Brace yourselves, taxpayers—two GOP senators are raising a red flag over a hefty spending bill that could pour billions into refugee programs with questionable oversight.
Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah are firmly against a $5.69 billion provision for refugee assistance buried in the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS).
This amount, triple what was budgeted before President Joe Biden’s administration, has sparked fears of rampant fraud and a rollback of hard-won limits on welfare for noncitizens.
As head of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, Paul is gearing up to fight, proposing an amendment to stop this funding and pushing legislation to cut all welfare benefits for immigrants, including refugees.
“The big spenders in Congress are back in DC, hoping to pass a bill that spends billions on refugee benefits despite widespread reports of fraud,” Paul warned. His sharp critique begs the question: why risk taxpayer dollars on programs so prone to misuse?
Lee, not one to sit idle, is championing his SAVE Act to mandate proof of citizenship for voting while calling for tougher immigration enforcement policies.
Opponents of the bill argue that this nearly $6 billion for refugee resettlement undercuts Trump-era measures that used executive action to restrict noncitizen access to federal benefits.
During Biden’s tenure, expansive immigration policies have welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees, including about 200,000 evacuees from 2021 to 2023, with many from Afghanistan and Somalia.
A chilling case saw an Afghan evacuee charged with shooting two National Guard members near the White House, killing one, just before Thanksgiving—a tragic example of the dangers of hasty resettlement without strict checks.
Under current rules, resettled refugees can access federal programs like SNAP, HUD assistance, and emergency Medicaid, as noted by the National Immigration Law Center.
Research from the Center for Immigration Studies shows 80% of Somalians resettled in Minnesota rely on public assistance, casting doubt on the long-term viability of such support.
Minnesota has also emerged as a cautionary tale, with state Medicaid programs reportedly exposed to fraud costing billions, amplifying concerns over unchecked federal spending.
Adding to the frustration, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” once eliminated Medicaid coverage for refugees and asylees, a protection now seemingly undone by this new proposal.
“New Year’s resolution: stop nonsense like this, pass my SAVE Act to require proof of citizenship to vote, and codify the MAGA agenda—especially on immigration and enforcement,” Sen. Lee urged. His blunt challenge questions whether Congress prioritizes fiscal responsibility or political posturing.
With billions on the line, the stance of Paul and Lee serves as a reminder that every dollar spent demands scrutiny, especially when past policies aimed at curbing abuse are at risk of being dismantled.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, just unleashed a scathing attack on the Supreme Court over a heated redistricting decision shaking up Texas politics.
In brief, the Supreme Court’s December order to uphold Texas’ newly crafted congressional districts—favoring Republicans and displacing Crockett from her seat—ignited a profane response from the congresswoman, who’s now eyeing a Senate run and demanding judicial reform.
This controversy began when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s redrawn district maps received a temporary nod from the Supreme Court ahead of November elections.
These new lines could deliver up to five additional House seats to the GOP, a significant shift in political balance.
Worse for Democrats, the map boots Crockett out of her current district, a tough blow for any sitting representative.
Not one to back down, Crockett quickly pivoted after the ruling, announcing a bold run for the Senate.
On Sunday, she posted a fiery video on YouTube, slamming the Supreme Court and accusing Republican leaders of foul play in redistricting efforts.
As Crockett put it, “Obviously, Trump is still doing his bidding with these state Houses and state Senates and governor's mansions to try to rig the system,” pinning the blame on former President Donald Trump and GOP strategists for what she calls a deliberate power play.
While redistricting often stirs partisan accusations, suggesting a coordinated scheme from the top seems more like political theater than hard evidence, especially since map-drawing has long been a bipartisan sport.
Crockett doubled down with a blunt “f--- you” to the Supreme Court over its ruling, a statement dripping with frustration but light on constructive dialogue.
Such sharp words might rally her base, but they risk sidelining a broader conversation about fair electoral boundaries and judicial roles.
Across the map, other states are wrestling with similar battles—California Gov. Gavin Newsom is advocating a ballot initiative for five new Democratic-leaning districts as a direct response to Texas’ GOP tilt.
In Indiana, the Republican-led state Senate surprisingly turned down a plan for two extra GOP seats, a move Crockett praised amid her critique.
Closer to home, Crockett’s push for Supreme Court reforms—like term limits and expansion—stems from her 2024 work on the Court Reform Now Task Force, though such proposals often strike conservatives as more disruptive than stabilizing to our judicial framework.
