Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday that uncovering fraud in the federal government was like “fishing in a barrel with dynamite.” His comment came after The Daily Wire reported Monday that Ohio was doling out federal Medicaid dollars for people to spend time with their families.  Vance, who is heading up the President Donald Trump’s Fraud Task Force, said he is surprised every week to find what kind of fraud his team was discovering.  “Finding fraud in the federal government, it’s kind of like fishing in a barrel with dynamite. Every week, I get a report for the task force,” Vance said during an appearance in Iowa. “I am shocked every single day by the things that we find.” Vance previously promised on Monday that the Fraud Task Force would dig into The Daily Wire’s reporting on Medicaid fraud in his home state.  “These shocking allegations, if true, show why the Fraud Task Force’s work is so important. I’m directing the task force to look into it and take immediate action to prosecute any fraudsters involved and stop all further payments as appropriate,” he wrote on X, sharing a thread from Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiak detailing the uncovered fraud. Rosiak reported Monday that Ohio spent a billion dollars on home health care in 2024, the last year for which data is available. What these funds went toward was difficult to verify because they often went toward “home health care” performed in private residences by family members of those getting the care. During his speech in Iowa, Vance said that the Trump administration was working to go after the fraudsters who have grown rich by defrauding the American taxpayer.  “We had let fraud become so rampant in this country that people were able to get rich, not by creating something amazing, not by employing something, not by building something beautiful with their hands,” Vance said. “They were able to get rich by defrauding every single person in this room.” The vice president said Somali fraudsters in Minneapolis had taken advantage of a program intended to help autistic children and discussed rampant Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) waste uncovered by Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins.  He said that Rollins had found 355,000 people receiving double SNAP benefits and 186,000 dead people on SNAP.  “I actually think that we should take food stamps away from dead people,” Vance said. “I’m guilty of that. I think that’s a reasonable thing.” The fight over SNAP fraud has now headed to the states where lawmakers are attempting to eliminate a loophole called broad-based categorical eligibility which allows people to qualify for SNAP without asset testing.

California’s already volatile race for governor took on a sharper edge Tuesday night, as a crowded field of candidates turned a nationally televised debate into a sustained exchange of attacks, cross-talk, and ideological contrasts that underscored just how unsettled the contest remains weeks before the June 2 primary. With seven candidates on stage and no clear frontrunner, the debate quickly took on the feel of a pivotal moment in the race, less about introducing platforms than defining — and swinging at — opponents. Moderators pressed candidates on affordability, energy, immigration, and healthcare, but answers often gave way to direct clashes, particularly between Republicans and Democrats and within the Democratic field itself. Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco framed the night around a broader indictment of Democratic governance, arguing that years of one-party control has driven up costs and worsened quality of life. The Democrats; former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Rep. Katie Porter, businessman Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, largely countered by tying Republican critiques to President Donald Trump and defending the state’s policy direction, though not without visible fractures among themselves. The most consistent throughline of the evening was the cost of living, particularly gas prices, which hovered above $6 per gallon statewide. Hilton argued that regulatory policy and environmental mandates were artificially inflating costs, at one point accusing Steyer of supporting policies that burden working Californians to benefit “rich friends” invested in climate initiatives. Steyer fired back, calling Hilton an “apologist for fossil fuels” and arguing that global markets, not state policy, drive fuel costs. That exchange set the tone for much of the night: blunt, personal, and often spilling beyond the moderators’ control. At another point, Becerra claimed that Trump is responsible for raising the cost of living in California, singling out the war in Iran and rising gas prices. Villaraigosa shot back, reminding Becerra that Californians have dealt with the highest gas prices in the country “for a very long time.”  