Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has just thrown a verbal haymaker at a Politico reporter for what they call a dangerous flirtation with inciting violence against federal agents, the Hill reports.
Amid a massive federal investigation into alleged fraud within Minnesota’s social services programs, ICE has accused Politico’s senior legal affairs reporter, Josh Gerstein, of crossing a line with a risky comment on social media about stand-your-ground laws and federal probes.
The drama kicked off on Monday when Gerstein posted on X, musing about the overlap between federal agents knocking on doors and certain self-defense laws.
“At some point, the amateur effort to knock on doors of home daycares intersects with robust stand-your-ground laws,” Gerstein wrote on X.
Now, let’s unpack that—while Gerstein might claim he’s just observing, it’s not hard to see why ICE took this as a dog whistle for trouble, especially when agents are already in the crosshairs of a tense investigation in Minnesota.
By Tuesday, ICE clapped back hard on X, accusing the reporter of recklessly stoking violence against federal officers doing their jobs.
“You would think a ‘Senior Legal Affairs Reporter’ for POLITICO would know better than to tweet something inciting violence against federal agents,” ICE fired off on X.
That’s a burn hotter than a Minnesota summer, and it raises a fair point—words matter, especially when they come from someone with a platform, and tossing around loaded terms in a heated context isn’t exactly responsible journalism.
Gerstein quickly tried to douse the flames, clarifying on X that he was merely pointing out a potential risk, not cheering for chaos, but the damage might already be done in the court of public opinion.
Let’s zoom out to the bigger picture—this spat unfolds against the backdrop of a sweeping federal investigation into suspected fraud tied to Minnesota’s social services programs, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sending agents to inspect day cares and health facilities across the state.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on X that 98 individuals have already been charged in connection with this probe, while a top Minnesota prosecutor suggested that over half of the $18 billion billed to 14 state programs since 2018 could be tainted by fraud.
It’s a staggering figure that underscores why federal agents are pounding the pavement—and why any whiff of encouraging resistance to their work is a lightning rod.
Adding to the complexity, Minnesota’s self-defense laws are under scrutiny in this context, with state statutes allowing deadly force inside homes to stop felonies and no requirement to retreat, even outside the home, as affirmed by the state Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Gov. Tim Walz has pledged to root out corruption, announcing a third-party audit of the implicated programs and vowing on X to collaborate with federal partners to nab fraudsters, though one wonders if his administration’s oversight failed long before this mess exploded.
This whole saga is a stark reminder of the tightrope federal agents walk in enforcing the law, especially when social media can turn a stray comment into a Molotov cocktail—let’s hope cooler heads prevail before rhetoric becomes reality.
One of the most contagious viruses known to man, has landed at two bustling American airports right in the thick of holiday travel chaos.
During the peak holiday rush, health officials confirmed cases of measles at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey and Boston Logan International Airport in Massachusetts, raising alarms about potential spread amid record-breaking travel numbers, Fox News reported.
Let’s start with Newark, where on December 12, a passenger in Terminals B and C was diagnosed with this highly infectious disease, as reported by the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH).
Measles isn’t just a sneeze-and-you’re-done deal; it’s an airborne menace that lingers in the air for up to two hours after an infected person has left the scene.
The NJDOH is scrambling to trace contacts and notify anyone who might have been exposed at the airport, urging folks to call their healthcare provider before showing up at a clinic if they suspect illness.
"NJDOH is working in collaboration with local health officials on ongoing contact tracing and on efforts to notify people who might have been exposed and to identify additional exposures that may have occurred," their release stated.
Fast forward to Christmas Eve, when the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a visitor from Texas arrived at Logan International Airport on American Airlines Flight 2384 from Dallas-Fort Worth, carrying measles into Terminal B.
This isn’t a small problem.
AAA predicts over 8 million travelers are taking to the skies this holiday season, turning airports into petri dishes for viruses like this one.
With 2,012 cases already reported across the U.S. this year per the CDC, and 11 just in New Jersey, the risk of further spread is as real as a delayed flight on a snowy day.
For those who haven’t rolled up their sleeves for the vaccine, or never had measles before, the danger is stark—especially in packed terminals where a single cough can infect a crowd.
Symptoms aren’t subtle either: think high fever, cough, runny nose, watery red eyes, followed by a rash spreading from face to feet a few days later.
