President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday establishing a new federal task force aimed at combating fraud in government benefit programs, with Vice President JD Vance set to lead the initiative. The new body, formally titled the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, will coordinate a government-wide effort to investigate and prevent fraud affecting programs administered jointly by federal, state, and local governments, including housing, food assistance, and health care benefits. According to administration officials, the task force will develop a national strategy to identify vulnerabilities in government benefit systems and implement stronger safeguards such as identity verification requirements, documentation standards, and audits designed to prevent abuse. “This is a very big thing that we’re doing… having to do with all of the fraud that’s taking place in our country.”@POTUS prepares to sign an Executive Order establishing a @VP-led task force to root out fraud, as outlined in his State of the Union address. pic.twitter.com/5tSg93E1Io — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 16, 2026 Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, will serve as vice chair of the task force, while White House adviser Stephen Miller will act as senior adviser. Cabinet-level officials will participate as needed depending on the programs under review. The effort is part of a broader “war on fraud” designed to root out large-scale scams that divert taxpayer money away from programs intended to assist vulnerable Americans. “In states across the country, fraudsters are depriving vulnerable citizens of basic social services, stealing billions of your tax dollars, and eroding America’s social fabric,” a spokesperson for Vance told the New York Post. “This fraud has happened on such a massive scale that it’s endangering the future viability of America’s entire social safety net.” The order comes amid heightened scrutiny of fraud in government-funded programs, including a major scandal in Minnesota involving fraudulent claims tied to nutrition and autism care services that has resulted in dozens of criminal indictments. Officials say the administration believes similar vulnerabilities may exist in states including California, Illinois, New York, Maine, and Colorado. The task force is also being launched as the administration moves to strengthen federal enforcement efforts. Trump recently nominated Colin Macdonald to serve as the Justice Department’s first assistant attorney general focused specifically on fraud enforcement. Earlier this year, Vance and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, announced that $259.5 million in Medicaid reimbursements for Minnesota would be withheld amid fraud concerns, giving Gov. Tim Walz 60 days to submit a corrective action plan. Vance also announced a nationwide pause on certain companies seeking Medicare subsidies for durable medical equipment such as canes and walkers, while federal officials review the program for potential abuse. Outside watchdog groups praised the move as a necessary step to address waste and fraud in government programs. “The State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) salutes President Trump for ordering the creation of this task force and stands ready to support him and the Vice President as key allies already on the battlefield,” said OJ Oleka, CEO of SFOF. Oleka pointed to a recent report from the group showing that 40 conservative state treasurers, auditors, and comptrollers recovered roughly $28 billion in taxpayer funds from waste, fraud, and abuse in 2025 alone. “Our fiscal watchdogs are on the frontlines of this fight in the states,” Oleka said. “Their successful oversight should serve as a model for this task force as it works to expose and eradicate fraud nationwide.” The administration says the new task force will coordinate closely with state financial officials and federal agencies as it develops its national anti-fraud strategy, which Trump officials argue is critical to protecting taxpayer dollars and ensuring public benefit programs remain sustainable for future generations.

The family of the late Rev. Jesse Jackson is walking back endorsement claims in a heated Democratic primary for a United States Senate seat in Illinois. Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton said that she was backed by Jackson, who died on Feb. 17, based on information she received regarding his potential decisions that had not been made public yet, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. “Out of respect for my father, we decided not to publicly release his intended selections given the process had not been finalized,” said Yusef Jackson, his son, according to the outlet on Monday afternoon. “Unfortunately, this weekend, a draft sample ballot that was in development was released without authorization. It is important to note that the Jackson Family does not issue political endorsements, nor do Rainbow PUSH or the Rainbow PUSH Coalition,” Jackson added. The primary includes Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi, with most polls showing either Stratton or Krishnamoorthi leading. “And I just got notice that he made final personal endorsements before he passed away, and in his personal endorsement he endorsed me for United States Senate,” Stratton told MSNOW on Saturday while at the Rainbow/PUSH office in Chicago. “That’s the kind of fight we need, someone who’s really gonna put the people at the center, I learned that from Rev. Jackson, and now I look forward to continuing to fighting for the people of Illinois when I get to the Senate,” she added. In an X post promoting the MSNOW hit, she added that she “will work day and night to carry on his legacy for the people of Illinois when I get to the United States Senate.” The Stratton campaign told The Daily Wire in a statement that “Juliana spoke on Saturday at Rainbow PUSH for a Women’s History Month event and officials told her she received the endorsements.” “Organizers shared the sample election ballot that was already being distributed and encouraged her to share the news,” the campaign added. “Juliana is spending the final hours of this campaign talking to voters and making sure every Illinoisan hears how she plans to take on Donald Trump and bring their voices to Washington.” The primary election is on Tuesday, and the November general election is ranked as “Solid Democrat.” Whoever wins will be replacing retiring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). The Daily Wire reached out to the other two Democratic campaigns, but neither were immediately available for comment. “You know, I’ve talked to a couple of his kids. They don’t know anything about it, so I don’t know. It is what it is,” Kelly told Politico on Sunday when asked about the endorsement. Kelly was reportedly contacted by Jackson’s widow to apologize for the mix-up, according to NBC 5 Chicago. Jackson’s funeral was on March 6 in Chicago, and it featured remarks from former Presidents Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton, as well as former Vice President Kamala Harris. Jackson himself ran for president unsuccessfully in 1984 and 1988, and he was the shadow senator for Washington, D.C., from 1991 to 1997.

