The Somali-tied welfare fraud scheme in Minnesota is likely far worse than the American people think, involving “complicit” state government officials and totaling far more stolen money than original early estimates stated, according to Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been stolen from the state, and much of the welfare fraud has been tied to Somali migrants, as first reported by City Journal. And, alarmingly, some of the stolen money was allegedly funneled to Al-Shabaab terrorists.  “We believe that the Somali fraud operation in Minnesota is the single greatest theft of taxpayer dollars, through welfare fraud, in American history,” Miller said on Fox News. “We believe we have only scratched the very top of the surface of how deep this goes.” Miller noted that some of the reported welfare scams include people “pretending that children have autism, who are not in fact autistic,” and “pretending to enroll people in food programs, when, in fact, nobody was ever enrolled.” These fraudsters, Miller said, engaged in “massive fraud, lying, and theft, and grift on a scale we’ve never seen before in American history.” “The total bill, the total tab for this, is going to be far beyond the numbers being reported,” he said, suggesting we are dealing with billions of stolen tax dollars tied directly to welfare schemes. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. “Based on the records we already have — this is a significant undercount, by the way — 75% of the Somali population in Minnesota is on welfare, and that’s likely a significant undercount of just how much of a financial burden the Somali refugee population is imposing on this country,” Miller added. .@StephenM: “We believe that the Somali fraud operation in Minnesota is the single greatest theft of taxpayer dollars, through welfare fraud, in American history… and we believe that what we are going to uncover is going to shock the American people.” pic.twitter.com/h4jfFit0jD — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 6, 2025 The Trump administration advisor also claimed that Democrat leaders in the state were “fully complicit” in the fraud. “We believe the state government is fully complicit in this scheme and we believe that what we are going to uncover is going to shock the American people,” he asserted. Controversial Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) could be tied up in the scandal. “Omar’s close ties to the $1 billion welfare scam in her Minnesota congressional district are being uncovered,” the New York Post reported this past week. “Omar held parties at one of the key restaurants named in the fraud, knew one of its now-convicted owners, and one of her own staffers has also been convicted — both for stealing millions. Omar even introduced the bill that led to $250 million in fraud. Yet she claims to have been completely unaware of it.” There are also serious questions about the oversight, or lack thereof, from Democrat Gov. Tim Walz.  Currently, the Treasury Department is investigating allegations that “under the feckless mismanagement of the Biden Administration and Governor Tim Walz, hardworking Minnesotans’ tax dollars may have been diverted to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced this week. Related: Ilhan Omar Says Trump Supporters Might Attack Somalis, Brushes Off Fraud Scandal

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine panel recommended this week that the hepatitis B immunization should not be given to all babies immediately after birth. The decision was fully supported by President Donald Trump, who then took the issue one step further, signing a memorandum to “fast track” a full evaluation of the childhood vaccine schedule. The decision from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, marks a major shift, changing up standard practice in the United States for some 30 years. In an 8-3 vote, the panel recommended the hepatitis B vaccine only be given at birth for infants whose mothers test positive for the virus, or whose status is unknown. If a mother has a negative hepatitis B status, she should speak to her doctor about getting the first dose of the vaccination at birth. Traditionally, the vaccine is given in three separate doses. The ACIP panel decided that some children do not need a third dose, and recommended testing children’s antibody levels before determining if they need follow-up doses. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. On Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social that the decision from ACIP is “very good” and criticized the general vaccine schedule for children. “[T]he CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles,” the president wrote. “The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary,” Trump continued. “In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I!” Trump then announced that he signed a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘FAST TRACK’ a comprehensive evaluation of Vaccine Schedules from other Countries around the World, and better align the U.S. Vaccine Schedule, so it is finally rooted in the Gold Standard of Science and COMMON SENSE!” “I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children,” the president added. “Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAHA!” Truth Social In addition to other notable changes, Kennedy’s Health and Human Services department has so far modified COVID vaccine recommendations, advised that young babies get vaccinated against chickenpox separately, and opened the door to exploring a connection between vaccines and autism. Related: Vax Panel Takes On COVID, Hep B, And MMRV Vaccines. Here’s What They Decided.

