Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

You probably wonder what the end of this war will look like. It won’t look like V-J Day in Times Square, 1945, with sailors kissing girls they met five seconds ago. Our country is way too divided and disturbed with politically-inflected mental illness for love to bloom in the streets like it did then. If you happen to catch the glum crew on CNN you will detect that they really want this operation to fail because, you know, Trump.

The war will be over when Iran loses the ability to spray missiles and drones all over the place — and notice how they are pouring it on the Emirate states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and even Azerbaijan, for Gawdsake, turning would-be bystanders into pissed-off additional enemies they need like a hole in the head.

At some point they will run out of ordnance, or the will to roll them out of the supposed 10,000 bat caves their weapons are stashed in. Our side apparently has an uncanny knack for seeing the launchers creep into daylight and efficiently blowing them up. Creates a disincentive to even think about launching. Of course, Iran might have some spectacular last-ditch thingie they can unleash to horrify the world — perhaps a “dirty” bomb that uses the 460 kilos of 60-percent enriched uranium they bragged about at one of the last negotiation sessions before the war with Witkoff and Kushner. Standing by on that.

But, at some point a week or so hence, a stillness will fall upon the earth and sky above Iran, and that will be all she wrote for sheer havoc. Victory will not look much like anything. Just that stillness. The body politic in Iran is another matter. Expect awful turmoil. Iran’s command structure is shattered. Officials don’t dare pick a room in some building to meet in. The Internet is down and most communication with it. Nobody knows who is really in charge, and nobody may be in charge, not for quite a long time to come.

Let’s hope we have the patience to let the Iranians sort out their own governing structure, and that it will be made up of people who are not insane, not fanatics of the martyrdom cult that has ruled the place for fifty years. It’s probably not part of the US plan to slaughter the Revolutionary Guard, or Sepah, the chief apparatus of despotic control in the country. Or the Basij, (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, which means “Organization for the Mobilization of the Oppressed”), an auxiliary volunteer paramilitary militia that acts as the “morality police” and cracks down on dissent. Hundreds of thousands are employed by these groups.

You might imagine circumstances in which the members of those dastardly outfits decide to peel away from them, sensing a loss of legitimacy and danger in remaining on-board. Surely, a lot of Iranians will have blood in their eyes, looking for scores to settle, just as the people took revenge on members of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even now with the bombs still falling in Tehran (perhaps even because of them), many ordinary Iranians are dancing in the streets. You must suppose there is massive opposition to the regime. But first, chaos.

Why would we feel any necessity to put “boots on the ground” in there? Why expose American troops to the factional fighting that is apt to break out, as it did in Iraq? Did we not learn the lessons of Fallujah? Wouldn’t it be enough that Iran just loses its ability to fire weapons at anyone? Loses its ability to mess with shipping in the Persian Gulf? And loses its ability to foment mischief in other countries, including any ideological influence it might still have, or any financial mojo for sponsoring terrorism? Can we not just stand by and let the Iranians figure out their own future?

Try imagining a peaceful Iran not bent on exporting Jihad (just like you might imagine a peaceful Ukraine, not making itself a problem for the rest of the world). Forgive the cliché, but Iran (a.k.a. Persia), is an old and durable culture, with a highly educated population, one of the world’s largest oil-and-gas reserves, and plenty of other resources. Iran could be somebody. It doesn’t have to be a bum with a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

As for our own country, too many people here are busy wolfing down the black pills with their Adderall and their Starbucks iced lavender cream chai. It’s actually possible that there is a satisfactory outcome to this Iran operation. Would that disappoint you — as it apparently disappoints the glum crew at CNN? As with Iran, it doesn’t pay to be insane, and something close to half of America is insane. That perturbation is mostly lodged in the American Left these days, the Democratic Party, devoted to a long list of ideas and propositions at odds with reality and locked into a strange willful hysteria that regards any kind of good faith as poison. That is exactly why we can’t have clean elections. How about fixing that?

Yesterday, when discussing the stunning development that Russia would be granted a one-month license to sell (formerly) sanctioned oil to india while the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, we said that this step is just the start, and precited “unlimited extensions” in the future. We had to wait less than 24 hours for this to come true.

Speaking to Fox Business, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US may lift sanctions on further Russian oil supply after a move Thursday to give Indian refiners the green light to purchase crude from the nation.

“Treasury agreed to let our allies in India start buying Russian oil that was already on the water,” Bessent said, explaining that “to ease the temporary gap of oil around the world, we have given them permission to accept the Russian oil. We may unsanction other Russian oil.”

NEW: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:

Due to the temporary global oil gap, we may also unsanction other Russian oil. pic.twitter.com/dvP6IIsLoQ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 6, 2026

Bessent said there’s “hundreds of millions of sanctioned barrels of crude on the water now and in essence, by unsanctioning them, Treasury can create supply,” he said, quoting verbatim what we said on February 19.

