Conservative media is imploding with a feud that’s juicier than a steak at a Trump rally.
A public spat between former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and radio host Mark Levin has spiraled into a full-blown war of words, exposing deep divisions within the MAGA movement over ideology and credibility.
The fireworks started at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest in mid-December, where Ben Shapiro delivered a keynote speech slamming certain right-wing figures as “grifters” peddling conspiracies. His pointed critique targeted names like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon for not distancing themselves from controversial voices.
Shapiro didn’t hold back, and his words struck a nerve within MAGA circles. “The conservative movement is in danger, from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile and despair,” he declared (as reported by The Hollywood Reporter). While Shapiro’s warning about integrity resonates with many conservatives tired of fringe nonsense, one wonders if his own sharp tone risks alienating allies who share core values.
Megyn Kelly, once a primetime star at Fox News, jumped into the fray by aligning herself with Carlson, Candace Owens, and Jack Posobiec, rejecting Shapiro’s critique. Her stance has drawn heat from former supporters who argue she’s chasing clicks over principles. It’s a fair question—has the quest for relevance trumped the fight for conservative truths?
The feud took a personal turn when Mark Levin, host of Fox News’ “Life, Liberty & Levin,” unleashed a scathing post on X against Kelly. He brought up her 2018 exit from NBC’s “Today” show, tying it to a past controversy.
Levin didn’t mince words, stating, “Meg Kelly, whose ratings were so bad on NBC she became a laughingstock, was canned for promoting blackface on Halloween” (as posted on X). His attack paints Kelly as unfit for the conservative mantle, but such personal jabs risk overshadowing the real debate about policy and direction—shouldn’t we focus on ideas, not old grudges?
Kelly fired back with equal venom, refusing to let Levin’s words stand unchallenged. Her response was a reminder that she’s no stranger to a fight, even if her rhetoric sometimes muddies the waters of substantive critique.
Meanwhile, Candace Owens, a figure Kelly defends, has stirred controversy with unproven claims about the death of Turning Point’s late co-founder, Charlie Kirk, suggesting a global conspiracy. Such theories, lacking evidence, only fuel critics like Shapiro who see them as damaging to the conservative cause.
Kelly has suggested that Shapiro and others are driven by their support for Israel, framing the criticism as agenda-driven. While policy disagreements over foreign affairs are valid, tying personal motives to such critiques risks derailing a needed conversation about credibility in the media.
Fox News, where both Kelly and Levin built their careers, has stayed mum on the spat. No other network personalities besides Levin have weighed in, and executives are keeping their distance, offering no comment to outside inquiries. This silence speaks volumes—perhaps they’re hoping the storm blows over before it impacts their bottom line.
For conservative viewers, this isn’t just a soap opera—it’s a fracture in a movement that needs unity to counter progressive overreach. The risk of alienating supporters with infighting could weaken the push against policies many see as harmful to traditional values.
As an unnamed longtime Fox News producer quipped, “It’s like crazy person versus crazy person. Who you gonna root for in that fight?” (as reported by The Hollywood Reporter). While the humor lands, the deeper truth stings—conservative media must refocus on shared goals, not personal vendettas, if it hopes to remain a trusted voice.
Ultimately, this feud between Kelly and Levin, which sparked at AmericaFest, is a wake-up call for the MAGA movement to address internal rifts without losing sight of the bigger battle against a woke agenda. Let’s hope these heavyweights can trade punches over policy, not past slights, and keep the focus on what matters to everyday Americans. After all, the real fight isn’t on X—it’s in the arena of ideas shaping our nation’s future.
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.
President Donald Trump claimed in remarks from Mar A Lago on Monday that a pardon for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is imminent, but at least one Israeli leader has denied the claim.
Here’s the crux: Israeli President Isaac Herzog is pushing back against Trump’s assertion that a pardon for Netanyahu, who’s tangled in corruption charges, is “on its way,” while Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago to hash out a Gaza peace plan.
Let’s rewind to 2019, when Netanyahu was indicted on serious charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust during his fourth and fifth terms as Israel’s leader. These accusations, involving several prominent Israeli businessmen, have kept him in court since 2020.
Before the trial even kicked off, Netanyahu tried to shield himself by requesting immunity from the Israeli Parliament. That didn’t pan out, and the legal storm has raged on.
Fast forward to November—exact year unspecified in reports—when Netanyahu turned to Herzog’s office with a pardon request, arguing that constant court appearances are splitting the nation after the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023. He also claimed they’re hampering his ability to steer the Gaza war’s wind-down.