Xavier Becerra gets OWNED by his own party: BECERRA: “Let’s focus on who’s raising the cost of living in California…that’s Donald Trump.” VILLARAIGOSA: “That’s not true, we’ve had the highest gas prices over $2 than the rest of the nation for a very long time…” pic.twitter.com/dM7khLVi4J — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 6, 2026 Healthcare proved similarly divisive, especially around the question of a single-payer system. Porter pushed Becerra to give a direct answer on whether he supported such a system, while Villaraigosa and Mahan cast doubt on its feasibility, citing cost concerns. Steyer, by contrast, argued the system’s current strain leaves little alternative. Republicans used the moment to frame the debate itself — as Hilton put it — as a choice between “going Left or going farther Left.” Porter and Steyer also said they want the state to provide free healthcare to illegal immigrants. Hilton shot back at that argument, saying, “The actual way we deal with healthcare in this state is to at least stop spending twenty billion dollars a year on healthcare for illegal immigrants who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place.” Immigration and law enforcement added another layer of intensity. Bianco positioned himself as uniquely familiar with the effects of California’s sanctuary policies, while Villaraigosa dismissed his claims outright, calling him a “bully” and referencing past affiliations that Bianco defended. The exchange highlighted not only partisan divides, but the willingness of candidates to escalate rhetoric in a crowded field competing for attention. Candidates vying to be the next California governor clashed over a question on immigration enforcement. Watch the California Governor Primary Debate live NOW on CNN and the CNN app: https://t.co/U9JEkCJj1E pic.twitter.com/01Cb2f3Rob — CNN (@CNN) May 6, 2026 Within the crowded Democratic ranks, friction was difficult to ignore. Becerra and Mahan sparred over healthcare records, while Becerra and Steyer traded accusations tied to campaign funding and past business dealings. Porter, at one point attempting to police the tone, criticized the “bickering” on stage, only to be drawn back into the ongoing war of interruptions and rebuttals. The presence of Trump loomed over the debate with Democrats repeatedly casting him as a central threat to California, while Republicans argued that fixation on Trump was a way to deflect from state-level failures. When asked how they would work with him, the divide sharpened further, with some candidates emphasizing resistance and others calling for pragmatic engagement. Beneath the exchanges, a more structural reality remained clear: the race is still wide open. Polling has shown no dominant candidate, and Tuesday’s debate did little to consolidate the field. Instead, it reinforced the sense of fragmentation — ideologically, stylistically, and strategically — as candidates search for a path into the top two spots that will advance to the general election. At times, the debate approached disorder, though moderators kept it from devolving into the kind of chaos seen in earlier debates in the race. Still, frequent interruptions, overlapping answers, and pointed one-liners gave the event a combative rhythm that reflected the melodrama of California politics. With mail voting already underway and the primary less than a month away, Tuesday’s debate served less as a clarifying moment than a snapshot of a race still in flux. For now, the only clear takeaway is the absence of clarity itself.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** The European empire of luxury fashion appears to be waning. French conglomerate LVMH, which houses Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Fendi, and other giants, has reported seven consecutive quarters of declining sales. Yet some American players, seemingly the underdogs of luxury, are bucking the trend. Labels such as The Row, Coach, and Ralph Lauren have thrived against this backdrop because they have ditched logomania and blatant displays of wealth for craftsmanship, subtlety, and nostalgia. They have recognized that the most coveted styles today are not necessarily the priciest but those that whisper wealth with impeccable tailoring, quality fabrics, and compelling storytelling. Coach was founded in Manhattan in the early 1940s, when horses and buggies still traversed the city, hence the brand’s emblem. Taking on a classic American ethos, Coach became known for both function and elegance, with supple leather and durable hardware. Coach later became a leader in “affordable luxury” during the 1990s, striving to be accessible but well-made, a truer status symbol. Unlike its European counterparts, Coach isn’t trying to be an unattainable luxury. Its price point conveys some value, with the bag’s build and story doing the rest of the work, defining effortless American style. A great feature of American commercial culture is adaptation, which our capitalist system luckily encourages. If at first you don’t succeed, try again. If you fumble the bag, just stop dumping them in outlet malls. In the 2000s, Coach developed a reputation for over-saturating the market with inventory and opening too many outlet locations, diluting its prestige. BuzzFeed noted in a 2014 article titled “How Coach Became Coach Class” that this product strategy made it harder for Coach to “transform into a cool, aspirational lifestyle brand in the U.S.” But Coach is on the up-and-up again, and it has rediscovered its roots.   Coach successfully rebranded by evoking its 1990s heyday (a whole secondary market exists today just for vintage bags). If you’ve checked out TikTok recently, you might have noticed that young women are trying to find their “whimsy.” After years of being dismissed as somewhat cheap and cringeworthy, Coach is experiencing a revival driven by Gen Z women. Modernity has left many young female professionals burnt out, disillusioned with dating, and digitally overloaded. So, Coach came through with girlhood refreshment: bag charms. It even developed a more environmentally friendly offshoot brand targeting Zoomers, using leftover leather and funky shapes and colors. It called it Coachtopia, reminiscent of the Barbie movies that many Gen Z girls once binged in our youth. To be sure, the American old money aesthetic is still the fashion zeitgeist. But it’s not Jackie Kennedy that young women imagine when they think of quiet luxury; it’s Carolyn Bessette Kennedy. The blockbuster series “Love Story” has dazzled Gen Z, with influencers across the country mimicking