Global central bankers issued a statement last Tuesday defending U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell following the launch of a criminal investigation into the central bank chief. Powell is being investigated over the $2.5 billion he spent renovating the Fed building and potentially lying to Congress about the project. The headline tells you everything you need to know about the moment we are in. I believe in an independent Federal Reserve. America has always benefited from a central bank insulated from day-to-day political swings. A nation this large and complex needs a steady hand on monetary policy. But independence does not mean antagonism. It does not mean operating as a parallel power center in opposition to a duly elected president. And it certainly does not mean taking cues from European technocrats who have no vote in our elections and no stake in our sovereignty. What we are seeing now is not neutral independence. It is institutional resistance. Not objectivity, but obsession. The Federal Reserve under Powell has developed Trump Derangement Syndrome, and it is distorting decisions that affect every American household. When central bankers from Europe and around the world rush to Powell’s defense, we are told this is about protecting “independence.” In reality, it looks like elite solidarity. A global technocratic class is circling the wagons around one of its own against a president they never accepted. With all due respect, European bank heads should mind their own business. This is the United States of America. Our economic policy is set by Americans, for Americans. We are America First. We do not bow to Davos. We do not outsource our monetary philosophy to Brussels, Frankfurt, or London. The Federal Reserve is not a subsidiary of the European Central Bank, and its chairman does not answer to a transatlantic club of unelected elites. Independence is not immunity from accountability. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is clear: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Nowhere does it say the Fed should function as a hedge against populism or a brake on a president it dislikes. Yet that is exactly how Powell and the financial establishment appear to see their role. Look at the record. When inflation exploded under President Joe Biden, the Fed was “caught off guard.” When tightening threatened the Biden economy, Powell moved cautiously. But when Donald Trump was president, the Fed hiked rates aggressively, nine times between 2017 and 2018, even as inflation was tame and working-class wages were finally rising. That is not neutral independence. That is institutional bias. Supporting Fed independence does not mean endorsing a Fed that works against the elected president. An independent Fed should be professionally detached from partisan politics, but it should still operate in good faith with the administration chosen by the American people. It should not view a president as a threat to be contained, nor look overseas for validation when challenged. Trump never sought to turn the Fed into a political arm. He asked for accountability. He demanded transparency. He argued that interest rates should reflect the real economy, not the anxieties of Washington insiders and European technocrats. That is not radical. That is responsive governance. Under Trump, the economy boomed. Wages rose. Energy was affordable. Small businesses thrived. A Fed that respected both its independence and the president’s economic vision could have amplified that success. Instead, Powell tightened into growth and then stood flat-footed as Biden ushered in an inflationary storm. Now Americans are paying the price. Groceries cost more. Homeownership is out of reach. Credit card debt is exploding. And Powell signals that relief will wait. We do need an independent Fed. But we need one that is independent from political bias, not hostile to the president and deferential to Europe. Independence should mean professionalism, not resistance. It should mean data-driven decisions that complement national economic leadership, not quietly undermine it. Powell and his colleagues are not elected. They do not set national strategy. They do not decide elections. Their job is to provide stability, not steer outcomes. If they have forgotten that, Congress has every right to remind them through oversight and accountability. Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected too many institutions. If it captures the Federal Reserve, the damage will be profound. Interest rates should not be a weapon. Central banking should not become partisan warfare. And independence should never be an excuse to oppose the will of the American people or defer to foreign elites. Mr. Powell, your job is not to stop Trump. It is to serve the American economy. Respect the office, respect the voters, and check your politics at the door. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post We Want an Independent Fed, Not One With Trump Derangement Syndrome or Foreign Influence appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over Hawaii’s ban on carrying a handgun in public accommodations—such as stores, restaurants, and gas stations—without the property owner’s permission. Alan Beck, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that entering such spaces is an “implied right,” unless the property owner opposes. He said Hawaii’s law flips that presumption and requires the property owner’s prior consent.  