"The single best way to protect your children and yourself from measles is to be vaccinated," said Connecticut’s DPH Commissioner Manisha Juthani, M.D., in a statement reported by Fox News Digital.
While personal choice remains a bedrock of American values, ignoring vaccines can have consequences—especially when a jab is 93% effective with one dose and 97% with two.
This isn’t about caving to overreaching health mandates; it’s about using common sense to shield our families from preventable outbreaks while still jetting off to see loved ones.
Brace yourself for a showdown in Minneapolis as independent journalist Nick Shirley and his researcher David take on alleged childcare fraud with a bold, in-your-face style, Fox News reported.
This saga centers on Shirley and David’s accusations of widespread fraud at state-funded childcare facilities in Minnesota, culminating in a criminal complaint against Gov. Tim Walz and a viral video that’s got everyone talking.
It all kicked off when Shirley released a viral video showcasing visits to multiple childcare centers, including the Quality Learning Center in Minneapolis, which appeared inactive despite receiving taxpayer funds.
The video caught fire online, earning praise from conservative heavyweights like Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Donald Trump Jr., and Elon Musk, who see it as a much-needed expose of government waste.
Yet, state officials and a daycare manager pushed back hard on Monday, insisting the allegations are baseless and that Shirley misrepresented the center by filming outside operating hours.
Call it a classic case of “he said, they said,” but the optics of empty facilities getting public dollars aren’t exactly a win for the progressive agenda.
Undeterred, Shirley and David returned to the Quality Learning Center on Tuesday, sporting sweatshirts emblazoned with “1-800 FRAUD” and a jab at the facility’s misspelled signage, reading “Quality ‘Learing’ Center.”
They posted their stunt on X, with Shirley captioning it, “WE OUT HERE LEARIN AND STOPPING FRAUD,” a quip that’s equal parts witty and defiant.
One has to wonder if this theatrical approach is about accountability or just good old-fashioned clout-chasing, though the frustration with unchecked spending is real.
Things got serious when David revealed he filed a criminal complaint against Gov. Walz three to four weeks before their latest visit, accusing him of enabling fraud under a specific Minnesota statute.
As David told reporters, “I filed a formal criminal complaint against Tim Walz for violating Minnesota Statute 3.971, Subdivision 9.”
He didn’t stop there, adding, “So there's an investigation ongoing, and I think Tim's going to have a bad day, and he deserves it, because he allowed this fraud.”
This complaint isn’t Walz’s only headache, as he’s already facing heat over a broader scandal involving at least $1 billion in alleged social services fraud, much of it tied to Minneapolis’s Somali community.
Critics argue this pattern of oversight failures undercuts trust in state programs, and while officials deny wrongdoing, the mounting accusations paint a troubling picture.
Taxpayers deserve transparency, not excuses, and if these claims hold water, it’s a stark reminder that government accountability isn’t just a slogan—it’s a necessity.
Imagine a world where political allegiance takes a backseat to a polished jawline. That's the bizarre reality unfolding as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent target of conservative criticism, finds himself lauded by fringe right-wing voices—not for his policies, but for his appearance.
In an unexpected twist, far-right commentators like Nick Fuentes and streamer Clavicular have turned their focus from policy debates to superficial charm, praising Newsom's looks while sharply criticizing Vice President JD Vance, the New York Post reported.
This peculiar narrative began when Fuentes, known for his controversial online presence and extreme views, took to X on a recent Sunday to express an unusual preference.
In a post dripping with superficiality, Fuentes declared, "I would vote for [Gavin Newsom] 100x" over Vance, citing Newsom's attractiveness as the sole reason, while dismissing Vance in harsh terms (X).
Let's unpack that: a self-described opponent of progressive agendas like Newsom's is ready to throw support behind him based on nothing more than a headshot. It’s a stark reminder of how shallow discourse can erode substantive political critique.
Fuentes doubled down with rhetoric about "physiognomy," the outdated notion that looks reflect character, proclaiming a belief in "beauty and aesthetics" above all else. This isn’t conservatism; it’s a beauty pageant with dangerous undertones.
Not to be outdone, Clavicular, a streamer embroiled in his own controversies including a ban from Kick after a troubling incident, echoed Fuentes’s odd fixation on appearances.