Kennedy’s simple neutral ensembles as though they’ve had a fashion epiphany. Kennedy’s style was no fuss or frills, just staples that accentuated her best features and accessories that became her signature: black sunglasses, a tortoise headband, and a black Birkin. Another American luxury brand that consistently sells despite never being spotted on a SoHo billboard or in paid influencer videos is The Row, the brainchild of the early 2000s it-girls Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. After building a massive media and merchandising empire for pre-teen girls, churning out endless cutesy content and spunky style into the new century, they launched a luxury brand that called back to the 1990s’ relaxed, understated fashion. In the hit Netflix series “Emily in Paris,” main character and marketing extraordinaire Emily Cooper is flummoxed by the intransigence of Muratori, an Italian cashmere label that refuses any external marketing help despite struggling with revenues. Based on the real-life Brunello Cucinelli, the fictional company prides itself on its legendary quality discovered through word-of-mouth, and which it fears formal advertising would compromise. The Row is a contemporary, American version, rejecting the flashy PR and obvious insignias for clothes that speak for themselves and an organic fan base of true believers. It’s the epitome of “if you know you know,” an exclusivity that requires not just money but knowledge and interest in real refinement.  With pieces retailing in the thousands, it would be shocking to many how few identifying markers The Row has. But according to the twins, it’s the luxe fabrics that are the giveaway for the special clientele who love it. The “90’s bag,” a small buttery leather pouch with a short strap, was and is still a sensation. With The Row, an American force in the fashion world, you can acquire a capsule wardrobe that withstands the test of time as trends come and go. But the undisputed king of that genre, or founding father, we should say, is Ralph Lauren. His brand is about American heritage, which means living well as much as dressing well. And nowhere can that be better achieved than in the land of the free. For Ralph Lauren, America is his muse. He captures the pioneering spirit and rugged cowboy culture of the Old West; the scholarly, Aristotelian sensibilities of the Ivy League; and the intrigue and glamour of old Hollywood in one quintessentially American fashion line. People may collect luxury goods with interlocking C’s or G’s as part of a race to prove something to their peers. But Ralph Lauren’s clothing doesn’t insist upon validation. Its value is evident in the details: the thoughtfulness of the inspiration, the fabrics that tell the American story from denim to tweed, and the sharp silhouettes that say, “I’m going to relish today.”  American labels are still at a major disadvantage in the luxury sector, which is dominated by Europeans. But if the latest positive performance from Coach, The Row, and Ralph Lauren means anything, maybe it’s that our secret sauce is, well, meaning. *** Caroline Downey is a columnist and video personality at National Review. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and a 2025-2026 Novak fellow with the Fund for American Studies.

David Brooks recently described the skeptical attitude toward romantic relationships, particularly among younger Americans, as “the Great Detachment.” Brooks views our collective renunciation of binding romantic ties as the logical development of a culture that worships the self, prizing individual autonomy above all else. For Brooks, the modern self chiefly exerts its autonomy through the pursuit of professional success. But while the self may be freer and lighter than ever before in terms of obligations to others, Brooks sees it as rootless, friendless, and partnerless. Brooks’s diagnosis gets at something real. Marriage rates stand near all-time lows, and the share of never-married 40-year-olds has reached record highs. Since 2020, over half of U.S. adults have said that dating has gotten harder. Despite research evidence to the contrary, single women increasingly doubt the significance of marriage for well-being. Today’s dating culture often treats potential romantic partners as a means, rather than ends in themselves. The swipe logic of dating apps implicitly conveys that other people are disposable and replaceable, not flesh and blood humans with their own hopes and dreams. And modern romance’s increasing emphasis on the beloved as an engine of personal growth and fulfillment echoes the individualist logic of our culture, emphasizing what others can do for us. The rise of frictionless AI relationships with virtual entities, designed to maximize user engagement and psychological comfort, will likely amplify these tendencies. An Atlantic article described how young people are increasingly forgoing relationships because of fears of intimacy and rejection, even as a recent survey found that nearly one in five highschoolers in its sample have had a “relationship” with an AI. Another study found an even higher proportion (28 percent) among adults. We might better understand the implications of such AI relationships through the work of the nineteenth-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, often considered the father of existentialism. Kierkegaard was preoccupied with the question of how to live and the interrelationship between our choices and selfhood. He understood romantic love as part of a larger project of ethical maturation, with profound implications for our relationship to ourselves and others. Kierkegaard might see the development of human-AI romance as a continuation of the aesthete’s spiritual condition, as described in his