Neal Katyal, attorney for Hawaii and former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued the state law protects private property rights, and asserted, “it’s pretty clear an invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock.” The ruling in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, expected this summer, will apply to any state that seeks to regulate guns. At least four other states have laws similar to Hawaii’s restrictions. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Is there a constitutional right to enter private property with a gun, without an owner’s express or implicit consent?” Beck answered, “No. You can’t enter an owner’s property without their consent, correct? Express or implicit. Correct, because that would be a trespass your honor.” Beck argued the question, instead, was “carrying on private property that’s open to the public.” He added that Hawaii’s law preemptively bans possession of a gun in privately-owned spaces that are open to the public, rather than leaving it up to the owner to prohibit entry with a firearm. “Every private property owner has the right to affirmatively put up a sign or otherwise not give permission for people to enter a property with a firearm,” Beck said. “The crux of our argument is that clients flip that historical default from them having to affirmatively say ‘guns are not allowed here’ to the current law.” Hawaii’s Act 52 enacted the policy after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling struck down New York’s law requiring concealed carry holders to demonstrate a need for self-defense. Hawaii’s Act 52 states that someone with the license to carry a handgun may not “enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm … unless the person has been given express authority.” The law applies regardless of whether the property is open to the public.  Four other states have similar laws: California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, according to SCOTUSblog. The high court is hearing the case because of a circuit split. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the New York law. The 3rd U.S. Circuit struck down New Jersey’s law. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law.  Hawaii points to a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Louisiana law as precedent of states requiring the prior consent of a property owner for someone to enter the property with a gun. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Louisiana law was part of the “black codes” aimed at discriminating against the rights of freed slaves to defend themselves against violence in the post-Civil War era. “You rely very heavily on an 1865 black code law in Louisiana. You say it’s a dead ringer, and a reason alone to affirm the judgment,” Gorsuch said. “I want to understand how you think black codes should inform this court’s decision-making.” Katyal stressed that black codes were a shameful part of American history, but argued that this particular law was race-neutral. He noted that the Republican Congress admitted Louisiana back into the union with this law intact. “The United States Congress, the same Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment, implicitly blessed [the law] by admitting Louisiana back in,” Katyal said.  When Gorsuch earlier asked plaintiffs’ lawyer Beck about the Louisiana law, Beck said that Hawaii’s law is not comparable since the Louisiana law was intended to discriminate. Justice Samuel Alito told Katyal, “You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” He presented a First Amendment hypothetical. “If someone owns a store, or let’s say it’s a little restaurant, and this person has very strong political opinions, and does not want anybody in that restaurant who is wearing attire that is expressing approval of a particular political candidate, the owner of that restaurant has the right to say, you can’t come in, right?” Katyal answered, “Yes.” Alito followed, “Could Hawaii enact a statute that says that if you were wearing the attire expressing approval of a particular political candidate, you cannot come in unless you get express consent from the owner of the restaurant?” Katyal conceded that it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, but added that the Second Amendment does not have “the same components” as the First Amendment.  The post Justices Hear Arguments on Concealed Carry in Stores appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Incoming NJ Gov Mikie Sherrill Promising Power Ranger Moves

Since the January 7 fatal shooting of left-wing agitator Renee Good by an ICE officer, Minneapolis has been gripped by riots, lawlessness, and escalating tensions between activists and federal law enforcement. Meanwhile, left-wing broadcast networks ABC, CBS, and NBC have spent more than two hours of airtime blaming the chaos on immigration officials.  MRC analysts pored through every report about the situation in Minneapolis which aired on ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News, from January 7 through January 17, 2026. We found a total of 121 minutes and 26 seconds of coverage devoted to the topic, of which a whopping 93 percent was negative toward federal immigration officials.   SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ABC, CBS, and NBC’s flagship evening newscasts all hammered ICE with more than 90% negative coverage (91% negative on ABC and NBC, 96% negative on CBS). Just 1.6% of of the Minneapolis-related coverage included any mention of the crimes committed by the illegal aliens whom ICE agents were there to apprehend to begin with. CBS never explicitly admitted that Nicole Good hit agent Jonathan Ross with her car moments before he fired at her. ABC and NBC did so only once each.    NETWORKS FOUND ICE AGENT ROSS GUILTY OF 'MURDER' To determine the skew of the coverage, analysts examined the selection of sound bites about the situation in Minneapolis that each network chose to air. On CBS, 26 of the 27 sound bites were critical of (or, more often, outright hostile toward) ICE. Both ABC and NBC aired 21 such sound bites, versus only two that were positive.  For example on January 14, ABC eagerly highlighted prolific podcaster Joe Rogan’s criticism of the federal government: “Are we really gonna be the Gestapo? ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?” One of the few quotes that favored ICE actually came from the father of Renee Good’s ex-husband on January 13’s NBC Nightly News, when he said of her fatal encounter with officer Ross: “The car did hit him.” But not even the 93-percent hostility toward federal immigration officials tells the full story of just how stilted the coverage was on the evening newscasts. On January 12, for example, CBS correspondent Nicole Sganga accused ICE agent Jonathan Ross of murdering Nicole Good: DHS this weekend released a video showing the minutes leading up to the murder of Renee Good. She and others are heard honking car horns. Trump administration officials claim she intended to ram ICE agents before she was shot. CBS’s framing of Renee Good’s death was particularly mendacious. While the network repeatedly played the footage from officer Ross’s phone which indisputably showed Good hitting him with her car, not one journalist ever stated as fact that Good’s vehicle had indeed struck Ross. Even anchor Tony Dokoupil only ever framed it as something the Trump administration was claiming. All three networks did mention that Ross reportedly had been sent to the hospital for internal bleeding after the incident. However, each did so only once.   ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME WAS VIRTUALLY ABSENT FROM COVERAGE Despite the melee in Minneapolis having resulted from a dispute over immigration enforcement, the crimes committed by the detained illegal aliens barely ever came up in the broadcast coverage.  ABC spent a mere 12 seconds on the illegal aliens’ malfeasance, which amounted to just half a percent of their 2290 seconds of coverage.  The situation was virtually identical on CBS: just 16 seconds, or 0.6 percent of their 2633 seconds spent covering Minneapolis. NBC paid the topic the most attention by far: 89 seconds (4% of their 2363-second total), spread across seven different mentions. NBC was also the only network to actually run a graphic detailing some of the alleged crimes perpetrated by the illegal aliens ICE agents had apprehended. On January 12, correspondent Maggie Vespa reported: “DHS touting the work of federal officers in Minneapolis the last few days, saying they’ve arrested criminal suspects in the U.S. illegally, including with convictions for sexual assault of a child, rape of a child, homicide, and manslaughter.” Vespa’s report that evening also included a sound bite of White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt further detailing the rap sheets of several detainees.

Minnesota citizens and local officials outside Minneapolis say they don’t want the crime and chaos taking place in Minneapolis and that they do support the law enforcement work of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. “We don’t want to be like Minneapolis,” St. Cloud City Council Member Scott Brodeen declared last week in comments supporting ICE, The Minnesota Star-Tribune reported Sunday: “I don’t want bad stuff to happen here in St. Cloud that could be avoided.” …. “Just let [ICE] do their jobs and we’ll remain safe as a community.” “Leaders and residents from southwest Minnesota up to the Iron Range have shared similar thoughts about letting ICE complete its job,” The Star-Tribune reports, noting that the opinions expressed by Minnesotans “in small-town bars, cafes and other gathering spots across the state” reject those voiced by anti-ICE residents in metropolitan areas of the state. Indeed, the mayor of Cold Spring, Dave Heinen, says he’d welcome ICE raids of a local poultry processing plant, if they targeting violent criminals, because he wants his friends and relatives who work there to be safe. Likewise, St. Louis County Commissioner Keith Nelson says it’s important to enforce the law and maintain the nation’s borders. What’s more, he says, the people in his community “trust the system” and – unlike Minnesotans in anti-ICE areas of the state – comply with law enforcement officers. “I get the sense that, in other communities, that’s not how it’s working right now and that’s disturbing,” the commissioner observed. “When an officer of any kind, or an ICE agent, walks up to you and tells you to do something, you’re supposed to listen,” a business owner in Sturgeon Lake agreed in comments to the Star-Tribune, characterizing Minnesota’s anti-ICE protesters as “agitators” who are interfering with legitimate law enforcement efforts.