Cushing drained at fastest pace since June while hundreds of millions of barrels are stuck at sea. Vitol will make a trillion $ this year.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 19, 2026

He was referring to this chart:

Crude prices surged past $90 a barrel on Friday, rising to the highest level since 2023, as fighting in the region kept tankers away from the Strait of Hormuz, with some traders and energy executives warning that prices could climb to more than $100 per barrel if the conflict continues and local producers are forced to shut in production.

Bessent echoed other officials in anticipating the US efforts to defeat Iran will prove victorious. “Our campaign has been overwhelming,” he said. “They’re trying to create economic chaos, and I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.” Meanwhile, NBC reported citing anonymous officials, that “Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. ground troops in Iran.”

“We’ve considered all this,” Bessent said. “This is in the president’s calculus, and things are proceeding as planned.”

It’s unclear if the president’s calculus also accounts for $3.80 gas at the pump which is what the surge in oil prices will translate to unless there is a quick resolution to the Iran crisis.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Obamacare had problems even before it launched in 2014. Marketplace websites were glitchy during the open enrollment period, frustrating many would-be customers.

Sweeping changes ushered in by the Affordable Care Act, the law creating Obamacare, all but guaranteed that premiums would increase—which they did by 23 percent in the program’s first year.

Even so, public opinion swung in favor of Obamacare starting in 2017 and remains positive, according to KFF Health Tracking polls.

More than 24 million people were insured through the program by 2025.

And insurers learned to thrive under the new rules, more than doubling annual revenue to $1.1 trillion and consistently generating a profit between 2014 and 2024.

Problems do persist, however.

Premiums have more than doubled over 12 years. Some consumers have only a few plans to choose from. And flaws in the program’s design continue to waste taxpayer dollars.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions, many with bipartisan support. Yet permanent reform remains elusive.

The reason may have less to do with the ideas themselves and more to do with the most persistent disagreement between Republicans and Democrats: the role of the federal government.

Here are three commonly proposed remedies for problems within Obamacare, and why those problems remain.

1. Increase Plan Options

Of the more than 1,100 health insurers doing business in the United States, about 10, on average, offer plans through Obamacare in each state.

About 5 percent of Obamacare users have only one or two insurers to choose from.

“Obamacare created a system that left American families with fewer choices,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who proposed legislation to improve Obamacare in 2025.

Scott’s proposal would have allowed consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, which is now prohibited by most states with limited exceptions.

Five years ago, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) proposed allowing more choice by allowing consumers to opt into Medicare in counties where fewer than three insurers offered Obamacare plans. That plan, called Medicare X, later expanded to other counties with high-cost plans and few options.

Bennet and Kaine said the plan would both reduce costs and offer health coverage to people with few options. The plan was introduced in 2021 and again last year.

Others have suggested broadening the availability of catastrophic plans, which have low premiums but high deductibles.

That proposal and Scott’s proposal had been suggested by Democrats in 2017.

Still others have proposed allowing insurers to offer short-term health insurance plans through Obamacare. These three-month to six-month plans are popular with people between jobs or in a waiting period for employer-sponsored insurance.

“Short-term plans typically offer far lower premiums, substantially broader provider networks, and greater overall value for many middle-class families,” Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, said.

None of these ideas received a vote in Congress.

Conservatives were skeptical of the Medicare X proposal, seeing it as a step toward socialized medicine.

“​​Democrats claim that they just want to offer another health insurance choice. But Medicare X would simply nudge us along toward the Democrats’ endgame: a complete government takeover of the health insurance system,” Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, wrote on the think tank’s website in 2024.

Left-leaning politicians and analysts have been skeptical of any plan that would offer what they see as inferior health coverage through Obamacare, including short-term insurance and catastrophic plans.

“Short-term coverage is not community-rated (that is, people can be charged more based on their health status, gender, or other factors) and it typically does not cover preexisting conditions,” Mark A. Hall and Michael J. McCue wrote in a 2022 article for The Commonwealth Fund.

2. Empower Consumers

Obamacare subsidizes health insurance for people earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The subsidy comes in the form of an advanced tax credit. But the money is paid directly to insurance companies, not to the insured individuals.

President Donald Trump and several others have proposed making those funds available to consumers, which they say would increase choice and lower prices.

Trump’s plan, and some others, would provide funded Health Savings Accounts, which enrollees could use only for health expenses. That would include buying insurance, paying out-of-pocket expenses, or buying health care directly from providers.

Scott made a similar proposal, as did Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

“Giving billions of taxpayer dollars to insurers is not working to reduce health insurance premiums for patients,” Crapo said in a statement announcing his plan in December 2025. “We need to give Americans more control over their own health care decisions.”

The Crapo–Cassidy plan failed to advance in the Senate last year. None of the other plans have even been put to a vote. Democrats have opposed the idea as a halfway measure that would undermine the value of Obamacare.

Health Savings Accounts are available only with insurance plans that have a high deductible, leading some analysts to conclude that they wouldn’t benefit people who have the most trouble affording health care.