It’s been a whirlwind of a week for members of the Iranian Women’s soccer team. Many players sought asylum instead of returning to Iran. Now the same women are withdrawing their asylum bids as concerns for their families’ safety under the despotic regime mount. The latest to make this move is the captain of the soccer team, Zahra Ghanbari, who is “returning to the embrace of the homeland” Monday after withdrawing her asylum bid Sunday, Iran’s IRNA news agency reported. Per the New York Post, the players fear their families are in danger if they don’t return home. “Several of the players decided to go back because the threats against their families became unbearable and the intimidation was relentless,” Shiva Amini, an exiled Iranian former soccer player, wrote on X on Sunday. “They have even targeted the family of Zahra Ghanbari. Despite the fact that she has just lost her father, authorities are putting pressure on her mother. This shows the level of cruelty and desperation they are willing to use to force these athletes to comply.” Seven players made headlines last week for seeking asylum in Australia after being eliminated from the Women’s Asian Cup, where members of Iran’s team refused to sing the Iranian National Anthem. Now the only two players who intend to remain in Australia are Fatemeh Pasandideh and Atefeh Ramezanisadeh. “The guilt, the pressure, the impossible choice between your freedom and your family,” Amini wrote on X. “Sometimes the psychological pressure is so strong that it feels like there is no real choice. Whether you stay or whether you go back, in both cases you are still suffering.” The Iranian women had decided not to partake in their country’s anthem earlier this month after the United States and Israel launched their air strikes on Iran, killing the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The women were called “traitors,” and their well-being was put in jeopardy. President Donald Trump revealed last week that he had spoken with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on behalf of the Iranian women’s soccer team, detailing the delicate situation for the young women. The Australian government immediately took action to protect them. “The players were ‘given repeated chances to talk about their options’ but ultimately faced ‘incredibly difficult decisions,'” Australia Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said in a statement Saturday. An Australian councillor for the city of Ryde, Tina Kordrostami, alleged the players were being heavily intimidated by Tehran, claiming their families were being used as leverage to get them back to Iran. “I know families have even been detained. I know family members are missing,” Kordrostami told Fox News. “We are very worried about them. We know for a fact that they will not be safe.” The two players who chose to stay in Australia are receiving assistance from the government and the Iranian diaspora community, per a report by PBS. On Monday, the soccer players who remain in Australia were invited to train with local club Brisbane Roar FC. “Today, Brisbane Roar officially welcomed both Fatemeh Pasandideh and Atefeh Ramezanisadeh to the club’s training facilities to take part in training with our A-League Women squad and remain committed to providing a supportive environment for them whilst they navigate the next stages,” Brisbane Roar FC CEO, Kaz Patafta, said. The club’s CEO said the team will not be providing any further comment on the two Iranian women at this time.