Ultimately, while Crockett’s ire at redistricting is understandable, solutions lie not in verbal barbs but in pushing for voter-first maps—a challenge both parties have dodged for decades.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Trump just dropped a bombshell about his signature dance that’s got everyone talking.
During a recent gathering with House Republicans, Trump shared a lighthearted glimpse into his personal life, admitting that First Lady Melania Trump isn’t a fan of his now-famous dance moves, which have captivated supporters during his rallies.
On Tuesday, Trump addressed the group with his characteristic flair, weaving in a humorous anecdote about a playful disagreement with Melania over his dance.
He revealed that Melania finds the moves unbecoming of a commander-in-chief, a critique that clearly didn’t deter him from busting them out anyway.
“‘She hates when I dance. I said, “Everybody wants me to dance, darling,’” Trump recounted, mimicking a mock spat before adding Melania’s pointed jab: ‘It’s not presidential.’”
Well, presidential or not, Trump’s got a point—crowds do seem to eat it up, and isn’t connecting with the people part of the job?
Trump didn’t stop there, sharing how Melania even brought up a historical heavyweight to make her case against his groove.
“‘She actually said, “Could you imagine FDR dancing?” She said that to me,’” Trump added, referencing Melania’s nod to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who spent much of his tenure in a wheelchair due to polio.
While it’s a fair question, one wonders if FDR might’ve tapped a foot or two if he’d had Trump’s fanbase chanting for a shimmy—times have changed, after all.
Despite Melania’s reservations, Trump isn’t letting her veto cramp his style, and frankly, why should he?
After delivering a marathon 85 minutes of remarks to the House Republicans, he couldn’t resist giving the audience what they wanted—a live performance of the very dance in question.
It’s clear the man knows his base, and if the cheers are any indication, they’re not just being “nice,” as Melania suggested, but genuinely reveling in the unscripted moment.
This dance, whatever you make of it, isn’t just a quirky footnote—it’s become a cultural touchstone among Trump’s loyal supporters and even some high-profile athletes like UFC fighter Jon Jones and various football players.
In a world obsessed with stifling individuality under the guise of propriety, isn’t there something refreshing about a leader who isn’t afraid to step out of the polished, progressive mold and just have a little fun?
While Melania’s concern for decorum is understandable, Trump’s defiance of stuffy expectations might just be the kind of authenticity Americans crave in an era of over-scripted politics.
New York’s 10th Congressional District is shaping up to be a political cage match between establishment Democrats and the progressive fringe.
The battle lines are drawn as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries throws his weight behind two-term Rep. Dan Goldman against a challenge from former city comptroller Brad Lander, who’s riding the wave of far-left support from Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Goldman kicked off his re-election bid in Chinatown, planting his flag in a district that spans Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.
With Jeffries’ endorsement, Goldman gets a heavyweight in his corner, joined by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, both of whom share his staunch support for Israel.
This isn’t just a pat on the back—Jeffries, along with House Democratic leaders Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar, lauded Goldman’s work as counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, signaling he’s a fighter they trust against GOP overreach.
But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: Goldman’s pro-Israel stance has made him a target in a party increasingly swayed by progressive criticism over the Gaza conflict.
Enter Brad Lander, the progressive darling backed by Mayor Mamdani, who’s pushing a narrative of representing the “working class” against Goldman’s wealth and supposed coziness with Trump’s circle.
Mamdani gushed, “I am proud to support our former controller, Brad Lander in his run for Congress. I’m proud to support him because of his honesty, his sincerity and the vision that he has shared with New Yorkers.”
Honesty and vision are nice buzzwords, but when Lander’s camp, through spokesperson Lauren Hitt, slams Goldman for “chumming it up” with Donald Trump Jr. on vacation, it smells more like a cheap shot than a policy critique—especially when Goldman’s record shows him battling Trump head-on.
Goldman isn’t backing down, firing back with a reminder of his track record: “I have stood up to Donald Trump and I’ve won.”
That’s a bold claim in a district where anti-Trump sentiment runs deep, and it might just resonate more than Lander’s class-warfare playbook.
Lander, for his part, touts a resume of organizing against evictions, advocating for housing, securing paid sick leave, and shielding immigrants—noble causes, but ones that may not outweigh Goldman’s experience in Washington’s trenches.
The real fault line here is Israel, with Goldman’s unapologetic support clashing against a progressive tide that’s grown skeptical amid Middle East tensions.
While Jeffries and Hochul see Goldman as a bulwark against what they view as Republican extremism, Lander’s supporters frame him as the true voice of a district fed up with establishment politics.
