Author: Noah Abraham

Trading surge hits markets minutes before Trump’s Iran announcement
S&P 500 futures and crude oil contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) at approximately 6:50 a.m. ET Monday—mere minutes before President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States and Iran had held “very good and productive conversations” toward resolving hostilities in the Middle East.
The timing has raised eyebrows across trading desks and prompted quiet scrutiny from market participants, even as the White House forcefully denies any impropriety.
According to Bloomberg data reviewed by multiple outlets, roughly 6,200 Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures contracts traded in a single minute around 6:50 a.m., representing a notional value of approximately $580 million.
At virtually the same instant, S&P 500 e-mini futures recorded an isolated burst of activity that stood out against an otherwise subdued pre-market session. Both oil and equity futures then moved dramatically once Trump’s post appeared at 7:05 a.m.

WTI crude plunged nearly 12% to around $83–$88 per barrel by the close, while Brent fell below $100 for the first time since early March. S&P 500 futures, by contrast, jumped more than 2.5% in the minutes following the announcement, reflecting investor relief that planned U.S. strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure had been postponed for five days.

The volume anomalies occurred during thin early-morning liquidity, when even modest order flow can create noticeable spikes. Still, veteran traders described the coordinated moves—aggressive selling or shorting of oil while buying equity futures—as unusually prescient.
“It’s hard to prove causality… but you have to wonder who would have been relatively aggressive at selling futures at that point, 15 minutes before Trump’s post,” one senior market strategist at a major U.S. broker told the Financial Times. Another hedge-fund portfolio manager with 25 years of experience called the pattern “really abnormal” for a quiet Monday morning with no scheduled data releases or Fed speakers.

The SEC and CME Group declined to comment. White House spokesperson Kush Desai rejected any suggestion of insider activity, stating: “The only focus of President Trump and Trump administration officials is doing what’s best for the American people… any implication that officials are engaged in such activity without evidence is baseless and irresponsible reporting.”
Markets React to De-Escalation — For Now
Trump’s Truth Social post described “productive conversations” with Iran and ordered the postponement of strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days, subject to continued talks. Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, quickly denied that any negotiations were underway, calling the claim “fake news” designed to manipulate oil and financial markets.

Oil prices, which had climbed aggressively in recent sessions on fears of supply disruption through the Strait of Hormuz, reversed sharply. WTI settled down roughly 10–12% at $83–$88 per barrel, while Brent dropped 11–13% to just under $100. European natural gas (TTF) also fell sharply.
The moves provided temporary relief to risk assets but highlighted how fragile sentiment remains. Morgan Stanley analysts warned that a sustained rise to $120 per barrel oil could shave 20–30 basis points off Asian GDP growth and force rate hikes in several emerging economies later this year.
A Pattern of Well-Timed Trades?
This is not the first instance of unusually prescient trading ahead of major Trump administration announcements in recent months. Hedge funds and energy consultants have privately noted several large block trades that appeared well-timed relative to official statements on Iran and Venezuela.
While such patterns are difficult to prove as improper without concrete evidence, they have generated “a level of frustration” among institutional investors, according to one portfolio manager.
Algorithmic and macro strategies can produce rapid cross-asset flows, especially in thin pre-market hours, but the scale and precision of Monday’s moves—selling oil and buying equities just before a de-escalation announcement—left many questioning whether non-public information circulated.
Political and Market Context
The episode unfolds against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension and domestic political pressure on the Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward Iran. While Trump framed the postponement as a sign of progress, critics argue the administration’s brinkmanship has already inflicted economic pain through elevated energy prices and market volatility.
For now, the market appears to be pricing in cautious optimism that a wider conflict can be avoided. Yet with Iran denying talks and both sides continuing information operations, the “fog of war” remains thick.
Investors would be wise to treat headline-driven moves with skepticism—especially when large, well-timed trades precede them.
March 23, 2026
Iranian missile strikes hit Israeli towns, causing panic and widespread damage
Sheltering from an Iranian missile attack on his town in southern Israel on Saturday, 17-year-old Ido Franky heard “terrifying” blasts like nothing he had experienced before.
An Iranian missile hit Franky’s town of Arad, hours after another struck Dimona — home to a nuclear facility — wounding dozens and leaving entire apartment blocks with heavy damage.
Franky rushed to shelter with his family as air raid sirens sounded, warning of an incoming attack.
“There was a ‘boom, boom!’, my mother was screaming,” he said near the impact site, where an Agence France-Presse correspondent saw three damaged buildings and firefighters reported a blaze.

“This was terrifying… this town had never seen anything like this,” the teenager told Agence France-Presse.
Israel’s Magen David Adom emergency medical service said 84 wounded people were taken to hospitals from the Arad scene, including 10 in serious condition.
In the early hours of Sunday, dozens of people were still at the site, taking photos or calling friends and family to share details of the destruction, even as police warned residents on loudspeakers not to approach.

Security forces patrolled the streets with flashlights while rescuers searched the rubble to ensure all casualties had been recovered.
A crater around of around five metres (16 feet) was left amid the bombed-out buildings.
Police spokesman Dean Elsdunne told AFP that “the operation will take a few hours” before authorities can clear the scene and ensure all residents are accounted for.
An earlier missile attack hit the town of Dimona, about 25 kilometres (16 miles) southwest of Arad.
Dimona hosts a facility widely believed to possess the Middle East’s sole nuclear arsenal, although Israel has never confirmed possessing nuclear weapons.
Israel has maintained a policy of ambiguity about its nuclear programme, and the plant officially focuses on research.
The missile fell about five kilometres away from the facility, leaving about 30 people wounded according to rescuers.
Online videos showed the missile engulfed in a ball of fire, crashing into the ground.
AFP footage showed heavy damage to an apartment building, next to a crater formed in the ground. Two structures have collapsed with debris including concrete blocks littering the area.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was “a very difficult evening in the battle for our future”.
“We are determined to continue striking our enemies on all fronts,” Netanyahu told Arad’s mayor, according to a statement from the prime minister’s office.

