Is a presidential library just a fancy bookshelf if the funds aren’t there? Former President Joe Biden is finding out the hard way, as his efforts to build a lasting legacy in Delaware are hitting a financial wall, according to a recent New York Times report.
The crux of the story is that Biden has managed to secure only a tiny portion of the money needed for his envisioned presidential library, facing stagnant donations and internal debates about merging with existing institutions, the New York Post reported.
Let’s start at the beginning: Biden’s library foundation hasn’t seen a single new donation in 2024, relying instead on a $4 million surplus from his 2021 inauguration.
Fast forward to 2025, and the foundation remains tight-lipped about current totals, admitting only that Biden is just now kicking off active fundraising efforts.
Even their projections are grim—they’ve told the IRS they expect to raise a mere $11.3 million by the end of 2027, a far cry from the $200 million goal set by aides.
Compare that to Barack Obama’s Chicago presidential center, which has already amassed a staggering $1.5 billion, or Donald Trump’s ambitious plan to raise over $950 million for his Miami library before leaving office.
Here’s where it gets sticky: some of Biden’s most steadfast supporters haven’t even been approached to contribute, while other Democratic donors are openly uninterested, either distracted by opposition to Trump or disillusioned with Biden’s tenure.
“So far, some of Mr. Biden’s most loyal contributors said they had not been contacted by anyone about giving to the library,” The New York Times reported. Talk about a cold shoulder—how do you build a legacy when your own base hasn’t gotten the memo?
Then there’s John Morgan, a prominent Democratic donor, who didn’t mince words: “The Biden staff, they ruined any type of good library for him. He’ll be lucky to have a bookmobile,” he told The Times. Ouch—that’s not just a critique; it’s a funeral dirge for fundraising hopes.
With funds drying up, there’s talk of merging Biden’s library with existing institutions at the University of Delaware, potentially tapping into millions already earmarked for “Biden Hall.”
Right now, these are separate endeavors competing for the same donor pool, but many loyalists hope that combining them could streamline costs and salvage the project.
Neither the university nor the library foundation is commenting on a potential merger, leaving the idea dangling like a fiscal lifeline nobody wants to grab.
Biden himself has stayed vague, saying only that he wants the library in his home state of Delaware and prefers a smaller, less costly setup than Obama’s sprawling center.
The foundation claims delays stem from “intensive research,” including tours of other presidential libraries, but with a $200 million target looking like a pipe dream, one wonders if they’re just stalling for time.
Ultimately, Biden’s library saga feels like a metaphor for broader challenges—good intentions bogged down by poor outreach and a donor class that’s moved on. While a modest Delaware tribute could still emerge, the contrast with other presidents’ fundraising juggernauts is stark, raising questions about how history will remember this chapter.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Rep. Nancy Mace has turned the Charleston airport into a political battleground with behavior that’s raising eyebrows across South Carolina.
The fiery Republican, locked in a heated primary race for governor against state Attorney General Alan Wilson, has sparked outrage with profanity-laden confrontations at the airport, drawing sharp criticism and fracturing party unity, the New York Post reported.
Let’s rewind to April, when Mace clashed with TSA agents over a policy disagreement, frustrated that a family member couldn’t join her through expedited security.
After initial resistance, TSA relented and allowed her family through, but Mace later claimed the agency violated its own rules by separating her from her child during the ordeal.
Fast forward to Oct. 30, and the situation escalated into a full-blown spectacle as Mace, expecting a VIP escort for her outbound flight, unleashed a torrent of expletives when it didn’t materialize.
According to an internal Charleston Airport Authority report, obtained via public records, Mace demanded special treatment, berating officers and TSA staff in a display described as nothing short of shocking.
One officer recounted Mace snapping, “I’m sick of your s–t, I’m tired of having to wait,” while allegedly calling law enforcement “f–king idiots” and touting her status as a “f–king representative” (Charleston Airport Authority report).
Even more telling, the airport wasn’t even crowded that day, as one officer noted it was “not busy at all,” making her impatience seem all the more puzzling.
A veteran TSA officer with 23 years of experience remarked that no other dignitary or VIP had ever caused such a scene, highlighting just how unprecedented this meltdown was.