SpaceX has informed investors and representatives of financial institutions that it plans to pursue an initial public offering in the second half of next year, the Information reported on Friday, citing two people familiar with the discussions. The rocket-maker, founded by Elon Musk, is considering a public listing of the entire company, including Starlink, its internet satellite service, according the report. Musk had said in 2020 that SpaceX planned to list Starlink several years in the future, once its revenue growth became smooth and predictable. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The news of the potential IPO follows a media report that said SpaceX is kicking off a secondary share sale that would value the rocket-maker at $800 billion, pitting it against OpenAI for the title of the most valuable private company. SpaceX’s finance chief, Bret Johnsen, told investors about the sale in recent days, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. The new potential valuation is double the $400 billion value it fetched in a recent secondary share sale. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. The $800 billion valuation would put SpaceX ahead of ChatGPT-parent OpenAI, which is valued at $500 billion as of October, making it the most valuable privately held company in the world, according to Crunchbase data. Separately, Bloomberg News on Friday reported that SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares that could include a per-share price of around $300, which would value the company at roughly $560 billion. Several billionaires and private firms, including SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, are fueling a new space race in the U.S., pouring money into rockets, satellites and lunar missions. (Reporting by Juby Babu in Mexico City; Editing by Alan Barona)

Australia will soon become the first nation to ban children under 16 from creating accounts on many social media platforms, but the law is already facing criticism as some platforms will be excluded. Beginning on Wednesday, December 10, Australia will require social media platforms, including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, to take “reasonable steps” to block children under 16 years old from creating accounts. Any platform that fails to restrict children under 16 from gaining access could face civil penalties of up to $49.5 million, according to the government’s eSafety Commissioner. “We haven’t really seen a plan like this be put into action,” said Jessica Melugin, the director of the Center for Technology & Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “So I think the world is certainly watching.” Along with Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, the Australian government also lists Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, and X as “age-restricted” social media platforms. Numerous social media platforms, however, will not be affected by the law, including messaging platforms and gaming apps such as Discord, Roblox, and Steam. Australia’s decision to keep those platforms off its age-restricted list has raised more questions about whether the law will keep children away from online harm. “It is a little bit of a red flag. I don’t agree with doing it this way at all, but it does make it harder for the government to make its case when you have gaming apps and AI chatbots exempted,” said Melugin. “It seems like a strange line to draw.” The Australian government says the new law is popular with parents and would reduce the number of risks that children are exposed to online, the BBC reported. “Delaying children’s access to social media accounts gives them valuable time to learn and grow, free of the powerful, unseen forces of harmful and deceptive design features such as opaque algorithms and endless scroll,” said Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman. “This important normative change will be invaluable to parents and young people alike – creating friction or a check in the online ecosystem that previously did not exist.” To support its move, the Australian government cited a study that it commissioned earlier this year, which found that more than 70% of children between 10-15 who use social media are exposed to harmful content. The government says that harmful online content includes “sexist, misogynistic or hateful content, content depicting dangerous online challenges or fight videos, or content that encourages unhealthy eating or exercise habits.” 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. The first-of-its-kind law is already receiving some strong pushback. Melugin told The Daily Wire that she has some major concerns about the new law. “We live in a digital world. That’s how you are going to maybe find your partner one day. It’s probably how you’re going to find a job one day, maybe how you promote yourself or your business, maybe how you keep in touch with friends and pursue your interests,” Melugin said. She added that the law could create a “false sense of security” for parents, who she argues would take a step back from monitoring their children’s social media. “They think, ‘Well, the government has now stepped in with its magic wand and silver bullet and now everything is safe,’ which certainly won’t be the case,” Melugin added. Melugin argued that the best way to keep children safe online is for parents to keep having conversations with their kids on “how to keep yourself safe online, how to avoid making mistakes online.” Australia’s exclusions