The strike on Dimona — home to a nuclear facility — wounded dozens and left entire apartment blocks with heavy damage. (Jorge NOVOMINSKY)
Military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin wrote on X that “air defence systems operated but did not intercept the missile, we will investigate the incident.”
Israeli media have shared footage from Arad and Dimona, capturing scenes that have replayed across the country in attacks since the war began on February 28 with US-Israeli air raids on Iran.
In security camera footage aired by Israeli networks, people could be seen being thrown to the ground by the force of the blast as glass windows shatter.
Iranian missile attacks since the start of the war have killed 15 people in Israel as well as four Palestinian women in the occupied West Bank.
While not the deadliest, Saturday’s hits on Dimona and Arad were among the Iranian attacks to have inflicted the greatest damage in Israel.
The launches came even as the United States and Israel keep pounding targets across Iran and say they have degraded the Islamic republic’s capabilities.
March 22, 2026
China positions itself as ‘Harbour of Stability’ to global CEOs amid U.S.–Iran tensions
China sought to woo global chief executives including Apple’s Tim Cook, UBS’s Sergio Ermotti and HSBC’s Georges Elhedery in Beijing on Sunday, touting the country’s safety and reliability in stark contrast to a US bogged down in war with Iran.
Premier Li Qiang told more than 70 chief executives gathered in the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse for the government’s annual Davos-style forum that the world’s second-largest economy offered an unmatched supply chain and a predictable commercial environment.
The country was committed to being a “cornerstone of certainty” and a “harbour of stability” in the face of rising trade protectionism and upheaval in the rules-based international order, said Li.
“China will unswervingly promote high-level opening up to the outside, import more high-quality foreign goods and work with all parties to promote the optimised and balanced development of trade, jointly expanding the global economic and trade pie,” he told the audience.
The conference, the China Development Forum, is held every year in late March after the meeting of the country’s rubber-stamp parliament. It acts as the leadership’s vehicle for pressing its talking points on global CEOs.
This year, Beijing is selling its latest five-year economic plan to 2030 as an opportunity for foreign investment.

“Li didn’t name America . . . but the message is clear that China is now safer, more reliable and stable, and more focused on economic development rather than conflicts,” said George Chen, a partner at the Asia Group consultancy who was present at the meeting.

The conference comes amid widening concern over China’s huge trade surplus, which hit a record $1.2tn last year. In Europe, there are worries that low-cost Chinese imports are eliminating jobs.

The five-year plan largely doubles down on China’s manufacturing-oriented high-tech industrial policy, raising fears of an even greater shock to western factories.

People’s Bank of China governor Pan Gongsheng defended the country’s exports in a speech on Sunday about global economic “rebalancing”.

Pan rejected the claim that China’s competitiveness was a result of government subsidies, attributing it to economic reforms, the size of its domestic market and the strength of its supply chains and research.

Without naming the US, he described some countries’ persistent trade deficits as being the result of “an international monetary system dominated by a single sovereign currency”.

Jeanine Pirro takes aim at the ruling by James Boasberg on Friday. (Reuters)
Other business leaders on the invitee list this year include Siemens’ Roland Busch, Volkswagen’s Oliver Blume, SK Hynix’s Kwak Noh-jung, Nestlé’s Philipp Navratil, Mercedes-Benz’s Ola Källenius, KKR’s Joseph Bae, Cargill’s Brian Sikes, Standard Chartered’s Bill Winters and Boston Consulting Group’s Christoph Schweizer.

US executives were well represented this year, accounting for 45 per cent of invitees, according to an analysis by Han Shen Lin of the Asia Group. Europeans made up 36 per cent with the remainder from Asia, Australia and elsewhere.

Financial services dominated, accounting for about 22 per cent of invitees, while those from the energy sector were only about 4 per cent.

Apple chief executive Cook delivered a speech after Li on opportunities in education and other areas in China.
Unlike in the previous two forums, President Xi Jinping is not expected to meet top executives this year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Asia Group’s Chen said Li’s speech was the most confident he had seen in recent years, though the premier refrained from directly criticising US President Donald Trump.

Trump, who recently postponed a meeting expected on April 1 with Xi in Beijing, is still widely expected to be planning a visit this year.

On Saturday evening, vice-premier He Lifeng, the economic tsar running trade negotiations with the US, held a dinner with a group of mostly European executives to tout the country’s five-year plan.

The executives mostly praised China and talked up their own companies, said one of the people present at the dinner, but there was some discussion of Chinese overcapacity and the risks for European industry.
March 21, 2026
Lawmakers Warn $30 Billion Welfare Program Is Vulnerable to Abuse
More than $30 billion in taxpayer-funded welfare money intended to help America’s poorest families has instead beeen used as a ‘slush fund’ – diverted into programs ranging from college scholarships to government budget backfills.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, known as TANF, was created nearly three decades ago to provide direct financial support and services to struggling families.
Today, the program distributes about $16.5 billion annually in federal funds, supplemented by roughly $15 billion in state contributions.
But federal auditors and analysts say the program’s structure, which gives states broad control over spending with limited reporting requirements, has made it difficult to track how billions of dollars are ultimately used.
States often use TANF money to finance programs with only indirect connections to helping poor families, said Hayden Dublois of the Foundation for Government Accountability. He described the system’s lack of oversight as ‘fraud by design.’
‘There are very little, if any, safeguards,’ Dublois told the Wall Street Journal.
He estimates that roughly one in five TANF dollars, or about $6 billion each year, is misspent.