Enter Trump, who’s never shy about making waves, meeting Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago to discuss a peace plan for Gaza. During this powwow, Trump told reporters on Monday that a pardon for Netanyahu is coming soon.
“I think he will. How do you not? He’s a wartime prime minister who’s a hero,” Trump declared to the press in Florida. Call it classic Trump—full-throated support for a leader he admires, but let’s be real: pardons aren’t his jurisdiction in Israel, and conservatives value the rule of law over personal loyalty.
Trump doubled down, adding, “How do you not give a pardon, you know?” While his heart might be in the right place, many on the right would argue that justice systems must play out without foreign interference, even from a friend like Trump.
Now, Herzog’s office is setting the record straight with a firm rebuttal. “There has been no conversation between President Herzog and President Trump since the pardon request was submitted,” they stated clearly.
Instead, Herzog spoke with a Trump administration official to outline where the pardon process stands. That explanation, per his office, matches what he’s told the Israeli public—no special deals, no secret chats.
Still, Trump’s comments suggest he’s been given a different impression, which raises questions about miscommunication or wishful thinking. For those of us skeptical of elite backchannels, this discrepancy demands clarity.
From a conservative lens, this saga isn’t just about Netanyahu’s fate—it’s about sovereignty and the principle that no leader is above the law. If Trump’s enthusiasm for a pardon muddies the waters, it risks looking like meddling in another nation’s judicial process, something the left would howl about if the roles were reversed.
American patriots, especially those wary of overreaching globalist agendas, want to see Israel handle its own affairs without outside pressure skewing the scales of justice. Let’s support our allies, sure, but not by undermining their legal systems or dodging accountability. Investigations must proceed, full stop.
Could a single Supreme Court decision hand Republicans the keys to the U.S. House in 2026?
A pivotal case, Louisiana v. Callais, challenging Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, might reshape congressional maps across the South and potentially net the GOP nine or more seats in the upcoming midterm elections.
During oral arguments two months ago, a majority of the conservative Supreme Court justices signaled skepticism about race-based congressional districts, a practice rooted in Section 2’s protections against voting discrimination based on race or color.
This provision has historically led to majority-minority districts, often benefiting Democrats in Republican-leaning states with significant Black populations.
If struck down, as many as 30 districts with high Black voter populations—over half in red states—could be redrawn, directly threatening Democratic strongholds.
Analysis from Nate Cohn of The New York Times suggests that scrapping these districts might cut Democratic-held seats in the South from 24 to half that number, with nine direct pickups for the GOP.
With the GOP clinging to a slim 220-213 House majority, and only a three-vote buffer for Speaker Mike Johnson on partisan issues, every seat counts—especially with historical midterm losses looming for the party holding the White House.
President Trump has urged GOP-led states to seize the moment with mid-decade redistricting, like Texas’ new maps that could add five Republican seats, while allies eye similar moves in Florida.
Democrats aren’t sitting idle—California voters recently passed a ballot measure to redraw maps in a way that could offset Texas’ gains by bolstering Democratic seats.
Still, there’s risk even for Republicans; eliminating these districts might create moderate swing seats that could flip to centrist Democrats in a strong blue wave, diluting the GOP’s hoped-for edge.
“If it comes and it completely changes our understanding of Section 2 and doesn’t protect these districts anymore, you could have a significant impact,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Kondik’s caution is well-placed, but let’s be real—Democrats like Rep. Cleo Fields of Louisiana, whose redrawn 6th District is at the heart of this case, might soon find their political maps looking more like a Jackson Pollock painting than a safe seat.
Others, like Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, and Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, face similar threats as state Republicans could reconfigure districts if Section 2 falls, while Reps. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell of Alabama, and Wesley Bell of Missouri are also on the chopping block.
“The Voting Rights Act is not a relic; it is a living promise that our democracy belongs to everyone,” stressed Rep. Troy Carter after oral arguments—a noble sentiment, though conservatives might argue it’s been stretched to prioritize partisan advantage over fair representation.
Is New York prioritizing felons over victims in its latest prison reform push? Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman certainly thinks so, as he publicly rebuked Governor Kathy Hochul for signing a bill that reserves a seat on the state corrections commission for a convicted criminal.
This controversy stems from a sweeping prison reform bill signed by Hochul last Friday, which expands the New York State Corrections Commission to include a formerly incarcerated individual while aiming to boost oversight and safety in state facilities after tragic inmate deaths.