Enter Alan Wilson, Mace’s rival in the Republican primary, who didn’t mince words, accusing her of acting like a “spoiled brat” who treats cops like “servants” (Wilson interview).
Wilson doubled down, arguing that public servants deserve respect, not tantrums, and suggested Mace’s behavior reeks of entitlement when she doesn’t get her way.
While Mace has dismissed the airport’s investigative report as “falsified” on CNN, offering no proof, her actions have undeniably put her campaign on shaky ground.
Adding fuel to the fire, Mace has faced credible death threats recently, with a suspect denied bond, and she’s accused Wilson of downplaying the danger she faces as a single mother.
Meanwhile, her own team is splintering—consultant Austin McCubbin resigned, accusing her of abandoning MAGA values for a more libertarian lean, a charge that stings in a state hungry for Trump’s coveted endorsement.
Both candidates are jockeying for that golden nod from the former president, with Mace dubbing herself “Trump in high heels,” but the airport drama might just clip her wings before she gets off the ground.
Brace yourself for a chilling glimpse into the shadowy world of Jeffrey Epstein, as a newly released photo from his estate has set off a firestorm of speculation and disgust.
House Democrats dropped a bombshell on Friday, unveiling 19 carefully chosen photographs from Epstein’s estate as part of a congressional probe, including a deeply troubling image on his desk that’s fueling intense online debate, the Daily Mail reported.
These images, plucked from a staggering 95,000 provided to the House Oversight Committee, come just before a December 19 deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law by President Trump on November 19, to release all Department of Justice records on Epstein.
The most unsettling snapshot, undated and partially censored, appears to show an incapacitated individual on a couch, with a black box obscuring the face for privacy.
Social media has erupted over this image, with users like Leasha Knight venting on X, “What a sicko.”
While the context and subject remain unclear, it’s hard not to question what kind of person keeps such a photo in plain sight, raising serious concerns about Epstein’s mindset and untouchable arrogance.
Other photos reveal Epstein rubbing shoulders with powerful figures like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew (now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor), Bill Gates, Larry Summers, Alana Dershowitz, and Steve Bannon at his Manhattan townhouse.
Trump appears in multiple images, including with six women whose faces are censored, on what looks like a plane with another obscured woman, and at a social event alongside Epstein.
Yet, let’s be clear: none of these photos provide evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, Clinton, or others pictured, despite the progressive agenda often eager to spin such narratives.
The release has sparked political fireworks, with the GOP-led Oversight Committee accusing Democrats of selectively curating photos and applying unnecessary redactions to push a biased story.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson fired back on Friday, saying, “Once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”
She didn’t stop there, pointing out that the Trump administration has pushed harder for transparency and support for Epstein’s victims than Democrats, who she claims cozied up to Epstein even after his conviction.
Adding to the tension, the Epstein Files Transparency Act overrides past grand jury secrecy rules, forcing full disclosure of DOJ records—a move long demanded by conservatives frustrated with government stonewalling.
The story carries a tragic weight with Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of trafficking and abusing her after being recruited at 16 from Mar-a-Lago, passing away by suicide in April, though she exonerated Trump in her memoir.
Epstein, indicted for sex trafficking in July 2019, took his own life in jail a month later, while Maxwell, convicted in 2021 for procuring underage girls, serves a 20-year sentence in Florida—reminders of the grim human cost behind these photos.
Buckle up, America -- history is being made as the Trump administration announces a staggering milestone in immigration enforcement.
Since President Donald Trump took office in late January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that over 2.5 million unauthorized migrants have left the U.S., through a mix of deportations and voluntary exits, as Breitbart reports.
This achievement, hailed by DHS as a groundbreaking success, stems from a hardline stance on border security that’s been missing for far too long.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has deported more than 605,000 individuals since Trump’s second term began, many with criminal charges or convictions pending.
Meanwhile, nearly 2 million others have chosen to self-deport, encouraged by DHS initiatives like the “CBP Home” app, which offers a free flight and a $1,000 stipend for those who leave voluntarily.
It’s a clever nudge -- why wait for a knock at the door when you can exit with a little cash in hand?
For six straight months, DHS has maintained a strict policy of not releasing any unauthorized migrants into the U.S. from the southern border.
This shift isn’t just about numbers; it’s rippling through the economy, with reports of falling home prices and rents catching the attention of everyday Americans.