Then President Bill Clinton prepares to sign legislation in the Rose Garden of the White House overhauling America’s welfare system on Aug. 22, 1996. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Despite the program’s size, fewer families now receive direct cash assistance than in previous decades.
Federal data shows that about 849,000 families received monthly TANF payments in fiscal year 2025, down from approximately 1.9 million families in 2010.
Instead, states have increasingly directed funds to contractors, nonprofits and other government programs.
Nick Gwyn, a policy expert with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the shift reflects a broader transformation in how the program operates.
‘The program has drifted away from the core purpose of supporting families with very little income,’ Gwyn told the WSJ.
Audits conducted in multiple states have uncovered persistent problems with oversight and financial reporting.
In Louisiana, auditors found in 2024 that state officials failed to verify required work participation hours tied to TANF eligibility – the 13th straight year auditors flagged the same issue.
The audit also found gaps in documentation showing how TANF funds were distributed to contractors.

Even though employment numbers are back up, many people are worse off now because the government is no longer providing the cushion it did in 2020 and 2021. Rick Bowmer/AP
Louisiana officials said they agreed with the findings and would improve oversight.
In Connecticut, auditors reported that the state did not adequately review financial reports from more than 130 subcontractors receiving $53.6 million in TANF funds, making it difficult to confirm whether the money was spent on approved purposes.
Connecticut officials said they would strengthen compliance procedures.
Auditors also identified oversight problems in Florida, underscoring how weaknesses in TANF spending controls extended across states regardless of political leadership.
In Oklahoma, state auditor Cindy Byrd said her office has similarly found weak documentation tracking TANF expenditures.
State and federal records show TANF money has been used for a wide range of programs critics say fall outside the program’s intended mission.
These include college scholarship programs benefiting students from middle-income families, payments to antiabortion pregnancy centers, and child welfare programs already supported by other federal funding sources.
In Michigan, more than $750 million in TANF funds were directed into scholarship programs between 2011 and 2024, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy.
In Texas, federal data shows the state spent about $251 million in TANF funds in fiscal year 2023 on foster care and child welfare programs, while just 1.9 percent of TANF spending went directly to basic assistance payments.
Ann Flagg, who oversaw TANF at the federal level during the Biden administration, said the program’s layered structure made it difficult for federal officials to monitor spending.
‘Knowing that there were so many layers between the activity on the ground and the federal perch, there were many, many instances, I am sure, that funds were used in crazy ways,’ Flagg said.
The biggest scandal involving TANF funds took place in Mississippi. The embezzlement scheme saw at least $77 million of taxpayers’ money go toward frivolous things instead of helping those in need in America’s poorest state, according to authorities.
Instead of helping the less fortunate, cash was splurged on a lavish home in Jackson, cars, paying off a non-profit leader’s speeding ticket, and funding a new $5 million volleyball stadium at Mississippi University, among other items, authorities said.
A total of seven people have pleaded guilty to state or federal charges related to the fraud case, but former WWE wrestler Ted DiBiase Jr decided to plead not guilty and stand trial.
Concerns about misuse of public welfare funds have been amplified by a series of major fraud scandals in Minnesota, where federal and state investigators uncovered schemes involving millions of taxpayer dollars intended for child care and food programs.
Trump’s fraud crackdown was ignited by issues in Minnesota, but the state’s cases are unrelated to TANF.
In one case dating back to the 2010s, authorities found the operators of several daycare centers billed the government for services that were never provided, with surveillance footage appearing to show parents briefly bringing children to facilities before leaving immediately.
Prosecutors later said the scheme allowed providers to collect reimbursement payments despite not delivering actual care, and several individuals pleaded guilty to felony theft by swindling.

More recently, federal authorities have investigated what they described as a vast fraud network involving federally funded child nutrition programs.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the bureau had ‘surged personnel and investigative resources to Minnesota’ to dismantle fraud schemes exploiting federal assistance programs.
Patel warned that such activity may represent ‘the tip of a very large iceberg,’ adding that ‘fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide.’
Federal watchdog agencies have also repeatedly warned about weaknesses in TANF oversight.
The Government Accountability Office found that audits in 37 states identified 162 deficiencies in financial oversight, including 56 considered severe.
The agency criticized what it described as ‘opaque accounting practices’ among groups receiving TANF funds.
The GAO has recommended since at least 2012 that Congress strengthen reporting requirements and expand federal oversight.
Those recommendations have not been enacted.

The ongoing fraud scandal in Minnesota dates back a decade as a 2015 video shows parents appearing to pretend to drop their children off at a phony daycare center
In testimony to Congress, GAO official Kathy Larin said states often use TANF funds precisely because of their flexibility.
‘States told us they use TANF because it’s more flexible and can cover costs not eligible’ under other federal programs, she said.
TANF was created in 1996 as part of sweeping welfare reform legislation signed by President Bill Clinton, who described the measure as ‘ending welfare as we know it.’
The reforms replaced an open-ended federal entitlement with block grants, giving states significant authority over spending decisions.
Supporters credited the program with reducing welfare dependency, but critics say the system created incentives for states to redirect funds away from direct aid.
Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who helped draft the legislation, said the program has drifted from its original goals.

