Tag: United States

Lindsey Vonn Crashes in Olympic Downhill, Airlifted as U.S. Teammate Wins Gold
Lindsey Vonn, racing on a badly injured left knee, crashed early in the Olympic downhill on Sunday and was taken off the course by a helicopter after the 41-year-old American received medical attention on the snow for long, anguished minutes.
Vonn lost control over the opening traverse after cutting the line too tight and was spun around in the air. She was heard screaming out after the crash as she was surrounded by medical personnel before she was strapped to a gurney and flown away by a helicopter, possibly ending the skier’s storied career. Her condition was not immediately known, with the U.S. Ski Team saying simply she would be evaluated.
Breezy Johnson, Vonn’s teammate, won gold and became only the second American woman to win the Olympic downhill after Vonn did it 16 years ago. The 30-year-old Johnson held off Emma Aicher of Germany and Italy’s Sofia Goggia on a bittersweet day for Team USA.
Vonn had family in the stands, including her father, Alan Kildow, who stared down at the ground while his daughter was being treated after just 13 seconds on the course. Others in the crowd, including rapper Snoop Dogg, watched quietly as the star skier was finally taken off the course she knows so well and holds a record 12 World Cup wins.
Vonn’s crash was “tragic, but it’s ski racing,” said Johan Eliasch, president of the International Ski and Snowboard Federation.
“I can only say thank you for what she has done for our sport,” he said, “because this race has been the talk of the games and it’s put our sport in the best possible light.”

All eyes had been on Vonn, the feel-good story heading into the Olympics. She had returned to elite ski racing last season after nearly six years, a remarkable decision given her age but she also had a partial titanium knee replacement in her right knee, too. Many wondered how she would fare as she sought a gold medal to join the one she won in the downhill at the 2010 Vancouver Games.
The four-time overall World Cup champion stunned everyone by being a contender almost immediately. She came to the Olympics as the leader in the World Cup downhill standings and was a gold-medal favorite before her crash in Switzerland nine days ago, when she suffered her latest knee injury. In addition to a ruptured ACL, she also had a bone bruise and meniscus damage.
Still, no one counted her out even then. In truth, she has skied through injuries for three decades at the top of the sport. In 2006, ahead of the Turin Olympics, Vonn took a bad fall during downhill training and went to the hospital. She competed less than 48 hours later, racing in all four events she’d planned, with a top result of seventh in the super-G.
“It’s definitely weird,” she said then, “going from the hospital bed to the start gate.”
Cortina has always had many treasured memories for Vonn beyond the record wins. She is called the queen of Cortina, and the Olympia delle Tofana is a course that had always suited Vonn. She tested out the knee twice in downhill training runs over the past three days before the awful crash on Sunday in clear, sunny conditions.
“This would be the best comeback I’ve done so far,” Vonn said before the race. “Definitely the most dramatic.”
After the crash, the celebration for the medalists was held and fellow skiers thought about Vonn’s legacy.
“She has been my idol since I started watching ski racing,” said Kajsa Vickhoff Lie of Norway. “We still have a World Cup to do after Olympics. … I wouldn’t be surprised if she suddenly shows up on the start gate, but the crash didn’t look good.”
February 9, 2026
Trump Leaves Republicans Uncertain as Midterm Outlook Grows Bleak
As the midterm elections draw closer, Republican strategists and candidates are growing increasingly frustrated with what they see as a lack of clear direction from President Donald Trump and his administration. With polls showing a darkening outlook for Republican prospects in November, many in the party are privately expressing concern about the mixed signals coming from the White House and what they perceive as a failure to deliver on core “America First” promises.
According to sources close to the White House, Trump’s approach to the midterms has been inconsistent at best. “Some days the president seems not to care,” one official told The Washington Post. “Republicans looking to the White House to lead in the face of the party’s dimming prospects for November’s midterms are facing a crucial hang-up: the president.”
This uncertainty comes at a critical time, with Republicans defending a narrow House majority and facing competitive Senate races in multiple states. The Cook Political Report rates 14 Republican-held House seats as toss-ups, while Democrats are defending only four. In January, Cook shifted 18 seats in the Democrats’ favor.
Broken Promises on Core Conservative Priorities
Beyond the strategic confusion, many grassroots conservatives are expressing disappointment with the Trump administration’s failure to deliver on key campaign promises that formed the foundation of the “America First” movement.
Immigration enforcement remains a major point of contention. Despite promises of “mass deportations,” ICE operations have focused primarily on what officials describe as the “worst of the worst” criminal aliens. This narrow approach has drawn criticism from conservative commentators who argue that illegal immigration is principally a crisis of quantity rather than quality.
“Systems buckle under the weight of accumulated foreign populations long before any immigrant commits a headline-grabbing felony,” notes an analysis in The American Conservative. “At mass levels, illegal immigration suppresses wages for American workers, especially those without college degrees, overwhelms schools and hospitals, and expands welfare systems quietly and permanently.”
The administration has also failed to address concerns about H1B visa programs, which critics argue displace American workers in high-tech fields. Despite campaign rhetoric about putting American workers first, the Trump administration has maintained and in some cases expanded these programs, drawing criticism from conservative immigration restrictionists.
Foreign policy continues to prioritize Israel over American interests. Trump’s approach to the Middle East has drawn particular criticism from conservatives who argue that his policies represent a continuation of the “Israel First” approach of previous administrations rather than the “America First” approach he promised.
The United States continues to provide billions in military aid to Israel annually, with Congress recently approving another $3.3 billion installment as part of the current ten-year, $38 billion Memorandum of Agreement. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Israel is by far the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in history, having received some $300 billion since its founding.