“While healthier people could benefit … sicker people could be stuck with higher premiums or higher out-of-pocket health costs,” wrote Larry Levitt and Cynthia Cox of KFF.

Democrats objected also to other provisions of the Crapo–Cassidy plan, like verifying citizenship and immigration status before enrolling in coverage, and excluding abortion as an essential health benefit in Obamacare plans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the plan “junk insurance.”

3. Fix Structural Problems

One feature of Obamacare was intended to lower premium prices but produced the opposite result.

Insurers must offer cost-sharing reductions to customers making less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level who choose a silver-level plan.

The cost-sharing reductions mean lower copays and deductibles, which helps low-income enrollees.

It also increases costs for insurers, so the federal government reimbursed them for the added expense.

But a federal judge ruled that those reimbursements were improper because Congress had never authorized funds for them through an appropriations bill. Cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers were discontinued in 2017. However, insurers are still required to offer the cost-sharing reductions.

To compensate, insurers raised premiums on the silver-level plans, a practice known as silver loading.

Because all premium subsidies are based on the cost of a silver-level plan, any increase to silver-plan premiums has the knock-on effect of increasing federal subsidies on every plan sold through Obamacare.

The overall effect added billions per year in costs to taxpayers.

Politicians from both major parties have called for Congress to fix the problem by appropriating money to pay for the cost-sharing reductions. That would save taxpayers nearly $37 billion and reduce premiums for the most common Obamacare plans by 11 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) proposed this and other program changes in 2017.

The bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus also pitched the idea that year.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) introduced a health care bill in 2025 that included funding for cost-sharing reductions.

The idea is included in Trump’s Great Healthcare Plan, released in January.

Despite having bipartisan support, this proposal appears to have been overshadowed by larger questions about Obamacare.

The 2017 Murray–Alexander plan was proposed at a time when many Republicans were intent on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Trump opposed the proposal, according to then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, because it did not go far enough to expand options and drive competition.

“This president certainly supports Republicans and Democrats coming to work together, but it’s not a full approach, and we need something to go a little bit further to get on board,” Sanders told reporters in 2017.

Democrats opposed the Miller–Meeks proposal because it did not extend the expiring enhanced tax credits for Obamacare, which was their primary legislative aim in late 2025.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) urged colleagues to vote against the Miller-Meeks proposal, saying, “This plan does nothing to extend the [Obamacare] enhanced tax credits which are set to expire.

Jeremy Nighohossian of the Competitive Enterprise Institute suggested that some policy makers oppose funding the cost-sharing reductions precisely because the higher federal subsidies that result from silver loading serve a political end.

“Some may prefer the indirect subsidy increase because it raises the proportion of the population with insurance,” Nighohossian wrote in January on the think tank’s website.

The Impasse

The legislative impasse over improving Obamacare appears to arise from the basic difference in approach by Republicans and Democrats to health care financing.

Republicans generally favor deregulation and other marketplace reforms that they believe will increase competition and lower prices.

“As President Trump has said, he will make our health care system better by increasing transparency, promoting choice and competition, and expanding access to new affordable health care and insurance options,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Poynter Institute in 2024.

Republican proposals for Obamacare generally follow that blueprint: add choices, improve competition, and allow the market to lower prices.

Democrats generally favor increased government intervention in the form of regulation and subsidization with the goal of ensuring access to health care services for everyone.

“Access to high-quality health care should be a right available to every single American,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in December 2025. “One of the ways we can make sure that we strive to achieve that principle is to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

Democrat-led bills to extend those credits failed to advance in both the House and Senate. Republican proposals to increase choice and competition also failed to advance.

Obamacare’s benchmark silver plan premiums for 2026 increased by about 26 percent.

The FBI is scrambling to investigate a suspected cybersecurity incident involving a sensitive internal network used to manage court-ordered wiretaps and foreign-intelligence surveillance warrants, according to CNN.

The bureau confirmed the activity in a brief statement, saying that it had “identified and addressed suspicious activities on FBI networks” and deployed its full technical resources in response.

And of course, the timing couldn’t be more interesting, as the incident comes amid heightened vigilance for retaliatory cyberattacks following the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, which targeted Iranian nuclear, missile and command infrastructure and resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strikes have triggered regional escalation, including Iranian counterstrikes and proxy activity in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. intelligence assessments, including a Department of Homeland Security bulletin, indicate that while large-scale physical attacks on U.S. soil remain improbable, Iran-aligned hacktivists and potentially state-linked actors are likely to pursue lower-level disruptive actions. Such attacks could include distributed denial-of-service instructions, website defacements and other intrusions aimed at causing nuisance or temporary disruption.

“Although a large-scale physical attack is unlikely, Iran and its proxies probably pose a persistent threat of targeted attacks in the Homeland, and will almost certainly escalate retaliatory actions – or calls to action – if reports of the Ayatollah’s death are confirmed,” according to the bulletin obtained by ABC News.

