" that "cannot be left in place without a discussion, at least," he claimed.
"Without substantive reforms being put in place, this Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted — if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028 — Supreme Court reform is something that has to be considered. Potentially expanding the Court is something, I think, that also should be considered."
Trump shared the video of Holder's remarks. He responded strongly to this in a post to his Truth Social, where he obliterated Holder, including calling him "FAST AND FURIOUS" after the gun-running scandal he was embroiled in along with the Obama administration.
He went on to say that Holder is an "Obama sycophant...who did so much to hurt our Country, and who weaponized the Obama Administration against the Republican Party (and ME!)," Trump said. He then laid out the plan to stop the Democrats' effort to pack the court.
"The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking. It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028," Trump wrote.
"Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!" Trump said.
The left has been beating the drum to regain control of the Supreme Court by creating a majority just by adding more judges exactly at the time when Republican appointees overtook the court.
In fact, it was Holder who said during a Brookings Institution event in January 2021 that there was a "crisis of legitimacy" at the high court after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020.
He says Republicans' refusal to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016 and then Barrett's last-minute appointment just before Trump left office as a sign that Democrats "must use the power that they now have” to change that. "I believe it would be totally appropriate to add additional seats to the Supreme Court, in response to what has transpired over the past few years," Holder said.
The former attorney general also claimed that courts were "political bodies" and that the federal court system was full of "ideologues who consistently reach rulings based on their stunted mindsets." Holder said that justices should be term-limited to just 18 years and that a minimum age of 50 years should be required to serve on the court.
As recently as January 2024, Holder said on MSNBC’s The ReidOut that the Supreme Court faced a crisis after it sided with Trump in one of several cases that challenged his ability to run for president again. "There is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it," Holder claimed even though the court used both to decide.
The left was fine when they were the majority and their issues always won the day at the Supreme Court. Ever since the right has restored the balance and the justices returned to true constitutional law and American values, they have been trying to tear it down.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is requesting a travel ban to be placed on as many as 32 nations that send criminal immigrants to the U.S., Fox News reported. The announcement came on Monday following a meeting with President Donald Trump after two National Guard members were shot last week.
"I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies," Noem wrote in a post to X on Monday.
"Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE," Noem concluded.
I just met with the President.
I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign…
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 1, 2025
The inciting incident involved a shooting that occurred on the day before Thanksgiving in Washington, D.C. Law enforcement officials believe that two West Virginia National Guard troops, who were placed there as part of Trump's crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, were allegedly shot by Afghan immigrant Rahmanullah Lakanwal, The Hill reported.
U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her wounds on Nov. 28, while U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is in serious condition. Following the shooting, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) put an indefinite halt to immigration applications from Afghans.
This followed a June memo that restricted migration from 19 nations, including Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. "During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld," Trump said in the memo issued June 4.
The president recalled that in a memo on the first day of his second term, he "stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes," Trump continued. He said the government would now be "vigilant" that visas would not be issued to aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" going forward.
He and Noem had compiled a list of nations that were sending immigrants who did not align with American values. "Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals," Trump wrote. The total list of countries now banned hovers around 32, CNN reported.
Any time Trump has spoken of measures to prevent such crimes, he has received pushback from the left about it. Democrats. Rather than being outraged that people coming into the U.S. are committing crimes against people, they are worried that keeping them out of the country is the real problem.
According to the UK Guardian, this was the same reaction the first time Trump announced his plan that detractors called "reckless" and "racist" in June. Meanwhile, Trump has said that the decision was made with "foreign policy, national security, and counter-terrorism goals" in mind.
"Trump’s reckless first term travel ban all over again," California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff said at the time. "Just like before, Trump’s expanded ban on travelers from around the world will not improve our national security and will only further isolate the US from the rest of the world," Schiff claimed.
"Bigotry is not a national security strategy," he added. This has never been about bigotry and instead has been about keeping out people from adversarial nations and places where it's difficult to find information on newcomers.
America has enough crime and criminals without importing more from other nations. The left has never come up with another solution except to push for more of the same, and it's time that Republicans take the lead to prevent this from happening.
Michael Dell, the owner of Dell Technologies, along with his wife Susan Dell, have pledged $6.25 billion to help President Donald Trump's initiative to introduce children to investing as part of his One Big Beautiful Bill.
Under Trump's plan, parents of children born as U.S. citizens between 2025 and 2028 would receive $1,000 grants to open investment accounts in the children's names.
The Dells' contribution would add 25 million to the number of children who could be helped with the grants, giving $250 each for children under 10 years old who were not covered under Trump's window and live in zip codes with median incomes of $150,000 or less.
The donation will be the largest for American children ever given, according to the non-profit Invest America that works with the Dells.
“It’s designed to help families feel supported from the start and encourage them to keep saving as their children grow,” Michael Dell told CNBC in an interview. “We know that when children have accounts like this, they’re much more likely to graduate from high school, from college, buy a home, start a business and less likely to be incarcerated.”
The Trump bill allows any parents of children under 18 with Social Security numbers to open the accounts, which are tax-advantaged, starting on July 4, 2026.
“We want to help the children that weren’t part of the government program,” Dell said.
Invest America, run by hedge fund manager Brad Gerstner, advocated for the accounts to be included in Trump's bill, and it fits his agenda of encouraging investment and combatting poverty among families.
Dell Technologies has said it will match the $1,000 seed money in Trump accounts for new employees of the company.
“It would have been impractical, or maybe even impossible, to impact this many kids in this way without such a program,” Dell said.
Withdrawals fromt the accounts are not allowed until the child is 18, at which point it rolls over into an IRA and withdrawals are taxed.
Some states' versions of 529 plans have more tax advantages than the Trump accounts, but Trump is looking beyond funding college educations.
Michael Dell is hopeful that other companies will join him in funding the Trump accounts.
“What we hope is that every child sees a future worth saving for it,” he said. “You think about the compounding effect of a program like this in 10, 20, 30 years on millions of children. That’s what gets us excited.”