“It not only siphons off aid from much needed renewal at home, but forces Washington to aid and abet another country’s foreign policy, which is increasingly counterproductive and contrary to our own politics and values,” argues The American Conservative. “The region is not safer, and moreover, it has not allowed for the United States to reduce its military footprint as guarantor of security there.”
Even some Republican lawmakers have begun to speak out against this arrangement. “Nothing can justify the number of civilian casualties (tens of thousands of women and children) inflicted by Israel in Gaza in the last two years. We should end all U.S. military aid to Israel now,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) last year.

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
War with Iran looms on the horizon despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about avoiding “dumb wars,” his administration appears to be moving toward another military confrontation in the Middle East, this time with Iran. The president has reportedly given Iranian authorities an ultimatum that includes not only ending their nuclear program but also stopping production of missiles that can reach Israel and ending support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.
“Trump faces a clear choice: Launch another war for Israel or make peace for America,” argues The American Conservative. “His choice is a test case for commentators trying to make sense of this administration: Does Trump’s Iran policy serve America or a foreign nation?”
Critics point out that these demands are essentially impossible for Iran to accept. “What good is a missile deterrent if it has to be short of the range that can hit the country that’s threatening you?” asked antiwar commentator Scott Horton in an interview with The American Conservative. “And it’s just such an unreasonable demand on its face.”
Demographic Concerns Mount
Beyond specific policy disappointments, many conservatives are expressing alarm about ongoing demographic changes that they believe threaten the future of America as a majority-white, Christian nation.
New census projections confirm that the United States will become “minority white” in 2045, with whites comprising just 49.7 percent of the population compared to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.9 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations.
The shift is already evident among younger Americans. “For youth under 18—the post-millennial population—minorities will outnumber whites in 2020,” notes a Brookings Institution analysis. “For those age 18-29—members of the younger labor force and voting age populations—the tipping point will occur in 2027.”
These demographic changes are not occurring evenly across the country. According to the latest Census Bureau data, nine states saw declines in their white populations: Alaska, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Vermont.
“The major implication is the major change that is taking place in the U.S. population with respect to its race and ethnic structure,” Rogelio Saenz, a professor in the department of sociology and demography at the University of Texas in San Antonio, told Newsweek. “The Census Bureau has projected that in 2044 the nation would be majority minority, or more non-white than white in the in the population, and I think that that these patterns are well afoot. We’re getting closer to that reality.”
Economic Discontent Grows
Compounding these concerns is growing dissatisfaction with the state of the U.S. economy. Despite Trump’s promises to “supercharge” the economy and “make life more affordable for all Americans,” many working and middle-class families continue to struggle with stagnant wages, rising inflation, and an increasingly unaffordable housing market.
The housing market, in particular, has become a source of frustration for many Americans. Home prices have continued to rise faster than incomes, putting homeownership out of reach for an increasing number of families. At the same time, rental costs have skyrocketed in many markets, consuming an ever-larger portion of household incomes.
These economic pressures come at a time when many Americans are already feeling financially insecure due to the ongoing pandemic and its economic aftermath. Despite promises of a “V-shaped recovery,” many sectors of the economy continue to struggle, and millions of Americans remain unemployed or underemployed.
Trump’s Midterm Strategy Remains Unclear
Against this backdrop of policy disappointments and growing discontent, Trump’s approach to the midterm elections remains unclear. The president has reportedly amassed a war chest of more than $300 million through his main super PAC, MAGA Inc., but has not approved a spending plan for how those funds will be deployed.
“People who have spoken with Trump about these obstacles said he at times can sound detached and noncommittal about his plans for spending and endorsements,” reports The Washington Post. “One person close to the White House said some days the president seems not to care.”
This uncertainty has created particular problems in key Senate races. In Texas, for example, Trump has yet to endorse incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, creating a costly primary battle against state Attorney General Ken Paxton. National Republican strategists view Paxton as weaker in the general election, with one memo estimating that holding the seat with Paxton as the nominee would cost an additional $100 million.
“Texas cannot be taken for granted,” the memo warned, presenting internal polling that puts Cornyn ahead of Democratic candidates and Paxton behind them.
Similar situations are playing out in other states, including Georgia, where multiple Republican candidates are challenging Democrat Jon Ossoff, and Louisiana, where Trump has endorsed a challenger to incumbent Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy.
“Senate Republicans including [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune have been frustrated by Trump’s treatment of Senate incumbents,” reports The Washington Post. “Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina declined to run for reelection in the battleground state after feuding with Trump over Medicaid cuts in the president’s 2025 tax cuts and spending package.”
White House Promises Increased Engagement
White House officials insist that Trump is preparing to become more involved in the midterm campaign. “A White House official said Trump is excited to get more engaged in midterm strategy and looking forward to increasing his travel this month, including a campaign-style event outside of Washington this week,” according to The Washington Post.
The president’s political team, led by White House adviser James Blair, campaign strategist Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio, recently met in Palm Beach, Florida, to review research from every competitive race and develop estimates for what Republicans will have to spend to win. The team also briefed a retreat of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.
“An Oval Office meeting to go over a handful of House endorsements Wednesday night turned into a five-hour gabfest on the midterms, according to two people present,” reports The Washington Post. “Trump said he wants to defy the tendency of the president’s party losing seats in Congress in the midterms, one of the people said. ‘We’ll spend whatever it takes,’ the person recalled Trump saying. ‘Go get it done.’”
The White House has also encouraged Cabinet secretaries to minimize foreign trips
February 9, 2026
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie Takes On Trump in High-Stakes Political Fight
Maysville, KY – In the heart of conservative America, where loyalty to President Donald Trump runs as deep as the Ohio River, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is mounting a principled stand that’s testing the boundaries of GOP unity. The 55-year-old engineer-turned-congressman, known for his off-the-grid farm life and unwavering commitment to fiscal conservatism, is locked in his toughest reelection battle yet—against a Trump-endorsed challenger in Kentucky’s ruby-red 4th District. Massie’s clashes with the White House, from forcing the release of Jeffrey Epstein files to blocking bloated spending bills, embody the tension between party loyalty and conservative ideals like limited government and accountability.