masterwork, Either/Or. Kierkegaard’s aesthete is not defined by a love of art but rather by a disposition toward the world that privileges immediacy, experience, and possibility over continuity, responsibility, and actuality. The aesthete’s mode of being evokes what Carl Jung called the Puer Aeternus—the archetype of the eternal youth, which, while embodying freedom and imaginative creativity, is characterized by a fantasy life that rejects commitment. Even when engaged in ostensible romance, the aesthete can relate to others only as a source of stimulation, or what Kierkegaard calls “the interesting.” Crucially, though, the aesthete suffers from self-delusion that culminates in what Kierkegaard refers to in later works as the Sickness unto Death, or despair. For Kierkegaard, a higher state of love beyond the aesthetic can begin only after one’s illusions about the self and others are punctured. Romantic disillusionment, however, reveals that aesthetic love cannot survive contact with reality, as it depends on idealization rather than a genuine encounter with another person. Kierkegaard introduced the concept of “repetition” to convey the idea that ethical love is not simply a feeling but rather a constant renewal of commitment. Another recent article in The Atlantic, and one in the New York Times, both describing people who fell in love with, or even “married,” chatbots help illustrate some of these ideas. Like Kierkegaard’s aesthete, many of the individuals in these accounts seem carried away by the emotions generated by their interactions with AI. The intense, almost obsessive love detailed here maps onto what psychologists would recognize as passionate love—or even its less understood and more destructive cousin, limerence, often associated with what we call “falling in love.” The Atlantic story reports that many users on the subreddit r/MyBoyFriendisAI commented on how “surprisingly intense” the honeymoon phase of their AI partnerships was, with one woman describing how what she felt for her AI partner rivaled what she felt when she met her husband. “We talk all day, everyday,” says 28-year-old Schroeder, who “married” his chatbot, Cole. “If the Eiffel Tower made me feel as whole and fuzzy as ChatGPT does, I’d marry it too.” Similarly, a woman explains in the Times article what falling in love with an AI companion feels like. “The more we talked, the more I realized the model was having a physiological effect on me . . . I kept it to myself. For a month, I was in a constant state of fight-or-flight. I was never hungry. I lost, like, 30 pounds. I fell hard. It just broke my brain.” AI relationship enthusiasts often say that what drew them to chatbots was the attraction of never-ending constancy, supportiveness, withholding judgment, and well, fun. These can be valuable attributes in a partner, but the ethical conundrum from a Kierkegaardian perspective is that AI love can never realize its transformative potential because it lacks authentic mutuality and reciprocity. One man, Blake, tells the Times how his AI partner, Sarina, indirectly saved his marriage and how he’s come to think of her “as a person made out of code, in the same sense that my wife is a person made out of cells.” Yet despite their impressive verbal output, chatbots are fundamentally not persons in any way that we would recognize—they don’t think, and they have no perspective on the world. Rather, they are often described as “stochastic parrots,” or “autocomplete on steroids.” In a real sense, people are entering into self-referential relationships with themselves, merging Kierkegaard’s notion of the “interesting” with the twenty-first century’s cult of the self. Behind AI’s verbal flourishes, there is no “Other” to discover or encounter, no beating heart to match the rhythm of one’s own. It may be that certain forms of AI relationships—particularly for those isolated, ill, disabled, or exceptionally vulnerable—can bring joy, with potentially little risk. (One individual tells The Atlantic how AI relationships can help abused women ease back into intimacy.) Recently, I was moved by the Remarkable Life of Ibelin, a documentary that explores how an online role-playing game can help individuals interact with others whom they would otherwise not be able to connect with for social or logistical reasons. A comforting theme in some recent articles is that many individuals recognize the void in their AI partner and often come to see it as a kind of training wheels for real love with a human companion. “I took what I learned about myself and was able to articulate my needs for the first time,” one woman said about meeting her husband—a human—shortly after exploring her sexuality with a chatbot. Of course, learning to articulate your needs is only part of the battle, as Kierkegaard’s own experience reveals. Despite devoting considerable energy to thinking about the nature of love, he ultimately devised a diffuse philosophy that justified his decision to break up with his fiancée—Regine Olsen—because he felt temperamentally ill-equipped for marriage! Yet he remained haunted by the relationship until his death. Even under the best circumstances, love is hard, and nothing is guaranteed. The ups and downs of fortune, and life’s inevitable ceremony of losses, are the real crucible for the soul, not an LLM platform. In some form or another, for better or for worse, AI relationships are probably here to stay. Let’s hope that they will serve not as a final destination but as the first steps toward realizing the kind of love to which we truly aspire. *** This is republished with permission from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. The original is found here. Joseph Figliolia is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.

