Tag Archive for: regulation

One of the Biggest Fraud Rings You Never Heard of: Social Adult Daycares — Billions in NYC alone

As a taxpayer I am sickened at the abuse and contempt of hardworking Americans.

CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz joined investigative influencer Nick Shirley in New York City to confront operators of suspected Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes. Visiting elderly daycare centers and medical equipment companies, there are major red flags,  including three medical supply companies allegedly operating out of a single apartment with no inventory. Calling the suspected scams a massive theft of taxpayer dollars, Oz said the government has failed to stop fraudsters who he claimed are making millions each month through bogus billing operations.

In NYC alone billions in fraud, sanctioned by Democrat politicians who are voting themselves massive raises, have been discovered.

‘Major Red Flags’: Dr. Oz Joins MAGA Influencer Nick Shirley to Confront Alleged Fraudsters

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz joined MAGA influencer Nick Shirley to confront alleged fraudsters in New York City, with Oz stressing that the experience showed “major red flags” in a video posted on Friday.

Oz, a member of President Donald Trump’s administration, accompanied Shirley to a variety of different elderly daycare centers and medical equipment companies across the city, confronting folks who they say are committing both Medicare and Medicaid fraud — many of whom either did not speak English or seemed hesitant to answer questions about the services they provide.

“One of the largest fraud schemes in America is taking place in New York City as billions of dollars are being defrauded by organized Korean and Chinese mafias, along with other foreigners operating and stealing taxpayer dollars,” Shirley claimed.

“It’s almost certainly fraud,” Oz said of an apartment they visited where three durable medical companies allegedly operate from, purporting that the benefactors make “$2 to $8 million a month.”

“These guys grow like vermin,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator continued. “There are twice as many durable medical suppliers in South Florida as McDonald’s, because it’s easier to open one than a bank account,” alleging that there, “the Cuban government is involved.”

His and Shirley’s conversation continued:

OZ: To open three in one apartment makes no sense, especially when there’s no product there. All you’re doing is gaming the system, and the fact that we didn’t audit it, didn’t catch it, didn’t stop it, and they’re probably out there making money infuriates me. It should bother folks out there, ’cause it’s your tax dollars paying for this

SHIRLEY: So, it’s literally impossible for someone to be operating a durable medical company outside — inside of an apartment?

OZ: Inside of an apartment with no goods and two other durable medical equipment suppliers? That’s a major red flag — the kind you walk into battle with.

In one NYC neighborhood, dozens of adult daycares bill millions to taxpayers. Now the feds have questions.

By Laura Geller, Rachel Gold, Tom Hanson, CBS News, July 1, 2026:

Dozens of Medicaid-funded social adult daycare centers are packed into one New York City neighborhood, a CBS News data analysis has found.

The proliferation of the facilities has caught the attention of federal authorities, who confirmed they are investigating across New York whether the rapid spread of centers catering to seniors is indicative of fraud.

“[It] begs the question: How many social adult daycare centers do you need?” Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told CBS News.

Social daycare facilities offer meals, personal care, social activities and other assistance to seniors and people with disabilities. Those services are then billed to the state government and covered by federal and state tax dollars.

The costs have been rising — especially in New York state, a CBS News data analysis found. Medicaid paid adult daycare providers $3.35 billion nationwide in 2024, and 17% of that money went to the 375 facilities across New York state — more than any other state. New York spending on these adult daycares ballooned in recent years, with the bill to taxpayers nearly quadrupling from 2018 to 2024.

The facilities in Flushing bill Medicaid for the equivalent of more than 90% of local Medicaid-eligible seniors.

Those numbers have not gone unnoticed. Investigations are underway into some social adult daycare centers across New York with potential federal action against them anticipated, CBS News has learned.

The epicenter of the spike in spending is the bustling neighborhood of Flushing, Queens, the densest cluster of social adult daycare facilities in the country: 64 within a one-mile radius, according to a CBS News analysis of Medicaid data.

Dr Oz currently leads a sweeping federal crackdown on Medicare and Medicaid fraud in his role as the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

Here’s his latest:

And this:

Nick Shirley: Here is the full 53 minutes of my crew and I exposing New York fraud, we uncovered over $190,000,000 in fraud as these fraudsters use the elderly and needy to commit fraud through adult and personal home care scams in NYC. Your tax dollars are paying for elderly Koreans and Chinese to play ping pong and do tai chi, while the fraudsters give $ kickbacks to those who enroll. Like it and share this video, the fraud must STOP.

We ALL work way too hard and pay too much in taxes for fraudsters to steal from our pockets. These fraudsters have been able to defraud American taxpayers for years without any pushback from the public and politicians. Time is up.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Russian Gas Stations are Out of Gas

Gas lines. In Russia. And they stretch on for miles.

Even Czar Vlad had to admit this week there was a slight “penury” in fuel, “maybe 5 percent.” I guess some people did some thing to Russia’s refineries.

The gigantic gas station with nukes that is today’s Russia is running out of gas. It’s quite remarkable to see. Russia is now importing gasoline from Kazakhstan.

It also reminds us that war is not just fought with kinetic weapons, although they sure do make a difference when they work. It is also fought on the economic front. Just ask Donald Trump. (More on that later).

There are increasing signs that Russia’s war in Ukraine is heading toward disaster.

Sure, there was the soldier’s video who demanded an audience with Putin to explain the war to him from a soldier’s perspective, or else the army would turn on him. That video got twenty million views, and Putin responded characteristically: he had the guy arrested.

Until the next one appears.

The June casualty rate among Russian soldiers reportedly rose in June to 40,000, well above the 25,000 troops Putin can raise monthly through ordinary conscription. That is simply astonishing. And for all those losses, the Russians hardly advanced on the ground.