From a pro-conservative viewpoint, Massie’s defiance isn’t rebellion; it’s a return to core Republican principles—deficit hawks like him are the guardians against Washington excess, ensuring Trump’s “America First” agenda doesn’t devolve into unchecked big-government spending. In an era where the GOP holds a razor-thin House majority, Massie’s independent streak has frustrated leadership, but his supporters argue it’s exactly what the party needs: lawmakers who prioritize the Constitution over convenience.
At a recent GOP dinner in Maysville, a quaint river town of 9,000, Massie laid out his case to about 100 attendees. “A congressman, unlike a soldier, does not work for the commander in chief,” he declared, drawing a line between military obedience and legislative independence. Trump, who has branded Massie a “real loser,” recruited retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein to unseat him, with super PACs aligned with Trump’s 2024 campaign advisors pouring in over $1 million in attack ads. “He’s got a problem for every solution,” Gallrein quipped, positioning himself as a steadfast Trump ally ready to “stand shoulder to shoulder” with the president.
Massie’s biggest flashpoint with Trump came last year over the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bipartisan bill he co-led with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that compelled the Justice Department to release 3 million documents on the late sex offender’s scandals. “This scandal, what’s fully uncovered, is bigger than Watergate,” Massie told the Maysville crowd, earning cheers. The White House initially opposed it, with Trump dismissing Epstein inquiries as a “hoax.” But Massie, joining Democrats and a few Republicans, forced a vote—the bill passed overwhelmingly, and Trump signed it. Conservatives hail this as a victory for transparency, exposing potential elite corruption without regard for party lines.
Trump’s grudge traces back to 2020, when Massie delayed a $2 trillion COVID relief package he deemed fiscally reckless, forcing lawmakers back to D.C. Trump blasted him as a “third rate Grandstander,” but Massie cruised to reelection with 81% in the primary. Tensions reignited last year over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a massive tax-and-spending package. Massie, one of two Republicans to vote against it, cited deficit concerns—echoing conservative alarms over ballooning national debt. He also bucked the party by joining Democrats to curb Trump’s military actions in Venezuela, arguing they lacked congressional authorization.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair criticized Massie for blocking priorities like border funding: “The voters will retire Massie from Congress because they agree with President Trump and disagree with Massie and the Radical Left Democrats.” Massie counters that he’s no leftist—he’s a fiscal purist, living off-grid on his Kentucky farm, advocating for limited government. “If you want a rubber stamp, you’ve got an option this year,” he told Maysville voters. “But if you want somebody who will go up there and try to make the best decision … then I’m your guy.”
The May 19 primary will gauge Trump’s sway in a district he won overwhelmingly. Trump allies vow unlimited spending—Massie estimates $20 million—while his campaign could hit $4 million, fueled by record fundraising. Gallrein outraised Massie in recent reports, but local sentiment is mixed. “He’s not a team player,” said Republican Wayne Helton, 82. But independent Gary Steeley, 50, praised Massie’s 90% Republican voting record. Even skeptic Tim Dever, 60, shifted after Massie’s speech: “Now the word RINO doesn’t come to mind.”
Massie’s survival could inspire other conservatives like ally Marjorie Taylor Greene, who recently left the House amid similar frictions. A loss would reinforce Trump’s dominance, as seen with ousted figures like Liz Cheney. But victories by independents like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Rep. Dan Newhouse show defiance can pay off. In Kentucky, with its history of reelecting mavericks like Sen. Rand Paul, Massie bets on voters valuing principle over party purity.
A private deal last year highlights the rift: Massie claims he offered to help advance Trump’s bill without voting for it, in exchange for halting attack ads—a pact sealed in a call with Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). The bill advanced, but ads continued. “I thought we had a deal,” Massie recalled telling Johnson, who reportedly agreed. The White House and Trump’s team dismiss this, with strategist Chris LaCivita accusing Massie of “betraying his constituents by siding with radical leftists.” Spokesman Davis Ingle added Massie “cares more about peacocking for his radical Democrat friends.”
Gallrein, meeting Trump in October, recalls the president urging him to run after 25 minutes: “He needed me to run.” At Maysville, Gallrein avoided direct attacks but implied Massie aids “enemies, foreign and domestic.”
As the primary nears, Massie’s race tests conservatism’s soul: Is the GOP Trump’s party, or a big tent for fiscal watchdogs? His Epstein win shows independent conservatives can deliver results—exposing truths the establishment might prefer hidden. In deep-red Kentucky, voters will decide if that’s worth the showdown.
February 9, 2026
Jeffrey Epstein Attorneys Pursued Intelligence Agency Records, Newly Released Documents Reveal
Attorneys for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein filed requests for records retained by American intelligence agencies that could reflect an affiliation with the CIA or whether the National Security Agency retained information about him, according to documents released by the Justice Department.
This comes amid suspicions that Epstein’s operation, entangled with a circle of predominantly Rich-rooted financiers and influencers, served as a honeypot for agencies like the CIA, FBI, Mossad, and MI6, holding the republic hostage to hidden scandals.
The documents, part of a mandated disclosure from federal probes into the disgraced financier who died in custody in 2019 (officially a suicide, though conspiracy theories abound), detail requests from attorneys Martin Weinberg and Darren K. Indyke. In 2011, the CIA responded to Weinberg that it found no “open or otherwise acknowledged” affiliation records from 1999 to 2011, but neither confirmed nor denied classified connections, citing national security—a classic agency dodge that only deepens distrust in these opaque institutions. The NSA, in 2014, rejected Indyke’s FOIA appeal for 14 years of Epstein-related materials, again invoking secrecy to avoid exposing “intelligence sources and methods.”