With the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, now in full swing, leaders from around the world are clamoring for the spotlight. And the Democratic governor of California is no exception. In a video he shared on Tuesday morning, Gov. Gavin Newsom went on an unhinged rant against President Donald Trump, who is expected to give an address on Wednesday. 'Diplomacy with Donald Trump? He's a T. rex. You mate with him or he devours you.'The video, a composite of several edited soundbites in a loud hallway, features Newsom railing against Trump in a myriad of attacks, including with some novel comparisons.RELATED: Trump pulls US out of 'racist' UN forum pushing 'global reparations agendas' Photo by Lian Yi/Xinhua via Getty ImagesNewsom demanded that European leaders "stop being complicit": "I can't take this complicity. People rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders." Newsom called the world leaders' handling of Trump's dealings on the global stage "embarrassing," adding strangely, "Diplomacy with Donald Trump? He's a T. rex. You mate with him or he devours you. One or the other." The California governor then threw the Trump derangement syndrome kitchen sink at his crowd of listeners: "This guy is a wrecking ball. ... It's code red. And you guys are still playing by an old set of rules. ... He's unmoored. It's the law of the jungle. It's the rule of Don. And I hope it's dawning on the world what we're up against. I mean, this is serious. This guy, he's not mad; he's very intentional. But he's unmoored, and he's unhinged."Mustering all of his bravado, Newsom demanded of world leaders: "Have some spine. Have some goddamn balls." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An actress known for black exploitation movies said that she remembers seeing lynchings when she was a child in Ohio — but her claims were contradicted by history as well as math.Pam Grier made the claims during her guest appearance on "The View," and the co-hosts did not push back on the bizarre story.'At least make up a story that's halfway believable.'"You faced a lot of racism growing up in Columbus, Ohio. How did that shape you?" Sunny Hostin asked."Phew! Well, the military wouldn't allow black families to live on the base, so you had to live in an apartment. And you couldn't take a bus. You couldn't afford a car. You walked. Your dads walked to the base," Grier said."And sometimes we would go from tree shade to shade to get back to the apartment, my brother and I and my mom with bags," she added. "And my mom would go, 'Don't look, don't look, don't look,' and she would pull us away because there's someone hanging from a tree."Grier appeared emotional, and the audience gasped at her story."And they have a memorial for it now where you can see where people were and left," she continued. "And it triggers me today to see that a voice can be silenced and if a white family supported a black, they're going to get burned down or killed or lynched as well."While Ohio does have a horrible history of racial lynchings, the last record of such an incident was from 1911, which makes it impossible for Grier's story to be accurate.Many critics lashed out at her online after video of the tale was posted to social media."I am 78. I grew up in Columbus Ohio. Bulls**t story," one X user responded."It is amazing that she can lie so boldly without no push back. ... You know who believes this slop? Middle aged single leftist white women who will believe 'lived truths' over facts," another detractor replied."It's important to learn history so that when you lie, you can at least make up a story that's halfway believable," another critic said.RELATED: Jasmine Crockett melts down on 'The View' over 'racist' jab from JD Vance — and claims Republicans are disturbed by her A community note attached to the video pointed out that Grier was born in 1949, nearly four decades after the last lynching in the state. And while there is a plaque in Columbus to remember two victims of lynching in the downtown of the city, those incidents were from 1896.Grier is best known for her roles in "blaxploitation" movies in the 1970s, including "Coffy" and "Foxy Brown." She is celebrated as one of the first female action stars.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Christian organizations spent nearly a decade fighting New York's requirement that they pay for abortions. They came out victorious on Friday, thanks in part to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June.In January 2017, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the Empire State would require employers to not only pay for contraceptive drugs and devices but for "all medically necessary abortion services."Cuomo, a Catholic, said that the mandate was one of a number of regulatory actions that would "help ensure that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will have cost-free access to reproductive health care."'The state has given up its disgraceful campaign.'While there was a religious exemption built into the mandate, it was extremely narrow.As satisfaction of the mandate would violate their deeply held religious beliefs, a coalition of Christian groups ineligible for the