And then, there are the rumors. I hear them all them time on French television, which is known for preferring rumor to news. Putin has fled to a bunker, maybe the one north of Moscow, where Zelensky claims he has moved critical air defense assets. True? I doubt it. But who knows?

Another: that Putin’s 93 meter yacht, the Graceful, has been seen under heavy Russian naval escort in the seas off of Denmark. Why? To protect it from getting hit at port by a Ukrainian drone.

And then, there are the facts. The Ukrainians continue to pound Russian oil refineries and storage depots, even within visual range of the Kremlin, and this has brought the war home to ordinary Russians who might otherwise not care.

Another: Zelensky this week warned Belarus president Lukashenko not to throw his military behind Putin in the Ukraine war.  Calling him a “captive ally” of Russia, he threatened him with a drone barrage if he didn’t immediately cut off support for the Russian military.

What did Lukashenko do? He took a quick trip to Beijing, to kiss the ring of President Xi (Yes, Mr Lukashenko, you really are the president of a sovereign nation, not a Putin vassal).

All is not well for Czar Vlad at home or abroad. All of his former allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the replacement of the Warsaw Pact, told him this week he was on his own in Ukraine. (It’s not just effete NATO Euros who are ingrates, Vlad).

The word is, Putin is now looking for an offramp thanks to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who indicated this week that they can handle two negotiations at one time, especially when one of them, with the Iranians, is not going so well.

Speaking of those effete Euros, Trump reminded them in a Truth social post on Thursday just how ungrateful they really are. “The United States spends more money on NATO than any other country, by far, to protect them, without getting any benefit from so doing.” In fact, the U.S. spends more than 10X the amount of the next biggest NATO spender, the UK, $999 billion to $90.5 billion.

The President is just warming up for the NATO summit in Turkey next week and wants the 32 member countries to remember just how furious he still is over their failure to provide any assistance whatsoever to the US during the Iran war. Italy, Germany, France, and initially Britain, wouldn’t even allow us to overfly their airspace to bring equipment to theater!

Today in Iran began the week-long ceremonies to bury the late and unlamented Ali Khamenei. After two days in Tehran, the show moves to Qom, traditional seat of Iran’s clergy, and for a two-day wanderlust to Najaf and Karbala in Iraq. Most people don’t realize that Iranian shiite clergy venerate those two Iraqi cities as much as they do Qom and Mashad. And many of Iran’s current crop of leaders were actually born in Iraq.

The one person who won’t be attending: Mojtaba, the Gayatollah who, we are told, replaced Daddy. How’s that for filial piety?

That of course has fed the rumor mill in Tehran that he is, in fact, a former non-ayatollah (aka, a naya-tollah”) who was killed during the same February 28 air strikes that took out Dad.

And all those written proclamations? Written in an underground room either by Qalbaf or Pezeshkian. It’s not me saying this, but hard-line members of the Iranian parliament who believe that Qalibaf and Pezeshkian have conducted a quiet coup, replacing the clergy with a newly-empowered Supreme Council on National Security they control.

I discuss this, as well as Trump’s increasingly frank statements that the Iran MoU was all about stabilizing oil markets and rebuilding our military stockpiles, on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend.

As always, you can listen live on Saturday, July 4, at 1 PM, on 550 AM or 104.9 FM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, or by using the Way Radio application.

Happy 250th, America! May we prove wrong all the nay-sayers and lefties who predict our imminent demise.

PS: and in case you missed my brief “wrestling with a squid” segment on Newsmax last week, you can watch it here: https://x.com/KenTimmerman/status/2070178197690339804?s=20

©2026 . All rights reserved.


Website: kentimmerman.com

Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue, can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here. 

Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.

No Path, No Votes: Inside the GOP Revolt Threatening Trump’s SAVE America Act

Election integrity has been a priority for President Donald Trump for years. In his second administration, that priority took legislative form in the SAVE America Act, which would require Americans to show ID to vote, along with a host of other safeguards.

But for months, the bill has stalled in the Senate, even as the president rages about it on Truth Social and to reporters in the Oval Office. Trump traveled to Capitol Hill last Thursday for a tense lunch with Senate Republicans over the legislation. It was a meeting that, according to one source, only set things back further. Around the same time, Trump shelved plans to sign a housing bill, a move some sources see as tied to his frustration with the Senate.

Now, the SAVE America Act appears to be in more limbo than ever.

Sources familiar with the situation tell the Caller that the legislation will likely never have the votes to move forward. Still, one White House official told the Caller that the administration is exploring every possible path to get it done, because for this president, it remains a priority he is determined to see through.

“…our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY,” Trump said on Truth Social of those keeping the legislation from moving forward. “There can be no more excuses!”

Multiple sources told the Caller that, as the legislation currently stands, it doesn’t have the votes, and that the senators Trump named are unlikely to come on board. Killing the filibuster, which the president has also floated as a way to force the bill through, runs into the same wall, those sources said.

The path forward doesn’t run through the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, either. If Trump vetoes that legislation, one source said, Congress has the votes to override him. But a source familiar with the president’s thinking said a veto won’t be necessary; Trump isn’t expected to reject the bill.

“It’s a yawn,” Trump said on Monday of the housing legislation. “To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has floated putting the legislation into a reconciliation bill. The House voted down a procedural measure Tuesday that would have allowed debate on tying the bill to the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a legislation Congress is expected to take up alongside a reauthorization of FISA Section 702 and annual appropriations bills.

That FISA fight has become its own flashpoint. When Trump’s former Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resigned to care for her husband amid his cancer diagnosis, the president temporarily installed FHFA Director Bill Pulte atop the agency.