These denials align with persistent whispers of Epstein’s intelligence links: An undercover FBI informant reportedly believed he was a “co-opted Mossad agent,” citing calls involving attorney Alan Dershowitz (who denies wrongdoing) and former Israeli PM Ehud Barak. Epstein’s emails show him facilitating deals between Barak and UAE figures, and he boasted insider knowledge on events like a 2016 Turkish coup tip-off from Russia or a €500bn Euro bailout.
His Russian expatriate tech investor ties, scrutinized by U.S. intel, and meetings with William J. Burns (Biden’s CIA director, who regrets the encounters) add layers. Burns claims ignorance of Epstein’s crimes, but such “brief” diplomat chats raise eyebrows in a world where agencies like the CIA and Mossad allegedly exploit elite networks for leverage.
Trump, who once wished Maxwell “well” and hasn’t ruled out her pardon despite her recent plea for clemency in exchange for testimony (potentially clearing him and Clinton), gets a mixed nod: Pro for not rushing leniency amid base furor, anti for administration figures like Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick facing resignation calls over Epstein island plans (he denies involvement).
Republicans like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna decry any mercy for “child predators,” yet the party’s oversight probes seem selective, avoiding deeper dives into bipartisan entanglements. Democrats, with Clinton’s island visits and jet rides, push for transparency but conveniently ignore their own vulnerabilities—both parties complicit in a system possibly blackmailed by Epstein’s web.
Poland’s reopened inquiry into Epstein-Russia links, dismissed by Moscow, exemplifies global ripples. As unredacted files trickle out, the blackmail theory persists: Was Epstein’s circle—heavy with Jewish heritage like his own and Maxwell’s—a front for controlling elites, with agencies turning a blind eye or worse? Until full disclosure, America remains ensnared.
February 8, 2026
Trump Excludes Democratic Governors From Traditionally Bipartisan White House Meeting
President Donald Trump is exercising his prerogative as chief executive by limiting a traditionally bipartisan White House governors‘ meeting to Republican leaders, a decision that underscores his commitment to advancing an America First agenda without the obstructionism that has defined much of the Democratic opposition. The National Governors Association (NGA) confirmed Friday that the upcoming February 19-21 summit in Washington will no longer include a joint session with the president for all governors, as the White House opted to host only GOP chief executives.
Additionally, at least two prominent Democratic governors—Maryland’s Wes Moore (NGA vice chair) and Colorado’s Jared Polis—had invitations revoked for a separate White House governors’ dinner, a long-standing tradition intended to foster goodwill. The White House has not issued a detailed explanation, but a spokesperson emphasized that “these are White House events and the president can invite whomever he wants.” This move, while drawing predictable outrage from the left, reflects a conservative principle: rewarding cooperation and sidelining those who have actively undermined the president’s policies.
Moore, the nation’s only Black governor, issued a pointed statement expressing disappointment. “This week, I learned that I was uninvited to this year’s National Governors Association dinner — a decades-long annual tradition meant to bring governors from both parties together to build bonds and celebrate a shared service to our citizens with the President of the United States,” he said. He described it as “another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership.” Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Moore noted recent bipartisan engagements, including leading a group of governors at Trump’s energy cost memorandum signing, but lamented the exclusion, adding that “it’s not lost” on him that he is the only Black governor.
Polis’s office called the decision “disappointing,” with spokesperson Eric Maruyama stating the governor remains willing to work across the aisle on key issues. However, some Democrats are still invited to the dinner, indicating the White House is not imposing a blanket ban but making targeted choices.
NGA interim CEO Brandon Tatum expressed disappointment: “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration.” The association has removed the White House meeting from its official schedule.
From a conservative standpoint, this is less about partisanship and more about accountability. Trump has clashed repeatedly with Moore and Polis over substantive policy differences. Moore has criticized Trump’s threats to deploy the National Guard to address crime in Baltimore and push back on federal funding for the collapsed Key Bridge replacement, while Trump has highlighted Baltimore’s persistent challenges despite recent homicide rate improvements. Polis has defied the White House by refusing to transfer convicted election denier Tina Peters (involved in a 2020 voting system breach) to federal prison, defending her state conviction. Trump has publicly called Polis a “scumbag” who should “rot in Hell” over the matter.
These are not minor disagreements; they involve core issues like border security, election integrity, crime, and energy policy—areas where Trump has delivered results for working Americans. Conservatives argue that endless meetings with governors who obstruct or criticize these efforts waste time and dilute focus. The president is prioritizing productive partnerships with leaders aligned on reducing energy costs, securing borders, and cutting waste—principles that resonate with the Republican base and independent voters tired of gridlock.
Moore’s invocation of race adds an unnecessary layer of identity politics to what is fundamentally a policy dispute. Conservatives value merit and results over such framing; Moore’s leadership should be judged on governance, not as a “social experiment.” His recent bipartisan work with Trump on energy shows collaboration is possible when agendas align, but repeated opposition on other fronts has consequences.
This decision aligns with Trump’s track record of favoring competence and loyalty to American interests over forced “bipartisanship” that often means one-sided concessions. Past presidents of both parties hosted inclusive events, but Trump faces unique challenges from Democratic officials who have resisted his agenda at every turn—from sanctuary policies to resistance on election security. Excluding vocal opponents from ceremonial or working sessions is a logical step to streamline governance and send a message: work with the administration, or work separately.