“In the short-term, we are most concerned that Iran-aligned hacktivists will conduct low-level cyber attacks against US networks, such as website defacements and distributed denial-of-service attacks,” officials said in the bulletin.

Major banks and other institutions have intensified monitoring and fortified defenses in recent days. However, no significant breaches directly attributed to the current phase of hostilities have been publicly confirmed.

Speaking to investors this week, JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon said that while he endorsed the U.S.-Israeli strikes as a necessary response to longstanding threats from Tehran but cautioned about the asymmetric risks ahead, including cyber attacks on major financial institutions.

“They can’t match us militarily, so they’ll hit where it hurts – our networks, our operations, our customers,” Dimon added.

“We always try to prepare for that,” the top Wall Street banker said, underscoring that he considers cyber attacks “one of the highest risks banks bear.”

Or that’s all just propaganda and it’s this guy…

Authored by Wolf Richter via Wolf Street,

Gasoline consumption in the US, in terms of product supplied to gas stations, declined by about 1% in 2025, to 8.91 million barrels per day, according to EIA data, below where consumption had first been in 2003, even though the US population increased by 52 million people, or by 18%, over the same period.

Compared to the peak in 2018, gasoline consumption in 2025 fell by 4.5%. Compared to the prior peak in 2007, gasoline consumption is down 4.1%.

Gasoline consumption is increased by miles driven – which inched up to a record – and is slowed by the improving efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and the growing share of EVs.

The effects of the two Oil Shocks in the 1970s on gasoline consumption was dramatic. High gasoline prices and a recession led to fewer miles driven, but it also unleashed efforts by US automakers to make and sell smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. And the small fuel-efficient Japanese models became immensely popular. This wave of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles held down gasoline consumption, and it didn’t surpass its 1978 high until 1993, though the population grew by 18% over those 16 years.

Per-capita gasoline consumption fell to 32.8 gallons per month in 2025, the lowest since 1967, except for the Covid year 2020, as a result of declining overall gasoline consumption amid a growing population.

This dynamic illustrates the structural decline in demand for gasoline.

Miles driven edged up 0.9% in 2025, to a record of 3,324 billion miles, according to data from the Department of Transportation (includes miles driven by cars, light trucks, buses, motorcycles, delivery vans, and commercial trucks). But that’s only 9.7% higher than at the prior peak in 2007.

That gasoline consumption declines even as miles driven increases attests to the impact of more fuel-efficient ICE vehicles and more EVs in the vehicle mix.

But people drive a little less: Miles driven per person residing in the US, at 9,710 miles in 2025, was 3.1% below the peak in 2004.

And average fuel economy keeps improving: that has been a big part of the long-term structural demand issue for gasoline.

Over the past 25 years, the average fuel economy of all passenger vehicles sold in the US rose by 43%, to a record of 28.1 “real world” MPG for the 2025 model year, according to preliminary data from the EPA last month.

Note the spike in average fuel economy coming out of the Oil Shocks, as compact Japanese vehicles made huge inroads, and as US automakers began offering smaller vehicles with better mileage.

Exports of gasoline have become an outlet for refiners.

Crude oil production in the US has surged by 172% since 2008, to a record 13.6 million barrels per day (MMb/d) in 2025, according to EIA data. Over the years, exports of crude oil and petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, petroleum coke, and many others) have soared, and imports have fallen. In 2020, the US became a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products, exporting more than importing. In 2025, net exports of crude oil and petroleum products rose to a record 2.8 MMb/d (detailed analysis and charts here).

Gasoline exports have become a big profitable trade for US refiners, and an outlet to replace falling demand at home. Many refiners import crude oil and export value-added products, such as gasoline, including refineries in California which face steeply dropping gasoline demand amid the rapidly growing prevalence of EVs and hybrids in the state.

For example, the US had a trade surplus of 590,000 barrels per day in crude oil and petroleum products with Mexico in 2025, importing 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil and exporting 1.1 MMb/d in value-added petroleum products, largely diesel and gasoline.

Gasoline exports started soaring in 2008, surpassed 700,000 barrels per day for the first time in 2017, hit 879,000 barrels per day in 2018, and have stayed in that range since then. In 2025, gasoline exports edged up to 804,000 barrels per day.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump fired Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and tapped Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma as her replacement, marking the first administration shake-up of Trump’s second term. Democrats had been demanding her ouster for months, but they’ve made it quite clear that the move changed nothing in their eyes, and the standoff over DHS funding continues.

The DHS partial shutdown – now stretching into its third week – was already the product of Democratic demands for sweeping restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. Those demands didn’t soften with the personnel change. They hardened. 

“A change in personnel is not sufficient,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. “We need a change in policy.” 

Jeffries added, “It’s not like Kristi Noem was involved in negotiating anything. She was a corrupt lackey. So we’re dealing with the White House and we’re going to continue to deal with the White House at this point.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer made it clear he’s not interested in administrative adjustments or good-faith assurances. He wants legislation that fundamentally changes how immigration law is enforced. “We have to change them by legislation because I don’t trust any one person being in charge of this agency as long as Trump is president, given the policies he’s espoused, given how ICE has been structured,” Schumer insisted. And then, with the rhetorical flourish of a man who has already made up his mind: “The rot is deep.”