Joy Reid did a side-by-side comparison of the United States and Iran, and her overall takeaway was that if American women were better off than their Iranian counterparts, they were not better off by much. Reid, who was ousted from her regular gig with liberal network MSNBC before NBC News jettisoned the now rebranded cable news network (MS NOW), argued that the United States had secret police just like Iran and was just as oppressive when it came to how women were treated — although she listed off the “oppressive” policies impacting American women and did not mention one of the many that affect Iranian women. The only real difference, she claimed, was that American oppression came at the hands of Christians and Iran’s oppressive regime was rooted in Islam. WATCH: Joy Reid: America is a Christian form of Iran & women may have be better off there pic.twitter.com/mDAheewOPU — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 16, 2026 “We get told, particularly when it comes to Arabs and Muslims and Africans, that people are just diabolically evil for no reason, right? That they do things because they hate our freedoms. We were told this about Iraq, that they just hated us for no damn reason at all,” Reid said, suggesting that the narrative was invented out of whole cloth in order to justify American actions. “Now, I’m not saying that that regime is not bad, but, by the way, our regime is not good,” Reid continued. “Our regime has secret police. They have secret police. Our regime is oppressing women, taking away abortion rights, taking away women’s rights in like 26 states — some states where they’re trying to have the death penalty for having an abortion.” Reid acknowledged briefly that the Iranian rulers “also oppress women,” but omitted the extent of that oppression. A number of the regime’s laws — and the punishment for breaking them — only apply to women. Women must adhere to a mandatory dress code that requires covering their hair, arms, and legs in public. The regime’s so-called “morality police” — along with surveillance cameras — enforce the rule, and women who disobey could face hefty fines, prison sentences of five to 15 years, or be barred from travel. In 2022, for example, the morality police arrested Mahsa Amini for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly, and she died after they brutally beat her. Nationwide protests followed. Women can be arrested or thrown in prison for social media posts showing them without their hijabs or for posting dance videos online. Women must also wear a hijab when appearing in films or on television, because Iranian law requires the covering in all public media. Women are not permitted to sing solos in front of mixed audiences, meaning that female performers are restricted to performing at female-only events or recorded performances. Women have often been banned from attending men’s sporting events, especially soccer matches, leading to a number of women being arrested for dressing as men in order to attend such events. Many women require permission from a father or male guardian to marry, regardless of their age at the time, if it is their first marriage. Girls can legally be married at 13, but a younger girl can be forced to marry if her father or a judge decrees it. Married women are not permitted to leave the country or obtain a passport without first getting written permission from their husbands. A woman’s testimony in court is only worth half of a man’s testimony. Women typically inherit less than men, meaning that daughters usually receive only half the inheritance that would be given to sons. The Iranian constitution bars women from ever becoming president, and women are not permitted to become judges. Married women can be legally barred from holding a job if their husbands claim that their work conflicts with their family obligations. Men can file for and obtain divorces for any reason, but women risk losing inheritances and child custody — and are rarely granted divorces anyway. Reid, clearly unbothered by that, went on to claim, “They have the highest rate of women who are in STEM careers. We’re kicking women out of the military, out of university. We’re saying that DEI means women can’t be hired for high positions in the sciences.” While it has been claimed in viral social media posts that 70% of STEM graduates in Iran are women, data from the United Nations shows that 25% of Iran’s STEM graduates are female. “So we’re marginally better,” Reid concluded. “And we’re doing it for Christianity, they’re doing it for Islam, right? So, it’s like we don’t get told those things because it would take away the kind of American exceptionalism narrative that makes it easy to take our people and send them off to die in a war that we have nothing to do with, that we don’t want.” The Daily Wire’s Isabel Brown fired back at Reid, saying, “Forgive my Christian ignorance but when was the last time a woman was BEATEN TO DEATH BY THE MORALITY POLICE for a sliver of her hair showing in a Christian country?”

Radical leftist British MP Zarah Sultana is escalating her campaign against the Western alliance, demanding on Monday that United Kingdom authorities “kick U.S. troops off U.K. bases” and withdraw immediately from NATO. Kick US troops off UK bases. — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 16, 2026 The former Labour MP, who has become a leading figure in the fringe “Your Party” movement, took to X to rail against the relationship. Her latest outburst follows at least one inflammatory post in which she accused the United States and Israel of waging an “illegal war on Iran.” “The UK must immediately end its complicity in this illegal war: no US use of UK bases, no arms sales, no surveillance support, no military cooperation,” Sultana wrote. In a jab at the British government’s alignment with Washington, she added, “The British public don’t want to be America’s poodle anymore.” Since the US and Israel began their illegal war on Iran, over 1,300 Iranians have been killed and nearly a third are children. At least 20 schools and 10 hospitals have been targeted. These are grave war crimes. In Lebanon, over 600 people have been killed including 86… — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 11, 2026 Sultana’s rhetoric has become increasingly harsh as she targets the cornerstone of Western