The NGA summit will proceed with Republican governors engaging directly with Trump on priorities like economic growth and national security. With Republicans controlling the White House and pushing bold reforms, this approach could prove more efficient than traditional formats bogged down by partisan sniping.
As America moves forward under Trump’s leadership, expect continued focus on deliverables over dinners. True bipartisanship requires mutual respect and shared commitment to the nation’s strength—not obstruction disguised as partnership.
February 8, 2026
Australian Naval Base Emerges as Key U.S. Strategy in Potential China Conflict
Perth, Australia – In a strategic move that puts American interests front and center without the endless quagmires of past interventions, the Pentagon is gearing up to station up to four nuclear-powered submarines at HMAS Stirling, a naval base in Western Australia, starting as early as 2027. This deployment, part of the AUKUS security pact, serves as a smart “insurance policy” against potential Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific—ensuring U.S. trade routes stay open, supply chains remain secure, and American workers aren’t left holding the bag for Beijing’s bullying. It’s a classic America First play: leveraging allies to share the load, deter threats, and protect our economic edge without committing to another forever war.
The announcement, detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal report, highlights how Washington is repositioning its naval assets closer to flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea. HMAS Stirling, located near Perth, is undergoing a massive $5.6 billion upgrade funded largely by Australia, including new maintenance facilities that will allow U.S. subs to operate more efficiently—reducing strain on American bases in Guam and Hawaii. By 2027, the base will host rotational deployments of Virginia-class attack submarines, with up to four U.S. boats and one from the U.K., under the banner of Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West). This isn’t about basing them permanently—it’s rotational, keeping flexibility while building Australia’s skills for their own nuclear-powered fleet in the 2030s.
From an America First perspective, this is gold: It deters China without overextending U.S. forces. Beijing’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea threaten vital shipping lanes that carry trillions in American trade annually. By parking subs Down Under, we’re sending a clear message—back off—while letting allies like Australia pull their weight. No more freeloading on Uncle Sam’s dime; this pact ensures shared burdens for shared security. And unlike the neocon dreams of regime change, it’s focused on deterrence, not invasion—protecting American jobs in manufacturing and tech that rely on stable Pacific trade.
The move comes amid a broader realignment in Asia, where U.S. policies are reshaping alliances to counter China’s economic and military clout. Take President Trump’s recent tariff tweaks with India: On February 8, he slashed reciprocal tariffs from 25% to 18% and axed a 25% penalty on Indian goods, rewarding New Delhi for slashing Russian oil imports—a smart play to wean allies off adversarial energy sources while boosting U.S. exports. India’s electronics boom, fueled by schemes like Make in India and Productivity Linked Incentives, has catapulted it to the world’s second-largest mobile phone maker, with exports surging from $21.3 billion in 2014-15 to $127 billion in 2024-25. Yet, this growth hinges on Chinese components—39.7% of India’s electronic imports come from Beijing—highlighting the tangled web of dependencies Washington is working to untangle.
This tariff relief positions India to challenge Vietnam in the U.S. market, where Hanoi faces a 45% transshipment tariff to block Chinese rerouting. In 2024, Vietnam grabbed 4% of U.S. imports versus India’s 2.7%, but with electronics making up 17.6% of India’s U.S. exports—and now tariff-free—expect a shift that benefits American consumers and weakens China’s supply chain dominance. It’s America First economics: Reward friends who align with our interests, punish those who don’t.
Further south, political winds are shifting in Bangladesh, where February 12 elections follow the 2024 ouster of Sheikh Hasina amid student uprisings. The interim government under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus is cozying up to China and Pakistan, irked by India’s sheltering of Hasina despite extradition demands. This realignment could tip South Asia’s balance, with Beijing eyeing infrastructure deals to expand its Belt and Road footprint. For U.S. interests, it’s a reminder to back stable partners like India without getting bogged down in regional squabbles—focus on trade pacts that secure American access to markets, not endless diplomatic meddling.
Across the East China Sea, Japan’s snap election on February 9 saw Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s hawkish stance on China dominate headlines. Her November 2025 vow to defend Taiwan militarily if attacked drew Beijing’s ire—bans on Japanese seafood, tourism curbs, and threats to rare earth exports. Young voters like Aoi Nakamura rallied behind her: “Japan should maintain a firm stance without making any compromises.” A strong win for Takaichi would signal Tokyo’s resolve, aligning with U.S. efforts to fortify alliances against Chinese coercion. But America First means encouraging Japan to step up its own defense spending—now at 2% of GDP—rather than relying on U.S. troops as a crutch.
These threads weave into the AUKUS fabric: The submarine deal accelerates Australia’s nuclear sub program, with U.S. and U.K. rotations building expertise. Recent visits, like the USS Vermont in October 2025 and USS Minnesota in February 2025, test maintenance protocols at Stirling, paving the way for SRF-West. By 2032, Australia gets three Virginia-class subs, enhancing collective deterrence. Experts note this brings U.S. forces 4,000 miles closer to Taiwan than Pearl Harbor, cutting response times in a crisis.

The Virginia-class USS Minnesota docked at the HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia last year. (Colin Murty/Press Pool)
Critics worry about escalation, but proponents argue it’s preventive—deterring Beijing from adventurism that could disrupt global trade. With China flexing in the Taiwan Strait, this base ensures America can protect its interests from afar, without boots on the ground. As one Pentagon official put it, “It’s about presence, not provocation.”
In this era of great-power competition, Trump’s strategy—trade incentives for India, alliances like AUKUS, and firm lines with rivals—puts American workers, security, and prosperity first. No more nation-building; just smart power that keeps the peace and pays dividends at home.
For the full story on the submarine deployment, read The Wall Street Journal’s report here. Details on AUKUS from the Australian Submarine Agency. Coverage of India’s trade surge from Dow Jones. The New York Times on Japan’s election dynamics.