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, was equally unmoved. “Changing the name plate on the door doesn’t change the fact that they are committed to using DHS to terrorize communities and migrants in this country,” Murphy said.

Despite Democrats being the ones holding up funding, Schumer then blamed Republicans for the ongoing impasse. “They’ve been stonewalling us on the most important issues, and those have to change, and they have to change them,” he told reporters.

However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune disputes Schumer’s characterization. “Senate Democrats are not engaging,” he said. “And furthermore, I would say, beyond not engaging, they are just flat rejecting any chance to sit down and actually talk about it. And that seems to be coming from the top.” Thune then made his second attempt in as many months to bring a House-passed DHS funding bill to the Senate floor, fully anticipating Democrats would block it again. They did. The procedural vote came in at 51-45 — nine short of the 60 needed to advance.

The impasse began in January, when anti-ICE protestors assaulted federal agents in Minnesota, resulting in their deaths. Renee Good attempted to run over an ICE agent with her vehicle, prompting the agent to fatally shoot her. Weeks later, Alex Pretti assaulted Border Patrol agents while armed with a loaded gun and was shot in the process of attacking the agents.

Democrats used the incident to push for a package loaded with ridiculous restrictions that would have put agents at risk and severely hampered their ability to enforce the law. Among other provisions, their requested rules included banning agents from wearing masks, requiring judicial warrants for entry onto private property, mandating identification and body cameras, and prohibiting enforcement near schools, churches, hospitals, and polling places. 

But, Republicans pointed out that unmasking agents exposes them to doxing and harassment, and that a blanket warrant requirement would drown the courts — effectively neutering the administration’s immigration agenda. 

One area of agreement was on body cameras. Yet, Democrats later backtracked on that demand. 

Meanwhile, the shutdown’s collateral damage is becoming harder to ignore. ICE and CBP have kept their lights on, covered by the $75 billion Congress funneled to immigration enforcement through last summer’s budget reconciliation law. But TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service have no such backstop and are beginning to feel the financial squeeze. 

Mullin is set to take over on March 31, pending Senate confirmation. Whether he can unlock a deal to end the standoff remains entirely unclear, but so far it looks unlikely. 

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Two of Minnesota’s top officials, Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, testified before Congress for more than four hours on March 4 about their state’s multibillion-dollar fraud controversies.

During the latest hearing on Capitol Hill, Republicans tried to pin down when the two Democratic leaders were alerted to the fraud, why payments continued afterward, and what role politics may have played.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) summed up the scandal this way: “While whistleblowers were silenced, fraudsters got rich.” Comer chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which has now held two hearings on Minnesota fraud cases this year.

🚨 JUST IN: House Oversight Chair James Comer affirms whistleblowers testified UNDER OATH that they spent YEARS warning Tim Walz and Keith Ellison about rampant fraud

IT’S TIME FOR WALZ AND ELLISON TO BE JAILED.

US taxpayers are SICK AND TIRED of politicians stealing from them pic.twitter.com/n6K2lwalBi

— Javier Salazar (@ded_fx) March 5, 2026

Although Democrat members of the committee agreed with Republicans’ demand to hold fraudsters accountable, some Democrats pivoted away from the issue of fraud. They said the committee ought to instead focus on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in Minnesota, where confrontations twice turned deadly in January.

Here are four takeaways.

Payments ‘Kept Flowing’ After Fraud Alarms

Walz has said that his administration acted quickly, but Comer said that claim “does not hold up to the facts.”

Even after fraud was “known, documented, and repeatedly brought to the attention of state leadership,” state employees “kept payments flowing,” Comer said.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said the committee’s investigation found that state agency leaders directly notified Walz’s chief of staff by May 2020 about concerns regarding Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit organization that was paid to provide meals to children.

Its payments skyrocketed from $307,000 in 2018, a year before Walz took office, to nearly $200 million by 2021, Donalds said—despite the fraud alarms.

Authorities say the organization stole nearly $300 million; dozens of people, mostly Somalis, have faced related federal charges since 2022.

Several Republicans noted that Somalis overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and accused Democrats in Minnesota of turning a blind eye to retain that political support. Walz denied that accusation.300

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) confronted Walz for publicly stating that payments to Feeding Our Future restarted under a court order.

Ramsey County District Court Judge John H. Guthmann said he never issued any such order, according to a 2022 statement from the judge.

Jordan asked Walz, “Why didn’t you tell the truth?”

The governor responded, “The agency believed that the court had required them to make those payments.”

Tim Walz was exposed for resuming taxpayer payments to Somali fraudsters at Feeding Our Future and lying about it. During questioning, Rep. Jim Jordan challenged Walz on why he restarted the payments despite the court never ordering it, forcing Walz to deflect and claim he was… pic.twitter.com/KsOUv5tycc

— Americaforever (@onetexgal9) March 5, 2026

Republicans also cited significant Walz-era increases in funding for other programs in which fraud was uncovered, related to autism therapy, child care, and a housing-affordability program.