The move that set off alarms in the Senate, with Democrats threatening to block a FISA renewal over Pulte’s appointment. Trump later nominated Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, for the ODNI post, but killed a path to a quick confirmation hearing, leaving Pulte in place longer than expected.

One source familiar with Senate dynamics said the ODNI standoff and the back-and-forth over Clayton are being interpreted on the Hill as Trump’s way of making senators pay for failing to pass the SAVE America Act. A White House official pushed back on that characterization.

Even as his team searches for a way forward, the president himself seems unsure the bill will ever pass. One White House official said Trump’s passion for the issue stems from the campaign trail, where he’s heard from Americans across the country who want to see it become law.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has absorbed much of the blame for the bill’s collapse. Trump himself told the Caller he was “disappointed” in Thune for failing to either kill the filibuster or pass the legislation.

But a source familiar with the president’s thinking said that frustration isn’t really about Thune. Trump likes him and knows his members do too. The president’s irritation, the source said, is with the individual senators who won’t get on board.

“The SAVE America Act has always been a top priority for President Trump, and it remains one. This is commonsense legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans that will secure our elections for generations to come,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, told the Caller.

“The President knows how critical this issue is for the American people, and he will not stop fighting until it is passed,” she added.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Arrests Illegal Alien For Voting In Federal Election

Federal authorities arrested and charged an illegal alien in New Jersey for voting in a federal election, the Daily Caller has learned.

Marian Charitun, a 62-year-old from Slovakia, was charged with illegally voting in a federal election as well as making false statements while applying for U.S. citizenship, according to information shared with the Caller. Charitun allegedly registered to vote in New Jersey and falsely stated that he was a U.S. citizen when doing so. He then went on to vote in the 2022 midterm elections, according to the information provided to the Caller. 

Charitun also applied for U.S. citizenship and allegedly claimed he never voted in a federal election, the Caller learned. Charitun never obtained citizenship as his voting history was discovered during the application process and he was denied, an official told the Caller.

If convicted, Charitun could face a maximum of one year in prison. The count of voting by an alien in a federal election carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison. The count of unlawful procurement of citizenship or naturalization carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

This case was brought under the United States Attorney’s Office’s Election Integrity Task Force. 

In May, four green card holders living in New Jersey were separately charged with illegally voting in federal elections and falsely claiming they never did such a thing while applying for U.S. citizenship, officials said.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to vote in federal elections, has stalled in Congress with no clear path forward.

While some studies have found that illegal aliens voting in elections is rare, others have shown that it can still impact the results of elections.

Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News on Sunday that House Republicans could put the SAVE America Act into a reconciliation bill.

“This time we’re going to try to put it on a reconciliation bill, and the reason that’s so important, Maria [Bartiromo], as you know, is it prevents the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate,” Johnson said. “The Democrats want no part of this, and remember, this is very basic stuff.”

“We’re just going to make sure you have to have proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when you turn out at the ballot box,” he added. “These are 90-10 public opinion issues, and more than 70 percent of Democrats want to do it, but not the Democrats in the House and Senate, and so we’ve got to go around them.”

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Hill GOP Erupts Over Birthright Citizenship Decision

Congressional conservatives are slamming the Supreme Court of the United States after it ruled to strike down a request from the president to redefine birthright citizenship.

The 6-3 decision comes after President Donald Trump’s administration argued that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied to descendants of slaves in the 1800s, and not to the chain migration the United States has been subject to in recent decades.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurs in part in the judgment and dissents in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissent.

“Neither the Founding Fathers, nor the authors of the 14th Amendment, nor the millions of Americans who fought and died for their country through the ages intended to establish a nation whose citizenship could so easily be purchased, whether through birth tourism of China’s communist party members or an invasion of millions enabled by faithless presidents,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told the Daily Signal.

The clause in the 14th Amendment attracted controversy after U.S. births from noncitizens, especially illegal aliens, increased tremendously in recent years. The U.S. Center for Immigration Studies has estimated that in 2023 alone, between 225,000 and 250,000 births stemmed directly from illegal immigration.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, expanded on Lee’s remarks and told the Daily Signal that the “Supreme Court failed the American people.”

“The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way stands for the proposition of creating a dangerous cottage industry of traveling to our soil to manufacture United States citizenship,” Roy continued. “The Supreme Court today should have said so explicitly and ended this damaging exploitation of our laws.”

Roy has now called on Congress to “immediately do at least two things it should have done long ago,” which include “defin[ing] the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ very specifically to make clear that citizenship is tied to the citizenship of the parent, not the soil,” and “completely restrict[ing] funding from [the Department of Homeland Security] or any other agency or state that provides documentation and status to anyone not subject to the ‘jurisdiction thereof.’”

“In other words, Congress must act immediately and must not hide behind the fiction that it must amend the Constitution to fix this abuse of our laws,” Roy continued. “To do otherwise would be an abject failure of the United States Congress.”

In a statement to the Daily Signal, Rep. Keith Self added that the ruling comes as a “catastrophic defeat” to “every American citizen, our national sovereignty, and the very future of our Republic.”

Self added that “American citizenship is a sacred privilege—not a participation trophy handed out to those who violate our laws.”

“The 14th Amendment was never meant to reward illegal aliens with the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship for breaking into our country,” he continued.

The members’ remarks reflect those of the president.

Prior to the decision, President Donald Trump advocated against birthright citizenship, writing on Truth Social that “we are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., agrees with the president’s remarks, and wrote on X that the decision comes as a call to action for conservative members of Congress to pass legislation that’ll align with their views on the 14th Amendment, while preventing illegal immigration from exploiting the American immigration system.

“Congress needs to respond,” Scott wrote. “We need to make sure illegal aliens don’t come into our country and EXPLOIT our immigration system.”