This primary isn’t just about two candidates—it’s a referendum on the soul of the Democratic Party, and whether common-sense pragmatism can fend off the progressive agenda that often seems more about ideology than results.
Former President Donald Trump’s sweeping clemency for January 6 offenders might just have tossed a legal lifeline to an accused pipe bomber.
Here’s the crux: Brian Cole Jr., charged with planting explosive devices outside the DNC and RNC headquarters on the eve of January 6, 2021, could potentially slip through the cracks of justice due to a broad pardon Trump issued on his first day back in office last year.
For hardworking taxpayers, this saga is a gut punch, as millions in investigative and legal costs risk being flushed down the drain if Cole’s alleged crimes are covered by this pardon.
Let’s rewind to the night before January 6, 2021, when Cole allegedly placed pipe bombs near the heart of political power in Washington, D.C.
Fast forward to last week, when the Justice Department secured a grand jury indictment against him, and a judge ordered his detention pending trial after a tense court hearing.
Yet, in a twist that could make your head spin, Trump’s pardon—covering roughly 1,500 individuals tied to the Capitol events—might include Cole’s actions under its expansive umbrella.
Trump’s clemency, issued last year on day one of his return, offered a full pardon to anyone convicted of offenses linked to January 6 at or near the Capitol.
The language is as wide as the Mississippi, lacking any cutoff date for charges and already applied to pending cases, potentially sweeping in Cole’s alleged bombing plot.
Even the Supreme Court, over a century and a half ago, affirmed that presidents can issue preemptive pardons for past conduct—whether charges existed or not at the time.
During an FBI interview after his arrest, Cole confessed, reportedly saying he “was frustrated with both political parties,” as noted by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro on social media.
But here’s the rub: while Cole denied his actions targeted Congress or the January 6 proceedings, a judge noted the bombs were placed near the Capitol the night before lawmakers certified the 2020 election results.
A former January 6 prosecutor suggested Cole could argue his acts diverted law enforcement from the Capitol that day, tying them to the broader chaos—pardon territory, perhaps?
Now, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: roughly three-quarters of Americans opposed Trump’s pardon, especially for violent offenders, viewing it as a sidestep of accountability.
Cole’s case, alongside high-profile releases like Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, only fuels the fire, as some pardoned individuals have allegedly committed new politically charged crimes since their release.
While the Justice Department danced around linking Cole’s bombs to January 6 in court last week, the question remains—will this pardon undermine every effort to hold wrongdoers accountable, leaving conservatives and moderates alike scratching their heads?
Senator Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., is pushing back against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth after a censure attempt over a video that seemed to advise soldiers to disobey orders from their commander-in-chief.
This clash boils down to Kelly, a retired Navy captain, joining a group of lawmakers in a 90-second clip urging U.S. service members to defy unlawful orders, prompting Hegseth to issue a letter of censure and threaten a downgrade of Kelly’s military retirement rank and pay.
The controversy kicked off when Kelly appeared alongside other lawmakers with military or intelligence ties, including Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, in a video pushing troops to uphold the Constitution over questionable directives.
Secretary Hegseth didn’t waste time, announcing via X on Monday that he’d issue a formal censure letter to Kelly, calling it a stepping stone to proceedings that could alter Kelly’s retired status. That letter, now part of Kelly’s military file, isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s a permanent mark.
According to reports, the letter accuses Kelly of a months-long pattern of public statements, starting in June, labeling lawful military actions as improper, and even charging Hegseth with war crimes alongside senior officers. From a right-leaning view, sowing doubt in the chain of command isn’t just risky—it’s a reckless gamble with national security.
By Tuesday, Kelly was on Capitol Hill, holding a news conference covered by Newsmax, brandishing a copy of Hegseth’s letter like a battle flag. He didn’t mince words, framing this as a broader attack on free speech.
“What Secretary Hegseth did in sending this letter is an erosion of every U.S. citizen's First Amendment rights,” Kelly declared. With all due respect to the senator, if you’re urging troops to pick and choose orders, isn’t that a slippery slope to chaos in the ranks?
The White House, backing Hegseth, isn’t buying Kelly’s defense either. Their stance is clear: no one, not even a sitting senator, gets a free pass on accountability.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly didn’t hold back, stating, “Mark Kelly sowed doubt in a clear chain of command, which is reckless, dangerous, and deeply irresponsible for an elected official.” From a populist perspective, she’s got a point—military discipline isn’t a game, and elected officials shouldn’t be playing armchair general.