Why should public funds support a commission seat for someone who broke the law, when victims of crime—already burdened by financial and emotional costs—could offer a firsthand perspective on justice? This feels like a slap in the face to those footing the bill for a system that seems to coddle offenders.
The reform bill wasn’t born in a vacuum—it came after horrifying incidents of inmates dying in custody. Cases like Robert Brooks, allegedly beaten by prison personnel, and Messiah Natwi, reportedly killed similarly, have fueled demands for change. Corrections officers even staged a strike earlier this year, underscoring the tension within the system.
Hochul’s administration has already rolled out measures like speeding up camera installations in prisons and mandating their use by staff. She also secured $2.5 million in this year’s budget to equip the corrections commission with more resources for oversight. But is adding a criminal’s voice to the commission the right next step?
“Every single individual who enters our prisons deserves to be safe, whether they are employed there or serving their time,” said Governor Kathy Hochul. Nice sentiment, Governor, but conservatives might argue that safety starts with supporting victims and law enforcement, not amplifying the perspective of those who violated the public trust.
Blakeman, a leading Republican candidate for governor, didn’t mince words in his critique of Hochul’s decision. “If the Commission of Correction is going to be expanded, the additional seat should go to a crime victim, not someone who broke the law,” he told the Washington Examiner. His point hits home for many who feel the system too often forgets those harmed by crime.
From a populist lens, Blakeman’s stance resonates with everyday New Yorkers tired of progressive policies that seem to sideline their concerns. Victims, after all, bear the real-world consequences of a justice system that can feel maddeningly lenient.
Prison reform advocates, like State Senator Julia Salazar, have cheered Hochul’s move, calling it a step toward transparency and reduced violence. But shouldn’t transparency start with ensuring the voices of the wronged are heard over those who did the wronging? That’s a question conservatives are asking.
Not everyone in the corrections world is on board with this reform package either. The NYS Correctional Officers Police Benevolent Association called it an overreach, arguing it unfairly paints all officers with the same brush after isolated tragedies. Their frustration is palpable—and understandable.
“The death of Robert Brooks was a profound tragedy, and meaningful reforms to ensure that never happens again must be made,” the association stated. Yet, they quickly added, broad punitive measures targeting dedicated professionals miss the mark. From a right-of-center view, this feels like another case of policy overreaction at the expense of those who keep us safe.
Hochul’s reforms, including funding for investigations and camera mandates, show she’s trying to address systemic issues. But conservatives might argue that true accountability means no one—especially not those in power—gets a pass from scrutiny. Every incident must be investigated thoroughly, no exceptions.
The debate over this corrections commission seat isn’t just about policy—it’s about values. Does New York stand with victims, or does it bend over backward for a progressive agenda that risks alienating the law-abiding majority? That’s the tension Blakeman is tapping into.
For many on the right, this is a clear-cut issue of justice being turned on its head. A commission meant to oversee safety shouldn’t be a platform for those who once endangered it. Let’s hope future reforms remember who the real stakeholders are.
Minnesota taxpayers, Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan (D) just made a bold statement that’s raising eyebrows across the state. While appearing on a Somali-language YouTube channel in Minneapolis, she donned an Islamic garment, signaling her unwavering support for Somali migrants amid swirling controversies over fraud and welfare misuse.
Flanagan, a Democrat and member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Somali community, alongside Ali Gaashaan, founder of a now-defunct charity tied to a massive fraud case, to reassure migrants that she and Governor Tim Walz (D) have their interests at heart.
For hardworking Minnesota retirees and homeowners, this raises a red flag about accountability, especially when the financial burden of welfare fraud—highlighted by President Donald Trump’s administration as a staggering issue among some Somali migrants—falls on their shoulders through higher taxes or diverted funds. The Feeding Our Future charity, linked to a $250 million fraud scandal, was shuttered, and Gaashaan’s own group, meant to feed needy Somali children, abruptly closed shop afterward. How can taxpayers trust that oversight will be strict when gestures like this seem to gloss over the need for tough investigations?
Let’s rewind to Flanagan’s rise in politics—she’s been Governor Walz’s running mate since 2018, securing victory in two elections as a vocal progressive. At 46 years old, she’s built a reputation for controversial stances, including pushing to limit federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
Her background, with a bachelor’s degree in child psychology and American Indian studies from the University of Minnesota, shows a focus on cultural history, though her admitted 1.75 high school GPA has been a point of critique among skeptics. Still, her personal story isn’t the issue here—it’s the policy implications of her public actions.