“That means closing EVERY. SINGLE. LOOPHOLE,” Scott continued. “I have a bill, the SAFE KIDS Act, to combat the exploitation of U.S. surrogacy laws for birthright citizenship.”

“We also need to codify President Trump’s border actions so a future Democrat administration can’t undo them,” Scott added, calling on his colleagues to vote “on these EVERY WEEK until we provide the American people with an answer for this question.”

This story will be updated with further congressional reaction.

AUTHOR

Pedro Rodriguez 

Pedro Boccalato Rodriguez-Aparicio is a journalism fellow at the Daily Signal. Follow on X pedrobrodrigue7.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Reacts to Birthright Citizenship Ruling

Birthright Tourism Bills Surge After SCOTUS Ruling

‘MEDIEVAL’: Justices Thomas, Alito Argue ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Ruling Reverses the Declaration of Independence on Its 250th Anniversary

Clarence Thomas Goes Scorches Earth On Birthright Decision, Says It ‘Devalues American Citizenship’

RELATED VIDEO: BREAKING: Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Fiasco, Fuel Shortage Riots, SAVE America Act Fight

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The SAVE America Act is More Important than Ever Before!

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act is a proposed federal bill that would mandate proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Supporters argue this is a necessary step to secure elections, while critics raise concerns about the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Arguments around the legislation often center on the following core areas:

Key Provisions

Proof of Citizenship: Replaces the current system of self-attestation with a requirement to provide documentation, such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or adoption papers, when registering to vote.

Photo ID: Requires voters to present a valid photo identification at polling places.

Voter Rolls: Directs states to remove non-citizens from their voter registration lists.

Arguments for the Act

Election Integrity: Proponents argue that tying voter eligibility to strict proof of citizenship prevents non-citizens from participating in federal elections.

Public Confidence: Supporters believe these requirements build widespread trust in the accuracy and fairness of election outcomes.

Common Sense: Backers maintain that requiring a photo ID and proof of citizenship is a common-sense measure used by many other democracies worldwide.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Mike Lee Explains How LBJ Broke A Filibuster And What It Means For The SAVE America Act

Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee laid out how former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s battle to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has important implications for the adoption of the SAVE America Act during an interview with the Daily Caller on Monday.

Lee, a leading advocate and sponsor of the SAVE America Act — landmark election integrity legislation supported by President Donald Trump — cited the Senate’s handling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a historical example of how major legislation can advance even when the votes for cloture are not initially in place.

The Utah Senator explained that when the bill arrived in the Senate from the House in March 1964, supporters of the bill were still significantly short of the votes needed to invoke cloture — roughly 30 votes, though he noted even at the time the exact count was uncertain. As Lee explained, “It’s a good example because they were clearly not close to achieving cloture when it arrived.”

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

US President Lyndon B. Johnson hands a pent to the Rev. Martin Luther King (2nd-R) after signing the historic Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House, in Washington, D.C., 02 July 1964. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, put an end to all forms of segregation and discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (Photo by AFP) (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

Drawing a parallel to his efforts to invoke the same talking filibuster to advance the SAVE America Act, Lee noted that then-President Johnson — a vocal supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — backed an aggressive floor strategy during the debate. At the time, Johnson urged Democratic Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield to keep the Senate in continuous, round-the-clock session to wear down opposition, a tactic LBJ had previously used as majority leader to advance civil rights legislation, according to a U.S. Senate historical report.

Mansfield, however, rejected the proposal.

He argued that marathon sessions would turn the Senate into “a circus or a sideshow,” warning that the sight of senators appearing in “bedroom slippers, without neckties, with hair uncombed and pajama tops sticking out” would diminish the chamber’s dignity.

Rather than forcing continuous debate, Mansfield allowed the fight over the legislation to unfold over more than 50 days, insisting on preserving the Senate’s “dignity and decorum” while keeping the bill on the floor until supporters ultimately secured enough votes to invoke cloture. In effect, grinding most other Senate business to a halt.

Rather than personally managing every moment of the floor fight, like Johnson, Mansfield delegated much of the day-to-day debate to key allies, including soon-to-be Vice President Hubert Humphrey — then still a Democrat senator for Minnesota — and Democratic California Senator Thomas Kuchel, while he coordinated the broader legislative strategy behind the scenes.

Mansfield believed the lengthy debate served an important purpose. With many senators still undecided, he viewed the Senate as a deliberative body where extended discussion could persuade Democrat lawmakers and help opponents ultimately “accept the legitimacy of the outcome,” according to the Senator.

Asked whether he sees parallels between Mansfield’s strategy and the approach the current GOP Senate should take to advance election integrity legislation, Lee said he does, though he noted there are important differences between Mansfield’s effort and the current Senate under Republican Majority Leader John Thune.

“I mean, you did have the majority leader who was saying, ‘I’m willing to do this, and that is what it takes.’ In the modern Senate, you do need the support, active involvement, and engagement by the Senate Majority Leader in order for this to work,” Lee said.

Lee went on to note that one of the “distinct privileges” of the leader is to set the chamber’s schedule, and a talking filibuster is a “significant scheduling commitment.”

Lee said that during the 1964 legislative debate, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield reinforced his commitment to ensuring passage by making it clear the chamber would remain on the bill for as long as necessary. To Lee’s understanding, Mansfield told senators, “We’re going to do this. We’re going to pass it, and we’re going to debate this for as many weeks as it takes in order to pass it. And they stayed in week in, week out.”

Noting he believes the Senate often debated on Saturdays and typically recessed on Sundays for church attendance, but otherwise remained in continuous session, he said it became increasingly clear Mansfield would not back down, “And they saw that he meant it, especially when you get into it that far. When you get weeks into it, it’s, ‘oh my gosh, he’s not messing around. This is serious.’”