TANF Trends and Its Oversight—Welfare Assistance Continues to Shift Away from Cash Assistance
‘Today all states are in de facto violation of the law’ because they aren’t spending all TANF funds on the intended purposes outlined in the original law, Rector said.
He added that both Republicans and Democrats share responsibility for failing to enforce stricter oversight.
The Trump administration has recently moved to freeze billions in federal welfare-related grants to several states over concerns about fraud and misuse, including funds tied to TANF.
Several states challenged the move in court, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze.
Despite growing scrutiny and repeated warnings from auditors and watchdog agencies, Congress has not enacted any comprehensive reforms.
February 8, 2026
How a $30 Billion Welfare Program Turned Into a ‘Slush Fund’ for States
When the Trump administration targeted billions of dollars in federal welfare funds recently over fraud concerns, it singled out five Democratic-run states.
An examination by The Wall Street Journal found that the main federal aid program the administration is seeking to block, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, has long been plagued by poor financial oversight and questionable spending in states led by both Republicans and Democrats.
Auditors in numerous states, including Connecticut, Louisiana and Florida, have uncovered problems with TANF—once America’s primary welfare program for low-income families. Created three decades ago, it comprises more than $30 billion.
TANF funds flow annually through block grants to states, which have wide latitude to spend them and minimal reporting requirements—a structure critics say hampers oversight. Meant to allow states to be creative in serving needy families, it has resulted in a shift: States now award most of the money to nonprofits, companies and their own state agencies. An average of about 849,000 families got direct cash aid each month in fiscal 2025, federal data shows, down from about 1.9 million in fiscal 2010.
Average number of families receiving direct TANF aid
Average number of families receiving direct TANF aid
Note: Monthly averages for fiscal years ending in September
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Audits have shown a range of problems, including states inaccurately reporting large expenditures and disbursing millions of dollars to contractors without tracking how the cash was spent. State and federal records show red and blue states alike have directed hundreds of millions of dollars to programs with tenuous—or no—connections to TANF’s goals.
Questionable expenditures have included college scholarships that benefited middle- or upper-income families, antiabortion centers, a volleyball stadium in Mississippi, and an Ohio job-training nonprofit where leaders and employees were later sentenced to prison after prosecutors said they used TANF money for vacations, real estate and salaries for people who didn’t work there.
Both conservative and liberal groups—and repeated reports from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s nonpartisan watchdog—say the federal government for years hasn’t paid enough attention to how states use the money.
Last year, the GAO identified 37 states where recent audits found 162 deficiencies in financial oversight, “56 of which were severe.” It criticized “opaque accounting practices” by many groups receiving TANF funds.
States often use TANF money as a “slush fund” to plug budget shortfalls and finance initiatives that don’t help poor people get jobs or strengthen families, said Hayden Dublois of the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability. He describes TANF’s lack of oversight as “fraud by design.”
“There are very little, if any, safeguards,” said Dublois, who estimates one in five TANF dollars, or about $6 billion, is misspent every year.
Ann Flagg, the top TANF official under then-President Joe Biden, said she and other officials tried to rein in questionable state spending through a proposed regulation change that would have limited how TANF dollars can be spent.
“Knowing that there were so many layers between the activity on the ground and the federal perch, there were many, many instances, I am sure, that funds were used in crazy ways,” she said.

Then President Bill Clinton prepares to sign legislation in the Rose Garden of the White House overhauling America’s welfare system on Aug. 22, 1996. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Trump has focused on fraud after a safety-net scandal in Minnesota, but those cases don’t involve TANF. The most prominent scandal involving TANF funds, at least $77 million, took place several years ago in Mississippi. The Trump administration in January signaled plans to extract a potentially hefty penalty from the state after earlier pausing a Biden administration effort to do so.
Reinventing welfare
Today’s TANF program was created during a fleeting moment of bipartisan cooperation 30 years ago. The GOP, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pushed for the welfare overhaul as part of the Republican “Contract with America.” Leaders of both parties hailed the program as giving more freedom to states, which knew their own needs better than anyone in Washington.
President Bill Clinton praised it for “ending welfare as we know it.”
States which receive TANF funds were given broad flexibility to disburse the money as they saw fit. Some observers point to successes, primarily a dramatic drop in welfare rolls, though critics say that was driven partly by onerous work requirements and not declining poverty rates.
TANF, overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, supplies $16.5 billion a year from the federal government, matched by about $15 billion in state funds. Nationwide, around 20% of impoverished families receive cash assistance, according to recent analyses. Time-limited maximum monthly payments for a family of three ranged from $204 in Arkansas to $1,370 in Minnesota in 2024.
“The program has drifted away from the core purpose of supporting families with very little income,” said Nick Gwyn, who studies TANF for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo
Audits and reports on the use of TANF funds have been have been limited in scope. But those conducted show state officials have often failed to track where the money goes or whether it is spent properly.
A Louisiana audit in 2024 found that state employees didn’t verify or document the hours worked by some TANF enrollees, a federal requirement. It was the 13th consecutive year that auditors had reported the same problem. The audit also said the state hadn’t accurately documented TANF distributions to contractors.

Louisiana said it concurred with the findings and would step up compliance.
In Connecticut, auditors said the state in 2024 didn’t sufficiently review the financial reports of 131 subcontractors who received $53.6 million in TANF funds, making it difficult to assess whether the money was being spent on “allowable activities.”
Connecticut promised to verify that contractors met their obligations.
Oklahoma Republican state auditor Cindy Byrd said her agency’s audits have found weak or nonexistent documentation showing how TANF funds have been spent.
The GAO recommended at least as early as 2012 that Congress tighten reporting requirements for TANF spending by states, and called on HHS to increase program auditing. No legislation was passed.