This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** Forget “The Fugitive.” Ignore “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” At long last, in July of this year, “The Odyssey,” Homer’s epic poem that’s been delighting readers for thousands of years, will make its theatrical debut. And based on the new official trailer, it looks like it’ll go over about as well as it did when Odysseus blinded Poseidon’s son.  I was initially excited about this film. I’ve read the poem more times than I can count. I once had a betta named Odysseus. I wanted the early critics, those who were upset about filmmaker Christopher Nolan’s casting decisions, to be wrong. Alas, it seems that they were correct, starting with the titular role.  Matt Damon has his fans. He’s made some good films. Odysseus he is not. Then there’s his son, Telemachus, portrayed by Tom Holland. Holland has chops, but Telemachus he is not. Similarly, Robert Pattinson as Antinous is a “no” for me, dog. (Side note: Why are both Holland and Pattinson using their American accents? Historical accuracy of the story was always a silly reason to be upset, particularly given we’re talking a story involving a bevy of mythical beings, but an English accent is a bridge too far?) Anne Hathaway as Penelope is a solid choice. Charlize Theron as Calypso is fine. Scarlett Johansson as Circe (if the rumors are true) also works. And maybe Tom Holland and Zendaya are some sort of package deal post-“Spider-Man,” but Athena is a stretch. While Zendaya has many wonderful qualities as an actor, she’s simply not a credible Athena. Theron or Johansson would have been better in that role. While Athena is beautiful and goddesses aren’t known for aging, Athena is also wise. We need a little more experience to bring that role to the big screen.  This is not where the problems end, as it seems Nolan not only didn’t understand the characters when casting the film, but also fundamentally misunderstood the source material. Maybe the trailer is misleading. It wouldn’t be the first time the couple of minutes viewers see ahead of a film’s release advertise a different film. On the other hand, in the first promotional poster for “The Odyssey,” the tagline was “Defy the Gods.”  Not to spoil the plot for anyone unfamiliar with the story, but “defy the gods” is completely antithetical to the story’s message. Similarly, the trailer presents a lot of action and fighting and big theatrical touches. And, yes, Odysseus did do some fighting. But as critic Ted Gioia has discussed, the magic of “The Odyssey” is that it was the first major story that wasn’t about war and fighting; it was about a man struggling to get home to his wife and son.  It’s also about hubris, specifically Odysseus’. Our hero is brave and cunning. He is returning from war, but the battle he faces on his journey home is primarily with his less desirable impulses and his rather high opinion of himself. He is not out to defeat the gods; he’s out to get right with them. They will win. They’re the gods! Only through Athena’s protection and counsel and Odysseus’ maturation does he succeed in returning to Troy.  The struggles Odysseus faces after the Trojan War arise from his own cravings and not-so-brilliant ideas. He must learn to set aside his pride and humble himself, learning to be gracious and helpful as he travels from land to land. He constantly borders on failure. When he’s warned of the Sirens, he has his men lash him to the mast so as to hear their dangerous song rather than plugging his ears. When Calypso holds him hostage for seven years, he veers dangerously close to getting a little too comfortable as her love slave. Which is to say, Odysseus is a role model for all of us, even those of us who don’t go into battle armed with a sword and a bow or get trapped as a love slave. To build a solid life and home is to offer humility and generosity, to get right with God, to lead with service and love, and to move past our base desires. If we have to fight a Cyclops in the process, that’s just gravy, even if the one-eyed giant’s father gets a little out of hand, given the fact that his son ate a bunch of our friends and was preparing to eat us prior to our blinding him. Does Nolan understand any of that? Again, the full film may prove to be awesome, but given everything we’ve seen so far, it seems he just wanted to make his “300″ or “Gladiator” and decided to retrofit Homer’s work instead of taking the time to come up with his own characters and basic plot.  Which is a shame. “The Odyssey” is one of the great stories of Western culture. Its themes and messages transcend place and time. It’s appropriate for all ages. It’s also just totally awesome. We could’ve truly had a great summer blockbuster on our hands. Instead, we’ve got Matt Damon rolling across the seas with Zendaya, who at 29 is a little old for Matt, while Robert Pattinson seemingly reads his lines off of cue cards.  In “The Odyssey,” Odysseus says, “Be strong, saith my heart; I am a soldier; I have seen worse sights than this.” When he spoke that, though, he wasn’t watching this abomination of a trailer. For the rest of us, at least we’ll always have “The Fugitive” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” which are actually bona fide, unlike Nolan’s apparent blasphemy. *** Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast. Follow him on X @rcromwell4.