With national attention focused on the Senate, supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 used the prolonged floor debate to build momentum for the legislation, while opponents relied on extended debate tactics in an effort to delay or weaken the bill.

When the bill’s supporters briefly failed to produce enough senators for a quorum call, Mansfield privately admonished colleagues, reminding them that “there comes a point in time when certain procedures must, in the best interest of the Senate, be laid down.” Attendance quickly improved.

Lee, who has faced pushback from his own party for his support for this approach, responded to criticism over why the Senate should prioritize the measure even with GOP control of both the legislative and executive branches. The Senator, responding to Thune and Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s argument that Republicans lack the votes, told the Caller that cloture is just one way to break a filibuster — and when you use only that method of breaking the filibuster — after a while, you can become convinced that it’s the only way. But it’s not the only way.”

The talking filibuster employed against the Civil Rights Act only lasted roughly 54–60 working days, or up to about 75 calendar days by some counts, beginning in late March 1964 and ending with final Senate passage on June 19, 1964.

Lee cites the episode and use of the talking filibuster to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a blueprint for how sustained floor debate and prolonged pressure can still, more than six decades later, be used to advance major legislation like the SAVE America Act.

AUTHOR

Ashley Brasfield

Senior Politics Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Cancels Housing Bill Signing Over SAVE America Act

House Cancels Votes As GOP Holdouts Revolt Over Failure To Pass SAVE America Act

‘Cluster F*ck’: Trump’s Dramatic Feud With Senate Republicans Boils Over

Senate Ditches Town Early For Two-Week Recess As Save America Act Remains On Ice

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Crime Drops as More Americans Pack Heat

Not at all surprising!


Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops as More Americans Pack Heat

Alessandra Coote was walking on a trail with her 2-year-old daughter and dog two-and-a-half years ago when a man began yelling at her and threatened to kill her dog. When the petite single mom made it back to her Utah home, she decided she needed a firearm for protection.

A few months later, while living in what she described as a “shady part of town,” a homeless man threatened her. After that encounter, she began regularly carrying a firearm under Utah’s Constitutional Carry law.

Coote, who just graduated this spring from the University of Utah, says carrying the gun has given her the confidence to feel safe in public. “It’s been life-changing,” she told RealClearInvestigations (RCI). Although she has never had to draw or fire the weapon, she has faced a threatening individual when she was armed, but stopped the attack by merely letting the man know she was carrying.

Coote is part of a growing trend of strapped Americans. A new survey of 1,000 general election voters conducted last month by McLaughlin & Associates found that almost 30 percent of respondents said they carry a firearm. More specifically, the survey found that 13.2 percent respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6 percent said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5 percent increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024.
Both polls were commissioned by the group I lead, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Since 2021, 13 states, covering 34 percent of the U.S. population, have adopted constitutional carry laws. As a result, 29 states do not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A little less than two-thirds of those who are carrying a concealed handgun in these states have a permit.

The survey is the latest evidence challenging claims linking firearms and violent crime. As data show both the number of firearms and the percentage of people carrying them is increasing, preliminary estimates show the U.S. murder rate is likely to hit a record low in 2025—at least 10 percent below the previous record low.

“It doesn’t surprise me that while the country is experiencing record-low murder and violent crime rates, we are also experiencing a record high number of people legally carrying concealed handguns for self-protection,” Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told RCI.

Bradford County, Fla., Sheriff Gordon Smith said lowering crime rates “isn’t rocket science.” He told RCI, “You reduce crime by putting more cops on the street, increasing arrest and conviction rates, and imposing meaningful prison sentences. But you also cut crime by empowering law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families through constitutional carry.”

Gun control groups—Everytown, Brady United, and Giffords Law Center—declined repeated requests to respond to the survey data and crime statistics.

Blacks, Hispanics & Women

The CPRC survey also found that politically engaged citizens are more likely to carry firearms. Respondents who identified as general election voters were twice as likely to have concealed handgun permits as other adults.

Blacks and Hispanics also carry at disproportionately high rates. Black people make up 11.0 percent of likely voters but account for 15.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. Hispanics are even higher, accounting for 18.8 percent of frequent carriers despite comprising only 11.0 percent of likely voters. By contrast, whites and Asians carry at rates below their shares of likely voters. Whites constitute 72 percent of likely voters but only 62.6 percent of those who carry all or most of the time, while Asians account for 4.0 percent of likely voters but just 2.0 percent of frequent carriers.

Audrey Bodiford, a 5’2” black woman living in Lansing, Michigan, told RCI she owes her life to her handgun and having a concealed handgun permit. On Valentine’s Day in 2022, she said, the over 6-foot-tall man she had been dating “kind of went crazy,” threatened to kill her, and pulled a knife on her. Fearing for her life, she shot him in self-defense.

Because she lives in what she describes as a “not good” neighborhood, this was not the only time she relied on her firearm for protection. In another incident, she said she accidentally let a door slip from her hand while trying to hold it open for a man leaving a store. The man became verbally abusive, followed her, and aggressively closed in on her. She turned slightly so he could see that she was armed. He immediately backed off, ending the confrontation. Asked if carrying has given her more confidence: “I feel more safe, definitely,” she said.

The survey found relatively small differences between men and women. While women make up 52 percent of general election voters, they comprise 45.1 percent of Americans carrying concealed weapons; men are 48 percent of the electorate and 54.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. The breakdown for Constitutional Carry states is relatively higher for women, with 47.5 percent of those carrying all/most of the time being women and 52.5 percent men. Constitutional Carry may benefit women who suddenly face threats from a stalker or former partner and often do not feel they can wait the months it takes for officials to approve a permit application.