Oklahoma state auditor Cindy Byrd pointed to instances of weak or nonexistent TANF documentation.
In 2016, an HHS official testified before a House committee that limitations in federal law prevented the agency from estimating improper payments in TANF. “That doesn’t make any sense to me,” Republican Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama said at the time.
In a recent interview, Palmer said he supports mandating such reporting through legislation. “Just from fiscal responsibility, we have an obligation to do this,” he said. Several Democrats have pushed for legislation to monitor third-party TANF contractors.
Unlike with some other welfare programs, states don’t have to spend all their TANF money in a single year, and many have built up large surpluses. In times of fiscal pressure, such as the 2007-09 recession, many states used TANF funds for purposes that had little to do with the program’s original goals, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who helped draft the 1996 legislation that created the program.
He said as the number of welfare recipients dropped, states were supposed to direct funds to help poor parents get jobs and to strengthen families. Instead, states spent the money on unrelated programs, and the federal government didn’t intervene.
“Today all states are in de facto violation of the law” because they aren’t spending all TANF funds on the 1996 law’s goals, Rector said in an interview.
Rector said Democrats and Republicans are both to blame after the law was passed. Many Democrats didn’t want the reforms, and Republicans, after 1996, “told their base that they had ended welfare and just closed the book. I was flabbergasted,” he said.
Scholarships for rich kids
Missouri set aside several million dollars in TANF funds annually in recent years for its Alternatives to Abortion program, state records show. For this fiscal year, the state says it allocated about $12 million in TANF funds to 10 providers, including eight antiabortion pregnancy resource centers.
The program aligns with TANF’s aim of supporting needy families so children can be cared for at home, a Missouri state Department of Social Services spokeswoman said. During pregnancy and for a year after a child’s birth, low-income parents can access services such as counseling and parental education and get help with basic needs.
Abortion-rights supporters say using TANF for services limited to poor Missourians who commit to taking a pregnancy to term is a misuse of funds and intended to support a conservative agenda.
Some states spend large amounts of TANF dollars on child-welfare programs such as foster care, despite receiving dedicated funding for them from other sources, Kathy Larin, a GAO director, testified to Congress in April 2025. “States told us they use TANF because it’s more flexible and can cover costs not eligible” for reimbursement, she said.
Texas used about $251 million of its $884 million in TANF expenditures in fiscal year 2023 on child welfare and foster-care services and payments, according to federal data. The state used just 1.9% of its TANF dollars on basic assistance to needy families. Texas officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.
States use TANF for so many purposes that it raises the question of who is benefiting, the GAO’s Larin said. For example, she noted, one state has a “marriage promotion program, but they can’t assess whether the program improved marriage quality or duration.”
Several states have also used TANF money for programs available to people well above the poverty threshold.
Between 2011 and 2024, Michigan faced criticism for pumping more than $750 million in TANF funds into two college scholarship programs that aided many students from middle-income and even affluent families, according to the nonprofit Michigan League for Public Policy.
In November 2024, under Biden, the federal Administration for Children and Families, which oversees TANF, picked five states—California, Minnesota, Kentucky, Maine and Ohio—for a pilot program aimed at measuring outcomes of TANF spending to improve effectiveness.
Months later, the Trump administration canceled the pilots except in Ohio, and substituted in Arizona, Virginia, Iowa and Nebraska.
In April 2025, the GAO again called for Congress to require states to provide more data on TANF spending.

