President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that those responsible for the historic fraud in Minnesota — members of the Somali community in particular — aren't just ripping off the Gopher State but the country at large."Think of it: $19 billion at least they've stolen from Minnesota and from the United States," said Trump. "We're not going to pay it any more. We're going to have [Gov. Tim] Walz go pay. We're not going to pay them, and we're not going to pay California, and we're not going to pay Illinois."In the wake of the president's remarks, the Trump administration cut off five Democrat-run states' access to over $10 billion in federal child care and family assistance funds.'It's a giant scam.'On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had barred California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York from accessing nearly $2.4 billion in Child Care and Development Fund money; $7.35 billion in Temporary Assistance for Needy Family funds; and $869 million in Social Services Block Grant funds."Families who rely on child care and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose," HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill said in a statement. "This action reflects our commitment to program integrity, fiscal responsibility, and compliance with federal requirements."HHS Assistant Secretary Alex Adams, the head of the Administration for Children and Families, emphasized the government's responsibility to "ensure these programs serve the families they were created to help," adding that "when there are credible concerns about fraud or misuse, we will act."RELATED: Tim Walz's nightmare continues as HHS shuts off $185M to Minnesota amid allegedly 'fake' Somali day care centers Photo by Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty ImagesHHS indicated that the funding freeze will remain in place until the ACF completes a review and determines that the affected states are in compliance with federal requirements.'It's cruel.'Adams and O'Neill also announced on Tuesday that the Trump administration is ending Biden-era practices of providing child-care centers with payments up front without verifying attendance.Democrats melted down over the funding pause, characterizing the effort to ensure taxpayer dollars aren't siphoned away by fraudsters as an attack on children.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, whose state has seen its share of day-care fraud, said in response to the funding freeze, "It's vindictive. It's cruel. And we'll fight it with every fiber of our being."Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) tried downplaying the fraud, claiming that "this has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with political retribution that punishes poor children in need of assistance.""Rather than making life easier and more affordable for our families, Donald Trump is stripping away child care from Illinois families who are just trying to go to work," said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D). "Thousands of parents and children depend on these child-care programs to help them make ends meet, and now their livelihoods are being put at risk."Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat with aspirations of becoming his state's next governor, tweeted, "Donald Trump has declared war on Colorado. He is now robbing thousands of vulnerable Colorado families of the critical support they need to afford food, housing, and health care."Trump raised the matter of fraud in Minnesota during a New Year's Eve event, then noted that "California is worse, Illinois is worse, and, sadly, New York is worse. A lot of other places. We're going to get to the bottom of all of it. It's a giant scam."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats bear clear responsibility for Minnesota’s spiraling federal program payment scandal. Either they failed to conduct meaningful oversight of billions in public funds over many years — or they conducted none at all. Their early response to the scandal explains why: They subjected its perpetrators to an unconscionably low standard of scrutiny.What began as a fraud investigation into federal programs meant to feed poor children has expanded rapidly. During the pandemic, a nonprofit called Feeding Our Future became the centerpiece of what federal prosecutors described as the largest COVID-era fraud scheme, involving roughly $300 million. That scandal soon widened to include fraud in autism services and housing programs. Now investigators allege that day-care centers billed taxpayers for caring for nonexistent children — one facility even displaying signage with a misspelling of “learning.”No criminal enterprise of this size and duration emerges unless its participants believe they will not face consequences. Democrats let the fraud happen.As revelations mount, consequences follow. Former vice presidential nominee Tim Walz abruptly abandoned his bid for a third term as Minnesota’s governor. Yet nothing suggests the full scope of the scandal has come into view, either geographically or financially.The estimated cost continues to climb. Last summer, a federal prosecutor put the total at more than $1 billion. Just last month, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson warned the figure could reach $9 billion — and that estimate covers only the schemes already uncovered. As trials proceed, new defendants emerge, and plea deals surface, the total is likely to rise farther.Instead of demanding answers, Democrats rushed to deflect scrutiny. In Seattle, newly elected mayor and self-described democratic socialist Katie Wilson inserted herself into the controversy by issuing a statement “on the harassment of Somali childcare providers” and posting a hotline number for alleged “hate crime” victims — before any comparable fraud investigation had even begun.Minnesota Democrats adopted the same playbook. They framed oversight itself as “racism,” attempting to shut down inquiry by exaggeratedly embracing the broader Somali community from which many of the fraudsters came. That rhetorical move does more harm than good. It links an entire community to criminal activity — something Democrats appear not to mind if it shields them politically.Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan illustrated the tactic in a video statement delivered while wearing a hijab: “I am incredibly clear that the Somali community is part of the fabric of the state of Minnesota.” Flanagan, notably, is also running for the U.S. Senate in 2026.The symbolism revealed more than intended. Democrats did not merely treat the Somali community as “part of the fabric” of Minnesota. They treated fraud perpetrators as apart from the fabric — exempt from scrutiny, audits, and accountability.RELATED: ‘More corrupt than Minnesota’: Trump mocks Newsom after launching California fraud investigation Photo by MAURO PIMENTEL/AFP via Getty ImagesLocal reporting points to warning signs stretching back more than a decade. Yet Democrats allowed massive federal programs to operate under standards so lax that fraud flourished unchecked.Despite their rhetoric of inclusion, Democrats effectively segregated oversight itself. They refused to apply basic accountability to billions in taxpayer dollars. At minimum, that constitutes gross incompetence.The underlying reality is simpler. Democrats let the fraud happen. Whether through neglect or willful blindness, they allowed these programs to operate without serious supervision while evidence of abuse accumulated.Fraud on this scale does not persist without a sense of impunity. That impunity may have grown gradually through years of nonexistent audits and rubber-stamped claims. Or it may have been reinforced more explicitly. Either way, no criminal enterprise of this size and duration emerges unless its participants believe they will not face consequences.The precise nature of Democrat culpability remains to be determined. Was it incompetence? A DEI mindset that discouraged scrutiny? Political quid pro quos? Tim Walz’s sudden exit from the governor’s race suggests that the answers may prove damaging.What is already clear is this: Minnesota’s fraud scandal did not happen in spite of Democratic governance. It happened because of it.