Research shows that two groups benefit the most from carrying firearms: physically weaker individuals, such as women and the elderly, and those most likely to become crime victims, such as poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas. These groups have also experienced the largest percentage increases in concealed handgun permits over the last decade (2015–2024). During that period, permits for women increased 112 percent faster than permits for men, while permits for blacks increased 284 percent faster than permits for whites.

“A firearm dramatically increases a woman’s ability to defend herself,” Professor Carl Moody, a crime researcher at the College of William & Mary, told RCI. “Without a firearm, a woman is almost always at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a man. With a firearm, she can avoid an unfair fight with an opponent who usually has a size and strength advantage. Almost always, it is only necessary to announce or display the weapon to dissuade the attacker.”

More Guns, Fewer Violent Crimes

After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued.

In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states. The murder rate in New Jersey fell from 3.9 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 2.4 in 2024, and the preliminary numbers show it falling to as low as two per 100,000 in 2025.

A press release from New Jersey’s attorney general announced a “Historic Low in Gun Violence for 2025.” Some attribute the drop to the increase in permits. “Today, more than 58,000 law-abiding New Jerseyans can exercise their right to carry a firearm. And while some warned this would turn our streets into the Wild West, the reality has been far different,” Republican New Jersey Assemblyman Greg Myhre claimed.

An easier thing to measure is that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. States revoke their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths or even tens of thousandths of a percentage point. Police officers rarely commit crimes, yet concealed handgun permit holders prove even more law-abiding than cops. Permit holders are convicted for firearms offenses at just one-twelfth the rate at which police are convicted of comparable firearm-related crimes.

“The data clearly show that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest and most responsible users of firearms,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who researches extensively on crime, told RCI. Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith confirmed that this is his experience with Constitutional Carry: “The data is clear: The vast majority of concealed carriers are among our most responsible residents, not the problem.”

Despite the fears raised by gun-control advocates, over 91 percent of street police officers support concealed handgun laws. Law enforcement professionals understand that self-defense is a key element of public safety, in part because they know they usually arrive only after criminals commit crimes. An overwhelming body of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

This is especially true for women, who often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men, who also tend to run faster. While both men and women benefit from carrying a concealed handgun, research shows that each additional woman who carries a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by roughly three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

“Too often, women who are being stalked or threatened are told to limit their movements, alter their routines, or rely on a piece of paper to stop someone determined to harm them,” Robyn Sandoval, the president of A Girl & A Gun, told RCI. “Women deserve better than living in fear. By learning to responsibly carry a firearm, they can gain the confidence and means to protect themselves and live their lives without fear.”

“Every day, more law-abiding citizens choose to legally carry firearms because they refuse to be victimized by criminals and thugs,” Brevard County, FL, Sheriff Wayne Ivey told RCI. “Responsible gun owners know that even the best police response times takes minutes, while violent criminals can take a life in seconds!”

AUTHOR

John R. Lott Jr.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “Gun Control Myths” (2020), “Dumbing Down the Courts,” and “Freedomnomics.”

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: DOJ Launches $300 Million Initiative to Transform Public Safety in American Cities

SHOT TO THE HEART OF DEI: How the Trump Admin Is Dismantling the Legal Basis for Government-Endorsed Discrimination

The Department of Justice under President Donald Trump just took a pivotal step toward removing government-endorsed discrimination from America’s legal system and undermining the institutional apparatus of critical race theory.

Critical race theory teaches that America is systemically racist and that even racially neutral policies are truly racist if they result in better outcomes for members of one race than for members of another. That’s the exact same logic as the legal theory known as “disparate impact.”

Cornell Law School defines disparate impact as a policy or rule “that seems neutral but has a negative impact on a specific protected class of persons.”

Government should strive to adopt policies that allow all Americans to flourish, regardless of race, but Democrat administrations have applied disparate impact theory to encourage “reverse” discrimination.

For instance, the Justice Department and the Department of Education under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden issued guidance warning that if a school disciplines students of one race more than students of another race, that is evidence of racial discrimination, even if the school’s policy is race-neutral. It doesn’t matter if particular students cause more trouble than other students—what matters is the racial breakdown of who gets punished.

In one particularly revealing case, a woman sued the Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming disparate impact from the department’s requirement that people take the driver’s license exam in English. She said the English-only requirement had a disparate impact on people who don’t speak English, even though the road signs in Alabama are in English. While lower courts found in her favor, the Supreme Court struck down her claim in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001).

Just as critical race theory teaches that American society is inherently racist against blacks and for whites, so the leftist reading of disparate impact theory finds fault with colorblind policies for their unintended consequences.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy released a memo Tuesday that restores sanity, however.

The DOJ Disparate Impact Memo

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency tasked with preventing racial discrimination in employment, requested legal advice on disparate impact theory, and the DOJ responded with a far better approach to the law.

EEOC’s current disparate impact guidelines “are unconstitutional because they contemplate liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressure employers to engage in race-based decisionmaking,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Gaiser explained that if employers can demonstrate that the challenged policy “rationally serves a valid business practice,” that will constitute a valid response to a discrimination claim.

“Workplace requirements and selection procedures—such as background checks, aptitude tests, and SAT scores—are presumptively job-related,” he added. “Only irrational or arbitrary practices with no plausible job-relatedness can create disparate-impact liability.”

Finally, employees suing for disparate impact “must establish both that the challenged employment practice specifically caused the alleged disparate impact and provide evidence that an equally effective alternative practice causes less disparate impact.”

These guidelines represent a return to common sense. No longer can potential employees of certain races sue for discrimination if a firm refuses to hire them for failing aptitude tests. This undermines the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement that has pressured companies to hire and promote racial minorities, arguably at the expense of more qualified candidates.