exemption — including the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg, the Anglican Sisterhood of St. Mary, Our Savior's Lutheran Church, and First Bible Baptist Church — sued the State of New York, claiming it violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause and both religion clauses.After years of legal setbacks, the Christian plaintiffs' fight was renewed in late 2021 when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a mandate-affirming ruling by the state appellate court and ordered it to reconsider the case in light of its 2021 decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia. In Fulton, the SCOTUS ruled that the City of Philadelphia had violated Catholic Social Services' free exercise of religion by requiring the foster care agency to endorse homosexual couples as foster parents.RELATED: Biden's faith attacks backfire: Support for religious liberties soars to record high under Trump, new report shows Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images Again, the state appellate court considered the case, and again it ruled against the plaintiffs and in favor of the abortion mandate.The Supreme Court took up the Christian groups' subsequent appeal, and in June 2025, it ordered the Court of Appeals of New York to reconsider the case in light of its June 5 ruling in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor. In that particular case, the high court unanimously held that by denying the Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption that is available for religious entities, Wisconsin had violated the First Amendment.Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in the opinion for the court, "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny."That Supreme Court ruling boded poorly for New York, whose abortion mandate had a similarly narrow and problematic religious exemption.On Friday, New York agreed to surrender its effort to coerce the Christian plaintiffs into funding abortions."For nearly a decade, New York bureaucrats tried to strong-arm nuns into paying for abortions because they serve all those in need," said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket and attorney for the plaintiffs, in a statement. "At long last, the state has given up its disgraceful campaign. This victory confirms that the government cannot punish religious ministries for living out their faith by serving everyone.""The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that religious groups shouldn't be bullied for staying true to their faith," Windham added.Per the terms of the settlement with self-identified Catholic Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration, the following entities will now be recognized as religious employers, thereby securing exemptions from the mandate: the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Albany and Ogdensburg and the Catholic Charities thereof; St. Gregory the Great Roman Catholic Church Society of Amherst; First Bible Baptist Church; Our Savior's Lutheran Church of Albany; Teresian House Nursing Home Company, Inc.; Teresian House Housing Corporation; and Depaul Housing Management Corporation.The Sisterhood of Mary and the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Brooklyn have dropped their free exercise claims against the state.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Journalist Savanah Hernandez is shedding light on one abhorrent story out of New York City — where a man who used his weapon to protect himself was sent to prison for four years.“I just attended the sentencing for Charles Foehner, a 67-year-old retiree who was just sentenced to four years in prison after defending himself from a 15-time career criminal here in New York City,” Hernandez reported.“Now, if you’re not familiar with the story of Charles, basically, back in 2023, a 15-time career criminal with a history of mental illness ended up threatening him and lunging at him. Charles, who had a handgun in his pocket, which he had, by the way, because of his fears of rising crime throughout the city, ended up pulling out his weapon, telling this man to stop,” she continued.“He did not heed the warning. He continued to lunge at Charles. Charles opened fire and ended up killing him,” she said.While even the DA of Queens, Melinda Katz, did not bring homicide or manslaughter charges because she agreed that it was clearly self-defense, she did go after Charles for criminal possession of a weapon.The cops then searched his home and found what they called an “arsenal of unlicensed weapons.”“Charles’ attorney stated that Charles has been shooting guns since he was a kid. Charles has no criminal history, and he has been around guns his entire life. However, because he was in New York and these were unlicensed, the DA decided to bring forward these charges,” Hernandez reported.“It’s incredible that this is happening in the United States of America. So he ended up — this 67-year-old retiree ended up losing his home because of the legal fees and him being cut off from his Social Security benefits while he’s in prison. You can’t get that when you’re in prison,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales comments on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”“It’s really incredible that there is such a thing as unlicensed firearms in this country. It’s like, says who? That is completely unconstitutional, because I have a Second Amendment right to protect myself however I see fit,” she says.