During her appearance on the YouTube channel, Flanagan didn’t just show up; she draped herself in an Islamic garment, covering from hair to toe, despite not being Muslim herself. This visual statement was clearly meant to resonate with Somali migrants, who began arriving in Minnesota in the 1990s when Flanagan was already a teenager. Was this a genuine bridge-building moment or a calculated political photo op?
“Salam Alaikum. My name’s Peggy Flanagan. I am the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota, and I’m really honored and humbled to be here with all of you today,” said Peggy Flanagan during the video.
Honored and humbled, sure, but many conservative Minnesotans are asking: Where’s that same humility when it comes to addressing the fraud scandals tied to programs meant for vulnerable communities? Gestures of friendship are fine, but they don’t erase the need for answers about where millions in taxpayer money went.
“I am incredibly clear that the Somali community is part of the fabric of the state of Minnesota,” Flanagan added. That’s a nice sentiment, but fabric gets torn when trust is broken by systemic misuse of funds, and ignoring that reality risks alienating law-abiding citizens who just want fairness.
The backdrop to this story isn’t just cultural outreach—it’s the shadow of serious allegations. President Trump’s administration has zeroed in on welfare funding theft by some Somali migrants in Minnesota, a problem that can’t be swept under the rug with symbolic attire.
Ali Gaashaan, standing next to Flanagan in the video, isn’t a neutral figure; his Volunteers for Somalia charity folded after the Feeding Our Future scandal broke, raising questions about accountability in these programs. Why align so visibly with someone tied to such controversy?
Flanagan’s defenders might argue she’s simply showing support for a community under scrutiny, but conservatives see a pattern of prioritizing optics over tough policy decisions. Minnesota deserves leaders who stand with all communities by ensuring justice, not just photo-friendly moments.
Critics aren’t denying the Somali community’s place in Minnesota, but they’re demanding balance—support shouldn’t mean a free pass on scrutiny. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar not helping struggling families, whether native-born or migrant, and that’s a legal and economic reality Flanagan must address.
While her outreach may resonate with some, it risks looking like a dismissal of the very real concerns about oversight that conservative voters hold dear. Minnesota’s future depends on leaders who can wear many hats—cultural ally and fiscal watchdog alike—without dropping the ball on either.
Feelings of loss and mourning for Greg Biffle and his family were magnified last week as a holiday tradition brought a painful reminder of the sudden tragedy that ended their lives.
Last Thursday morning Biffle, his wife Cristina, their 14-year-old daughter Emma, and 5-year-old son Ryder perished in a private jet crash alongside three others near Statesville Regional Airport in North Carolina, just as Christmas cards from the family began arriving in friends’ mailboxes.
The ill-fated flight took off shortly after 10 a.m., heading to Florida in a Cessna C550 business jet, only to turn back to the airport for reasons yet unknown.
Just 15 minutes after departure, the plane crashed while attempting to land, exploding into flames on impact roughly 45 miles north of Charlotte.
Along with the Biffle family, the crash claimed the lives of pilot Dennis Dutton, his son Jack Dutton, and Craig Wadsworth, a longtime NASCAR motorhome driver and close family friend.
As if the timing couldn’t be more gut-wrenching, Christmas cards mailed by the Biffles in early December started showing up in mailboxes this week, featuring the family smiling in matching white shirts and jeans against a festive backdrop.
Friends described the moment of opening these cards as a haunting, unintended farewell from a family now gone. It’s a stark reminder of life’s fragility, cutting through the noise of today’s over-sanitized, progressive narratives that often ignore real human pain for the sake of optics.
“It's impossible to put into words what this feels like... You open the mailbox expecting bills or junk - and instead you're holding their smiles,” said an unnamed friend, capturing the raw sorrow of the moment. If that doesn’t hit home, nothing will—while some push endless social agendas, families are grappling with irreplaceable loss.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is on the case, with early reports suggesting the plane was stable on approach, configured for landing with lights on, but coming in too low. Who was at the controls remains a mystery, though federal records confirm Biffle was rated to fly helicopters and various aircraft.
“We do not know the circumstances that led the aircraft to return to the airport,” admitted Michael Graham, an NTSB board member. That’s not good enough—Americans deserve answers, not bureaucratic delays, especially when lives are lost.