Trump’s War on DEI

This important memo represents one more step in the Trump administration’s efforts to reject the DEI movement and restore sanity.

Trump signed an executive order “restoring equality of opportunity and meritocracy” in April 2025, rejecting disparate impact liability.

The EEOC moved to close most disparate impact cases by Sept. 30, according to an internal memo.

The Office of Legal Counsel memo is not a court filing, but it does represent the legal stance of the Justice Department on the issue.

Election Integrity and Disparate Impact

The memo also comes after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where the court found that legislatures violate the law when they draw congressional redistricting maps on the basis of race. Justice Samuel Alito rejected a disparate impact argument in favor of racial redistricting.

This may bode ill for leftist arguments against voter ID requirements. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down Texas’ voter ID law, finding that the law had a disparate impact on minorities.

Democrats have baselessly condemned the mere requirement of a legal ID to vote as an imposition of “Jim Crow 2.0,” claiming that it is more difficult for racial minorities to obtain a photo ID. According to the approach of the new DOJ guidance, a commonsense requirement that a person prove he is who he says he is in order to vote would not be presumptively unconstitutional due to some ridiculous claim of discrimination.

This guidance represents one more step toward restoring sanity after Democrat-led administrations imposed critical race theory via misreadings of the law.

AUTHOR

Tyler O’Neil

Tyler O’Neil is senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal and the author of two books, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” Follow on X Tyler2ONeil.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The H-1B Visa Fraud Network

The H-1B visa program, originally designed by the United States to attract the world’s brightest minds and bridge critical high-skilled labor gaps, has morphed into a playground for systemic manipulation. At the epicenter of this distortion is a highly sophisticated network of IT consulting firms, staff augmentation agencies, and body shops operating primarily out of India or managed by Indian-origin syndicates in the U.S. What was conceived as a pipeline for specialized talent — the software architects, researchers, and engineers capable of driving global innovation — has instead been choked by a deluge of coordinated deception, designed to monopolize a finite public resource at the expense of legitimate professionals worldwide.

The mechanics of this exploitation were laid bare during recent lottery cycles, exposing a staggering disparity between honest applicant volume and coordinated fraud. Because the annual allocation of H-1B visas is strictly capped by Congress at 65,000 caps, alongside a 20,000 master’s degree exemption, the selection process relies on a random computer lottery. For fiscal year 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recorded an unprecedented, mathematical anomaly of 781,000 total registrations. Shockingly, more than 408,000 of those entries were multiple registrations submitted on behalf of the exact same individuals. A shadowy conglomerate of shell companies and interlocking IT consultancies colluded to file dozens of duplicate applications for single candidates. By artificially inflating their numbers, these bad actors drastically reduced the selection odds for independent applicants to a dismal percentage, effectively hijacking the lottery through sheer volume.

The architecture of this fraud relies on a multi-tiered system of smoke and mirrors. Rather than offering real, specialized positions at established enterprises, these fraudulent operators utilize ghost offices — empty storefronts and mail-forwarding addresses scattered across states like Texas and California — to create the illusion of local demand. These entities submit legally binding attestations to the U.S. government affirming that a specific, specialized job awaits the foreign national. In reality, these positions are entirely fabricated. A prominent case recently prosecuted by the Department of Justice involved Indian-origin executives who went so far as to falsely promise placement at prestigious institutions, like the University of California, (allegedly) utilizing fraudulent employment contracts to siphon visas for non-existent projects. Once these visas are successfully obtained through deceit, the beneficiaries are benched — held in employment limbo without legal pay — until the firm can contract them out to actual American businesses as cut-rate contractors, undercutting the domestic labor market and violating federal wage protections.

The corruption is not limited to small-scale fraudulent rings; it extends historic roots into some of the largest tech conglomerates originating from the Indian subcontinent. To bypass the stringent oversight and numerical limits of the H-1B program, massive outsourcing giants have historically weaponized alternative visa pipelines, establishing a blueprint for systematic evasion. This institutional misconduct was punctuated when Infosys paid a record-shattering $34 million civil settlement to immigration authorities following allegations of systemic visa fraud. Federal investigators discovered that the company was systematically using B-1 visitor visas — intended for short-term business meetings — to deploy foreign nationals for full-time, hands-on software development work in the United States. To pull this off, the corporation explicitly distributed internal “Dos and Don’ts” memos, coaching foreign employees to deliberately lie to U.S. consular officers, and scrub their correspondence of revealing technical words like implementation, design, or testing that would indicate they were arriving to perform actual local employment.

The damage inflicted by this institutionalized gaming of the system is vast and multifaceted. It breeds a culture of exploitation where the foreign workers themselves are trapped by predatory employers who hold absolute power over their legal status, often taking kickbacks or withholding wages. Simultaneously, it locks out genuine global talent — brilliant scientists, medical professionals, and innovators, who possess genuine job offers from premier institutions but are shut out by a lottery system stacked against them by automated fraud rings. This rampant gaming of federal regulations finally forced USCIS to dismantle its old framework, moving to a strict beneficiary-centric selection model for the fiscal year 2025 and 2026 cycles, an intervention that saw fraudulent multiple registrations plummet from over 400,000 down to fewer than 8,000.

While these tighter guardrails have begun to stem the flow of duplicate registry scams, the legacy of this deception casts a long shadow. Decades of unpunished exploitation have permanently distorted the public perception of skilled immigration, fueling valid domestic skepticism and provoking aggressive regulatory crackdowns, including sweeping executive restrictions on entry. The widespread fraud originating from India’s predatory IT shell sector has not just broken American immigration laws; it has actively betrayed the global community of honest professionals, turning a merit-based ideal into a game of corporate numbers where the only true winners are the cartels pulling the strings.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RINO TRAITORS: Senate Kills Voter ID Bill One Day After California Election Chaos

The Senate just voted down the SAVE America Act, blocking a measure that would have required voter ID and proof of citizenship for federal elections nationwide.