security. On March 5, she took aim at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, dismissing any hope of reforming the alliance. “Can NATO be ‘reformed from within’? No,” Sultana declared. “It’s an imperialist war machine. We must leave NATO immediately. No ifs, no buts.” Can NATO be “reformed from within”? No. Even Mark Rutte openly admits that it’s an imperialist war machine. We must leave NATO immediately. No ifs, no buts. https://t.co/1YJBWSFhPX — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) March 6, 2026 The MP’s hostility toward the West is not limited to military alliances. She has frequently directed her ire at President Donald Trump, recently accusing his administration of targeting Cuba with “expansionist” policies. “Cuba is next on Trump’s expansionist hit-list,” she wrote on X. “The only ‘threat’ it poses is existing as a sovereign state that refuses to bow to US imperialism. Blocking all fuel supplies is collective punishment and a war crime. It must be opposed. Hands off Cuba! Hands off Latin America!” Cuba is next on Trump’s expansionist hit-list. The only “threat” it poses is existing as a sovereign state that refuses to bow to US imperialism. Blocking all fuel supplies is collective punishment and a war crime. It must be opposed. Hands off Cuba! Hands off Latin America! https://t.co/22dkUEDiam — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) January 31, 2026 In January, she characterized a U.S.-led reconstruction board for Gaza as a “colonial Board of Occupation,” concluding her remarks with the cry for Israel’s extermination, “From the river to the sea.” Trump 's so-called “Board of Peace” for Gaza is a colonial Board of Occupation, run by war criminals and profiteers. Reconstruction will cost at least $70 billion. Israel, the US and every complicit state must pay for the genocidal destruction they enabled. We will continue to… — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) January 19, 2026 While Sultana focuses on dismantling Western defense, critics say she is simultaneously working to obscure uncomfortable truths at home. In late 2025, she faced a firestorm of criticism for attacking Migration Minister Mike Tapp. After Tapp suggested that an inquiry into grooming gangs should examine the “Pakistani-Muslim nature” of the perpetrators to identify cultural links to the abuse, Sultana branded him a “Temu Enoch Powell” and accused him of using a “fascist playbook,” as GB News reported. Former Conservative MP Alexander Stafford slammed Sultana’s attempts to shut down the discussion, noting that independent reports have repeatedly highlighted the overrepresentation of certain minority groups in these horrific abuse cases. “They’re basically denying the facts,” Stafford told GB News, accusing Sultana and other far-Left figures of trying to “minimize the impact” on victims. “By diminishing and moving eyes away from the root cause … you’re actually going to make it more likely for issues like this to happen again.” Sultana’s history of radicalism is well-documented. As a student, she posted social media comments expressing a desire to see Western leaders like Tony Blair and George W. Bush “meet their creator.” In 2015, Sultana wrote, “Try and stop me when the likes of Blair, Netanyahu and Bush die,” adding in another post, “The sooner they meet their creator the better. The concepts of justice and accountability don’t truly exist in this life. Only in the next.” Today, as a sitting MP, she has remained unapologetic, as she said in 2025: “I say it loudly and proudly: I’m an anti-Zionist. Print that.”

It’s never a good sign when news anchors begin struggling to keep track of all the Islamic terror attacks that are occurring throughout the United States. You see, it used to be that, when a jihadi tried to commit mass murder, there would be some sort of “cooling off period” before the next attack. But that wasn’t the case a few days ago, as jihadists — within the span of just two hours — attempted to commit mass murder in two separate locations: a college campus in Virginia and a synagogue in Michigan. And that left news producers and anchors scrambling to cover what was happening.  Here’s how the local affiliates at Fox responded, for example: Source: Fox Now/YouTube.com He’s having to pivot from one terror attack to another on the same day. It’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of post-9/11 foreign policy in this country, which doubled the Muslim population in the United States. But the bigger issue with that footage is what came next. We’re told that the shooter was “a man from Northern Virginia who previously served time for providing support for ISIS.” There’s a lot to think about in that sentence, starting with the fact that the shooter was not, in fact, a man from Northern Virginia. 36-year-old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh was actually a man from West Africa, specifically the poor Muslim nation of Sierra Leone. And although we don’t know the precise timeline — the government won’t release it — we do know that, at some point, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. As part of that process, he was required to pledge his loyalty to this country and its Constitution. Jalloh also served in the Virginia Army National Guard from 2009 to 2015. And for the media, that’s one of the most important parts of his biography. Watch: Source: ABC 7/YouTube.com So she picks the single most muddled and incomprehensible way to describe what happened. And then she says, “I don’t know how else to say it.” The best she can come up with is: the cadets “rendered him no longer alive.” And then a reporter has to play “Guess Who” and asks her if the cadets used a gun. And she says no, they definitely didn’t use a gun. Not to play mind reader here, but putting two-and-two together, we can conclude that the final moments of Mohamed’s life were not exactly pleasant. The cadets saw this terrorist murder their instructor. And in response, they stabbed, bludgeoned, and stomped him to death. (And indeed, it was later reported that one of the cadets used a knife). In other words, just like the terrorist in Michigan who attacked the synagogue, Mohamed Jalloh wasn’t stopped by the police. He was stopped by his potential victims — people who only survived because they were armed with a weapon of