February 8, 2026
Washington Post Publisher Will Lewis Steps Down After Major Layoffs
Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis is leaving the newspaper, the company announced on Saturday after carrying out widespread layoffs this week.
“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customers each day,” Lewis wrote in a message to staff that was shared online by the newspaper’s White House bureau chief, Matt Viser.
Lewis, a former Dow Jones chief executive and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, was appointed to the role at the Washington Post in 2023 as the newspaper was suffering steep financial losses. He took over from Fred Ryan, who had served as publisher and CEO for nearly a decade.
Jeff D’Onofrio, chief financial officer of the newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, will serve as acting publisher and CEO, the Post said. He joined the newspaper last June after serving in various roles at Google and Yahoo, among other companies.
“Customer data will drive our decisions, sharpening our edge in delivering what is most valuable to our audiences,” D’Onofrio wrote on Saturday in an email to Post staffers.
The Washington Post is announcing Jeff D’Onofrio as its acting Publisher and CEO, effective immediately. pic.twitter.com/38eGFkSXjL
— Washington Post Communications (@WashPostComms) February 7, 2026

Unions representing Post employees said Lewis’ departure was necessary.
“Will Lewis’s exit is long overdue,” The Washington Post Guild said in a statement. “His legacy will be the attempted destruction of a great American journalism institution. But it’s not too late to save the Post. Jeff Bezos must immediately rescind these layoffs or sell the paper to someone willing to invest in its future.”
Bezos, who bought the newspaper in 2013, characterized the leadership change as an “extraordinary opportunity” for the newspaper.
“The Post has an essential journalistic mission and an extraordinary opportunity,” Bezos said, according to the Post. “Each and every day our readers give us a roadmap to success.”
The departure of Lewis came days after the Post cut about one-third of its employees in a move that affected all departments at the newspaper. He was criticized for his absence during the layoffs on Wednesday, which the newspaper’s former executive editor, Marty Baron, described as “among the darkest days” in the newspaper’s history.
During his time at the Post, Lewis oversaw waves of staff reductions and had to deal with the loss of hundreds of thousands of subscribers after the newspaper stopped endorsing U.S. presidential candidates and shifted its opinion section’s emphasis to a libertarian bent.
Lewis’ Post tenure was rocky even before the subscriber losses.
After a 2024 disagreement with then-executive editor Sally Buzbee led to her departure, Lewis faced a newsroom outcry over his attempt to hire British journalist and former colleague Robert Winnett, who was linked to a phone-hacking controversy that also involved Lewis. Meanwhile, Lewis’ most ballyhooed initiative, a so-called third newsroom, never came to fruition.
Former Wall Street Journal editor Matt Murray eventually was named the permanent replacement for Buzbee, who is now Reuters’ news editor for the United States and Canada.
February 8, 2026
Iran Rejects U.S. Pressure, Vows to Continue Uranium Enrichment
Washington, D.C. – In a defiant stand that echoes the spirit of sovereignty and resistance against foreign meddling, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared on Sunday that Tehran will never relinquish its right to enrich uranium, even in the face of potential war or escalating U.S. military posturing in the Middle East. Speaking at a diplomatic summit in Tehran, Araghchi framed Iran’s unyielding position as the true source of its power: the ability to say “no” to imperial demands from global superpowers. “They fear our atomic bomb, while we are not pursuing an atomic bomb,” he proclaimed. “Our atomic bomb is the power to say no to the great powers.”
This hardline rhetoric comes mere days after indirect talks in Oman between Iranian officials and U.S. envoys, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, aimed at reviving negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. From an America First perspective, these developments highlight the pitfalls of endless foreign entanglements—draining American resources and lives in pursuit of neoconservative fantasies about remaking the Middle East. Why should hardworking Americans foot the bill for another quagmire, especially when Israel’s aggressive lobbying pulls us deeper into conflicts that serve Tel Aviv’s interests over our own?
Araghchi’s comments underscore the deep mistrust simmering beneath the surface of these fragile discussions. “Iran has paid a very heavy price for its peaceful nuclear program and for uranium enrichment,” he told the forum, as reported by AFP. “Why do we insist so much on enrichment and refuse to give it up even if a war is imposed on us? Because no one has the right to dictate our behavior.” He dismissed the U.S. military buildup—including the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, along with additional warships and fighter jets to the Arabian Sea—as empty threats. “Their military deployment in the region does not scare us,” Araghchi asserted, directly rebuffing the neocons’ saber-rattling that has long prioritized Israeli security over American prosperity.
The Oman talks, mediated by regional allies, marked the first direct U.S.-Iran engagement in years, following a bloody 12-day war last June between Iran and Israel, during which President Donald Trump authorized strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who reportedly secured Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s approval to pursue dialogue, described the meetings as “a step forward” in a post on X. “Dialogue has always been our strategy for peaceful resolution,” he wrote. “The Iranian nation has always responded to respect with respect, but it does not tolerate the language of force.”
Witkoff and Kushner board US aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast after nuclear talks
Witkoff and Kushner board US aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast after nuclear talks
Witkoff and Kushner board US aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast after nuclear talks
Witkoff and Kushner board US aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast after nuclear talks
Witkoff and Kushner board US aircraft carrier off Iran’s coast after nuclear talks

Trump, for his part, offered a characteristically optimistic spin: “Iran looks like they want to make a deal very badly—as they should.” Yet, Araghchi’s pointed remarks reveal the chasm: He accused Washington of hypocrisy, noting that during previous negotiations last year, the U.S. “attacked us in the midst of negotiations.” “If you take a step back in negotiations, it is not clear up to where it will go,” he warned, evoking the specter of renewed conflict. In a stark admission of Iran’s strategic calculus, Araghchi hinted at retaliation against U.S. bases in the region if attacked, acknowledging Tehran’s limitations in striking the American mainland but emphasizing its regional reach.