Walz said he was aware of systemic fraud allegations before he took office and that he took steps to address them.

However, he said that Minnesota is “not going to shut down programs” that are otherwise worth it.

Repeatedly, the governor denounced fraud, saying, “One dollar is too much.”

Whistleblower Retaliation Alleged and Denied

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) told Walz, “Almost 30 whistleblowers accused you and your administration of retaliation.”

Walz responded: “I can tell you it didn’t happen. … There’s a zero tolerance for whistleblower retaliation in Minnesota.”

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) pointed to the case of a state employee—a lifelong Democrat—who “was called ‘racist’ and her work responsibilities were diminished” after she blew the whistle on fraud. Many whistleblowers have reported being called “racist” or “Islamophobic” for pointing out fraud allegations against Somalis, who are predominantly black Muslims.

In response, Walz said that Minnesota offers “very strong whistleblower protections.” He also said it is illegal to retaliate against whistleblowers or intimidate them.

Gill replied, “Your administration has treated whistleblowers like absolute dirt, and that’s a big reason why we’ve seen so much of our hard-earned tax dollars defrauded.”

Burchett also named some specific organizations that were never prosecuted.

“Every dad-gum one of you all ought to step down,” Burchett said.

Other Republicans also called for resignations from Walz and Ellison.

‘Compassion Over Compliance’

Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) raised concerns about former and current Minnesota welfare agency employees’ statements that they were told to emphasize “compassion over compliance” when dealing with recipients of government aid.

Documents back up statements showing that employees were told that they should behave based on a “mindset” of 70 percent compassion, 30 percent compliance, Timmons said.

“After acknowledging how widespread and pervasive fraud is in Minnesota, how should your state employees prioritize program compliance? What is your message to people now relative to this compassion–compliance ratio?” Timmons asked.

Walz said he agreed with Timmons.

“It’s not an either-or, and it’s not a percentage,” the governor said.

“We’re not going to stop these programs … [but] we need to have fraud prevention and program integrity.”

Walz, Ellison Defend Record

Walz, in a written statement, said, “In Minnesota, if you defraud public programs, if you steal taxpayer money, we will find you, we will prosecute you, we will convict you, and we will throw you in jail.”

He acknowledged that the governor has an important role in fighting fraud and that “the buck ultimately stops” with him.

“I do not shy away from that responsibility, and I am prepared—as I have always been—to have a serious conversation with our federal partners about how to ensure fraudsters cannot take advantage of Minnesota taxpayers,” Walz wrote.

Tim Walz is getting FLUSTERED, PANICKING after he was exposed lying about covering up for Somali fraud

WALZ: “Our Medicare error late is lower than your rate!!”

JAMES COMER: “You have been defrauded! You have not been good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. And the Democrat… pic.twitter.com/NkzpqRbYPz

— Roy Rogue (@rogue185263) March 5, 2026

Walz also told Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) that he would like to hear specifics on how Wisconsin tackled its “improper payments” problem under former Gov. Scott Walker, also a Republican.

During the hearing, Walz and other Democrats alleged that President Donald Trump and his Republican administration have targeted Minnesota fraud and immigration enforcement for political reasons.

Republicans said immigration is intertwined with many other problems, including election fraud and welfare-program fraud.

Ellison testified that his office can prosecute only Medicaid fraud on its own; federal prosecutors are responsible for other types of fraud cases.

In his written statement, he said his office has “worked tirelessly to hold fraudsters accountable.”

He touted winning 300 Medicaid-fraud convictions and recovering $80 million in judgments and restitution. His office also has “dissolved 17 sham non-profits involved in federal child nutrition fraud” since 2019, Ellison wrote.

The oil-and-gas industry is sounding the alarm over a tightening of California’s cap-and-invest program, warning that stricter emissions caps could drive up gasoline prices and jeopardize the viability of in-state refining.

The California Air Resources Board is advancing amendments to the cap-and-invest framework, a market-based mechanism requiring major emitters to purchase allowances for greenhouse-gas emissions, that would significantly reduce the supply of available credits and accelerate reduction targets through 2030, according to the New York Post. The program, extended through 2045 last year, generates revenue through quarterly auctions that has helped fund state priorities, including the beleaguered high-speed rail initiative.

Andy Walz, president of Chevron’s downstream, midstream and chemicals division, told KCRA in an interview this week that the forthcoming board vote on the changes could impose billions in additional costs on fuel producers.

“If they add this burden … it’s not whether refineries will close, it’s when,” the executive said.

Walz pointed to heightened geopolitical risks, including the spiraling U.S.-Iran war, as a reason to pump the brakes on reductions in domestic production capacity.

“That makes no sense when you look at global tensions right now,” Walz said.