some kind. But the bigger part of the story — which every mainstream media outlet has decided to obfuscate as much as possible — is why Mohamed Bailor Jalloh was allowed to remain in this country in the first place. Like the terrorist who attacked the synagogue, and like the terrorist who shot 18 people in Austin, and like the parents of the two New York City bombers who tried to kill Jake Lang, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh was a naturalized citizen of the United States. Our government, without any obligation to do so, awarded citizenship to all of these terrorists. And you might say — well, “we had no idea that they’d become terrorists. We had no idea that there was any connection between Muslims and anti-Western, anti-Christian violence.” But even if you buy that logic, which is absurd on its face, the problem is that Mohamed Jalloh remained a naturalized citizen even after he pleaded guilty in 2017 to providing material support to ISIS. He quite literally swore allegiance to a foreign enemy that wants to destroy the West. We didn’t take away his citizenship even after he did the one thing that, under our current law, would obviously justify it. And the more you dig into this story, the more disturbing and inexcusable it becomes. We’ll start with this news report I found in the archives of CBS News. It’s from 2016, when Jalloh was first arrested.  Watch: Source: WTVR CBS 6/YouTube.com Apparently, the gun store could tell right away that he was probably a terrorist. So they sold him a gun that didn’t work (probably after contacting the FBI). This is the kind of thing that would prevent a lot of mass shootings if more gun stores did it. If someone looks like a terrorist — if he’s a lone Muslim with bad paperwork who keeps demanding that you sell him an assault rifle, or if he’s a blue-haired man who insists that you call him a woman — then you have the option of refusing to sell that person a firearm and ammunition. And in doing so, you can save a lot of lives. Just by using basic common sense, you can stop the vast majority of mass shootings — and you can mitigate the damage when they do occur. But in this case — just like we see in many, many other cases — common sense came to an abrupt end once the legal system took over. A federal judge named Liam O’Grady (who, appropriately enough, was appointed by George W. Bush) decided to give Mohamed Jalloh a sentence of just 11 years in prison, with credit for time served. That was roughly half the sentence that the Justice Department was seeking. We’ll talk about why the judge might have handed down that sentence in a moment. In addition to the light sentence, Jalloh was allowed to leave prison two and a half years early, because he completed a “drug treatment program.” You see, in court, he stated that he had been abusing drugs because of a bad breakup, after dating a woman for several years. This is one of those excuses that isn’t actually an excuse at all. If anything, it makes the crime worse. If you’re going to commit an act of terrorism because you got dumped, then you’re liable to fly off the handle whenever you face any kind of setback, no matter how minor. But apparently, in our court system, this is exactly what you need to say. And although these “drug treatment programs” are only supposed to shave a year off your sentence at most, Jalloh got out more than two years early. No one can explain that. He just … got out of prison early. At that point, the moment he got out of prison, in December of 2024, he should’ve been detained by the feds and placed in denaturalization proceedings. But the Biden administration didn’t do that, even though Jalloh’s plea deal — by itself — was evidence that he had lied on his application for citizenship. And then, when the Trump administration took over, they didn’t attempt to deport him either. So why didn’t that happen? Why was this self-described terrorist allowed to remain in the United States and continue to plan to murder American citizens in the name of global jihad? Why did two administrations — one Democrat and one Republican — allow this to happen? To answer that question, we need to take a closer look at Mohamed Jalloh’s arrest. In June of 2015, he traveled to Sierra Leone, only returning to the United States in January of 2016. In that period, he met with ISIS members in Nigeria and first came in contact with an FBI informant. In February of 2016, he purchased a Glock handgun. And concerning an attack on the United States, he said, “I really want to but I don’t want to give my word and not fulfill it.” In April 2016, Jalloh began speaking to an informant about his love for an Al-Qaeda cleric, and provided more indications that he desired to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. Jalloh explained that he quit the military and “thinks about conducting an attack all the time, and he was close to doing so at one point.”   Jalloh also said, “Sometimes you just have to take action… you can’t be thinking too much… you have to pick a action and take it cuz time is not on your side.” In particular, Jalloh expressed an interest in conducting an attack on the U.S. military. He described Mohammed Abdulaziz — who killed five members of the U.S. military in a terrorist attack in Tennessee in 2015 — as a “very good man.”   He also told a confidential human source for the FBI that he was contemplating a “Nidal Hasan-style attack,” referring to the Muslim former U.S. Army Major who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others during an attack on Fort Hood in November 2009. Eventually, Jalloh was connected directly with an undercover FBI agent, where he indicated he was interested in obtaining weapons for an attack on “military personnel in the United States.” He also sent $500 to an online account that appeared to belong to ISIS, although it was actually controlled by the FBI. That’s how the government described Jalloh’s crimes — which again, he pleaded guilty to committing. But if you look through the court filings from his attorney, as the journalist Ford Fischer did, then you’ll find that Jalloh’s attorneys offered a different perspective about what exactly the FBI told him. The attorneys argued that, while Jalloh did indicate a willingness to commit an act of terrorism in the abstract, he wasn’t actually serious about committing