In a conversation with right-wing podcaster Michael Knowles, Clavicular stated, "JD Vance is subhuman and Gavin Newsom mogs," using Gen Z slang to suggest Newsom overshadows Vance in looks. Such language reduces public figures to mere objects of vanity, sidelining the real issues at stake.
Clavicular even admitted he’d back a "6 foot 3 Chad" like Newsom over Vance, whom he criticized for his physique. It’s a sad commentary when policy debates are swapped for locker-room jabs.
Michael Knowles, a familiar voice in conservative circles, didn’t shy away from slamming Newsom’s governance, calling him the "worst governor in the country" and a host of other unflattering titles.
Yet, even Knowles couldn’t resist conceding that Newsom has a certain appeal, likening him to the infamous Patrick Bateman from "American Psycho." It’s a begrudging nod that underscores how even fierce critics can’t ignore the surface-level allure.
Still, Knowles’s critique of Newsom’s leadership as deeply flawed stands as a necessary counterpoint to this odd obsession with aesthetics over substance.
Neither Newsom’s nor Vance’s offices have weighed in on these peculiar remarks, leaving the public to grapple with this strange detour from policy discussion.
It’s telling that such frivolous commentary hasn’t warranted a response, perhaps signaling that both leaders recognize the irrelevance of this sideshow. After all, governing a state or serving a nation isn’t a modeling gig.
This episode, while amusing on the surface, highlights a troubling trend where fringe voices prioritize triviality over the pressing challenges facing our country. Conservatism should stand for values and accountability, not who looks better on camera. Let’s hope this is a fleeting distraction and not a sign of deeper decline in political discourse.
Zohran Mamdani, the city’s first Muslim mayor, is set to take office with a ceremony that’s breaking all the old rules.
On Jan. 1, 2026, Mamdani will be sworn in as mayor with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., delivering opening remarks, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., administering the oath, and a public block party on Broadway replacing the usual exclusive City Hall event.
For working-class taxpayers across the five boroughs, this shift raises eyebrows about the financial burden of hosting a massive public spectacle along the Canyon of Heroes. What’s the bill for security and logistics when tens of thousands are invited to watch? Conservatives are already asking if this is a populist stunt or a genuine outreach, and they’re not wrong to demand transparency on every dime spent.
Mamdani’s journey to City Hall started with a decisive win in the Democratic primary in June 2025, toppling former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. He doubled down in November 2025, securing victory in a general election that gripped the nation with its intensity.
His campaign leaned hard on affordability promises—think free transit, free child care, rent freezes, and slapping higher taxes on corporations. But not everyone cheered; his stance on Israel, particularly his refusal to disavow controversial phrases, drew sharp criticism for potentially inflammatory rhetoric.
Despite the pushback, progressive heavyweights like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders rallied behind him, including at a high-profile “New York is Not For Sale” event in Queens on Oct. 26, 2025. Their support cemented Mamdani as a darling of the left, though many on the right see this as doubling down on divisive, big-government policies.
Fast forward to Dec. 20, 2025, when Mamdani addressed the press in New York City, signaling his intent to reshape how the city operates. Just days later, on Dec. 30, 2025, his transition team announced Ocasio-Cortez would kick off the inauguration with her remarks.
The ceremony itself, set for Jan. 1, 2026, ditches the ticketed exclusivity of past events at City Hall Plaza for a Broadway block party designed for mass attendance. Dedicated viewing areas will accommodate thousands, a move pitched as inclusive but one that skeptics argue could spiral into chaos or bloated costs.
Sanders, who campaigned alongside Mamdani, will administer the oath at the historic Old City Hall subway station. “I'm honored to swear in our Mayor-Elect at the Old City Hall subway station,” Sanders said. “His inauguration will represent the blending of our city on a subway filled with cacophony, diversity, challenge, and opportunity.”
Continuing his subway metaphor, Sanders added, “The subway is a lifeblood of our city, and a great equalizer for New Yorkers.” Nice imagery, but let’s be real—subways are also late, overcrowded, and underfunded, much like some of the promises Mamdani’s peddling. Will this symbolic setting translate to actual fixes for straphangers, or is it just a photo op?
Meanwhile, Mamdani’s team gushed about Ocasio-Cortez’s role, saying, “Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez’s presence underscores the leaders central to the movement to usher in a new era for New York City” (Mayoral Transition Team). A new era, sure, but one that many small business owners worry will mean higher taxes and regulatory headaches under this progressive banner.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to attend the event, though there’s no word on whether Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., will show up. The silence on Hochul’s presence hints at potential friction, something conservatives are watching closely for signs of deeper political rifts.