Could this be the relief hardworking families have been waiting for, after years of progressive policies inflating housing costs?
HUD Secretary Scott Turner pointed out that rents have dropped for four consecutive months, aligning closely with the decline in unauthorized migration.
Research backs this up -- Danish economists found that a small uptick in local immigration over five years can drive rental prices up by 6% and house prices by 11% at the municipal level.
“The connection between illegal immigration and skyrocketing housing costs is as clear as day,” said Vice President JD Vance, adding, “We are proud to be moving in the right direction. Still so much to do.”
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin didn’t mince words, stating, “The Trump Administration is shattering historic records with more than 2.5 million illegal aliens leaving the U.S.”
She’s right to crow -- this dual approach of over 605,000 deportations and 1.9 million self-exits shows a system finally flexing some muscle, without resorting to the chaos of unchecked borders that some on the left seem to romanticize.
While compassion for individual stories remains vital, the data suggests that prioritizing American citizens’ economic stability isn’t just tough talk -- it’s tangible policy. After all, when rents eat up more income, as Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies noted with a 5-percentage-point immigrant increase correlating to a 12% rent burden hike, who really pays the price? It’s time to rethink the cost of open-border daydreams and focus on results like these.
Boom! A federal appeals court just handed the Pentagon a significant win by upholding restrictions on transgender military service for now, even as legal battles continue to unfold.
In a nutshell, the court’s decision keeps the Department of Defense’s controversial policy in place, allowing the administration to maintain its stance on military readiness standards as lawsuits progress.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth didn’t hold back in his response, praising the ruling as a critical endorsement of the administration’s focus on a battle-ready force.
Hegseth took to social media to call it a “major legal victory” for the Defense Department, framing it as a triumph of practicality over ideology.
“American Greatness. Military Lethality. Common Sense. And THE LAW,” Hegseth posted, delivering a succinct jab at progressive agendas that, in his view, cloud military priorities.
Let’s unpack that: while Hegseth’s enthusiasm resonates with those who prioritize a no-nonsense military, one wonders if the courtroom is the right arena for defining “common sense” on such personal matters.
Diving deeper, Hegseth argued that maintaining strict, uniform standards is essential for “a lethal, cohesive, deployable U.S. Military—free of ideological agendas.”
That’s a bold claim, and it’s hard to ignore the pointed dig at policies perceived as driven by cultural trends rather than combat needs—though some might ask if readiness truly hinges on this specific restriction.
The court’s ruling, meanwhile, signals a judicial deference to military expertise, suggesting that Pentagon leaders, not judges, should set the bar for service qualifications.
This decision isn’t just legal jargon—it directly affects thousands of active-duty transgender service members whose careers now hang in a state of uncertainty.
Critics of the policy have raised valid concerns, pointing out that long-serving personnel could see their dedication sidelined by rules they deem unnecessary or overly rigid.
While their frustration deserves a fair hearing, supporters of the policy argue that a singular focus on operational effectiveness must trump individual accommodations in a force built for war.
Beyond the immediate impact, the appeals court’s stance could shape how future legal challenges to military policies are handled, potentially cementing executive authority in such debates.
As the administration continues to refine military standards, this ruling fuels an ongoing national conversation about balancing inclusion with the stark demands of defense readiness.
Newsweek sought comments from both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense via email after regular hours on Wednesday, though responses remain pending as this story develops.
In a clash of values and policy, the White House has firmly backed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary against a storm of criticism from pro-life advocates.
On December 9, the administration dismissed demands from prominent pro-life groups, like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, to oust Makary over the FDA’s handling of abortion-related medications, OSV News reported.
The controversy ignited with the FDA’s recent approval of a new generic version of mifepristone, a drug used primarily for early abortions but also in miscarriage care.
Mifepristone, first greenlit by the FDA in 2000 for early pregnancy termination, has long been a lightning rod in the culture wars.
Critics, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, slammed the FDA for what they call a dangerous disregard for safety by pushing through this latest approval.
Dannenfelser also accused Makary of stalling a promised study on the real-world effects of abortion drugs on women, a delay that Bloomberg reported on December 8.
Dannenfelser didn’t hold back, declaring, “Enough is enough,” and insisting that Makary “should be fired immediately” for failing to prioritize women’s safety.