for Roblox, Discord, Steam, and other platforms have also come under scrutiny. Roblox, an online gaming platform marketed toward children, has been criticized for allowing adults to use the platform alongside children, and even the Australian government has acknowledged that Roblox has given pedophiles an open door to “groom children.” Roblox was also sued by Texas last month, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton calling the children’s gaming platform “a habitual destination for child predators.” An Australian government official told The Daily Wire that “gaming and messaging services were excluded under the legislative rules.” The official also directed The Daily Wire to a press release from September, showing that Roblox committed to introduce new safety measures for its site in response to concerns raised by the Australian government. “We know that when it comes to platforms that are popular with children, they also become popular with adult predators seeking to prey on them. Roblox is no exception and has become a popular target for pedophiles seeking to groom children,” Inman said at the time. “We’ve been engaging with Roblox on this issue for several months to make it clear to the platform that under Australian law they are required to take meaningful action to prioritize the protection of children.” Discord has also faced scrutiny for allowing child sex predators, extremists, and terrorists who target children. Some of the social media giants affected by Australia’s new law have blasted the government’s strategy. Meta argues that families, not the government, should “decide which apps teens can access.” “To comply with Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Law, teens under 16 will begin losing access to Facebook, Instagram, and Threads next month. While we’re committed to meeting our legal obligations, we’ve consistently raised concerns about this law,” a Meta spokesman told The Daily Wire. “Experts, youth groups, and many parents agree that blanket bans are not the solution—they isolate teens from online communities and information, while providing inconsistent protection across the many apps they use. There’s a better way: legislation that empowers parents to approve app downloads and verify age allows families—not the government—to decide which apps teens can access.” Meta believes its “teen accounts,” which were introduced last year, are effective at keeping children safe online by putting parents in control and limiting who can contact children on social media. Australia’s new law is already facing a legal challenge brought on behalf of two 15-year-old Australians who argue that the law robs them of their right to free speech, according to the BBC. “We shouldn’t be silenced. It’s like Orwell’s book 1984, and that scares me,” said 15-year-old Macy Neyland. Noah Jones, the other 15-year-old pushing back against the law, added, “We are the true digital natives and we want to remain educated, robust, and savvy in our digital world. … They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.” The Daily Wire reached out to the prime minister’s office for comment. Following Australia’s move to ban some social media for kids, Malaysia introduced a similar ban. In the United States, Utah passed a law last year requiring social media platforms to verify a user’s age and obtain parental consent. Parts of the Utah law, however, have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

A new lawsuit aims to end the government’s practice of assuming that people of certain races are “socially disadvantaged” and entitled to special benefits. The case was brought on behalf of Revier Technologies, an artificial intelligence company that was denied a “Small Business Credit Initiative” subsidy because its owner, Matthew Schultheis, is white, and Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group that said the interns in its college program were barred from a Department of Homeland Security fellowship that relied on SBA’s “disadvantaged” classification. Agencies across the federal government rely on a decades-old Small Business Administration designation that, according to federal regulation, automatically applies to anyone of certain races. “The federal government’s pervasive use of race as a proxy for determining who is ‘socially disadvantaged’ — and therefore who receives contracts, grants, loans, investment capital, opportunities, and other benefits — is unconstitutional, and it must be stopped,” the suit says. The move comes as decades-old affirmative action programs are being ruled unconstitutional one by one. Center for Individual Rights attorney Mike Petrino told The Daily Wire that his suit targets a central regulation that is relied on by at least 20 different government programs. That is the SBA’s 8(a) designation, which takes its name from a 1953 law and is fleshed out in regulations, with no significant updates since 1998. The longstanding government rule won’t pass constitutional muster under recent jurisprudence, including a landmark Supreme Court case on affirmative action at Harvard, the lawsuit argues. Precedent requires that racial reparations be “narrowly tailored,” but the list of races given preference under SBA regulations is not based on any data about specific groups facing discrimination in specific industries, the suit said. “As just some examples, Uyghur heritage from Kyrgyzstan is not presumed ‘socially disadvantaged,’ but Han Chinese heritage is. Pakistanis are in; Afghans are out. And because ‘Hispanic American’ includes anyone of Spanish origin, the lineal descendants of the conquistadors are presumed socially disadvantaged.” Courts have held that race-based programs must also have a “logical end point.” SBA has never removed a minority group from its list and “does not have criteria to evaluate whether a group should be removed from this list because it is no longer suffering the present effects of past discrimination,” the suit said. The November 17 lawsuit, filed in federal court in Louisiana, names as defendants SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler and Attorney General Pam Bondi. It could lead to a court ruling that would end racial giveaways in government — perhaps with a third-party group intervening to defend the practice–or to the Trump administration settling the lawsuit by changing federal rules. SBA spokeswoman Caitlin O’Dea did not return a request for comment. The 8(a) language was written to implement a government-wide “minority contracting” program that “set aside” a percentage of all federal contracts, totaling tens of billions of dollars, for disadvantaged businesses. In 2020, Center for Individual Rights lawyers sued on behalf of a white-owned company that lost out on government contracts during the first Trump administration, alleging that the government’s tying race to “disadvantaged” status was illegal. For decades, courts had made clear that directly race-based government programs were constitutional, and SBA claimed it skirted that issue by affording minorities only a “rebuttable presumption” that they were disadvantaged. In other words, minorities would have less paperwork to complete, but a process was still in place to ensure that, for example, the child of a Chinese billionaire wouldn’t be considered to have suffered discrimination in America. The 2018 case exposed that this was false: A process to rebut the disadvantaged status didn’t even exist. In July 2023, a judge issued a preliminary injunction forcing the SBA to change the way it chose which companies were “disadvantaged” for purposes of awarding government contracts. But the actual regulation was never changed, and other programs that piggybacked on it are still using it. The Biden administration complied with the injunction by requiring potential 8(a) contractors to write victimhood essays describing how they had personally experienced discrimination in any aspect of life because of “racial, ethnic, or cultural bias within American society.” The Department of Transportation also runs its own minority contracting program. The SBA and Transportation programs together likely make up the most lucrative race-based government programs in history. In 2021, 10% of all surface transportation money, more than $37 billion, was earmarked for “disadvantaged” companies. But in September 2024, that program was also hit with a preliminary injunction amid claims that the program violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, though it applied only to the companies that were parties in the case. In May 2025, the Trump administration told a Kentucky judge it agreed that “the DBE program’s use of race- and sex-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage … violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argues for the federal government before the Supreme Court, said he determined that his department would not defend the law. In October 2025, the Trump administration’s transportation department enacted an interim final rule that “eliminates presumptive eligibility based on race or sex and requires applicants to submit individualized evidence of social disadvantage.” Petrino, the lawyer suing SBA, said the young, white business owner he represents could be considered under such a process without having his race held against him. “Our client from Louisiana is from a humble background, he’s faced struggles in life, he’s socially disadvantaged.” It is unclear how the government could objectively verify, rank, and evaluate such claims, and whether the essays will merely be a pretext that results in essentially the same outcome: Preference given to minorities who write that they are disadvantaged because of their race. SBA has not responded to questions about the essays. The set-aside contracting scheme has led to corruption as those who secure an inside track to government contracts often morph into influence-peddlers who rent out that access to “partners” or subcontractors–non-disadvantaged firms who do much of the actual work. The ability of government officers to steer funds directly to specific companies, without competitive bidding, has also facilitated bribery. Eliminating the existence of the set-aside programs, instead of just how they use race, would require an act of Congress, Petrino said. In the meantime, billions of dollars in government business are likely to be awarded based on essays written by business owners about their plight. The government already has a separate program reserving contracts for small businesses, the easiest and most objective way to ensure that someone is not privileged. Last month, Loeffler, the SBA head, said a full review of the 8(a) program was underway, with an eye towards eliminating fraud. “For years, bureaucrats have turned a blind eye to rampant abuse within the contracting program for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ small businesses,” she wrote, referencing a Daily Wire story. “That ends now – as SBA works to complete its full-scale audit of the 8(a) Program.”