Biffle, at 55, was a titan of NASCAR, boasting over 50 race wins across three national series, including 19 in the Cup Series, plus championships in the Truck Series in 2000 and Xfinity Series in 2002. His legacy isn’t just numbers; it’s the heart he poured into a sport that’s often a refuge for fans tired of today’s cultural overreach.
NASCAR itself called Biffle a beloved figure whose influence reached far beyond the track, a rare kind of competitor who valued integrity over flash. In a world obsessed with tearing down tradition, his commitment to fans and fellow drivers stands as a quiet rebuke to the woke crowd.
The joint family statement echoed the depth of this tragedy: “Each of them meant everything to us, and their absence leaves an immeasurable void in our lives.” No amount of modern rhetoric can fill that void, and no government report can undo the pain—justice demands a full accounting of what went wrong.
Newly released Department of Justice files have unearthed a chilling confrontation involving Jeffrey Epstein at a strip club that raises serious questions about who knew what and when.
Over 8,000 documents dropped on Tuesday paint a grim picture of Epstein’s world, including a 2008 clash at a Scores strip club with an unnamed man, disturbing plans involving a young girl, and flight logs tying Donald Trump to Epstein’s private jet in the 1990s, though no wrongdoing is alleged against Trump.
For hardworking taxpayers, this is yet another reminder of the elite circles that seem to dodge accountability, potentially leaving the public footing the bill for lengthy investigations and legal battles that could cost millions in resources.
Back in 2008, inside the dim lights of a Scores strip club, an unnamed man couldn’t stomach Epstein’s vile comment about wanting a girl “younger than 16,” as the man later reported.
Epstein, ever the self-proclaimed “billionaire,” didn’t take kindly to being called out, with the man labeling the remark “disgusting” before things escalated fast.
Enter Epstein’s chauffeur, who swooped in, grabbed the man, and barked, “Leave Epstein alone,” according to the filing, showing just how protected Epstein was even in public spaces.
As the tension spiked, the unnamed man spotted Ghislaine Maxwell rushing to Epstein, anxiously asking if he’d spilled secrets to someone whose name remains redacted.
More disturbingly, the man overheard Maxwell plotting with Epstein to “pick up a 15-year-old girl from the streets” after leaving the club, a claim that reeks of predatory intent.
Maxwell allegedly mentioned speaking to a dancer at the club about a young friend who “needed help” and was “out on the street,” raising red flags about recruitment tactics.
Shifting gears, the files also detail Donald Trump’s frequent trips on Epstein’s private jet between 1993 and 1996, with records showing eight flights, some alongside Maxwell.
On one 1993 flight, Trump and Epstein were the only two passengers listed, while another included just them and a then-20-year-old whose name is withheld, per a 2020 email from a New York assistant US attorney.
Let’s be clear—Trump faces no accusations of misconduct here, but conservatives must demand transparency on every connection, no exceptions, to ensure no stone is left unturned.
Then there’s the bombshell from Epstein’s brother, Mark, who tipped the FBI in 2023, alleging Jeffrey was murdered in jail in 2019 because he was ready to “name names.”
Mark went further, claiming, “I believe President Trump authorized (his) murder,” though the files offer zero evidence, and Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide.
While the Department of Justice noted these claims are “unfounded and false,” as stated in their Tuesday release, such accusations muddy the waters and distract from real accountability—something conservatives should reject in favor of hard facts.
Starting early next year, the federal government is dusting off a long-dormant tool to crack down on defaulted student loans.
The Trump administration’s Department of Education will resume wage garnishment for borrowers in default as of early January 2026, marking the end of a collections pause that’s been in place since March 2020 amid the pandemic.
For taxpayers footing the bill, this is a double-edged sword: while it’s a step toward accountability, the timing couldn’t be worse for struggling households already buried under high delinquency rates, with a staggering $117 billion in defaulted loans held by 5.3 million borrowers as of mid-2025.
The pause on collections since March 2020 gave borrowers a breather, but that reprieve is over, and the Department of Education means business.
Come the week of Jan. 7, 2026, roughly 1,000 borrowers will get the first wave of default notices, with more to follow each month.
Borrowers will have just 30 days after notification to challenge the action, pay up, or arrange a deal to dodge the garnishment hammer—a tight window that might leave many scrambling.
Under federal law, the government can seize up to 15% of a borrower’s disposable income through administrative wage garnishment until the debt is cleared or resolved.