an attack himself. And that’s important because, in this case, there are reasons to believe that Jalloh’s attorneys were telling the truth. First of all, all of the texts, emails, and phone conversations were recorded. So if the attorneys decided to lie about the contents of those communications, they might compromise his plea deal (and his lenient sentence). Instead, they got the plea deal they wanted — complete with a light sentence, which indicated that the judge thought their argument was persuasive. And the prosecutors didn’t object to how Jalloh’s lawyers characterized these conversations, either. So with that in mind, it’s important to consider the argument from the defense. According to the lawyers, when Jalloh was first invited by the confidential informant to participate in an “operation” on American soil, he initially “responded with ambivalence.” Shortly afterwards, he explicitly, “refused to participate.” He wasn’t interested in committing an act of terrorism. Instead, he met with the informants for, “the express purpose of trying to meet a Muslim woman to marry.” So in this version of events, he was a down-on-his-luck guy, kind of a loner and a loser — exactly the type of person the FBI has targeted in the past (for example, the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot). Over the next few months, according to Jalloh’s attorneys, the FBI informants “shaped and influenced his views” using “text messages, phone calls, and two in-person meetings.” During these conversations, he agreed to secure a weapon and provide funding, but “continued to decline to participate in any kind of operation.” We have no way of knowing exactly what the FBI said during these text messages and phone calls, because they’re not public record. That’s one of the benefits of a plea deal, from the government’s perspective. It keeps the evidence hidden. The government and the judge have access to the evidence, but no one else does. At the same time, it’s no secret that the FBI — as a matter of policy — routinely uses informants to convince targets to engage in criminal activity. Additionally, the FBI has been known to protect terrorists who have a connection to its informants. Not many people know this, because the government tried to hide it, but the father of the Pulse nightclub shooter was an FBI informant for more than a decade — right up until the moment of the massacre in June of 2016, in which 49 people died. And that’s significant because several years earlier, in 2013, the FBI investigated the Pulse shooter (Omar Mateen) after he told his co-workers that he had connections to al Qaeda. But that investigation went nowhere, evidently. Then the next year, the FBI opened a second investigation into Mateen, due to his relationship with a Florida man who traveled to Syria to become a suicide bomber. That investigation also went nowhere. What might be the reason these investigations went nowhere? This is from The Intercept. An FBI intelligence report indicates that agents told an unidentified undercover informant that they were investigating Mateen. The informant then ‘became very upset’ that Mateen was under scrutiny, according to the report. Although neither federal prosecutors nor the FBI has confirmed that the unidentified informant in the report was Mateen’s father, defense lawyers for Noor Salman [the shooter’s widow] assert that they “can now infer” that [the father] “played a significant role” in the FBI’s decision to close the assessment and not to pursue a larger investigation or criminal charges against Mateen. Prosecutors, and the FBI director at the time (James Comey), tried to hide this arrangement for as long as possible. They also downplayed the fact that the FBI launched an investigation into Mateen’s father after “finding evidence he made money transfers to Turkey and Afghanistan in the months leading up to the shooting.” So let’s take this back to the case of Mohamed Jalloh. Did the federal government see him as a potential informant to be protected? Did they buy his story that he was “reformed,” and deliberately spring him loose in order to set more “traps” for other terrorists? This isn’t a far-fetched conspiracy. The FBI does it all the time. They’ve also been known to encourage terrorists to commit mass shootings. In May 2015, at a convention center in Garland, Texas, there was an event called the “First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” where people drew cartoons of Mohammed, as a kind of free speech exercise. The police were prepared for a potential terror attack, so they had police officers, SWAT teams, and snipers standing by. And indeed, a terror attack took place. This is from CBS: The terror attack in Garland, Texas, was the first claimed by ISIS on U.S. soil. It’s mostly been forgotten because the two terrorists were killed by local cops before they managed to murder anyone. In looking into what happened in Garland, we were surprised to discover just how close the FBI was to one of the terrorists. Not only had the FBI been monitoring him for years, there was an undercover agent right behind him when the first shots were fired.. Yes, an undercover FBI agent was “right behind” the shooter. And no, the FBI agent didn’t neutralize the shooter. Local police did that. And it gets worse when you look at what exactly the FBI agent was telling the shooter. Watch: Source FOX 4/YouTube.com They whisk the undercover operative away, without providing any kind of explanation for what he was doing over the last several months. And that’s it. The story just died, along with the two terrorists. No one asked anymore questions. That seems to be the goal with the case of Mohamed Jalloh, as well. No one in the federal government has explained why he wasn’t denaturalized and deported, or why he got out of prison early, or what the FBI agents were telling him to do when he insisted he didn’t want to commit an act of terrorism. No one has explained why, at every turn, the government took steps to help the terrorist, rather than protect Americans from him. If you’re the cynical type, you might conclude that maybe there’s some authoritarian political motivation here. You might point to the fact that, the same week that Jalloh opened fire in Virginia, a Virginia state senator named Saddam Azlan Salim — yes, his name is literally “Saddam” — helped