111,620 California borrowers suspected of committing $8.6 billion of pandemic-era fraud have been suspended by the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler announced Friday. “I’m here in San Diego, standing at an address that is registered to 14 businesses that took $2 million in pandemic-era loans Those loans haven’t been paid back,” Administrator Loeffler says in a social media video reporting the suspensions. “But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg,” Loeffler adds: “Today, the SBA is announcing we’re suspending 112,000 California borrowers who took potentially upwards of $9 billion. “We’re going to continue to work with our federal partners to ensure accountability for COVID-era fraud that the Biden Administration tried to sweep under the rug.” Suspended borrowers are prohibited from executing new small business and disaster loans and are not eligible for other SBA programs such as federal contracting in the 8(a) Business Development Program. The suspended borrowers obtained the money via the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) program, both of which helped businesses stay afloat and continue to keep their workers employed during the COVID-19 crisis. “This staggering number represents the most significant crack-down on those who defrauded pandemic programs, and it illuminates the scale of corruption that the Biden Administration tolerated for years,” Loeffler says. “We’re not looking the other way. We’re prosecuting. There’s going to be more to come,” Loeffler promises in her video. “Just like Minnesota, California is another state whose socialist welfare policies have invited fraud,” Loeffler explains. In Minnesota, SBA suspended 6,900 borrowers associated with 7,900 potentially fraudulent PPP and EIDL loans worth approximately $400 million. The suspensions in California and Minnesota are part of SBA’s state-by-state initiative to crack down on $200 billion of suspected pandemic-era fraud it says went unaddressed during the Biden Administration. The goal is not only to punish those who defrauded American taxpayers, but also to recoup the stolen funds. “Under this Administration, any fraudster who broke the law will no longer get a free pass. All they’ll get is a free trip to jail,” SBA’s Loeffler warns.

It may seem that it’s impossible to get anything done in Washington these days. Nevertheless, the free spirit of Americans cannot be suppressed. Americans are voting with their feet. Per the Census Bureau’s just released annual report on population growth and migration in the U.S., Americans are packing up and moving from anti-growth blue states to pro-growth red states. Top five in population growth from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025: South Carolina, Idaho, North Carolina, Delaware, Tennessee. Top five in population loss: New York, Hawaii, Alaska, District of Columbia, California. Seven of the 10 top growth states voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Of the top 10 states losing population over the 12-month period, nine of the 10 voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. Those many Americans who still understand that freedom is the magic elixir that drives growth and prosperity are exiting blue states, leaving them to stew in their left-wing, socialist, low-growth and low-opportunity juices. Americans for Tax Reform breaks it down further. Comparing economic conditions in the states that gained population to those that lost: the marginal tax rate in population-losing states is on average 24.5% higher than in the population-gaining states; the average state and local tax collection in the population-losing states is 61% higher than in those gaining population; the average corporate tax rate in population-losing states is 44% higher than in those gaining population; and 60% of population-gaining states are right-to-work states -- states that prohibit paying union dues as a condition for employment -- compared to only 10% of population-losing states that are right-to-work.      The Brennan Center has analyzed what the implications of this trend, if it continues on its current track, will mean regarding distribution of congressional seats after the 2030 census. The biggest gainers: Texas plus four seats and Florida plus three. The biggest loser: California minus four. The Brennan Center looks at what the change will be by region in 2030 compared with 2020. The South would pick up nine seats, Northeast would lose four, Midwest and Plains states down three, Mountain states up three, and West down five. The Wall Street Journal estimates that this translates into a gain of 10 seats in states that voted for Trump in 2024. The U-Haul Growth Index, published once per year and released earlier this month, reporting results for 2025, shows essentially the identical picture. U-Haul summarizes transactions for the year -- some 2.5 million -- reporting net in-migrations and out-migrations for all states. Top five states for in-migration in 2025 were Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina. Per U-Haul, “Seven of the top ten growth states currently feature Republican governors, and nine of those states went red in the last presidential election.” States with the most people leaving are California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. Per U-Haul, “Nine of the bottom 10 growth states feature Democrat governors, and seven of those states went blue in the last presidential election.” Americans for Tax Reform also notes that nine of the top 10 growth states in the U-Haul Growth Index are right-to-work states. Among the bottom 10, none are right-to-work states -- all are dominated by union control. The New York Times reports that, per New York City’s Economic Development Corporation, in the second quarter of 2025, 8,400 businesses closed compared with 3,500 that opened. New York’s new socialist mayor wants to tax corporations and wealthy New Yorkers to finance the city’s $12 billion budget deficit. Can there be any question what the result will be for the No. 1 population-losing state in the country? How about California’s 5% billionaire wealth tax proposal? Punishing success is a great formula for losing the successful. Tesla, Oracle, Hewlett Packard, Charles Schwab and Palantir Technologies are among the marquee corporations that have bid farewell to California. Want to know what Americans think? Watch their feet. Star Parker is founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now.