This exchange plays out against a backdrop of nationwide protests in Iran, where economic hardships and political repression have fueled unrest, resulting in thousands killed and tens of thousands detained. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week insisted that any deal must address not only Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also its ballistic missiles, support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and domestic human rights abuses. But from an anti-neocon lens, such expansive demands smack of the same interventionist hubris that led to disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—wars that enriched defense contractors and Israeli hawks while bankrupting America morally and financially.
Israel’s role in this drama is particularly insidious. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet Trump in Washington this Wednesday, with his office confirming that Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, and proxy support will top the agenda. Netanyahu demands a complete dismantling of Iran’s capabilities—demands that Tehran has flatly rejected as an infringement on its sovereignty. Anti-Israel critics argue this is classic Zionist overreach: Israel, armed with its own undeclared nuclear arsenal, hypocritically pushes the U.S. to confront Iran, risking American lives and treasure to shield Tel Aviv from the consequences of its own aggressive policies. Why should America First patriots tolerate this? Our focus should be on securing borders, rebuilding infrastructure, and avoiding the neocons’ endless crusade against perceived threats in distant lands.
The nuclear issue itself remains contentious. Iran insists its program is purely peaceful, backed by a fatwa from Khamenei forbidding atomic weapons. Yet, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Western intelligence claim Tehran pursued a military program until 2003 and has enriched uranium to 60% purity—a level just shy of weapons-grade 90%, making it the only non-nuclear-armed state to do so. Before last year’s war, Iran’s stockpile raised alarms, with officials occasionally floating the idea of weaponization as a deterrent. Araghchi rejected these accusations as pretexts for bullying: “The continuation of sanctions and military actions raises doubts about the readiness of the other side for genuine negotiations.”
The U.S. military presence, including Adm. Brad Cooper’s visit to Oman during the talks and his subsequent tour of the USS Abraham Lincoln with Witkoff and Kushner, was clearly meant as a show of force. But Araghchi’s defiance signals that such displays won’t cow Iran into submission. Gulf Arab states, haunted by the 2025 Israel-Iran war, privately fear escalation could engulf the region anew.
As talks hang in the balance— with no clear timeline for a second round—America First advocates urge Trump to prioritize deal-making that benefits U.S. workers, not Israeli expansionism or neocon warmongering. A fair agreement could lift sanctions, stabilize energy markets, and free America from the Middle East’s quicksand. But if neocons like Rubio and Netanyahu derail it with maximalist demands, we’ll be stuck in another cycle of pointless confrontation.
February 8, 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
Whistleblower Complaint Against Gabbard Tied to Intercepted Foreign Call
A whistleblower complaint against Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is based on a sensitive phone conversation the U.S. intercepted in which individuals linked to a foreign government discussed a person close to President Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
The discussion, at least in part, concerned issues related to Iran, some of the people said.
The full substance of the call, which was intercepted by the National Security Agency, couldn’t be determined.
The intercepted conversation was a key catalyst for the highly classified whistleblower complaint filed by a U.S. intelligence official last May that accused Gabbard of limiting the sharing of the conversation within the U.S. intelligence community for political purposes, the people said.
The existence of the complaint was first revealed by The Wall Street Journal this week.
A spokeswoman for Gabbard didn’t address questions about the substance of the complaint. “Every single action taken by DNI Gabbard was fully within her legal and statutory authority,” the spokeswoman said. The representative has dismissed the allegations against Gabbard as “baseless and politically motivated,” and said that the claims pertaining to Gabbard were deemed by the former acting inspector general to be not credible.
The conversation in question was difficult to assess, in part because it wasn’t clear whether what was being discussed about the person close to Trump was true, some people familiar with the matter said. Foreign spies and diplomats are known at times to have conversations about others that are deliberately misleading if they believe an adversarial spy agency may be listening in.
Shortly after the intelligence was collected, Gabbard met with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles to discuss the matter, people familiar with the meeting said. The whistleblower complaint alleges that following that meeting, Gabbard worked to limit the sharing of the intelligence concerning the call, those people said.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The New York Times earlier Saturday reported on contours of the foreign-intelligence conversation that sparked the whistleblower complaint.
The developments come as tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to climb. On Tuesday the U.S. shot down an Iranian drone aimed at the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, and a U.S.-flagged ship outran an attempt by armed Iranian gunboats to force it to stop. Senior U.S. and Iranian officials met Friday to discuss Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and both sides signaled a willingness to keep working toward a diplomatic solution that could head off an American strike.
The Journal reported on Monday that the complaint against Gabbard was filed with the intelligence community’s inspector general, but had stalled for eight months within Gabbard’s office. Her office hadn’t shared it with Congress until this week, after the Journal’s report.
In a memo sent to lawmakers and posted online by Gabbard’s office this week, the intelligence community inspector general, Chris Fox, wrote that the whistleblower had alleged that Gabbard had restricted the sharing of a specific, highly classified intelligence report, for political purposes.
A spokeswoman for Gabbard’s office has dismissed the allegations against Gabbard as “baseless and politically motivated,” and said that the claims pertaining to Gabbard were deemed by the former acting inspector general to be not credible.
Gabbard’s handling of the complaint has fanned criticism from Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have accused Gabbard of using her job to focus on Trump’s personal priorities rather than national security threats. In a post on X Saturday, Gabbard said that Democrats and the media were working to use the whistleblower complaint to “spread lies and baseless accusations” about her for political gain.