Political violence in the United States no longer lives in the realm of theory. We are watching it unfold in real time. Assassination attempts, targeted harassment, and violent disruptions have become disturbingly common. The chaos at Berkeley in November offers a bracing reminder.A majority of Americans now believe a political candidate will be assassinated within the next five years. We have already witnessed two assassination attempts against President Trump, the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, and a foiled plot to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Increasingly, this violence draws fuel from activist organizations that exploit tax-exempt status to advance their agendas through intimidation rather than debate.If the government is serious about de-escalating political violence, it must lawfully deploy every available tool.That exploitation must end. The federal government already has the tools to act. It should use them — starting with the IRS.We cannot tolerate nonprofits mobilizing radicals under the banner of free speech while trampling the First Amendment rights of others. At Berkeley, activist groups operated as coordinated foot soldiers. One organization, “By Any Means Necessary,” lived up to its name. Protesters circulated flyers depicting Charlie Kirk’s assassination, labeled attendees “fascists,” and openly called for President Trump’s removal.This is not debate. It is coercion.Growing numbers of activists no longer seek persuasion but submission. Polling reflects the danger. Roughly one-third of Americans under 45 now say political violence is sometimes justified. Berkeley showed what that belief looks like when put into practice.The moment demands a firm, whole-of-government response. As a former state criminal prosecutor and Senate chief of staff, I understand that crises require decisive action. Protecting citizens and enforcing the law are core functions of government. The time to act has arrived.The first step toward dismantling the nonprofit infrastructure that enables political violence is straightforward: The IRS should revoke tax-exempt status from organizations that finance or coordinate violent activity. Cutting off these funding streams deprives radical networks of oxygen.Critics will claim this amounts to political targeting. That claim collapses under scrutiny.RELATED: Trump declared war on leftist domestic terror. The IRS didn’t get the memo. Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty ImagesThe real problem is that the IRS has lost focus. For years, the agency engaged in overt political targeting — scrutinizing conservative groups while leaving ideologically aligned organizations untouched. That imbalance allowed certain nonprofits to operate with near impunity while exploiting the protections of tax-exempt status.Restoring evenhanded enforcement does not mean ignoring violations on the left. It means applying the law as written. The IRS has both the authority and the obligation to act when nonprofits facilitate violence. Looking the other way is not neutrality. It is abdication.Consider Antifa, which has been designated a domestic terrorist organization yet continues to benefit indirectly from nonprofit support structures. That contradiction should not stand.If the government is serious about de-escalating political violence, it must lawfully deploy every available tool. That includes the IRS. The assassination attempts against President Trump should have been a wake-up call. The murder of Charlie Kirk should have erased any remaining illusions.Subversive actors are gaming the nonprofit system to tear the country apart — using tax-exempt dollars to silence, intimidate, and physically endanger those exercising their most basic constitutional rights.We either enforce the law now, or we accept that the violence will escalate.