So far, Congress hasn’t acted on the proposal, and the Trump administration has taken no position on the issue.
The GOP’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” a tax-and-spending megabill passed in 2025, imposed various requirements on states’ spending of federal social-welfare funds, including stricter verifications for SNAP and Medicaid recipients. States can be penalized if error rates are too high. But the legislation didn’t address TANF.
Last month, the administration said it was freezing about $10.6 billion in child-care and family-assistance grants, much of it under TANF, to the Democratic-led states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York.
The states sued, and a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration’s effort. The federal agency that administers TANF declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
February 7, 2026
Kash Patel Slams FBI Use of Anti-Trump Sedition Hunters as Paid J6 Informants
he Biden-era FBI made more than $100,000 in payments to informants who were members of an anonymous group of tech sleuths known as the “Sedition Hunters” to gather and analyze video evidence in the January 6 Capitol riot — echoing the bureau’s reliance on paid FBI informant and British ex-spy Christopher Steele in 2016.
Just the News reported this week that the FBI made payments to a number of so-called “sedition hunters” as confidential human sources (CHS) as part of the January 6 Capitol riot and Arctic Frost probes despite the online network’s significant anti-Trump pronouncements and known ties to foreigners.
The payments are due to be disclosed by FBI Director Kash Patel to Congress along with acknowledged concerns that the Christopher Wray-run bureau’s approval of certain members of the Sedition Hunters as confidential human sources may have violated bureau policies concerning informant bias, informant secrecy, foreign influence, and contracting transparency, officials said.
Reminiscent of the ill-fated “Crossfire Hurricane” lawfare campaign
The revelations of source payments are certain to revive FBI concerns among Republicans that date back to the now-discredited Crossfire Hurricane probe, where agents used Steele as a CHS to pursue unsubstantiated allegations of Trump colluding with Russia. This was despite Steele’s foreign connections, his clear anti-Trump bias, and his work as a contractor for the campaign law firm of Trump’s main 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton. Wray had promised significant reforms in the wake of the 2016 debacle at the bureau.
Steele was eventually terminated in November 2016 as an FBI informant for violating his confidentiality requirements as a confidential human source, disclosing his role with the bureau, and making unauthorized disclosures to the media.
Government officials said a half decade later, the bureau may have entered into another troubling relationship by treating members of the Sedition Hunters as informants in a new Trump probe when, in fact, they were essentially performing computer analysis contract work identifying January 6 defendants around the Capitol and clearly expressed dislike for Trump.
FBI burned by decision to deploy the Steele Dossier against Trump
DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz uncovered huge flaws with the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation in a December 2019 report, finding at least 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to the FISA warrants targeting former Trump campaign associate Carter Page. Horowitz also criticized the “central and essential” role of Steele’s debunked dossier in the FBI’s politicized FISA surveillance. Steele, a years-long FBI CHS, had been hired by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was being paid by Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias. Elias was later fined for “misleading” filings to the court in his advocacy for Democratic Party candidates.
The DOJ watchdog also said Steele’s alleged main source — Russian national Igor Danchenko — “contradicted the allegations of a ‘well-developed conspiracy’ in” Steele’s dossier. Danchenko was made an FBI CHS for years after 2016, up until his indictment by now-former special counsel John Durham.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Horowitz’s report noted that Steele’s FBI interview “highlighted discrepancies between Steele’s presentation of information in the election reporting and the views of his Primary Sub-source” — Danchenko — and “revealed bias against Trump.”
Stefan Halper was a Pentagon consultant and academic, and he, along with Steele, was used as a CHS by bureau agents to build the politicized Crossfire Hurricane case against Trump and his advisers during the end of the 2016 election and the beginning of Trump’s first term in office.
Wray repeatedly promised serious CHS reform inside the bureau
Horowitz wrote in a November 2019 report that “the FBI’s vetting process for CHSs, known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney General Guidelines.”
“We also found deficiencies in the FBl’s long-term CHS validation reports which are relied upon by FBI and Department of Justice officials in determining the continued use of a CHS,” the DOJ watchdog said. “Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.”
Wray quickly spoke with the press after the release of the December 2019 report, with the Associated Press writing that “Wray said the FBI would make changes to how it handles confidential informants.”
He also sent a letter to Horowitz that month where he assured the DOJ inspector general that the FBI was fixing its CHS process.
“We are making significant changes to how the FBI manages its Confidential Human Source Program. Many FBI investigations rely on human sources, but the investigative value derived from CHS-provided information rests in part on the CHS’s credibility, which demands rigorous assessment of the source,” the now-former FBI chief wrote. “The modifications we are making to how the FBI collects, documents, and shares information about CHSs will strengthen our assessment of the information these sources are providing.”
Wray also sent a letter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in January 2020, where he laid out further plans to reform the bureau’s handling of informants.
The now-former FBI director said that one “FISA-related Corrective Action I have directed will require that all information known at the time of a FISA request and bearing on the reliability of a CHS whose information is used to support the FISA application is captured as part of the FISA Request Form and verified by the CHS handler.”
Wray said that “in coordination with the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence, the working group is developing a new CHS Questionnaire, which will be used as an addendum to the FISA Request Form, identifying the categories of source information (e.g., payment information, criminal history) that [the Office of Intelligence] should be informed of when preparing FISA applications that rely on CHS reporting. Completion of this Corrective Action will require consultation with external partners, finalization of the CHS Questionnaire, and the training of FBI personnel.”
Wray also insisted to the Senate in March 2021 that the FBI was fixing its CHS process.
“We accepted all of the findings and recommendations in the Inspector General’s report. I ordered, at the time, over 40 corrective actions to go above and beyond the recommendations of the inspector general’s report, and those have been implemented,” he said. “Those include everything from strengthening our procedures to ensure accuracy and completeness, to make sure the court gets all the information it’s supposed to, changes in our protocols for CHS, confidential human sources, training changes.”
Steele and Danchenko exemplified the politicized nature of FBI’s lawfare
The FBI used Steele’s discredited dossier to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants and renewals targeting Trump campaign associate Carter Page, and fired FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe pushed to include the dossier’s baseless collusion allegations in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election meddling in the 2016 election.
During all this, the FBI concealed the extent of Steele’s anti-Trump biases from the FISA Court. Just the News revealed last year that a declassified House Intelligence report showed the Steele Dossier was directly cited in the highly classified version of the ICA on Russian meddling.
Horowitz wrote in 2019 that “the FBI was aware of the potential for political bias in the Steele election reporting from the outset of obtaining it.”