For many on the right, Mamdani’s platform feels like a laundry list of unaffordable giveaways that could tank the city’s budget. Retirees on fixed incomes, already squeezed by inflation, are particularly wary of how rent freezes or corporate tax hikes might ripple into higher costs elsewhere.
The block party itself, while a nod to accessibility, has law-and-order types nervous about public safety risks in a city that’s seen its share of unrest. Ultimately, Mamdani’s inauguration is a spectacle worth watching—not just for the history, but for the policy clues it offers.
Will this “new era” deliver for everyday New Yorkers, or is it just another chapter of progressive overreach? As the confetti falls on Broadway, conservatives will be keeping a sharp eye on every move, ready to hold this administration accountable.
Washington just dropped literal bombs on a Venezuelan dock, signaling a no-nonsense approach to drug trafficking straight from the Trump administration’s playbook.
In a bold escalation, the CIA launched a drone strike last week on a remote Venezuelan dock suspected of being a key hub for drug smuggling by the Tren de Aragua gang, alongside other U.S. operations targeting Venezuelan interests since early September 2025.
For American taxpayers, this isn’t just a far-off strike—it’s a direct hit on the financial burden of combating drug flows that fuel addiction and crime on our streets, costing billions in law enforcement and healthcare every year.
Retirees in border states, especially, feel the sting of unchecked migration and narcotics crossing over, with local hospitals and social services stretched thin by the ripple effects of Venezuela’s chaos.
This strike, first hinted at by President Trump a few days before Monday, wasn’t public knowledge at the time, but it obliterated the dock and its vessels, though officials warn drug lords likely have plenty more hideouts.
The Venezuelan government, predictably, has stayed mum on the attack within their borders, leaving the world guessing about their next move—or lack thereof.
Meanwhile, U.S. forces haven’t limited their reach to land—since September, strikes in international waters have taken out at least 107 suspected narcoterrorists, including two killed in a Pacific vessel attack on Monday.
This campaign, ordered by President Trump, is part of a broader pressure tactic against Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, whose grip on power remains a thorn in America’s side.
Trump’s frustration with migration and drug trafficking from Venezuela has fueled additional measures, like a blockade of oil tankers mid-month, targeting the nation with the world’s largest proven oil reserves.
“We just knocked out — I don’t know if you read or you saw — they have a big plant, or a big facility, where the ships come from,” Trump said on WABC radio to John Catsimatidis on Monday. “Two nights ago, we knocked that out.”
“So we hit them very hard,” he added. Well, that’s one way to send a message—straight through a drone’s crosshairs, though skeptics might wonder if Maduro even flinched.
Adding intrigue, online videos suggest a possible U.S. hit on a chemical plant near Lake Maracaibo on Christmas Eve, though the company and local officials, including Maduro ally Hector Soto, blame an electrical failure.
Trump himself teased land strikes earlier this month, saying, “We’re going to start doing those strikes on land, too.” If that’s not a warning shot across Maduro’s bow, what is?
Top administration officials liken these operations to past U.S. campaigns against terror groups like al Qaeda, framing Venezuela’s drug networks as a national security threat—a comparison that’s hard to ignore when cartels wield such deadly influence.
A Missouri judge just got the boot for turning his courtroom into an Elvis impersonation show and politicking from the bench.
In a stunning unanimous ruling on Monday, December 29, 2025, the Missouri Supreme Court ousted Judge Matthew E.P. Thornhill of the 11th Circuit Court in St. Charles County for misconduct, rejecting a softer deal that would have let him linger in office after a suspension.
For St. Charles County taxpayers, this saga isn’t just a sideshow—it’s a direct hit to public trust and a potential legal liability if cases handled under Thornhill’s questionable conduct face appeals or challenges. From a conservative standpoint, every dime spent on re-hearing cases or managing fallout is a dollar snatched from hardworking families. We can’t afford to let judicial antics slide without full accountability.
Thornhill, a 57-year-old judge elected in 2006, found himself in hot water over accusations that he failed to keep courtroom decorum, meddled in a child adoption case, and engaged in political chatter during proceedings.