President Trump himself jumped into the fray last November on Truth Social, accusing Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers of sedition over the video. While the rhetoric is fiery, it underscores a conservative concern: where’s the line between dissent and disruption?
Kelly, undeterred, has vowed to fight tooth and nail against the censure and potential demotion. He argues his role on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees gives him a duty to speak out.
“The point is that they're trying to shut me up, and that's not going to happen,” Kelly asserted. Fair enough, senator, but when your words risk undermining military order, shouldn’t there be some guardrails, even for a lawmaker?
Critics of Kelly, from a right-of-center lens, see this as part of a broader progressive push to challenge authority without consequence. Yet, there’s a flip side—silencing dissent, even if it’s poorly timed, could chill honest debate, a cornerstone of our republic.
Ultimately, this showdown between Kelly and Hegseth isn’t just about one video or one letter—it’s a test of where loyalty, free speech, and military duty intersect. For conservatives, it’s a reminder to hold leaders accountable, but with a nod to fairness: let’s investigate fully before swinging the hammer.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani is stepping into a hefty paycheck of nearly $260,000 a year as he takes the reins of the Big Apple.
As the 112th mayor, sworn in on Jan. 1, 2026, Mamdani becomes the first Muslim to hold the office, earning a salary consistent with his predecessor while transitioning from a state assemblyman role that paid about $142,000 annually.
For hardworking taxpayers, especially retirees on fixed incomes, this near-80% pay bump raises eyebrows when their own budgets are squeezed by Gotham’s sky-high living costs, with housing prices towering over the national average. The financial burden of supporting such a salary—more than three times the city’s median household income of roughly $80,000—falls squarely on their shoulders. From a conservative standpoint, every dollar of public funds deserves scrutiny, and no elected official should escape accountability for how taxpayer money is spent.
Mamdani’s journey to this lucrative position began with his inauguration outside City Hall on Jan. 1, 2026, where he delivered a vision heavy on progressive ideals. While the symbolism of his historic role is undeniable, conservatives might question if the focus on identity overshadows the pressing need for fiscal restraint in a city drowning in expenses.
During his address, Mamdani declared, “City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability and abundance—where government looks and lives like the people it represents,” as reported from his inaugural speech. Nice words, but when your salary outpaces most New Yorkers by a country mile, that “living like the people” bit feels a tad out of touch. A truly populist leader might consider whether accepting the full paycheck aligns with the affordability rhetoric.
Comparing numbers, Mamdani’s nearly $260,000 matches what former Mayor Eric Adams pulled in at $258,750, per public payroll records. For a city where every budget line item sparks a fight, maintaining this high compensation seems like a missed opportunity to signal frugality. Shouldn’t leaders tighten their belts before asking citizens to do the same?
Mamdani also announced via Instagram in December that he and his wife, Rama, would relocate from Astoria, Queens, to Gracie Mansion, the mayor’s rent-free Upper East Side residence, this month. “This decision came down to our family’s safety and the importance of dedicating all of my focus on enacting the affordability agenda New Yorkers voted for,” he posted. Safety matters, no question, but moving into a taxpayer-funded mansion while preaching affordability might strike some as a convenient contradiction.
For everyday homeowners struggling with rent or mortgages in one of America’s priciest cities, this perks package could sting. If the mayor’s agenda is truly about making life more affordable, perhaps starting with a symbolic gesture—like declining part of that hefty salary—could build trust.
Unfortunately, Mamdani’s office didn’t respond to inquiries from Fox News Digital about whether he’d accept the full amount or donate a portion. Silence on this front leaves room for speculation, and conservatives are right to demand transparency on how public servants handle public money. No one gets a pass on accountability, especially not at this pay grade.
Let’s crunch the numbers again: Mamdani’s new income places him among NYC’s top earners, far above the median household scraping by on $80,000 a year, per Census Bureau data. From a right-of-center view, this gap fuels the argument that government often seems disconnected from the folks it claims to serve.
The progressive economic vision Mamdani champions will now play out under intense scrutiny, especially with living costs crushing New Yorkers daily. Conservatives might wonder if this salary signals more of the same big-spending policies that bloat budgets without tangible relief for the average Joe.
While Mamdani’s historic milestone as the first Muslim mayor deserves recognition, it’s the policy substance—not symbolism—that will define his tenure. A balanced perspective acknowledges his right to earn what the position pays, but also insists on results that justify the cost to taxpayers.