Walz described the situation as an “emergency” for the state and highlighted potential national-security implications, noting California hosts 32 U.S. military bases that depend on reliable local fuel supply.

“It’s important to national security to have the fuel those facilities need,” he said. “This isn’t just a California issue.”

A study by Capitol Matrix Consulting estimates the proposal could saddle California refineries with $5.5 billion to $9 billion in added costs over the next decade, a burden that could erase much or all of their projected earnings in some cases.

Projections from industry sources, including Chevron, indicate the amendments could add more than $1 a gallon to gasoline prices by 2030, with the company specifically estimating an increase of $1.21 per gallon if allowance prices reach projected ceilings around $135. California pump prices already average about $1.54 above the national level, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yet, Newsom has shown little concern about higher costs at the pump for California voters. Instead, the potential 2028 Democrat presidential contender has framed the state’s climate policies largely in opposition to President Donald Trump.

“We’re doubling down on our best tool to combat Trump’s assaults on clean air — Cap-and-Invest — by making polluters pay for projects that support our most impacted communities,” Newsom said in September.

Authored by Teresa R. Manning via American Greatness,

Just over a year ago, President Trump issued two executive orders banning destructive diversity ideology (a.k.a. “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) from the federal government and its contractors, including colleges and universities. The EOs sought to restore merit as the basis of hiring, advancement, and college admissions.

Both EOs reinforced prior actions by the president as well as by the Supreme Court: In his first term, Trump signed EO 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotypes, which banned divisive concepts based on race and ethnicity, a measure duplicated in many states; and in June of 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (“SFFA”), which found that diversity rationales for racial preferences in admissions were themselves discriminatory and therefore unlawful.

Notwithstanding these major legal developments against DEI, colleges and universities, especially in Virginia, are continuing business as usual to promote it, albeit under different names, a move known as rebranding. “To avoid scrutiny,” said one official at the University of Virginia, diversity offices are now called offices for “community and belonging,” while “queer brunch” is now marketed as “cozy brunch.” At George Mason University, the DEI office is now called the Office for Access, Compliance, and Community—same staff, same stuff. They do this even though Trump’s EO explicitly banned rebranding, stating such programs are illegal “under whatever name they appear.”

Obviously, bad actor schools are engaged in bad faith noncompliance.

In this 250th anniversary year of America’s founding, we should remember that the word “diversity“ is absent from our foundational documents: it does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution.

How, then, did “diversity” become so ubiquitous—in education, government, and corporate America—and what does it really mean?

“Diversity” is in fact a top-down, divide-and-conquer strategy pitting Americans against each other based on race, ethnicity, and sex (and now including “gender” and gender ideology). It distracts from—and detracts from—talent and excellence, actually encouraging racial discord as everyone must have skin color or race in mind, rather than achievement or moral character. Accordingly, it destroys nations. Only corrupt politicians, owned and controlled by anti-American handlers, could parrot the lie that “Diversity is our strength.”

Many date the debut of diversity ideology from the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the medical school of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program reserving 16 of its 100 open spots for minorities, often with lesser qualifications than white applicants, such as complainant Allan Bakke. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced in this opinion that “diversity” was a legitimate governmental interest. But he and the other justices rejected the medical school’s rigid quotas to get there—insisting, instead, that race should be one of many different criteria for admission even while stating that “racial and ethnic considerations are inherently suspect” under the Constitution.

These ambiguities guaranteed more fights about the role of race in college admissions and elsewhere.

In 2003, the Court made matters worse in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor elevated “diversity” from a permissible state interest to a compelling one, finding that the University of Michigan law school’s racial preferences in admissions were lawful, provided they were tailored and individualized.

Historically, “compelling state interests” concerned public safety, national security, or the protection of minor children. With no history, tradition, or textual basis to do so, the Grutter Court not only shoved diversity onto this list but also put it above a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, many called the decision illegitimate. In practice, this case was the official government stamp of approval for discrimination against Christian, heterosexual men of European descent, as they are the only demographic said not to contribute to diversity.

In short order, campus bureaucracies, federal programs, and corporate trainings trumpeted DEI—often barely defined. Now, however, documents show that employers such as Amazon benefit from “diversity,” but employees decidedly do not: a divided workforce helps prevent unions as well as other forms of protection for workers’ rights. Similarly, campus administrators with few real or marketable skills no doubt also benefit from DEI, while serious students decidedly do not: university bureaucrats in DEI “BS Jobs” are paid handsomely with unprecedented student loan amounts. Graduates get the debt; campus bureaucrats get the paychecks.

Thankfully, the high Court corrected itself in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a case where DEI was rejected and its rationales found to be incompatible with the equal protection of laws. Chief Justice John Roberts explained that DEI itself presumes that skin color or ethnic background results in a “characteristic viewpoint,” a form of racial stereotyping forbidden by civil rights guarantees. Diversity ideology is also incoherent and incapable of judicial review. (Transsexuals now add diversity? Perhaps pedophiles will too?) If race is a plus for some, he pointed out, it is necessarily a minus for others—which is to say, even individualized approaches result in illegal racial discrimination. Finding racial preferences in college admissions unlawful, Roberts went on to broaden the holding, saying, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

It is in this context that President Trump’s January 2025 executive orders were issued. The administration is following up on the Supreme Court’s landmark SFFA decision, a case that took years for the courts to decide and which corrected the destructive Grutter opinion.