Ex-DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who served as a conduit between Steele and the FBI even after the former MI6 agent was cut off as a confidential human source, told the bureau by late November 2016 that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. president.” The DOJ watchdog noted that during a 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele described Trump as his “main opponent” and that an FBI analyst said this was “clear bias.”
FBI analyst Brian Auten, who interviewed Steele’s alleged main source, Russian lawyer Igor Danchenko, in early 2017 and was there when the Justice Department set up a partial immunity agreement with Danchenko, was among the FBI employees who interviewed Steele in Rome in early October 2016 as the FBI sought more details on the dossier. Auten revealed in court that the FBI had offered Steele an incentive of up to $1 million if he could prove the allegations of collusion in his dossier and if the evidence led to prosecutions, but Auten said the former MI6 agent was unable to corroborate any of his dossier claims.
FBI notes of a January 2017 interview with Danchenko showed he told the bureau he “did not know the origins” of some Steele claims and “did not recall” other dossier information. Nevertheless, Danchenko was put on the FBI’s payroll as a confidential human source from March 2017 to October 2020 before he was charged in November 2021 with five counts of making false statements to the bureau. The FBI agent assigned to be the handler for Danchenko testified that he sought to have the bureau pay Danchenko more than $500,000.
Danchenko was found not guilty at trial.
FBI failed to scrutinize Steele until after dossier deployed
Just the News also revealed in 2025 that declassified records released last year also included a “Human Source Validation Report” (HSVR) by the FBI’s Validation Management Unit (VMU) related to Steele.
The VMU assessed in 2017 that the bureau had only “medium confidence” that Steele had contributed to the FBI’s criminal program, in part because “Steele’s reporting has been minimally corroborated.” The unit said that, despite Steele working for the bureau for years, including on the high-profile Trump-Russia collusion investigation, “this is the first HSVR completed on Steele.”
The FBI unit said that, in addition to baseless collusion claims, Steele had provided the bureau with information on a bribery scandal related to FIFA and Russia, a cyberattack from China, and “Weapons of Mass Destruction issues.”
The VMU also claimed that “during Steele’s operation, VMU found no issues regarding his or her reliability” and that “VMU did not locate any information to suggest Steele fabricated information during the operation.”
Yet declassified footnotes from Horowitz’s report showed that “a 2015 report concerning oligarchs written by the FBI’s Transnational Organized Crime Intelligence Unit (TOCIU) noted that from January through May 2015, ten Eurasian oligarchs sought meetings with the FBI, and five of these had their intermediaries contact Steele.” The TOCIU report “noted that Steele’s contact with five Russian oligarchs in a short period of time was unusual and recommended that a validation review be completed on Steele because of this activity,” Horowitz said.
According to Horowitz, the FBI’s Validation Management Unit “did not perform such an assessment on Steele until early 2017” — well after the bureau had deployed the dossier in the FISA court and in the 2017 intelligence community assessment on alleged Russian meddling in the election.

The Horowitz report’s declassified footnotes also said that some of the Steele dossier’s claims about now-former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen were “part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.” The footnote also added that a U.S. intelligence community report concluded that the Steele dossier’s baseless and salacious claims about Trump at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow were the result of Russian intelligence who “infiltrate[d] a source into the network” managed by Steele.
Steele and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence, worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in 2016, allegedly helping recover millions of dollars the Russian oligarch claimed Paul Manafort had stolen from him. Steele sought help in this anti-Trump research effort from Fusion GPS, the founders of the company wrote, and Fusion GPS hired Steele soon after.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2020 report assessed that “the Russian government coordinates with and directs Deripaska on many of his influence operations.” The report found “multiple links between Steele and Deripaska” and “indications that Deripaska had early knowledge of Steele’s work” and said Steele’s relationship with Deripaska “provid[ed] a potential direct channel for Russian influence on the dossier.”
Being an FBI informant was lucrative for Russiagate figure Stefan Halper
Just the News also reported last year that declassified documents show that Stefan Halper, a key FBI informant in the widely-debunked Russia collusion case, was paid nearly $1.2 million over three decades and was motivated in part by “monetary compensation” — and that he continued snitching for the bureau even after agents concluded he told them an inaccurate story about future Trump National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
FBI agents ultimately deemed Halper’s accounts to be “not plausible” and “not accurate”, but the bureau proceeded to investigate Flynn, kept paying Halper and continued to vouch for his veracity as a confidential human source codenamed “Mitch,” the memos show. A March 2017 memo showed the FBI’s Validation Management Unit (VMU) wrote that it “assesses it is likely HALPER is suitable for continued operation, based on his or her authenticity, reliability, and control.”
The VMU’s review from May 2013 to March 2017 recommended that the FBI continue using Halper as a source despite FBI agents working the Flynn case determining that he had provided them incorrect information. Nonetheless, the bureau unit also contended that “during the period of review, VMU found no derogatory issues regarding MITCH’s reliability” despite later admitting that “VMU notes there is no corroboration concerning MITCH’s reporting. Due to the singular nature of his or her access, VMU was unable to locate corroboration concerning MITCH’s reporting.”
That memo made no mention in its unredacted portions of the concerns about the account Halper gave about Flynn and Lokhova, which were confirmed in a memo from William Barnett, the FBI agent who handled the retired Flynn’s case in 2016 and 2017.
Patel: “A stunning abuse of bureau authorities”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has continued to push for more answers related to the presence of FBI confidential informants during the Capitol riot.
It is likely that the revelations by Just the News related to the FBI’s use of paid “Sedition Hunter” informants to provide assistance in identifying January 6-related suspects will lead to further scrutiny of the bureau’s CHS program.
“The American people deserve the truth about how the FBI was weaponized against them. Paying openly anti-Trump activists to identify Americans using questionable technology is a stunning abuse of bureau authorities and a clear violation of longstanding informant rules,” Patel said in a statement to Just the News on Tuesday.
“Under my leadership, the FBI will fully disclose these actions to Congress and ensure the bureau never again serves partisan or political ends instead of the Constitution,” the FBI chief added.
January 24, 2026
The images of starvation in Gaza are deeply misleading
The New York Times’ July 25 front page showing a picture captioned: “Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, about 18 months, with his mother, Hedaya al-Mutawaq, who said he was born healthy but recently diagnozed with severe malnutrition. A doctor said the number children dying of malnutrition in Gaza had risen sharply.” On July 30, the paper acknowledged that Mohammed “had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and his muscle development.”
It’s one of the most emotionally searing images circulated in recent months: a malnourished child behind a fence, desperate eyes piercing through the camera lens, with a woman stretching out a bowl for food. It’s been published by international media, invoked by politicians, and shared by millions online. It has come to symbolize, for many, the reported famine in Gaza.
But there’s just one problem. The photo’s origin and context are hotly disputed — and increasingly, experts say, deliberately manipulated.
Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his 3.4 million followers on X:
“There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza.”
There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza, and I assure you that we have a commitment to achieve our war goals.
We will continue to fight till we achieve the release of our hostages and the destruction of Hamas' military and governing capabilities. They… pic.twitter.com/cND0ZoejgJ
— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) July 28, 2025

His remarks unleashed a digital firestorm. Former President Donald Trump broke ranks with his usual ally and responded:
“There is real starvation in Gaza. You can’t fake that.”