For over a decade, around Halloween, he donned an Elvis wig, spouted song lyrics, and even played music while conducting court business, asking participants if they wanted to swear in to the King’s tunes. Court documents even captured photos of him perched on the bench in costume.
Adding fuel to the fire, Thornhill openly discussed his political affiliation, bragged about “Thornhill for Judge” campaign signs, and quizzed folks in court if they lived in what he called “Thornhill for Judge Country.”
“Members of the public who heard him declare—in the courtroom—his partisan affiliation and identify those candidates he supports in other races reasonably could have thought their chances for a favorable outcome could or would be enhanced if they professed the same affiliation,” said Judge Paul C. Wilson. Let’s be real: when a judge turns the bench into a campaign stump, it’s not just a breach of ethics—it’s a betrayal of every citizen seeking impartial justice.
Earlier in 2025, the Commission of Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges struck a deal with Thornhill for a six-month suspension followed by 18 more months in office before resignation, pending Supreme Court approval.
But the high court wasn’t buying it, slamming the agreement as inadequate and ordering his immediate removal on December 29, 2025.
Thornhill tried to backpedal in November 2025, asking to void the deal or slash his suspension to 60 days, citing embarrassment over the Elvis photos and public disclosure of the agreement.
The Supreme Court shot that down flat, noting the commission never promised to hide the photos or keep the deal under wraps. From a populist angle, this dodge smells like an elite trying to skirt consequences while regular folks face the full weight of their mistakes.
Thornhill did offer some contrition, admitting, “I now recognize that this could affect the integrity and solemnity of the proceedings.” But let’s not kid ourselves—acknowledging a mistake after a decade of courtroom karaoke doesn’t erase the damage to judicial credibility.
Under Missouri law, judges aged 55 or older with 20 years of service qualify for benefits post-office, a detail not lost on observers wondering if Thornhill’s delayed resignation plan was a convenient parachute. Conservatives demand transparency on whether personal gain factored into his initial deal.
This isn’t just about one judge’s missteps—it’s a wake-up call for every courtroom in America to reject progressive notions of “casual justice” and restore the solemnity our legal system deserves. St. Charles County deserves judges who uphold order, not ones who treat the bench like a Vegas stage.
Big changes are coming to the labels on your steaks, chops, and omelet ingredients in just two days.
On January 1, 2026, a new USDA rule kicks in, tightening the reins on what can be slapped with a 'Product of USA' label for meat, poultry, and egg products.
For hardworking American farmers and ranchers, this is a long-overdue fix to a system that’s been gaming them for years, while consumers—especially budget-conscious families—face the risk of unknowingly shelling out for substandard products misrepresented as homegrown with potential health and quality concerns.
Back in March 2024, then-USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack rolled out this rule with a promise of fairness, and it’s finally set to take effect.
Under the old system, meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered abroad could still wear the 'Product of USA' badge if it was merely packaged here—a sneaky loophole that’s been padding the pockets of big meat packers.
Now, only products from animals born, raised, and slaughtered on U.S. soil can claim that patriotic label, and it’s about time we stopped letting corporate giants skirt the rules.
This isn’t just about labels; it’s about leveling the playing field for smaller farm operations that get crushed when large companies outsource to countries with lax health and safety standards for workers and animals.
Advocates have long argued these loose regulations let big beef packers peddle cheaper, lower-quality meat while duping consumers into thinking they’re buying American, undercutting the very folks who play by the rules.
As Vilsack put it, "This final rule will ensure that when consumers see 'Product of USA' they can trust the authenticity of that label and know that every step involved, from birth to processing, was done here in America."
Trust is the name of the game, and this rule forces companies to back up their claims with hard evidence, like records proving an animal was raised from birth to slaughter in the U.S.
For state-specific labels, such as 'Product of Idaho,' every step—birth, raising, slaughter, and processing—must happen in that state, or they’ve got to add a disclaimer like 'Packaged in Arizona' if that’s all they did there.
Even multi-ingredient products, like a hearty meatloaf, must have every component sourced and prepared domestically to earn that 'Product of USA' stamp, no exceptions.
Here’s the kicker: this label is voluntary, meaning companies don’t have to use it, but if they do, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service will be watching like hawks to ensure no funny business.
Documentation is key—whether it’s proof from a ranch showing the animal’s full U.S. journey or records of domestic processing, firms better have their paperwork in order or face the consequences.