From a MAGA-sympathetic angle, the focus should stay on draining wasteful spending, not padding public salaries, no matter who holds the office. Mamdani’s pay isn’t personal—it’s a symptom of a system that often prioritizes elites over everyday workers. Let’s hope his actions match the populist promises.
As this administration begins, conservatives will be watching whether Mamdani’s affordability agenda delivers real savings or just more lofty speeches. New York belongs to its people, as he echoed in his address, but those people deserve leaders who prioritize their financial struggles over personal gain.
Ultimately, Mamdani’s nearly $260,000 salary is a fact, not a fault—but it’s a loud reminder to keep elected officials under a microscope. Taxpayers aren’t asking for perfection, just proof that their hard-earned dollars aren’t funding a disconnected City Hall. Here’s to hoping this mayor proves his worth, one budget cut at a time.
Another politician is accused of dipping into taxpayer funds meant for struggling Americans during the COVID-19 crisis.
Former Georgia Democratic state Rep. Karen Bennett, who served House District 94 covering parts of DeKalb and Gwinnett counties, faces federal charges for allegedly pocketing nearly $14,000 in Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits through fraudulent means.
For hardworking Georgia taxpayers, this stings—every dollar misappropriated from PUA could have supported families facing real financial burdens during the pandemic, with losses like this potentially costing the state millions in misallocated relief funds. From a conservative standpoint, this demands a full investigation to ensure public trust isn’t further eroded. No one, especially not a public servant, should be above scrutiny when it comes to handling emergency aid.
Prosecutors claim Bennett applied for PUA benefits in May 2020, asserting she couldn’t work for Metro Therapy, a private in-home physical therapy business, due to COVID-19 quarantine restrictions. But court documents paint a different picture—her administrative role was always home-based, and the pandemic didn’t stop her from doing her job.
Even more eyebrow-raising, Metro Therapy kept operating through the crisis, with therapists back on the job after a short hiccup. Bennett’s claim of being unable to reach her workplace seems to crumble under this reality.
Before turning to PUA, Bennett was denied standard Unemployment Insurance benefits, which raises questions about why she pursued alternative aid if her circumstances didn’t qualify her. From a populist perspective, this looks like gaming the system at a time when genuine need was rampant.
From March to August 2020, Bennett allegedly submitted weekly online certifications for PUA benefits, admitting to earning $300 weekly from the Georgia General Assembly but conveniently omitting other income. Prosecutors say she hid $905 per week from separate church employment—a glaring oversight if true.
Adding fuel to the fire, authorities allege Bennett wasn’t even actively seeking work during this period, despite her certifications claiming otherwise. For conservatives who value personal responsibility, this kind of behavior undermines the very purpose of unemployment aid.
“As a result of the false application and certifications, Bennett collected a total of $13,940 of PUA benefits and federal supplements to which she was not entitled,” said Theodore Hertzberg, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. If proven, this isn’t just a paperwork error—it’s a direct hit to the integrity of relief programs meant for the vulnerable.
Bennett has pleaded not guilty to making false statements and was released on a $10,000 bond. Her legal team didn’t respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment, leaving the public waiting for her side of the story.
Interestingly, Bennett announced her retirement in a letter to Gov. Brian Kemp on Dec. 30, stepping down on New Year’s Day after 12 years in office. The timing of her exit, right amid these charges, doesn’t exactly scream coincidence to those skeptical of political maneuvers.
“I am proud of the work accomplished by the Georgia General Assembly when we came together to advance policies that strengthened our state and improved the lives of all Georgians,” Bennett stated. While her sentiment sounds noble, conservatives might argue that true strength comes from accountability, not just legislative wins, especially when public funds are at stake.
This isn’t an isolated case—the Justice Department recently charged another Georgia state Democrat, Rep. Sharon Henderson, with similar misconduct. For those wary of unchecked government overreach, this pattern suggests a deeper need for oversight in how relief programs are administered and who gets access.
From a right-of-center view, incidents like Bennett’s fuel distrust in progressive promises of “fairness” in public policy, especially when elected officials appear to bend rules for personal gain. Georgia voters deserve transparency, and cases like this only highlight why conservative calls for fiscal restraint and strict accountability resonate.
As this case unfolds, the focus must remain on protecting taxpayer dollars and ensuring emergency aid reaches those truly in need. No one wants to see a public servant vilified without evidence, but neither can we afford to let potential fraud slide under the guise of political courtesy—let the courts decide, and let the truth prevail.