If you want a clear picture of where the American auto market is heading, don’t look at political speeches or glossy concept vehicles. Look at where manufacturers are spending — and writing off — real money. Case in point: Ford’s $19.5 billion decision to abandon plans for a next-generation all-electric F-150.Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.The company’s change of direction for its massive BlueOval City complex in Tennessee is one of the clearest signals yet that the industry’s all-electric future, at least as it was sold to consumers and investors, is being fundamentally rethought.Instead of building a new electric F-150 Lightning there, Ford will pivot the facility toward producing lower-cost gasoline-powered trucks while shifting electric strategy toward hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and smaller EVs.Demand in the driver’s seatThis move matters because Ford did not quietly slow production or delay a model year refresh. It wrote down billions of dollars in electric vehicle assets, restructured long-term plans, and publicly admitted that customer demand — not forecasts or incentives — is now driving decisions.Ford expects roughly $19.5 billion in special charges tied to this pivot, most of which will hit in the fourth quarter, with an additional $5.5 billion in cash costs spread through 2027. Of that total, $8.5 billion represents EV asset write-downs. That is corporate language for investments that will not deliver the returns originally promised.Yet Wall Street’s reaction was telling. Ford stock rose about 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement and remains up nearly 40% this year. Investors appear to see this not as failure, but as realism.Sticker shockThe electric F-150 Lightning was once positioned as proof that electrification could conquer America’s best-selling vehicle segment. In theory, the idea made sense. In practice, the numbers never fully added up. High prices, heavy battery packs, range limitations under real-world towing conditions, and charging concerns narrowed the pool of potential buyers. Demand softened even as incentives increased.Ford now plans to transition the Lightning into an extended-range electric vehicle, pairing an electric drivetrain with a gasoline-powered generator. This is not a retreat from electrification. It is an acknowledgment that pure battery-electric power trains do not yet meet the needs of a large portion of truck buyers.Ford CEO Jim Farley framed the shift plainly. High-end EVs priced between $50,000 and $80,000 were not selling in sufficient volume. That reality is difficult to ignore when inventory sits on dealer lots and profit margins evaporate.Hybrid vigorAt the same time, Ford is going all-in on hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, and reinvesting in its core strengths: trucks, SUVs, and commercial vehicles. This reflects a broader industry trend. Hybrids offer meaningful fuel economy improvements without requiring buyers to overhaul their driving habits or rely on charging infrastructure that remains inconsistent in many parts of the country.Ford’s revised outlook projects that by 2030, about half of its global volume will come from hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles combined. That is a significant increase from today, but it is far more balanced than earlier projections that leaned heavily toward full electrification.Lightning rodOne of the more curious elements of Ford’s announcement is its plan to build a fully connected midsize electric pickup starting in 2027, based on a new low-cost “Universal EV Platform.” The company suggests this truck could start around $30,000, a figure that raises serious questions.To put that claim into context, Ford’s Maverick Hybrid, which uses a small 1.1 kilowatt-hour battery, already approaches $30,000 in many configurations. A midsize EV pickup would likely require an 80 kilowatt-hour battery or more. Battery costs have declined, but not nearly enough to make that math easy — especially while maintaining margins.Consumers will ultimately decide whether such a vehicle makes sense. Price, capability, range, and charging convenience will matter far more than marketing language. Automakers are learning, sometimes the hard way, that affordability cannot be willed into existence by press releases.Batteries includedFord’s restructuring also includes repurposing battery plants in Kentucky and Michigan for a new stationary energy storage business. This is a strategic move that acknowledges batteries may find more reliable profitability off the road than on it, particularly in data centers and grid stabilization applications where weight, charging time, and cold-weather performance are less critical concerns.The broader lesson here is not that electric vehicles are disappearing. They are not. It is that the one-size-fits-all electrification narrative has collided with economic and consumer reality. Automakers were pushed, through regulation and incentives, to prioritize battery-electric vehicles at a pace the market could not fully absorb.When policy environments change, as they recently have, manufacturers regain flexibility. Ford’s leadership is now openly saying what many in the industry have been signaling quietly: Customers are not moving in lockstep with regulatory timelines.From a business standpoint, Ford is attempting to stabilize profitability. The company raised its adjusted earnings guidance for 2025 to about $7 billion, even as these restructuring charges weigh on net results. It is aiming for a path to profitability in its Model e EV division by 2029, with incremental improvements beginning in 2026.That is a long runway, and it reflects how difficult it has been to make EVs profitable at scale. Traditional internal combustion and hybrid vehicles continue to subsidize electric losses across the industry. Ford is now being more transparent about that reality.RELATED: American muscle-car culture is alive and well ... in Dubai Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesTurning radiusThis shift also has implications for American manufacturing and jobs. BlueOval City was originally pitched as a cornerstone of the electric future. Its revised mission underscores how quickly industrial strategies can change when assumptions fail. Gasoline and hybrid trucks remain highly profitable, and demand for them remains strong.Ford insists this is a customer-driven strategy, not a retreat. In many ways, that framing is accurate. Consumers have shown they value choice, reliability, and affordability more than power-train ideology. They want vehicles that fit their lives, not policy targets.For buyers, this could be good news. A more balanced market tends to produce better products at more reasonable prices. Hybrids, extended-range EVs, and efficient gasoline vehicles all play a role in reducing fuel consumption without forcing trade-offs many drivers are unwilling to accept.For investors, Ford’s announcement may mark a turning point toward discipline and realism. Writing down nearly $20 billion is painful, but continuing to chase unprofitable volume would be worse.For the industry, the message is unmistakable. Electrification is evolving, not ending. But it will happen on consumer terms, not political timelines.Ford’s course correction is not about abandoning the future. It is about surviving the present — and doing so with a clearer understanding of what American drivers are actually willing to buy.The American car industry would be in a much stronger position today had its CEOs not embarked on the EV joy ride with politicians promising subsidies. Next time maybe the brands will listen to the customer.