“This man would not be alive if it weren’t for the weapon that he carried. And the fact that doing that — protecting his own life — now causes him to be in prison because then they can go and raid your home and say, ‘Oh, actually, you have an arsenal here. You’re not allowed to do that,’ is so very chilling,” she adds.Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Trump administration officials are pushing California to return over $1 billion in federal taxpayer funds that may have been used to cover the health care costs of illegal aliens.The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in May that it was increasing oversight on states that illegally used Medicaid funding to provide illegal immigrants with health care services, noting that Medicaid funding is generally available to illegal aliens only for emergency medical services. 'We are teaming up to combat healthcare fraud so the money can be used for American citizens who need it!'As part of the announcement, the CMS declared that states could be forced to reimburse the federal government for funds spent on noncitizens. CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz revealed in October that the agency found more than $1 billion of federal taxpayer funds were spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. “And my team is getting it back,” he remarked.Oz called CMS’ findings “shocking.”“In a preliminary review of six states, we found those states improperly using federal tax dollars for their allegedly state-funded program and providing coverage to individuals, including some with criminal records of murder and assault,” he stated.Those findings included $1.3 billion in California, $2.1 million in Washington, D.C., $30 million in Illinois, $2.4 million in Washington, $1.5 million in Colorado, and $5.4 million in Oregon. RELATED: Dr. Oz exposes the nonprofit lie at the heart of US health care Mehmet Oz, Bill Essayli. Photo by Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty ImagesOz explained that the states had been notified and that “many” had begun issuing refunds to CMS. However the administrator provided an update on Wednesday, stating that additional uncovered data revealed the total had reached $1.8 billion across eight states. He announced that the CMS is withholding nearly $300 million from California, which Oz labeled “the worst offender,” until the state’s leadership proves “they’re spending the money properly.”Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, stated, “California must return more than $1 billion to the federal government after an audit by @DrOzCMS and his team uncovered federal dollars being spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants. We are teaming up to combat healthcare fraud so the money can be used for American citizens who need it!”California officials have rejected claims that the federal funds were misused.The California Department of Health Care Services previously told the New York Times, “Claims that California improperly used federal Medicaid dollars to provide health care to undocumented immigrants are flatly false and misrepresent both federal law and standard administrative practice.”Gov. Gavin Newsom's office did not respond to a request for comment.RELATED: Illegal-alien patients drain Texas hospitals, racking up billion-dollar bill — in less than a year Gavin Newsom. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesWashington, D.C., has agreed to pay back over $650,000 to CMS by mid-November.An Illinois Medicaid spokesperson previously told PolitiFact, “Once again, the Trump administration is spreading misinformation about standard uses of Medicaid dollars.”“This is not a reality show, and there is no conspiracy to circumvent federal law and provide ineligible individuals with Medicaid coverage. Dr. Oz should stop pushing conspiracy theories and focus on improving health care for the American people,” the spokesperson added.A Washington State Health Care Authority also pushed back on CMS’ claims, calling the estimates shared by Oz “inaccurate.”“We were very surprised to see Dr. Oz’s post, especially considering we continue to work with CMS in good faith to answer their questions and clear up any confusion,” the spokesperson said. Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy & Financing also insisted the state did not break the law. “Our payments for coverage of undocumented individuals are in accordance with state and federal laws,” a spokesperson told PolitiFact. "The $1.5 million number referenced by federal leaders today is based on an incorrect preliminary finding, and has been refuted with supporting data by our Department experts."Oregon Health Authority previously told KOIN that CMS’ claim was “false and mischaracterizes not just this essential part of our nation’s emergency care infrastructure, but also an ongoing, routine audit process.”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!