Minnesota is now facing one of the largest documented government service fraud scandals in United States history. Under Gov. Tim Walz’s evidently unwatchful eye, federal prosecutors have estimated that approximately $1 billion in taxpayer funds have been siphoned from multiple state- and federally funded social service programs over the last five years. As of this writing, 87 individuals have been charged in connection with the scheme, with 61 convictions already secured and more charges continuing to be filed against these fraudsters. The bulk of the fraud scheme centers around two government programs. The first target was the Minneapolis-based not-for-profit Feeding Our Future, which distributed federal child nutrition funds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning in April 2020, the organization’s founder and executive director allegedly oversaw an elaborate fraud operation that involved over 250 fake meal sites throughout Minnesota, siphoning over $250 million in taxpayer funds. The second scheme involved Minnesota’s Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention program, which provides treatment to people with autism. Defendants allegedly fraudulently billed Medicaid for autism therapy services that were never provided. They recruited children from Minneapolis’ Somali community who did not have autism diagnoses. Their parents were then paid between $300 and $1,500 per month as kickbacks to keep their children enrolled. To put this into perspective, one company billed Medicaid over $850,000 in one year for one child and was paid out $438,000. Federal prosecutors are still working to determine the full scale of the fraud. But none of this should have happened. It could have been stopped far earlier. There were early warning signs as far back as July 2019, when Minnesota state officials discovered that there was potential fraud occurring within Feeding Our Future. However, according to former employees of the Minnesota Department of Education, after the state caught wind of the potential fraud, it temporarily stopped payments to Feeding Our Future, which then sued the state. Under pressure from Feeding Our Future leadership, state officials decided to continue providing the payments. But everything came to light. Walz blamed the judge in the Feeding Our Future case for forcing the state to continue making the payments, yet this evidently was such a blatant misrepresentation of the facts that the judge himself came out and said, “The Department of Education voluntarily resumed payments and informed the court that FOF resolved the ‘serious deficiencies’ that prompted it to suspect payments temporarily. All of the MN Department of Education food reimbursements payments to FOF were made voluntarily, without any court order.” Any meaningful due diligence seemingly would have tipped off investigators to the blatant fraud that was occurring. Reports note that nearly $700 million in EIDBI claims have been paid out, with notable spikes around the same period that dozens of new clinics popped up within the state, which even state officials themselves were concerned about at the time, wondering how many were doing actual work. So how did Minnesota’s darling Somali congressional representative, Ilhan Omar, respond to the massive allegations against members of her community? In typical “squad” fashion, she redirected her answers toward President Donald Trump’s response. A question has also been raised about whether Omar knew that this fraud was occurring or at least should have been tipped off to the fact that something was amiss. One of her own former campaign officials, for example, was convicted of stealing millions of dollars and has on multiple occasions been seen with another member of the fraud scheme who similarly stole millions of dollars. Predictably, Trump did not mince his words when discussing the issue. He called Somali immigrants “garbage.” Of course, not every single Somali immigrant was part of this massive fraud scheme; only a fraction of them were. And Trump’s response, while not appropriate, shows that he evidently harbors a deep resentment for those entering our country from abroad and siphoning billions in taxpayer money. This is an issue that Americans had to contend with for four years during former President Joe Biden’s term, as millions of migrants entered the United States unlawfully and were met with three square meals a day and cozy hotel beds to sleep on. There are two things that we should take away from the situation: First, Walz would have made an awful vice president if he allowed this level of fraud to occur right under his nose. And second, we need competent leaders who are unwilling to look the other way in the face of obvious fraud. Walz is not one of those leaders. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Walz, Omar, and the Billion-Dollar Minnesota Fraud Scandal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Washington Post would like you to pretend along with them that they’re the essence of fact-based neutrality, that they don’t play favorites. Then you notice that their Sunday Arts & Style section carried a sprawling four-page spread with 10 color photographs on the glorious Rosie O’Donnell and her passionate loathing of President Donald Trump. The Post summarized the puff piece on X: “Donald Trump’s first administration took an emotional toll on Rosie O’Donnell. She didn’t think she could endure a second term. This time, O’Donnell had a plan: she moved to Ireland.” So let’s give Rosie credit for carrying out the threat to leave America, unlike many exquisitely sensitive celebrities. “She’s a sensitive soul, a giant exposed nerve who has posed, successfully, for most of her life and career as a brassy Long Island toughie,” gushed Post arts reporter Geoff Edgers. The first Trump term “took an emotional toll on the die-hard liberal, even as she tweeted and marched and spit invective against the president every chance she got.” So at least we get the term “die-hard liberal,” and the accurate note on “invective.” But these only make her more lovable to the customers of The Washington Post. She moved to Ireland for her child: “O’Donnell, 63, worried about life under an administration that has been hostile to gay rights and gender-nonconforming people in general; her youngest, 12-year-old Clay, is nonbinary.” It used to be “her daughter Dakota.” Then Edgers dropped a pile of obligatory “they/their” terms on Clay. Edgers pitched O’Donnell vs. Trump as two “vivid triborough loudmouths” who could deliver “late-show bluster.” He quoted Rosie attacking Trump’s personal life: “Left the first wife, had an affair; left the second wife, had an affair. Had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America.” The Post laid out a similarity here but didn’t make it direct: Rosie left the first wife after four adopted kids. Rosie left the second wife after adopting one more. The second wife later committed suicide. That’s not mentioned in this huge article. Edgers isn’t going to mock Rosie’s moral compass. No, her problem is she cares too much. We’re told, “This impulse to help—anyone, anywhere, at whatever cost—is a constant source of frustration for her friends.” Even now, Trump enjoys mocking Rosie, and that’s somehow painted as weird while it’s not weird in reverse. When the Irish prime minister came to the White House, Trump mocked Rosie in response to a question from the Real America’s Voice network. Edgers turned dramatic: “Suddenly, what had once seemed like a classic showbiz rivalry—a Joan Crawford-Bette Davis slap fight rebooted for the reality TV era—was beginning to feel more ominous than absurd.” Ominous? Like Trump was going to send a goon squad to rough her up? Leftists love to dish it out against Trump, but they can’t seem to take it. The Post story is accompanied by a Rosie portrait of Trump where she scrawled the words “Felon, Crook, Creep, Liar, Loser, Done.” But that’s not ominous? Of course, the Post wouldn’t use words that would be upsetting about Rosie’s strange views, like “9/11 conspiracy theorist.” This isn’t the first time Geoff Edgers has traveled to Ireland for a puff piece. In 2020, he offered the same routine, a huge Sunday tribute to leftist singer Sinead O’Connor, beloved for tearing up a picture of Pope John Paul II on “Saturday Night Live.” She was “one of contemporary music’s greatest and most original artists.” These women are very much alike—”sensitive artists” at war with everyone The Washington Post hates. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Washington Post’s Sunday Slobber Over Rosie O’Donnell appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Sami Winc discuss the Democrats’ acceptance of fraud and today’s immigrants who refuse to accept our culture.   Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.     Sami Winc: So, Victor, let’s turn to a very interesting article in the New York Post by Jonathan Ingram. I think his first sentence is something to the effect of “What Democrats offer us is fraud.”  And, of course, he was talking about the Minnesota fraud first, but then he turned more importantly and a greater a part of the article to Obamacare and how it has been subject of a lot of fraud, either fake customers being created by insurers so that they could get $1,000 per enrollee, or false income statements by people who are trying to get insured and they want as much subsidies as they can possibly get.  So, there’s a lot of fraud in the Obamacare system, according to Ingram’s article. I was wondering your thoughts. Victor Davis Hanson: We’ve got to remember how the Democratic mind works. They create a federal program. They put people in it to run it. Those people have friends and contractor companies that do business with it. No one’s salary is dependent on whether they do a good or bad job. They’re there for life. They got a GS salary. Maybe the contractors have to worry a little bit. And so, if they allow the contractors to cheat or whether they cheat, there’s no downside. When you look at the Democratic reaction to this, they’re not angry.   And Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, I don’t know why he did it. It was so candid. He summed it up. He said: What’s the big deal? They buy cars and junk and stuff.   In other words, in their way of thinking, you just steal money from the government. Poor people get to have it. They buy nice stuff. It gets back and reinvested. It’s not the moral principle. Who cares about that? They don’t care. I think what’s happening to people in this regard for the Democrats is the anecdotes are starting to add up. All over the 340 million people in the United States, there’s been one too many Minnesota frauds, one too many stories about these thefts in Obamacare, one too many stories about semi-trucks killing people with fraudulent driver’s licenses. One too many stories about this person and that person raped, killed by someone that came across the southern border. One too many personal incidents.   You go into a store, and somebody’s ahead of you that does not speak the language of the country they wanted to come in. And they pull out like they’re playing cards. You know, it’s like, here’s a Jack, here’s a Queen, or here’s an EBD card. Ooh, it doesn’t work. Here’s another one. Another name, no problem. Here’s another one, another one, another one.   And people are just saying it didn’t work, doesn’t work. And then they’re saying, “They’re gonna starve people.” And then we look at obesity and it’s epidemic in people on EBD cards.  I just think they have something that nobody wants to buy anymore.   And I think the whole welfare state is vestigial, ossified, calcified, that if somebody just kicked it, it would fall apart. Nobody wants it anymore. It has to have some free market substitute, incentives. Winc: Can I ask you one thing on that since we did bring up the Somali fraud case in Minnesota? One of your readers, as I was reading comments, said it’s not 1 or 2 billion we’re talking about. It’s eight billion. It’s unconfirmed, and I’m not sure, but it’s a lot. Hanson: We don’t know how much it is, but people have speculated. I always try to use the conservative figure. Winc: Yeah, but I was wondering how you think this case … I mean, it seems completely unusual how at least the Right is willing to address this case as they are now saying the culture that came in here had flaws and it brought in flaws—i.e., thieving and stealing from government—that are destroying our society. You just really can’t handle it on broad scale.   And the question is this, though: How do you think this is going to impact future assessments of immigration? Are people going to start considering the culture that’s brought in by each of the immigrants?  Hanson: Yes, that’s what [President Donald] Trump said. But Trump just puts it in the crudest possible terms, Third World, destroying our own society.  When I wrote ”Mexifornia” 23 years ago, I said if a person comes from Mexico, they have voted with their feet in saying this doesn’t work. I don’t have enough liberty, freedom, protection, prosperity, security. So, I want to come to this gringo country. Different traditions. But once he gets here, everybody likes Cinco de Mayo, piñatas, tacos, mariachi movies. Enriches the culture. But if he has the same attitude that he had in Mexico: Oh, I have a dog, I can’t feed it. I’m just gonna drive out and dump it in front of somebody’s house. Or, well, I have a washing machine, I’ll do what I do in Mexico. I’ll just drive out, throw it outside into an orchard. Or my kids are in gangs, no big deal. If they have that attitude, then immigration doesn’t work. So, it requires two things. It’s called the brutal bargain. And that is the immigrant must disown his primary allegiance to his homeland, endure the taunts of being a traitor, prostate. And the host must say, welcome. You want to be an American? Here’s what you have to do: Check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check. Sing to me “God Bless America.” Tell me all about the Gettysburg Address. Tell me the difference between Queens and Manhattan. I want to know something about the country. That’s what we have to do. And we don’t do that. And so, then we get shocked. Wow, these Somalis are … I mean, [Rep.] Ilhan Omar said Somaliland for Somalis only? My gosh, she’s an ethno-nationalist, isn’t she? But she doesn’t say that here.   