pass a major, unconstitutional anti-gun bill he sponsored, which prohibits so-called “assault firearms.” According to Fox, the law would “ban a wide range of firearms and features, including semi-automatic center-fire pistols with magazines exceeding 15 rounds, rifles with detachable magazines and weapons with certain characteristics such as collapsible or thumbhole stocks and threaded barrels.” Is this the kind of result the bureau is hoping for? Is it the result that the DOJ is hoping for? Is that why they don’t de-naturalize anyone — even the self-described domestic terrorists? We really don’t know. The only alternative explanation is that they’re just extraordinarily, historically incompetent, to a degree that’s truly hard to comprehend. Either way, assuming nothing changes, which is a very safe assumption, we can conclude that our leadership class has implemented a regime in which, number one, you subsidize foreigners who hate you and try to kill you, and number two, when they do kill you or your neighbors, they use that as a pretext to strip everyone’s constitutional rights. And it’s not just Democrats who are doing this. Nearly two dozen Republicans in the Senate just voted against legislation that would strip welfare funding from so-called “refugees.” Source: @SenRandPaul/X.com Again and again, our leaders are taking the side of foreign invaders. And they do it because they can get away with it. Millions of people, myself included, have called for the full and unredacted list of “Epstein Files.” But no prominent political figure or journalist has called for the release of all FBI correspondence with “Mohamed Jalloh,” or the Garland shooters, or the Pulse shooter’s father. Nor is there any interest in why the Trump administration — which pledged to dramatically increase the number of denaturalization proceedings — simply hasn’t done so. What are they doing to ensure that we never offer citizenship to another anti-American third-world invader ever again? Are they doing anything? These are not academic issues, especially now that we’ve gone to war against Iran, which has 90 million Muslim citizens. And this is after 20 years of the floodgates being open, with the entire Arab world invited to come settle within our borders. So these acts of terrorism will continue, at an ever-increasing pace, unless the government starts de-naturalizing and deporting a lot more of these foreigners. Until that happens — and it may never happen — we have to do exactly what they did in Michigan and Virginia. We have to be ready to defend ourselves. We certainly can’t rely on anyone else to do it for us.

Rumors have swirled for the past few weeks that Zendaya and Tom Holland are secretly married. The pair confirmed their engagement in early 2025, but never publicly announced details about their wedding plans. Law Roach, Zendaya’s stylist, recently slipped during a red-carpet appearance and might have spilled the beans. “The wedding has already happened. You missed it. It’s very true,” Zendaya’s stylist, Law Roach, told Access Hollywood on the red carpet. Neither Zendaya nor Tom Holland confirmed or denied Law’s statement, but a new clue suggests he might have been telling the truth. quite not over the wedding band + engagement ring+ t tattoo on full display pic.twitter.com/UtTLQyn6po— celi ✮⋆˙ (@dayashlland) March 16, 2026 Zendaya Appeared to Wear a Wedding Band at the Oscars During her red-carpet appearance at the Oscars on March 15, 2026, Zendaya wore a band on her left ring finger that looked very much like a wedding band. The band of gold sat comfortably on her finger, right next to her massive engagement ring. Law stopped for an interview with Etalk on the red carpet, and the host asked him point-blank about Zendaya and Tom Holland’s marriage. The stylist dodged that question like a bullet. “You know what? I really wanted those Chanel shoes that just dropped the other day, but I didn’t make it to the store in time. So hopefully I can still get them,” he replied as if he didn’t start all this drama in the first place. So, we don’t have any more information than we did before. We can say this. Whether she is married or not, Zendaya looked beautiful and happy at the Oscars. She and Tom are entitled to their privacy, and if they’re not ready to share information about a wedding, that’s their prerogative. This story’s featured image is by Richard Harbaugh / The Academy via Getty Images.

There are no better babysitters on the planet than grandparents. Not only do their grandchildren get away with just about anything, but they also let them get away with it. The relationship between a child and their grandparents is special and often different from how the grandparents and the parent experienced it. Sometimes we parents get darn jealous of the fun our kids have, and we wonder, “Who in the heck are these people and what happened to my parents?” It’s a joy we have to look forward to ourselves someday. Rosemary Sebastian posted a video on Instagram of grandpa babysitting, and it’s the best thing we’ve seen in a very long time. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Rosemary Sebastian (@rosemaryseban) This Grandpa Takes Babysitting Seriously Babysitting isn’t just a job for this grandpa, it’s an adventure. His grandchildren apparently wanted to play with him like a music box, so he stood on a table with his arms up as they turned him on a rake. He even put it on a dress and a bow for the occasion. It looks like something straight out of a Hallmark store, and people fell in love. Sure, the kids are cute, but the grandpa babysitting them is the best we’ve ever seen.   It’s not just us.  People went crazy in the comment section for this dancing grandpa. “He’s not babysitting he’s a limited edition collectible,” someone joked. Others joked that this babysitting grandpa is nothing like the parent he once was. “That is your strict father,” someone pointed out. “And when you tell them the person your dad was, they’d swear you’re making it up like baby, this man here is trying to get into heaven with these deeds,” another person agreed. Seeing the sweet moment made some people nostalgic. “Omg! I have tears in my eyes! This is exactly how my dad was to my three kids when they were little!! We so miss grandpa!” A comment reads This story’s featured image can be found here.