Back on Tuesday, podcaster, professor, and man of perpetual solemnity Scott Galloway joined both CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and MS NOW’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle to promote a scheme were consumers should either pause or cancel their subscriptions to big tech companies as a way to get the industry to end their relationship with President Trump, which he alleged was akin to manufacturing bosses getting cozy with Adolf Hitler. Cooper was up first, and he wondered, “Have you heard from any of the CEOs of companies that you're focusing on?”   Earlier that night, he told CNN "This is pure grift. And I want to create an analogy, a dark one in early 30s Germany. A lot of the titans of the manufacturing industry in Germany essentially said to Hitler, 'If you crush the unions and make us more profitable, we'll ignore the… pic.twitter.com/31wLQGYhIq — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 6, 2026   Galloway claimed that, “I've heard from about a third of them. They're very polite. They understand, and then they go on to say how upset they are about the president's programs, but that they can't speak publicly. And I'm empathetic to that. A good autocrat rewards his allies and punishes his enemies.” He then got to his reduction ad Hitlerum: So, unless it's a collective action, unless they all speak together, I think it's going to be very hard for anyone to go first. But what I remind them is that in early 30s Germany, Hitler made a deal with the largest captains of the manufacturing industry that if they said nothing about his rise and what they sensed was a slow burn to fascism, that they would crush the—that he would crush the trade unions and they would make a lot more money. And then when he rose to power, it was too late. And I think that is a decent or an apt analogy for what's going on here. According to Galloway, “That is, according to the private text messages I get from these individuals, they do not like what's going on, but they're afraid to speak up. And also they see money at the end of the day.” He further declared, “To believe that it could not happen here is naive to history. These folks are enabling what I believe is pretty depraved behavior. And it is time for CEOs to collectively speak up and say what they're saying privately, explicitly to the markets and to the president.” A few hours later on MS NOW, Ruhle listed a couple of examples that she thought were relevant, “Yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a personal visit to the Blue Origin headquarters and was greeted by none other than its founder, Jeff Bezos. This is days after Amazon paid $40 million for the rights to Melania. She was paid tens of millions of dollars. They spent tens of millions of dollars marketing this film. Is this the access Bezos is paying for? Because Blue Origin is his big business that loses huge amounts of money and could certainly benefit from government contracts.”   Back on Tuesday, Professor/podcaster/man of perpetual solemnity Scott Galloway told MS NOW that he tells big tech execs "that in early 30s, Germany, Hitler made a deal with the largest captains of the manufacturing industry that if they said nothing about his rise and what they… pic.twitter.com/GcwgPApG5u — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 6, 2026   This was one day before the massive layoffs at The Washington Post, which Ruhle no doubt would have included if she had waited a day. As it was, she neglected to mention that Hegseth’s visit was merely part of a larger tour related to the American defense industry and that particular visit was focused on Space Force and NASA-related matters. Nevertheless, Galloway repeated his tortured Hitler analogy, “This is pure grift. And I want to create an analogy, a dark one in early 30s Germany. A lot of the titans of the manufacturing industry in Germany essentially said to Hitler, ‘If you crush the unions and make us more profitable, we'll ignore the slow burn to fascism.’ And then when it kind of got out of control, it was too late. And I see the same thing here.” Galloway also repeated his claims to have heard from these people directly, “And you've probably heard from them, and so have I, via text message that they hate themselves. I'm like, ‘Well, I hate you too.’ And until you speak out, this, this autocracy, kleptocracy that is enabling a slow burn to fascism from the people that he cares about and that the markets care about, they need to speak out. Enough is enough. This is leading us to a very dark place.” Even if one agrees with Ruhle and Galloway about the price of the Melania documentary, it is a massive stretch to bring Hitler into the conversation. When the big tech companies did what President Biden wanted them to do on “disinformation,” did CNN, MSNBC, and Scott Galloway compare him to Hitler? No, of course not. Here are transcripts for the February 3 shows: CNN Anderson Cooper 360 2/3/2026 8:48 PM ET ANDERSON COOPER: Have you heard from any of the CEOs of companies that you're focusing on? SCOTT GALLOWAY: I've heard from about a third of them. They're very polite. They understand, and then they go on to say how upset they are about the president's programs, but that they can't speak publicly. And I'm empathetic to that. A good autocrat rewards his allies and punishes his enemies. So, unless it's a collective action, unless they all speak together, I think it's going to be very hard for anyone to go first. But what I remind them is that in early 30s