We should just say to her, “If you’re going to be an ethno-nationalist in Somalia, and there’s credible allegations you married your brother for immigration fraud, why don’t you just go back and create a good Somalia so people don’t have to flee their beloved homeland? But don’t come over here and make millions of dollars by playing a victim and call the president every day a racist, racist Islamophobe.” It’s just like on spec. While you’re the biggest antisemitic, I mean, she was almost censored by the House for her antisemitism. Yes, there is no more support for it. And people are going to get more and more emboldened. They’re going to say, you know what? I don’t care. Call me a racist. You call me anything in the world. But if I have a choice from letting somebody come into this country from the Congo, or Nigeria, that does not speak our language and has a whole different religious framework and has a whole different cultural assumption versus somebody who comes in from France or the Czech Republic who speaks perfect English and is educated and is here to make money and be prosperous, we’ll take him. That’s what we’ll do.   And we’re not going to argue anymore and say you can’t bait us because you know what? You guys have run since the Hart-Kennedy Bill of 1965, and you changed immigration for the various point of not allowing anybody to come in under merit, and anybody to come from a European or British Commonwealth country.  So, you had basically 60 years. 60 years you got your way, and you brought everybody in from the Third World, and it’s been very expensive.   We’re not going to do it anymore. We’re not going to go after people from the Third World. We’re just going to say, we’re having a timeout. If you want to come, you have to have certain skills. If you’re from Oaxaca and you have a B.A. and you’ve got some skills and you have an engineering degree, you want to come in, you speak perfectly, no problem. But otherwise, don’t try.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Victor Davis Hanson: We’ve Had Enough of the Fraud and Failure to Assimilate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Tuesday that the Justice Department will no longer have “disparate impact” regulations. “For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law,” Bondi said in a statement. “No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, joined the Dec. 10 episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast” to discuss the Justice Department’s decision. Read a lightly edited transcript, pasted below, or watch the interview, which starts at around 26:50. Tony Kinnett: She’s done it. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general on civil rights, she has announced that disparate impact be gone. It is on its way out, finally. And man, it has overstayed its welcome. So, we go to the legal expert of legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky from The Heritage Foundation, because you may be out there going, “Disparate impact—Tony, I hate corporate words. What are we talking about?” Hans, give us a little bit of perspective here. Why do the words “disparate impact” mean so much to the United States? Hans von Spakovsky: Well, unfortunately, this is a, frankly, very dubious legal theory that has been used now for decades in a wrong way to violate the equal protection we’re all entitled to. And what we’re talking about is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act 1965—it banned racial discrimination. It basically put into force the equal treatment requirements of the 14th Amendment. And Title VI specifically says that if you’re getting federal money for some kind of program, you can’t discriminate on the basis of race. Well, unfortunately, the Justice Department, decades ago, issued these regulations in which they said, Oh, you know what? You don’t violate that statute just if you intentionally set out to discriminate, but also if whatever you do has a disparate impact. And what they’re talking about is, let’s say you have a totally neutral policy. Race is not considered. But for some reason, it affects members of one race more than others. Well, then the Justice Department said, well, you’re violating the law. And therefore, your federal funding can get cut off. And let me give you—can I give you an example of the absurdity of this? Kinnett: Please. We are all about examples and receipts here on “The Tony Kinnett Cast.” Von Spakovsky: OK. And that’s why what the Justice Department did is so important and long overdue. In 2001, there was a Supreme Court decision. It was called Alexander v. Sandoval. And what happened was this woman sued the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming disparate impact. Why? Because you could only take the driver’s license exam in English. And she said that English-only requirement meant that it had a disparate impact on people who don’t speak English … Now, fortunately, the Supreme Court, Justice [Antonin] Scalia, said, No. Title VI only prohibits intentional racial discrimination. But the Justice Department never changed its regulations. They kept this disparate impact provision in there. And now, finally, finally, the Justice Department has said, no, that’s no longer going to be the way we enforce the law. Kinnett: So, just as a manner of receipt-keeping here, there really is a huge decision by the Department of Justice to roll back some of these because some of the bigger cases in our nation’s history—Griggs v. Duke Power in 1971 said that Duke Power was discriminating against black people, even though there was nothing that showed Duke Power was actually going out of their way to discriminate against black people in signing up for energy services. Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: The Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody in 1975. The Supreme Court held that, well, I mean, once a plaintiff shows that there was disparate impact, the company has to prove they’re innocent. Which is wild. This precedent that stood in this country where if someone says, “I think this is racist,” it’s not that they have to prove you were racist. It’s that you have to prove your innocence. Because, obviously, the only reason that you know the driver’s test in Alabama would be in English is to exclude people who speak other languages. This kind of harebrained mental gymnastics really started ratcheting up, though, in the Obama years. And that’s when the Department of Justice kicked it into nitrous. Von Spakovsky: That’s right. Kinnett: You were on the forefront of that at the time with boxing gloves on. Tell us about the Obama years, throwing this harebrained mental gymnastics of disparate impact racism into high gear. Von Spakovsky: Well, for example, that attitude really affected elementary, K-12 students, ruining their educational experience. Why? Because the Obama administration went in and said, if you discipline more, for example, black students than white students, if the ultimate numbers at the end of the year are that you disciplined a greater percentage of black students than white students, then that’s disparate treatment and disparate impact, and you have violated the law. It didn’t matter. Kinnett: Because you’re clearly singling out black children, or so, as the administration said. Von Spakovsky: Right. It didn’t matter if, in fact, the reason for that was because, perhaps, those children actually had greater discipline problems than other kids. That didn’t matter. It didn’t matter what kind of discipline problems the school was experiencing. So, what did that mean? The schools started changing what they did. They didn’t want their percentages to be out of whack, and so, they would keep disruptive students in classrooms rather than discipline them. So, who did that punish? All the good students, no matter what their race was. They had to be in class with these disruptive students who weren’t disciplined. Why? Because they basically had to meet the quota, the quota system set up by the Obama administration. And that’s what it was. It was a quota system. Department of Justice Rule Restores Equal Protection for All in Civil Rights Enforcement“The prior ‘disparate impact’ regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination,” said @AAGDhillon. “Our… pic.twitter.com/EjhLR6WhWe— DOJ Civil Rights Division (@CivilRights) December 9, 2025 Kinnett: So, this is now going to shift into [President Donald] Trump One because [former President Barack] Obama had all these practices, of course, not to mention the Civil Rights Division going after housing during the Obama years. I think Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. the Inclusive Communities Project back in 2015. Now, Trump One gets in and we’re looking for some major rollbacks of this at long last. And that first Department of Justice, they try to roll some stuff back, but it’s a little slow and it’s a little sluggish. And then [President Joe] Biden brings it right back. Then comes in Pam Bondi in the second administration. Why is this time, this Department of Justice, with what Bondi is doing, with what Harmeet Dhillon is doing, why is this different? Von Spakovsky: Because the leadership is different. Plus, the preparation is different. Look, Donald Trump came into office the first time. He appointed a lot of what I call retreads. You know, people from prior Republican administrations who weren’t interested in taking the kind of bold action needed to roll back a lot of these things. Plus, he just wasn’t experienced in—look, he was a businessman. He didn’t realize how much resistance he was gonna get from the bureaucracy, the swamp, as we all call it. Kinnett: How bad the rot was. Von Spakovsky: I actually think one of the best things that happened to him was losing that 2020 election. Why? Because it gave him four years to prepare and for his people to prepare for his second term. They came in and were doing things immediately, and we didn’t have any of the kind of delays that we had in the first administration. Plus, the people who he’s appointed are real loyalists and people who really want to roll back the bad things the federal government