Joe Maxwell, a veteran farmer and co-founder of Farm Action, nailed it when he called this "a huge win for America's farmers, ranchers and consumers," and conservatives should cheer this as a rare government move that actually sticks up for the little guy over corporate cronies.
Tragedy struck off the California coast when a beloved triathlete met a horrific end in the jaws of a shark, a stark reminder of nature’s untamed force.
In a heartbreaking turn of events, Erica Fox, co-founder of the Kelp Krawlers swimming club, lost her life to a shark attack near Davenport Beach in Santa Cruz, the New York Post reported.
The incident unfolded on December 21, 2025, as Fox swam with her husband, Jean-Francis Vanreusel, and 13 club members about 100 yards from shore.
Vanreusel, her husband of 30 years, was roughly 100 yards behind her, unable to help as the attack occurred.
Witnesses, according to a Coast Guard official cited by ABC News, saw a shark gripping a human body in its jaws before it disappeared underwater.
Fox, dressed in her black wetsuit and wearing a shark-repelling electromagnetic band, tragically couldn’t escape the predator’s deadly strike.
A week later, on a Saturday afternoon, her remains were found about 25 miles south of where she was last seen.
This marks the second fatal shark attack at Lovers Point in 73 years, following a similar tragedy in 1952 involving a teenage boy.
For the Kelp Krawlers, it’s also the second shark-related incident in over three years, after a member survived a leg bite previously.
The swimming community and local residents are reeling from the loss, struck by disbelief and deep sorrow.
Jean-Francis Vanreusel spoke of her bravery, saying, “She didn’t want to live in fear. She lived her life fully.”
His tribute, while moving, underscores a harsh truth—nature doesn’t bend to our ideals or gadgets, no matter how much modern safety culture promises otherwise.
Sharen Carey voiced the community’s uncertainty: “Will people get back in the ocean? Will they get back in the ocean, but not here?”
Her words reflect raw grief, yet they skirt the tougher issue—should we keep treating the ocean as a safe haven when reality proves otherwise, ignoring risks for the sake of idealistic narratives?
This tragedy isn’t just a loss; it’s a wake-up call to balance respect for nature with our desire to conquer it, lest we pay the ultimate price.
Brace yourselves, patriots—Homeland Security is storming Minneapolis with a blockbuster investigation into suspected childcare fraud that’s got the community buzzing.
The Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit is targeting over 30 sites in a bold sweep aimed at uncovering daycare scams and other financial wrongdoing, Breitbart reported.
This firestorm kicked off after citizen journalist Nick Shirley exposed troubling practices at Minnesota daycare centers through eye-opening videos shared online.
Shirley’s recordings revealed facilities allegedly raking in millions in federal aid, yet showing no signs of children being cared for on the premises.
At one spot in South Minneapolis, dubbed the “Quality Learning Center,” the sign embarrassingly misspelled “learning” as “learing”—not exactly a hallmark of trust.
When Shirley approached this facility, an unidentified woman shouted, “Don’t open up,” wrongly assuming he and his companion were ICE agents, hinting at jittery nerves.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem took to social media to highlight the operation’s scope, stating, “Homeland Security Investigations @ICEGov are on the ground in Minneapolis right now conducting a massive investigation on childcare and other rampant fraud” (via social media post).
Two DHS officials confirmed to CBS News that HSI agents were slated to inspect more than 30 locations across Minneapolis on Monday, signaling a serious crackdown.
Footage shared by Noem and DHS showed agents scouring various sites, including one that looked more like a smoke shop than a childcare haven—raising serious red flags.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s office responded swiftly, asserting that the governor has long championed stricter oversight to combat fraud in the state.
A spokesperson for Walz told Fox News, “The governor has worked for years to crack down on fraud and ask the state legislature for more authority to take aggressive action.”
The spokesperson also noted that investigations into these specific facilities are underway, with one already shuttered, though that feels like a small dent in a larger problem.
Childcare is a cornerstone of family life, and federal funds meant to support it shouldn’t be siphoned off by dubious operators gaming the system.
HSI’s robust response, sparked by Shirley’s diligence, is a much-needed push for accountability, but the scale of this probe suggests deeper flaws in oversight.
How do we ensure parents can trust these programs, and taxpayers aren’t left funding empty shells? That’s the critical challenge as this investigation unfolds in Minneapolis.