Imagine getting heartfelt emails from friends after they’ve tragically passed—Texas death row inmate Nanon Williams claims just that, receiving delayed messages from Hollywood power couple Rob and Michele Reiner post-mortem.
This gripping story unfolds as Williams, a 51-year-old prisoner at W.F. Ramsey Unit in Brazoria County, Texas, reveals a deep bond with the Reiners, forged in 2016, only to be shattered by their brutal murders on Dec. 14.
Their son now stands charged in the crime, adding a tragic twist to an already heartbreaking tale.
The friendship began when the Reiners caught Williams’ powerful presentation, "Lyrics From Lockdown," a raw look at race and the prison system.
Williams, imprisoned since age 17 and maintaining his innocence, found champions in the Reiners, who emailed him nearly every day.
They even offered a home if he were ever freed, a gesture beyond typical advocacy.
Rob, initially unaware of Williams’ case details, grew furious over perceived injustices, while Michele poured out affection.
Williams cherished this dynamic deeply, seeing them as family in a system that often isolates.
The Reiners’ commitment wasn’t for Hollywood clout—it was personal, a quiet fight against a justice system they saw as flawed.
On Dec. 14, tragedy struck when the Reiners were found dead in their Brentwood, Los Angeles home by their daughter, Romy, who noted Williams had “became like family” to her parents.
Hours before her death, Michele sent an email to Williams, delayed by prison security protocols, received only after he learned of their murders via a prison tablet.
Desperate for answers, Williams emailed Michele, pleading, “Please, this can't be true. Please tell me the news is lying."
The last of three delayed emails arrived from the night before their deaths, after a Los Angeles performance of "Lyrics From Lockdown" attended by the Reiners and friends like Billy and Janice Crystal.
Williams reflected on their bond, saying, “Rob and Michele didn’t want credit for trying to help me. It was just because they loved me.”
Now, as Nick Reiner, the couple’s 32-year-old son, sits charged with two counts of first-degree murder, the story shifts to a darker family tragedy, while Williams’ tale spotlights a justice system many conservatives argue is too quick to convict—hardly the “progressive” fix some claim it to be.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz just pulled the plug on his third-term bid amid a jaw-dropping welfare fraud scandal.
In a dramatic Monday announcement, Walz declared he’s stepping away from the gubernatorial race to grapple with what’s been called the nation’s largest COVID-era fraud scheme, involving over $1 billion swiped from state and federal coffers.
Having kicked off his campaign in September, Walz has been under fire lately from President Donald Trump, Republican lawmakers, and even some Democrats over this colossal mess.
This scandal, with charges dating back to 2022, implicates over 90 individuals, largely from Minnesota’s Somali community, in a scheme abusing meal programs, housing aid, daycare operations, and Medicaid services.
Prosecutors claim the stolen funds—possibly climbing to $9 billion per the U.S. attorney in Minnesota—bankrolled luxury goods, property deals, exotic trips, and potentially even overseas terrorist activities.
Walz took ownership of the crisis last month, ordering a stop to dubious payments and an external audit of Medicaid billing, yet the stain on his leadership seems permanent.
“This is on my watch, I am accountable for this and, more importantly, I am the one that will fix it,” Walz insisted last month, shouldering the blame.
That pledge feels flimsy as the Trump administration has frozen federal child-care funding to Minnesota, while a viral video by YouTuber Nick Shirley exposing alleged daycare scams has fueled national outrage.
Walz revealed on Monday, after holiday talks with family and advisors, that he couldn’t balance a campaign with managing this disaster.
“Walz allowed fraudsters to steal billions from taxpayers, and did nothing,” slammed Joe Teirab, a former federal prosecutor tied to the Feeding our Future case, echoing Republican scorn.
GOP voices like Tom Emmer with a curt “Good riddance” and state Rep. Kristin Robbins celebrate Walz’s exit as a win for oversight, cautioning that any Democratic replacement inherits this fiasco.
Walz, opting to govern for the next year, dodged questions during his announcement but promised clarity on Tuesday, even as a House Committee hearing looms on February 10.
Democratic leaders like Gov. Andy Beshear and DNC Chair Ken Martin express confidence in holding the governorship, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar, after a Sunday meeting with Walz, remains silent on her own ambitions.
Walz accused Trump and his allies of sowing division and targeting Minnesota’s core values and programs, but with public faith rattled by this scandal, his critique may lack punch.
Whether this retreat shields Walz from further scrutiny remains doubtful, as the fallout from this billion-dollar fraud continues to reverberate across the state and beyond.