Her frustration isn’t just with policy—it’s personal to the cause, as she argues Makary’s actions clash with the pro-life stance of President Trump and Vice President Vance.
She contends that state-level protections for the unborn are being undermined by federal overreach, a bitter pill for conservatives who champion local control.
Yet the White House isn’t budging, with spokesman Kush Desai asserting that Makary “is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”
Desai’s defense paints Makary as a reformer, highlighting achievements like tackling artificial food ingredients and overhauling baby formula safety reviews—hardly the image of a reckless bureaucrat.
Still, one wonders if “gold standard” science is just a shiny phrase when pro-life advocates see lives at stake every day the study lags.
Adding fuel to the fire, both Makary and others faced pointed questions from pro-life congressional members after the mifepristone approval, despite earlier hints of a thorough drug review.
Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice President Vance have walked a tightrope on this issue—Trump via video and Vance in person recently addressed the March for Life, signaling support for the movement, even as Trump has said he’d veto a federal abortion ban and leave the matter to states.
Vance, during the campaign, also noted Trump’s openness to mifepristone access, a stance that grates against the hardline position of activists like Dannenfelser, leaving some to question if the administration’s heart is truly with the cause or just playing political chess.
Hold onto your hats, folks—former Texas Rep. Steve Stockman is back, gunning for Congress with the grit of a Lone Star cowboy.
Seven years after a federal prison sentence for misusing charitable funds, Stockman has launched a bold campaign to reclaim a seat in Texas’s 9th Congressional District, framing his past legal battles as a witch hunt by political adversaries, the Washington Examiner reported.
Monday marked the official start of Stockman’s reelection bid, a move that’s sure to stir the pot in conservative circles. This isn’t just a comeback; it’s a full-throated defiance of what he calls a targeted attack by powerful foes. And let’s be honest, in today’s polarized climate, his narrative might just resonate with voters tired of establishment games.
Rewind to 2018, when Stockman was hit with a staggering 23 felony convictions for diverting $1.25 million in donor funds meant for charity into personal expenses. The court didn’t hold back, sentencing him to 10 years behind bars and ordering $1 million in restitution. It was a fall from grace that could’ve ended any political career.
Yet, in 2020, a lifeline came from President Donald Trump, who commuted the remainder of Stockman’s sentence after over two years served. This act of clemency gave Stockman a second chance—or, as some might argue, a platform to rewrite his story. It’s hard not to wonder if this gesture will fuel his base’s belief in a rigged system.
Stockman isn’t shy about his take on the ordeal, claiming it was nothing short of a political hit job. “In historic and unprecedented political persecution, as a sitting congressman, I became the venomous target of President Obama and his extremist henchmen,” he declared at his campaign launch. Well, that’s one way to paint a picture—though critics might argue the evidence of misused funds wasn’t exactly a mirage.
Now, Stockman is setting his sights on Texas’s 9th Congressional District, a Houston-area seat that’s become more winnable for Republicans after recent redistricting. He’s banking on a constituency that might see his past as less a scandal and more a badge of anti-establishment honor. It’s a gamble, but in today’s GOP, mavericks often find a home.
His campaign rhetoric is fiery, positioning himself as a victim of overzealous progressive agendas. “They call me a rebel,” Stockman proclaimed. “If defending the Constitution and the personal liberty of every American citizen makes me a rebel—then I am a Rebel with a Cause.”
That line’s got punch, no doubt, but it also sidesteps the messy details of his conviction. Is he a rebel for liberty, or just rebelling against accountability? Voters will have to decide if his cause outweighs his record.
Stockman isn’t a newcomer to the political arena, having served two separate terms in the House, first in 1994 and again in 2012. His unsuccessful 2014 Senate primary run against Sen. John Cornyn showed he’s got ambition, even if the wins don’t always follow. Still, his name carries weight among certain conservative factions.
During his time in Congress, Stockman championed gun rights, constitutional protections, and anti-abortion policies—issues that remain red meat for the Republican base. He’s leaning hard into that legacy now, hoping it overshadows the financial missteps. It’s a classic play: remind voters of the fights you fought, not the ones you lost.