It is also the context in which colleges and universities are brazenly flouting the law.

The actions of Trump and the Supreme Court have prompted Offices for Civil Rights at both the Justice and Education Departments to launch investigations into a number of colleges and universities, including in Virginia; a federal appeals court recently upheld the administration’s actions. Resolution agreements have been reached in some instances. And that is all to the good.

But the record shows that schools do not operate in good faith. That means that agreements on paper must be enforced, checked, and double-checked to have real effect in practice.

Let’s hope that will also happen—with special attention paid to bad faith rebranding.

* * *

Teresa R. Manning is Policy Director at the National Association of Scholars, President of the Virginia Association of Scholars, and a former law professor at Virginia’s Scalia Law School, George Mason University. 

Last night, Bret Weinstein joined ZeroHedge to moderate a debate on the Iran war featuring Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative (magazine founded by Pat Buchanan), and Max Abrahms, Northeastern University professor and terrorism expert.

The discussion went far and wide. From Chabad to whether the war has strengthened Iranian hardliners to the question of Israeli influence over U.S. policy to how this war affects Russia-Ukraine.

Below are some of the most notable exchanges for those who missed it:

Can Trump Wrangle Israel?

Abrahms argued that claims Israel dictates U.S. policy ignore numerous cases where Washington has acted against Israeli preferences. He pointed to the influence of Tom Barrack, Trump’s ambassador to Turkey who is “absolutely reviled by many Israelis,” and policies such as ending sanctions on Syria, inviting the new Syrian president to the White House, and cultivating close ties with Qatar, Pakistan, and Turkey’s Erdoğan. On Gaza, Abrahms said Donald Trump “told Netanyahu, you need to stop prosecuting this war against Hamas,” adding that even critics like Steve Bannon acknowledge Trump has been “telling [Israelis] what they can and cannot do.”

Abrahms also cited last June’s “12-day war” with Iran, saying Israel wanted to continue strikes but Trump intervened. “Israel had planes over Tehran and Trump said, ‘I don’t like this’… Literally in the skies over Tehran, the Israeli planes were sent home.”

Mills rejected the framing. “It’s an archetypal straw man.” Conceding that the administration has taken steps “certain people in Israel… don’t prefer,” Mills argued the larger objective remains unchanged: “The holy grail of the Israeli hardline and neoconservatives… has for a long time been an Iran war… and they just got it done.”

pic.twitter.com/6W8QWlFgEN

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

Tucker And “The Jews”

Abrahms accused Tucker Carlson of blaming “the Jews” for the war, pointing to Carlson’s claim that Chabad-Lubavitch and Christian Evangelicals were at least partially behind the conflict, a theory outlined in his latest monologue. 

Both Mills and Weinstein rejected that accusation. “That’s a far cry from the Jews,” Weinstein said. “There is all the difference in the world between an organization to which some people belong and many do not and the Jews, which is a large lineage.”

pic.twitter.com/fN0EJzlbkR

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

“Crystal Meth Rumsfeld”

Mills argued that the most serious consequence is diplomatic. “I think currently the biggest macro problem actually is that the U.S.’s diplomatic word is getting crushed.” In his view, the war will “harm Trump’s ability to make a deal with the Russians to end the war in Ukraine” and “permanently scar any future president’s maneuverability and diplomacy.”

Mills questioned whether the purported strategic gains are gains at all.

“If you think the Iranians are bad dudes, they just replaced the 90-year-old Khamenei with a 58-year-old Khamenei,” he said, adding that the conflict has “further entrenched their military and economic elite, the IRGC.” At home, it’s also emboldened the worst factions, politically vindicating hardliners like Rubio, Graham, and Cotton who argue “you cannot deal with the United States… that the U.S. only responds to force.” 

Rumsfeld: “I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t gonna last any longer than that.”

Hegseth: “ It may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back.” pic.twitter.com/xSLEbGaniZ

— Home of the Brave (@OfTheBraveUSA) March 2, 2026

Mills also directed criticism at Pete Hegseth, comparing him to “crystal meth Rumsfeld.” The rhetoric about “lethality” and a “reign of terror… over Iranian skies” suggested officials were “reveling in the carnage.” 

Lastly, and possibly the worst blunder of all, the fatwa discouraging nuclear weapons came from Iran’s deceased supreme leader, and “it’s very possible they’re just going to chuck that now and lunge for a crude nuclear device.” 

pic.twitter.com/cW3KfX1Ajx

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

Listen to the full debate below or on our Spotify and YouTube channels.

https://t.co/OMGDXCGANP

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 5, 2026