This rare division between two strong allies laid bare the intensifying war not just over territory, but over information — a propaganda war playing out across social media, newsrooms, and governments.
Hamas’s Propaganda Machinery and Media Blindness
Many analysts and security experts argue that Hamas is adept at exploiting global sympathy through carefully staged imagery. Images of skeletal children, overwhelmed hospitals, and food queues are frequently disseminated, often with little journalistic scrutiny.
Take, for instance, the viral image of a girl at a community kitchen. On X (formerly Twitter), thousands of users — aided by Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok — claimed the photo was from 2014, portraying a Yazidi girl fleeing ISIS in Iraq.
Claims on social media said this photo was taken in 2014 in Iraq or Syria. In fact it was taken in Gaza City, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday, July 26, 2025, showing Palestinians struggle to get donated food at a community kitchen. © AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana
Grok responded:
“Yes, the photo is from August 2014… on Mount Sinjar in Iraq.”
Citing Reuters, it labeled the image a case of repurposed content.
A girl from the minority Yazidi sect, fleeing the violence in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, rests at the Iraqi-Syrian border crossing in Fishkhabour, Dohuk province on August 13, 2014. © Youssef Boudlal—REUTERS
But BBC Verify journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh debunked that claim. He identified the photo’s true source:
“The image is from Gaza, taken on July 26, 2025, by AP photographer Abdel Kareem Hana.”
Reverse image tools like TinEye confirmed the original publication date and location. Grok was simply wrong.
As Sardarizadeh noted:
“AI chatbots, including Grok, are not fact-checking tools and should not be used for that purpose, particularly in relation to breaking and developing events.”
Still, damage was done. The manipulated claim was spread, repeated, and believed by many — a clear example of how quickly misinformation can overshadow the truth.
The Case of Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq
The New York Times’ July 25 front page showing a picture captioned: “Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, about 18 months, with his mother, Hedaya al-Mutawaq, who said he was born healthy but recently diagnozed with severe malnutrition. A doctor said the number children dying of malnutrition in Gaza had risen sharply.” On July 30, the paper acknowledged that Mohammed “had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and his muscle development.”
Another image that shocked global audiences was that of 18-month-old Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq. Published by The New York Times in a piece titled “Gazans Are Dying of Starvation”, the toddler was described as emaciated, with his father reportedly killed while searching for food.
“As an adult, I can bear the hunger, but my kids can’t,” his mother was quoted.
But investigative journalist David Collier quickly raised flags. He cited medical records showing Mohammed suffered from severe genetic disorders since birth and had required special supplements even before the war began.
In response, The New York Times issued an editor’s note:
“We have since learned new information… and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems.”
We have appended an Editors' Note to a story about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza who was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. After publication, The Times learned that he also had pre-existing health problems. Read more below. pic.twitter.com/KGxP3b3Q2B
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) July 29, 2025

They noted that while Mohammed’s condition had worsened due to the lack of medical care, his malnutrition was compounded, not caused, by the current war.
To critics, the update wasn’t enough.
“So you guys lied, got called out, and issued a complete non-apology,” one user posted on X.
On Wednesday, a UN-backed food security task force warned that famine “is currently playing out” in Gaza. Their analysis said Gaza City had crossed famine thresholds for food consumption and acute malnutrition.
The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reports 154 deaths from hunger since October 2023 — including 89 children. However, critics question the credibility of the ministry’s figures, noting its alignment with Hamas and history of inflated or unverifiable statistics.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the situation “a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.” Human rights organizations, including Israel-based B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, claim Israel is committing genocide through starvation, mass displacement, and bombings.
Yet at the same time, The New York Times also recently reported Israeli military officials denying Hamas’s alleged theft of UN aid — suggesting the crisis may be more due to distribution chaos, logistical breakdowns, and internal Hamas mismanagement than direct Israeli policy.
A Media Reckoning Is Overdue
The Western media’s responsibility in this tragedy cannot be ignored. In the rush to file emotionally evocative stories, due diligence has often been sacrificed. As the New York Budgets Editorial Standards outline: verifying visual content, especially in wartime, is not optional — it is essential.
“Every journalist must ask: Who took this photo? Where? When? Under what conditions?”
Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated it will exploit suffering for propaganda. That doesn’t mean suffering isn’t real — but it does mean every claim must be thoroughly scrutinized. Too often, however, global outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Stuff have published without confirmation, only issuing updates days later.
Starvation in Gaza may well be occurring. Humanitarian groups have sounded the alarm. But in a media landscape rife with misinformation, every image, every anecdote must be questioned — not to deny suffering, but to preserve the truth.
Because when lies masquerade as evidence, the real victims — whether Palestinian civilians or the truth itself — are the ones who suffer the most.
July 30, 2025