That’s a significant chunk of a paycheck, especially for working families already stretched thin by inflation and the fallout of post-pandemic economic policies.
Education officials argue this move restores accountability and protects taxpayers from bearing the burden of unpaid loans, a stance that resonates with those tired of footing the bill for progressive lending experiments.
Delinquency and default rates have soared since the end of pandemic protections and a 12-month repayment “grace” period that concluded on Sept. 30, 2025.
Missed payments are piling up, and borrower advocates warn that restarting enforcement now could push already struggling households over the financial edge.
While their concern for borrowers carries weight, let’s not forget that endless leniency often rewards irresponsibility at the expense of those who play by the rules.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Education Department recently proposed a settlement in December 2025 to scrap the Biden-era SAVE income-driven repayment plan, pending court approval, shifting enrolled borrowers to other programs.
This shake-up, paired with renewed collections, has advocates fretting over increased financial strain, though one wonders if the real issue is the expectation of perpetual handouts rather than personal accountability.
For everyday Americans watching their tax dollars vanish into bloated federal programs, this return to enforcement might just be the wake-up call needed to rein in a system that’s long favored debt forgiveness over fiscal responsibility.
New York City is about to swear in a new mayor with a progressive agenda that could reshape the Big Apple’s economic landscape. On Jan. 1, 2026, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will administer the oath of office to Zohran Mamdani (D), marking the start of a term that promises sweeping policy changes.
On that day, starting at 12:01 a.m., Mamdani officially takes the reins as mayor after a hard-fought election win last month.
Mamdani’s plans—like city-owned grocery stores and free buses—will balloon municipal budgets if they come to pass. These proposals, while aimed at affordability for over 8 million residents, risk spiking property taxes or slashing funds from critical services like sanitation or public safety. Conservatives are right to demand a line-by-line audit of how these schemes will be paid for without breaking the bank.
Sanders, an independent who leans democratic socialist, was handpicked by Mamdani for this honor, though any official able to notarize a legal document could have done the job. This choice isn’t random—Sanders endorsed Mamdani during the campaign and even hit the trail with him. It’s a buddy system that raises eyebrows among those wary of ideological echo chambers at City Hall.
“Mamdani’s campaign was inspirational,” Sanders declared back in June, praising him as a “visionary” leader. Inspirational to whom, exactly? Many small business owners might see visions of red tape and higher costs under policies like rent freezes on nearly 1 million apartments.
Let’s not forget Sanders’ track record—he also swore in former Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) for his second term in 2018. History suggests Sanders loves playing kingmaker for NYC’s left-leaning leaders. But will this alliance deliver results or just more unfunded promises?
Mamdani clinched victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) with 50.8% of the vote to Cuomo’s 41.3%. That’s a solid margin, and with over 1.1 million votes, he’s the first mayoral candidate since 1969 to cross the million-vote threshold citywide. Still, popularity doesn’t equal fiscal responsibility.
His platform centered on affordability, a noble goal for a city where the cost of living crushes families daily. But noble intentions don’t pay the bills when you’re proposing to freeze rents and undercut private grocers with city-run stores.
Conservative voters and business owners are already sounding alarms over potential compliance costs and legal exposure if these policies disrupt markets or trigger lawsuits from property owners. The rent freeze alone could spark a wave of litigation, tying up courts and taxpayer dollars. We need transparency on how Mamdani plans to navigate these minefields.
Free buses sound great on paper, but someone’s footing that bill—likely the same New Yorkers already stretched thin by inflation. Mamdani’s vision might appeal to commuters, but it risks sidelining infrastructure needs like road repairs or police funding.
City-owned grocery stores are another head-scratcher—government isn’t exactly known for efficiency in retail. Will this experiment drive down food prices, or will it create a boondoggle of waste and mismanagement?
Rent stabilization for nearly a million units is perhaps the most divisive idea, pitting tenants against landlords in a policy brawl. While renters may cheer, property owners could see their investments tank if they can’t cover maintenance or taxes.
As Jan. 1, 2026, approaches, all eyes are on Mamdani to see if he can balance his ambitious agenda with the city’s fiscal realities. Conservatives must hold his administration accountable, ensuring no taxpayer dime is squandered on utopian dreams.
The Sanders-Mamdani duo may inspire the progressive crowd, but for many working-class New Yorkers, the proof will be in the pudding—or the budget. Let’s hope this inauguration isn’t just a photo op but the start of real debate over policies that could reshape the city.