has done. Kinnett: I think that’s so understated. And it really, by the way, when I pointed out when Trump was elected, the team of mavericks he already had ready to go, he didn’t just run as himself in 2024, he ran as a team. I mean, he was announcing his picks before the election took place and building this large tent that, essentially, their motto was all right, that’s it. And it was this idea in the first administration, this sludge that dragged everything down, to come in with a team of mavericks after four years of planning, of course, some of it with The Heritage Foundation, some it with the America First Policy Institute, over 200 different organizations, state officials, federal officials, this massive movement of people that have come in and started digging through the rot, or you’ve called it this pushback, eternal pushback from the bureaucracy. Now, to see the leadership coming in and writing these decades of wrongs and a Supreme Court that seems pretty equally willing—Producer Nick and I have talked about this quite a bit. It really appears that [Chief Justice] John Roberts and [Justice] Clarence Thomas have axes to grind with these years and years of just disgusting SCOTUS decisions. I mean, Thomas himself has been on how many dissents in some of these cases that we’ve talked about? Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: I’m not just trying to pull daisies out of concrete here. This is some naturally good news that, I mean, how long have we heard about the bakers getting harassed because they wouldn’t bake the LGBTQ+2IA cake? Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: This stuff’s huge. Von Spakovsky: Right. And look, we just on Monday, you know, Dec. 9, we had a case before the Supreme Court, Trump v. Slaughter, in which Trump, the first president in 90 years to challenge a very bad Supreme Court decision issued in 1935, in which the Supreme Court said that, oh, yeah, Congress could set up all these supposedly independent agencies that actually carry out executive branch functions and oh, the president, he’ll have no supervisory control over those organizations and that’s OK. And Trump has challenged that, as he should, because that was a bad decision. And like I said, no other president, certainly no other Republican president, has ever challenged that. Kinnett: It really is an important facet of the new administration to challenge why something is there, this worship of the status quo that has enshrined every single legal institution in our country, this idea that, well, I mean, it isn’t killing us all actively, so therefore, it must be fine, and ignoring those who are being targeted directly by these outdated, old systems or bad actors using these old, outdated systems against Americans. Von Spakovsky: Right. Kinnett: I wanted to bring it back really quickly, though, to Bondi and to Harmeet Dhillon, just one more time here. Now that we have seen the DOJ roll back some of these longstanding procedures and policies, what do those two, Harmeet Dhillon and Pam Bondi, need to advocate for? What do they need to push for? What do they need to demand from Congress or demand from the president’s office or demand from the judicial system so that these changes are made permanent? Von Spakovsky: I think, I mean, the best thing that could happen is for Congress to pass a bill making it clear that only intentional discrimination is covered by the Civil Rights Act. It does not cover disparate impact. And in fact, disparate impact is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. That’s very important. Now, that’s Congress. But what Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon have got to do now is, remember, this has enormous effect because it affects any program that receives federal money. Well, Tony, you and I know—look, every single government department, every single government agency, they dole out huge amounts of federal funds to not just private organizations, but local and state governments. And what Bondi and Dhillon are now going to have to do is make sure that all of those programs at the state and local level that have been discriminating stop discriminating. Kinnett: If the boom isn’t leveled and those who are vehemently breaking said laws and going against legal practices and going against civil rights practice aren’t not only caught, but then made an example of, hit with the full weight of the law—we’ve talked about this. I know you and I have talked about this on immigration, on those who are violating labor laws, hiring illegal immigrants, need to be made an example of so that it is made clear what happens when you break the law. Ten out of 10 stuff. Hans von Spakovsky, the legal mastermind himself over at The Heritage Foundation, who I know you’re grinning from ear to ear at the excellent updates from the DOJ. Thanks for hopping on with us. Von Spakovsky: Sure. Thanks for having me. The post Hans von Spakovsky Explains Why DOJ Rejection of Disparate Impact Matters appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett’s “Carhartt Christmas Party” in his Capitol Hill office has become one of the most anticipated events in Washington for the eclectic crowd it attracts. The fourth annual bash attracted guests ranging from Democrat Congressmen to a local homeless man running for dictator. And in 15 minutes, it was all over. The “Carhartt” theme comes from Burchett’s Carhartt overcoat, which he often wears in the colder months. Burchett explained the party’s brevity in a post to X before the party. “Last year it went to 16 [minutes], but we thought it dragged on too much,” Burchett said.  “The reason it’s 15 minutes is you go to a dadgum Christmas party and what happens? You get cornered by somebody who’s half lit and they got wine breath and they’re cornering you in the corner over there for 15 minutes and that’s about all you can take. So I’m thinking 15 minutes is all you need for a Christmas party to say your piece and go on about it.” 10 minutes out from @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party, a line down the hall.@RepJimBaird is in line pic.twitter.com/F6juVcoTkn— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 For food, the East Tennessean offered “charcuterie” in the form of Ritz crackers and spray cheese, as well as a do-it-yourself peanut butter and jelly sandwich bar. Dozens of guests crammed themselves into his office in the Longworth House office building, including Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.; Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.; Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas; and Rep. Jim Baird, R-Ind. Another special guest was Rick Hohensee, a Washington, D.C. homeless man whom Burchett invited in to enjoy a snack.  Hohensee is often spotted around Capitol Hill with a sign reading “Rick for dictator,” and runs a website that reads, “Rick Hohensee for executive/legislature of the USA for two years by Constitutional Amendment.” Rick, a homlesss man who runs the website “https://t.co/Pe99xXXAyk” joins @timburchett for “charcuterie” and plays Christmas songs at Christmas party.@DailySignal pic.twitter.com/tFZWVx3uIc— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Hohensee proceeded to take out his harmonica and play classic Christmas songs alongside Gary Chapman, a singer-songwriter Burchett invited to play guitar. Washington homeless man Rick, who runs https://t.co/Pe99xXXAyk, plays the harp at @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party pic.twitter.com/Q2Xmw2aO6m— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 There were also some constituents from Burchett’s Knoxville-area Congressional district. Randy Dalton from Blaine, Tennessee came with his family and told The Daily Signal, “I know him pretty well. I’ve spent a little time with him. I know he’s a great guy.” Randy Dalton, a native of East Tennessee, was at @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party in the Capitol.“I know he’s a great guy.” pic.twitter.com/iJzitZa2jO— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Dalton told The Daily Signal he appreciated the office’s communication with constituents, saying, “They’re very open. You can call any time. Yeah, I’ve called a few times and they’re very easy and all his people, staffers, everyone, they’re just nice people.” After the party concluded, Burchett went outside, where he provided cheese whiz and crackers to those passing through the hallway. .@SenFettermanPA joins @timburchett’s 15 minute Christmas party pic.twitter.com/PASXrcZvGx— George Caldwell (@GCaldwell_news) December 11, 2025 Burchett has long held public friendships with a diverse group of people, as he is on a first-name basis with Capitol employees, and has also been known to be friendly with Democrat Reps. such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.  However, he did not come to Washington to go along to get along, often showing willingness to buck the party line. Burchett was one of the Republicans who voted to oust then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in 2023.  A/C and Year-Round Sessions: Burchett Slams Capitol Culture, Says Real Work Happens Back HomeThe worst thing that has ever happened to the Capitol Building? “Air conditioning,” says Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn.@RepTimBurchett joined “The Signal Sitdown” with @bradleydevlin at… pic.twitter.com/WYRo5owFyv— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 11, 2025 On Wednesday, he voted against the Republican-backed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), saying it was the work of “war pimps” while criticizing its $900 billion price tag, aid to Ukraine, and non-defense related provisions. The post Cheez Whiz and PB&J: Inside the Best Christmas Party in Washington DC appeared first on The Daily Signal.