His comparison of his legal woes to those of former President Trump under the Biden administration is a savvy, if not subtle, nod to MAGA loyalists. It’s a tactic that could rally the troops who see both men as targets of a weaponized justice system. But will it convince the undecided, or just preach to the choir?
The road ahead for Stockman is anything but smooth, as his past conviction will undoubtedly be a lightning rod in the campaign. Opponents will likely hammer on the felony counts, while supporters may argue he’s paid his dues—literally and figuratively. It’s a tightrope walk in a district that’s tilted red but isn’t a guaranteed win.
Texas’s 9th District, reshaped to favor Republicans, offers Stockman a fighting chance, but it’s not a coronation. He’ll need to convince voters that his “Rebel with a Cause” mantra isn’t just a catchy slogan but a genuine commitment to their values. And in a state as big and bold as Texas, second chances aren’t handed out—they’re earned.
So, here we are, watching a political phoenix attempt to rise from some very public ashes. Stockman’s campaign is a test of whether redemption narratives still hold sway in a party increasingly defined by defiance over decorum. Grab the popcorn—this race is bound to be a barnburner.
President Donald Trump transformed Washington’s most dazzling evening into a headline-grabbing spectacle, hosting the 48th Kennedy Center Honors with unmatched bravado.
On Sunday, the 79-year-old leader broke tradition as the first sitting president to emcee this esteemed event at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the New York Post reported.
With cultural icons honored and venue renovations unveiled under his direction, Trump stamped his mark on a night steeped in prestige.
The weekend began with Trump recognizing the awardees in a short Oval Office ceremony on Saturday, laying the groundwork for the main show.
He anticipated pushback for his involvement, yet brushed it off with a sly dig, saying, “If I can’t beat out Jimmy Kimmel in terms of talent, then I don’t think I should be president.”
On Sunday, Trump and First Lady Melania Trump commanded the red carpet for nearly 20 minutes, engaging reporters with the ease of a veteran entertainer.
Trump reminisced about his “Apprentice” days, boasting of past ratings and predicting a viewership surge for the Honors broadcast on CBS and Paramount+ come December 23 at 8 p.m. ET.
The evening celebrated luminaries like Sylvester Stallone, Kiss, Gloria Gaynor, Michael Crawford, and George Strait, each hailed for shaping entertainment.
Stallone, Trump’s ally and Hollywood ambassador, earned praise for “Rocky,” with Trump noting on the red carpet, “He’s a great guy. He’s done a fantastic job and he really deserves this honor.”
Gaynor’s “I Will Survive,” Kiss’ bold performances, and Strait’s country hits dazzled, though Kiss mourned the recent loss of guitarist Ace Frehley, who died from a fall in October.
Trump inspected the venue’s upgrades beforehand, having secured $250 million from Congress to address what he called severe “disrepair” from past mismanagement.
In a humorous gaffe, he called it “The Trump-Kennedy Center” to laughter, quickly correcting himself with a grin that lightened the mood.
His move to chair the board, replace prior appointees, and redesign the award into a streamlined gold and rainbow medal raised eyebrows, as did his objections to previous “progressive” events like drag shows.
Trump skipped heavy preparation for hosting, relying on instinct, yet declared post-intermission, “This is the greatest evening in the history of the Kennedy Center. Not even a contest.”
Critics may scoff at the hyperbole, but Trump’s flair undeniably electrified the night, blending politics with culture in a way only he could orchestrate at this storied venue.
President Donald Trump has dropped a bombshell with his latest push for “tiny cars” in America, aiming to steer the nation toward cheaper wheels.
Trump’s recent announcement to greenlight domestic production of these compact vehicles comes amid his ongoing battle against what he calls a Democratic “hoax” on affordability, while rolling out plans to ease household expenses, the Washington Examiner reported.
Earlier this week, during an Oval Office meeting with U.S. auto executives, Trump pointed to the pint-sized cars popular in Asian markets like Japan and South Korea as a model for American innovation.
He reminisced about the charm of the old Volkswagen Beetle, suggesting these modern equivalents could win over American drivers if given the chance.
“If you go to Japan, where I just left, if you go to South Korea, Malaysia, and other countries, they have a very small car, sort of like the Beetle used to be with Volkswagen,” Trump said during the Oval Office event.