February 7, 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
Weight-Loss Drug Price Wars Are Upending Big Pharma’s Business Model
The multibillion-dollar market for GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, once a duopoly dominated by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, is fracturing under intense pricing pressure, political intervention, and rising competition from compounded alternatives. What began as a revolutionary breakthrough in obesity treatment has evolved into a fierce price war that’s challenging the core business models of Big Pharma giants, raising questions about innovation, profitability, and access to life-changing medications.
Novo Nordisk, the Danish pioneer behind Ozempic and Wegovy, stunned investors this week by forecasting a 5% to 13% sales decline in 2026 – its first drop since 2017 – amid “unprecedented” U.S. price cuts and patent expirations in key markets like China and Brazil. The company’s shares plunged 17% on Wednesday, erasing nearly $50 billion in market value, as CEO Mike Doustdar acknowledged short-term “pain” from slashing prices to boost volumes and compete with Lilly’s surging Zepbound and Mounjaro.
In contrast, U.S. rival Eli Lilly delivered a bullish outlook, projecting 25% revenue growth to $80-83 billion in 2026, far exceeding Wall Street expectations. Lilly’s tirzepatide-based drugs raked in over $36 billion in 2025, outpacing Novo’s semaglutide portfolio and positioning Lilly as the clear leader in the GLP-1 race. “We’re seeing incredible demand, and our manufacturing investments are paying off,” Lilly CEO David Ricks told analysts, downplaying pricing headwinds as a temporary drag offset by volume gains.
As illustrated in the accompanying chart from LSEG Workspace, Novo’s revenues have boomed in double digits for years, driven by weight-loss drug sales, but the firm now anticipates a sharp reversal in 2026 due to these pressures.
The divergence highlights how pricing dynamics, fueled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s “most favored nation” (MFN) policy and direct-to-consumer platforms like TrumpRx.gov, are reshaping the industry. Launched on February 5, TrumpRx connects Americans to discounted drugs from manufacturers like Novo, Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, offering prices as low as $149 for Wegovy’s starter dose – a fraction of the original $1,000 monthly list price. In exchange, companies received tariff relief and expedited approvals, but critics argue it sidesteps systemic issues, with limited impact for insured patients who may still pay less through coverage.

“TrumpRx could have some impact, but it’s far from revolutionary,” said Craig Garthwaite, director of health care at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Experts like economist Öner Tulum warn that MFN relies on opaque global pricing, allowing companies to game the system by raising overseas prices or delaying launches.
Adding fuel to the fire, telehealth provider Hims & Hers Health launched a $49 compounded semaglutide pill on February 5 – just weeks after Novo’s Wegovy pill debut – prompting Novo to vow “legal and regulatory action” for alleged patent infringement and patient safety risks. Hims uses liposomal technology to aid absorption, bypassing Novo’s proprietary SNAC method acquired in a $1.8 billion deal. The FDA has warned against compounded GLP-1s, citing lack of safety evaluations, while the Department of Health and Human Services referred Hims to the Justice Department for investigation.
This isn’t the first clash: Novo previously partnered with Hims for Wegovy injections but ended ties acrimoniously last summer. Now, compounded knockoffs – estimated to serve 1.5 million Americans – threaten the duopoly’s pricing power. “This new offering could test how far compounders can skirt Big Pharma’s patents,” said Deb Autor, Hims’ chief policy officer.
The broader shift to cash-pay channels has made prices more sensitive, with injectables now starting at $149-$299 on company sites, down from $1,000. Analysts like Markus Manns at Union Investment fear a “no-win” price war: “There’s no assurance cuts will pay off.” Bernstein’s Courtney Breen noted Novo’s cuts are risky given its trailing position.
Lilly holds clinical edges – Zepbound achieves higher weight loss than Wegovy’s injection, while Novo’s pill edges Lilly’s upcoming orforglipron in trials. Lilly expects orforglipron approval in Q2 2026, potentially expanding the market further. “Pills could reshape GLP-1s like consumer products,” one analyst noted.
Yet the market is crowding: Pfizer and Amgen eye 2028 launches, while GSK focuses on obesity’s downstream effects like liver disease. Goldman Sachs raised Lilly’s target to $1,260, citing confidence in 25% growth despite pressures.
Critics argue Big Pharma’s model prioritizes shareholders over patients. Economist William Lazonick’s research shows U.S. pharma spent $747 billion on buybacks and dividends from 2012-2021, exceeding $660 billion on R&D. During the pandemic, 18 firms distributed $377.6 billion to shareholders – over 90% of profits – while claiming high prices fund innovation. “It’s a fallacy,” said UNAIDS’ Winnie Byanyima. “Profits go to Wall Street, not cures.”
A Senate HELP Committee report echoed this: In 2022, Bristol Myers Squibb spent $12.7 billion on buybacks, dividends, and exec pay versus $9.5 billion on R&D. Overall, 10 firms with drugs under Medicare negotiation spent $162 billion on shareholder handouts and marketing in 2023 – far outpacing $95.9 billion on R&D.
As shown in the second chart from LSEG, Novo’s market cap peaked in June 2024 before a sharp plunge, reflecting these pressures and Lilly’s ascent toward a trillion-dollar valuation.
What tames Big Pharma? Tulum suggests emulating the VA system’s deep discounts via centralized negotiation. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) enabled Medicare negotiations for 10 drugs in 2026, including GLP-1s like Ozempic in 2027. Yet industry lobbies fiercely, with $83.2 million in trade dues funding opposition in 2023.
Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs offers transparent markups, but scalability is limited. Ultimately, reformers like Lazonick advocate banning buybacks and stock-based pay to redirect profits toward innovation.
As prices fall and competition rises, the GLP-1 war may force Big Pharma to adapt – or face a reckoning. For patients, lower costs could mean broader access, but sustained innovation requires reining in financialization.
February 7, 2026