Germany, Hitler made a deal with the largest captains of the manufacturing industry that if they said nothing about his rise and what they sensed was a slow burn to fascism, that they would crush the—that he would crush the trade unions and they would make a lot more money. And then when he rose to power, it was too late. And I think that is a decent or an apt analogy for what's going on here. And that is according to the private text messages I get from these individuals, they do not like what's going on, but they're afraid to speak up. And also they see money at the end of the day. Notice how the tariffs do not affect these companies, that there's been carve outs, that there's talk of all kinds of loans to backstop the incredible infrastructure expenses here. This, to believe that it could not happen here is naive to history. These folks are enabling what I believe is pretty depraved behavior. And it is time for CEOs to collectively speak up and say what they're saying privately, explicitly to the markets and to the president. *** MS NOW The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle 2/3/2026 11:53 PM ET STEPHANIE RUHLE: Yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a personal visit to the Blue Origin headquarters and was greeted by none other than its founder, Jeff Bezos. This is days after Amazon paid $40 million for the rights to Melania. She was paid tens of millions of dollars. They spent tens of millions of dollars marketing this film. Is this the access Bezos is paying for? Because Blue Origin is his big business that loses huge amounts of money and could certainly benefit from government contracts. SCOTT GALLOWAY: This is pure grift. And I want to create an analogy, a dark one in early 30s Germany. A lot of the titans of the manufacturing industry in Germany essentially said to Hitler, “If you crush the unions and make us more profitable, we'll ignore the slow burn to fascism.” And then when it kind of got out of control, it was too late. And I see the same thing here. Notice how these big tech companies are not subject to tariffs. That Apple was somehow able to get out of these tariffs. We're even talking now about some sort of bill that might come back with the full faith of the U.S. government, some of these huge infrastructure investments. When Tim Cook goes to the premier with an inscribed hard disk drive, when Amazon overpays for the Melania documentary, this is pure pay for play. When the Ellison family says to Warner shareholders, you should accept our bid because it's more likely to go through because I'm a Republican donor and have my head so far up the orifice of the president, you can't see my legs, that is an admission by these individuals that they now recognize the government as pay for play. And you've probably heard from them, and so have I, via text message that they hate themselves. I'm like, “Well, I hate you too.” And until you speak out, this, this autocracy, kleptocracy that is enabling a slow burn to fascism from the people that he cares about and that the markets care about, they need to speak out. Enough is enough. This is leading us to a very dark place. And what I'm suggesting is an economy that is 70 percent consumer driven, that our hidden weapon that's been hiding in plain sight is our consumer spending. And if you want the biggest bang for the buck, go after big tech subscription services. It is not a huge price to pay and it will have a big impact.

Am I sexist? I think there are differences between men and women -- traits beyond obvious physical ones. But when I was young, feminist leaders said there were no differences. The only reason men ran most things was sexism. There was plenty of that. One example people forget: Until 1974, women couldn’t get a credit card without their husband’s permission. A women’s movement was long overdue. I believed the new “experts” who said, if we raise children in gender-neutral ways, men and women will behave similarly. Then I had kids. Now I understand that boys and girls are just different. But for some reason, we’re not supposed to acknowledge that. “Aren’t women, in general, better nurturers?” I asked Gloria Steinem. “No,” she snapped. “Next question.” Today many people still avoid talking about differences. But not Heather Mac Donald! “If we weren’t so insane, it would be perfectly obvious that there are innate differences,” she says in my new video. She points out that men explored the world, not women. “Their societies wouldn’t allow it!” I say. “That’s true,” she notes, “but they haven’t been doing much in the interim.” “Men drove the Thirty Years’ War ... the Hundred Years’ War,” I say. “Maybe it would be better if women managed governments.” “Some of the Green parties, the female dominated parties in Europe, they’re the war parties,” she replies. “They’re all for continuing to arm Ukraine, for involvement in the Serbian conflict ... A lot of female EU politicians are no more pacifistic than some of their male colleagues.” She points out that it was men who “developed ideas of constitutional government, due process, human rights. Those are much more powerful than the Thirty Years’ War.” Men, she says, have more “passion for novelty, competitiveness, aggression.” It’s why more inventions are made by men, and businesses started by men.     “You have to be a very ideologically dominated parent,” adds Mac Donald, “not to notice that there are differences between male and female children almost from the start, as far as levels of aggression, the types of toys they gravitate towards.” Some of this is not good for men. “Males have a greater predilection towards insanity, towards really stupid behavior. ... There’s obviously individual exceptions,” adds Mac Donald. “There’s highly aggressive, competitive females and highly nurturing, empathetic males ... But we’re talking averages. The average male, there’s a greater change that he’s going to be a risk taker and seeker of knowledge.” A recent study blames “unconscious bias in the selection process” for the lack of women in CEO positions. But Mac Donald says it’s not sexism that keeps women out of CEO roles. “Nobody’s keeping females out. They just aren’t interested. Google is desperate to hire more females. Nobody’s preventing females from doing an AI startup! ... They don’t have that same drive to stay up until 3:00 a.m., eating cold pizza, coding! That drive to conquer facts and data is disproportionately male.” Women, on the other hand, laughs Mac Donald, “They’re influencers! They’re talking about makeup (and) fashion.” Really? Is she saying women are less useful? “They are very useful for raising children,” she answers. She also notes that many women accomplish remarkable things. “George Elliot and Edith Wharton are great novelists,” says Mac Donald. “We’ve got great female composers, Fannie Mendelssohn, Cecile Chaminade, Amy Beach. I want to hear all of them, absolutely! But I am not going to try to tear down an institution because it is predominantly male.” One institution women have harmed, she says, is the university, because its civilizational mission has been compromised by women claiming victimhood. “The claims of ‘unsafety,’” she says, are hysterical neurosis. “You now have portraits of white male scientists being taken down because they might make female medical students feel unsafe.” She says pursuit of knowledge is under threat because women care less about free speech. One study did find 60 percent of women favor “inclusivity” over free speech, while 71 percent of men favor protecting free speech. “When you ask either (group), which do you value more? ... A vast majority of males choose the pursuit of truth, academic freedom, whatever the cost. The females favor emotional safety and equity.” “So what?” I push back. “Both are good qualities.” “No, they’re not!” she scolds me. “The university exists for the pursuit of truth.” Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Government Gone Wild: Exposing the Truth Behind the Headlines.”

Former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron -- the guy with that transparently ridiculous claim about their anti-Trump animus, "We're not at war, we're at work" -- was the featured leftist lecturer on the Post's job cuts on the February 4 PBS News Hour.  Anchor Geoff Bennett asked where it went wrong with Post owner Jeff Bezos, and Baron began with "I think that he became sort of detached in about 2019, when his marriage broke up, when Amazon was struggling later in 2020, when the -- Amazon was struggling with the pandemic and all the aspects of that." What? Bezos and Amazon made out like bandits in 2020 when everyone was staying in their homes and ordering everything in. The trend analysis continued:  ON PBS @NewsHour, former WashPost editor Marty Baron blamed the Post's job cuts on all their pro-Trump mistakes. They failed to endorse Kamala, they funded a Melania documentary. Bezos was on stage at Trump's inauguration. So their whole business model is keeping leftists happy. pic.twitter.com/6L9i1NC8bD — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) February 6, 2026 BARON: And then I think he really became -- took a real turn after it looked like Trump was going to be elected president yet again. And that was in 2024. And 11 days before the presidential election in 2024, they killed an editorial for -- that was endorsing Kamala Harris. He said the paper wouldn't endorse ever again for president. And hundreds of thousands of subscribers canceled at that time, aggravating the financial problems that they had. Subsequent to that, he did all sorts of things that made things even worse, appearing at the inauguration on the stage with Donald Trump, buying the Melania so-called documentary for an exorbitant price, buying the right -- Amazon buying the rights to The Apprentice. And Amazon had bought the rights to Melania's documentary as well. And then completely changing the opinion pages so that essentially they have no columnists who are really left of center. And they're very deferential to Trump. And I think they lack a moral core. And so all of that has driven subscribers away. And so for every subscriber that they get coming in through the front door because of the high-quality news coverage, I think they're losing maybe two subscribers out the back door. Of course, I don't know the numbers exactly, but clearly they have been losing a lot of subscribers. So the business model is apparently keeping your most fervently anti-Trump subscribers happy, the #Resistance subscribers.  Then Baron closed with more unintentional humor: "We are not stenographers and we should not be propagandists. And that is the role that The Washington Post has historically played, and that's the role that it should continue to play." When people think of the Post, they think of the scandal crusading of Watergate and Iran-Contra and Russian collusion. They haven't "historically" proven that they aren't more like stenographers when Democrats are in power.  PS: Baron was also featured as the expert with Steve Inskeep on NPR's Morning Edition.