With a nostalgic nod, he’s betting on cute and compact to disrupt a market bogged down by oversized, overpriced options—though one wonders if Americans, hooked on their hulking SUVs, will bite.
By Friday, Trump took to Truth Social with a rallying cry for manufacturers to jumpstart production of these budget-friendly rides without delay.
“Manufacturers have long wanted to do this, just like they are so successfully built in other countries. They can be propelled by gasoline, electric, or hybrid,” Trump posted, adding, “These cars of the very near future are inexpensive, safe, fuel efficient and, quite simply, AMAZING!!!”
His enthusiasm is infectious, but it’s hard to ignore the irony of championing affordability while dismissing the very concept as a progressive fabrication—still, if these cars deliver on price, who’s complaining?
Trump also claimed he’s directed officials to fast-track approvals, ensuring these small wonders hit U.S. roads sooner rather than later.
Yet, automotive experts caution that size comes with serious hurdles, particularly when it comes to meeting stringent U.S. crash safety standards.
Sam Abuelsamid, vice president of market research at Telemetry, noted that these vehicles, likely inspired by Japan’s “kei” cars, often fall short of American requirements for occupant protection due to their limited “crush space.”
Abuelsamid explained that while kei cars fit Japan’s urban landscape with strict parking rules, adapting them for the U.S. market is no small feat.
If manufacturers can crack the code on safety without inflating costs, they’re free to roll out these micro-machines—but that’s a mighty big “if” in a country obsessed with bigger-is-better.
Trump’s push for tiny cars might just be the shake-up needed to challenge bloated vehicle prices, even if it means navigating a regulatory maze tighter than a Tokyo parking spot.
Hold onto your stethoscopes, folks—House Republicans are rolling out a bold new plan to give Obamacare a serious makeover.
Under the leadership of Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a fresh piece of legislation dubbed "The More Affordable Care Act" aims to pare down key components of the Affordable Care Act while introducing personal health savings accounts branded as "Trump Health Freedom Accounts," alongside state-driven flexibility to tackle rising premiums.
Let’s start at the beginning: Pfluger is set to file this bill on Monday, signaling a significant push from the GOP to address healthcare woes.
Under this proposal, states could opt out of major Obamacare mandates as long as they protect high-risk pools from premium spikes.
These so-called "waiver states" would have the freedom to manage their own healthcare exchanges or even hand the reins to private companies.
It’s a sharp pivot from federal overreach, offering a lifeline to regions stuck with limited, often pricey, federal options.
Here’s where it gets interesting: federal subsidies that currently cut insurance costs would be funneled into personal "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" for eligible folks in waiver states.
Think of it as a healthcare piggy bank, giving families direct control over their dollars instead of feeding a bureaucratic black hole.
And in a nod to choice, the bill lets Americans shop for plans across state lines, ensuring waiver state programs are open to out-of-state buyers.
This legislative jab comes just as enhanced Obamacare subsidies, beefed up during the COVID-19 crisis, are poised to expire by year’s end, potentially leaving millions facing a brutal "price cliff."
Most GOP lawmakers are digging in their heels against extending these pandemic-era boosts, arguing they’ve jacked up overall health costs, while Democrats and a few moderate Republicans push to keep them for affordability’s sake.
House GOP leaders, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are piecing together a broader healthcare package that might see a vote before the month wraps up.
Whether Pfluger’s bill makes the cut for that package remains up in the air, though his clout within the party suggests it’ll get a serious look, with sources predicting strong interest from House Republicans.
Pfluger himself isn’t mincing words, telling Fox News Digital, "By establishing Health Freedom Accounts, we’re putting healthcare decisions back where they belong: in the hands of American families, not Washington bureaucrats."
That’s a refreshing take—why should faceless pencil-pushers dictate your doctor visits when you could steer the ship with your own hard-earned funds? Echoing this, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who’s already floated a similar bill in the Senate, told Fox News Digital, "We don’t have to replace Obamacare, we keep exchanges, we keep protections for preexisting conditions – but we can add options for families, allowing them to shop across state lines, increasing transparency in health care, and giving any financial support to them directly through HSA-style Trump Health Freedom Accounts, so families can choose the care that fits their needs." Now, if only the left could stop clutching their one-size-fits-all playbook long enough to consider competition as a cure for bloated costs.