From the ground, it looks very different.

In World War II, the U.S. Navy operated “ice cream” barges behind ships to make sure our sailors had a few comforts in the most terrible war in human history. That we were able to operate such a fleet is a testament to American logistical magnificence, but if it was in operation today under President Donald Trump, the corporate media would have accused the War Department of engaging in “extravagant” spending. There have been plenty of pernicious, media concocted scandals associated with Trump’s presidential tenure in the last decade, but I contend that “lobstergate” may be the dumbest. Several prominent publications ran with headlines in the last week about how War Secretary Pete Hegeseth created an apparently lavish budget for steak and lobster. These stories were based on a report from government watchdog Open The Books about a surge in the military food budget in September. The report was straightforward and acknowledged that this sort of spending has been going on for more than a decade as the Pentagon uses up its end of year budget. Open The Books acknowledged that this late year spending surge has happened “regardless of which party controlled the White House.”. That didn’t stop the deluge of misleading headlines making it seem like Hegseth and Trump were spending money on steak and lobster just to stuff their own faces. “The Pentagon blew through a total of $93.4 billion that month by spending, for example, $6.9 million on lobster tail; $15.1 million on rib-eye steak; and $225.6 million on furniture. There were 272 orders of doughnuts and three-tiered fruit basket stands that cost $12,540,” The New York Times reported Saturday with a subheadline “Tracking the Pentagon’s profligate lobster budget.” The Times then quoted two unfunny professional funnymen, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel, mocking Hegseth and the military for wildly spending on succulent meals. “As Paul Revere declared on his famous ride, ‘One if by surf, two if by turf,’” Colbert said. “What is this? My 600-pound defense department? How are they eating so much food?” said Kimmel. Several high-profile Democrats jumped in on this narrative too. This was from California Gov. Gavin Newsom on X. HEGSETH BLOWING $93 BILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN 1 MONTH !! pic.twitter.com/L8GmyWQ2bt— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) March 10, 2026 No word on if Newsom is going to do anything about the likely tens of millions of dollars or more being squelched in Hospice scams in his state, or the $24 billion spent of fighting homelessness that was never tracked not reduced homelessness, or the billions of dollars spent over the last decade on the bullet train to nowhere. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also weighed in. “Hegseth spent $93 billion in one month – roughly the cost of extending the ACA tax credits for THREE YEARS,” Schumer wrote on X. “But instead of lowering American’s healthcare costs, Hegseth used millions of taxpayer dollars on fruit baskets, Herman Miller recliners, ice cream machines, Alaskan King Crabs, and a Steinway & Sons grand piano.” As Fox News pointed out, the amount of spending on military food—including steak and lobster—was essentially the same under President Joe Biden. So why didn’t he complain about this HUGE PROBLEM then? You know why. Another critique came from an editorial in USA Today with the absurd headline “82 million can’t afford health care, but Hegseth gets lobster.” Not only is it laughable that the money spent on military food in September could pay for the healthcare of 82 million Americans, but it is also downright ludicrous to think this money is going to Hegseth personally. The author of the piece, Rex Huppke, wrote of the military giving food to troops that it’s “enough to make you want to grab a torch and pitchfork and start marching.” I’d say the Fourth Estate should be more worried about the pitchforks than the men and women in uniform who have to do a lot more than just marching these days. It’s certainly fair to criticize the government for how it spends the taxpayer money, and the Pentagon shouldn’t be above scrutiny. But this is hardly the first place we should choose to skimp, especially with all the military personnel currently in harm’s way. The reality is that the U.S. military has, through most of its history, prioritized better food for our troops than other armies. We are a rich and powerful country with a penchant for logistics and supply chains. Those qualities have allowed us to better supply our soldiers than any other mass army in the world. While I’m not saying that typical military rations are fine dining (“Unless you’re in the Navy,” as my Army Air Corps grandfather used to grouse), they’ve generally been a cut above most militaries. And that’s for a good reason. It’s good for morale for an army to be well fed. It’s certainly a lot better for warfighting than making the Navy go green and the other nonsense that money was wasted on under the previous administration. They’re Americans, they should expect to have the best food and equipment in the world. The lobstergate talking point is just mindless blather from people who’ve never thought twice about reducing the budget nor apparently thought once about the actual wellbeing of our military. The post Media Is in a Tizzy Because We Give Troops Good Food Sometimes appeared first on The Daily Signal.