Let that sink in. Imagine, the day after Americans watched California’s primary results being dragged through yet another counting fiasco.

Republican NO votes: Tillis, Murkowski, McConnell, and Collins.

Washington keeps telling Americans to trust the system while refusing to adopt the most basic election safeguards supported by an overwhelming majority of voters. Public backing from polls showing 80%+ approval for voter ID.

That’s the real story.

The Senate voted 48-50 against waiving budget rules for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s amendment to add SAVE America Act provisions to an immigration funding bill, falling short of the 60 votes needed. The act requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship like a birth certificate or passport for federal election registration, plus photo ID at polls and curbs on absentee voting. Public backing from polls showing 80%+ approval for voter ID. Sen. Mike Lee plans another attempt soon amid GOP divisions and midterm pressures.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLE: California Faces Election Fraud Investigations Amid Major Vote Count Delays

RELATED VIDEO: Why is California still counting ballots?

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

DOJ FRAUD CHIEF: Fraudsters Should Fear a 6 A.M. Knock on the Door

WATCH: DOJ FRAUD CHIEF: Fraudsters Should Fear a 6 A.M. Knock on the Door

In an exclusive interview, Daily Signal legal analyst Mehek Cooke discussed with Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald why the Justice Department launched its inaugural state partnership roundtable in Ohio, how data sharing could help investigators identify fraudsters who target multiple government programs, and why other states should join the effort.

This transcript has been slightly edited for clarity.


Mehek Cooke: Assistant Attorney General McDonald, thank you so much for being here in Ohio today.

Colin McDonald: Thank you so much for having me. It’s great to be here.

Cooke: So, I was able to witness a closed-door roundtable where you’re leading a charge to detect fraud in Ohio with multiple partners and Ohio officials. Can you tell me why you started in Ohio with this?

McDonald: Well, thanks for chatting with me here. It’s so important to get the word out about the fraud efforts that we’re engaged in. We started here on the strength of some great U.S. attorneys who are here in the state of Ohio and some willing state partners who, when we came to them and said, “Hey, we have these ideas for how we can do better together, to come together as one team,” they were willing down the line to say, “Yes, we’re willing to do that and to become one team to fight for the American taxpayer and to make sure that we can stop the bleeding when it comes to the fraud.”

So, this morning’s event was a kickoff event, an inaugural event, with state and federal partners to get together in a room and say, “Hey, if we don’t solve it, no one else will.”

And so, we’ve had great reception here in Ohio. Partnerships including the sharing of data and also including the provision of prosecutors to join the Department of Justice’s Fraud Division and other agreements down the line to make sure that we can remove information silos so that we can have and sing off the same sheet of music when it comes to the data that exists out there, so that we can more quickly illuminate the fraudsters in Ohio and then bring them to justice.

Cooke: Well, thank you. It’s exciting that Ohio’s the first and shining example, but I have to share with you that people in Ohio are deeply frustrated because fraud has been rampant for decades. Why do you think it’s taken so long, and what can we do to make sure we expedite these processes?

McDonald: Yeah, fighting fraud requires resolve and focus and leadership. And I’m grateful on the federal side, under President [Donald] Trump, Vice President [JD] Vance, Acting Attorney General [Todd] Blanche. Those three men are laser-focused on solving this problem for the American people.

And so, I would say that is the biggest sea change, leadership, and the leaders in the room saying, “We’re not going to tolerate this anymore. We’re going to actually do something about it, and we’re going to put our money where our mouth is, which is we’re going to put resources behind this work so that we actually have a broad enough fraud-fighting apparatus to engage with the fraudsters so that we’re not outnumbered.”

So, we’re in that process right now of building out our squad, both in D.C. but more so nationally, to make sure that we have prosecutors out there in the districts, in the states where the fraud is happening so that we can bring bad actors to justice.

So, that would be my answer, leadership. And we have that leadership, steer, and desire and purpose. There’s a purpose behind what we’re doing, and that comes from the top.

Cooke: Well, I have to say there’s no doubt that the political will and desire to protect taxpayers is there by this administration.

I think the deeper concern is Ohio and then Columbus, Ohio. We have the second-largest Somali population, and out of that we have seen a robust operation of home health care fraud. We’re seeing other avenues of fraud in other programs as well.

And the silo approach in our states, and I’m seeing this across the country, where there’s no data sharing even amongst state agencies.

Like a Republican state in Ohio, we have the governor’s office here who’s refusing to give public records. So, we’ve asked for, at the Daily Signal, public records of just how much we’re spending for home health care services, not patient data, nothing confidential. And after five months, the Ohio Governor’s Office Department of Medicaid responded that they subcontracted this to a private operator and that I had to go to them to ask for those records.

What can you do at the DOJ so a taxpayer like me and millions of others across the state just have visibility into how the states are managing our money?

McDonald: Yeah. Well, it’s a very big problem on the federal side where we give over billions of dollars to states across the country, and then in many instances, we never see what happens with that money afterwards. And some states do good, some states do not do well at all with providing proper accounting for that money. So, it is a big problem.

And those information silos that you talk about, where the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, and the federal government is denied visibility into certain documents, we’re dealing with that in the state of Minnesota right now, and other states who are even going so far as to sue us to prevent us from having access to records that would probably very likely demonstrate fraud.

And you kind of have to ask, why would someone be trying to keep records from us to help us illuminate the fraudulent actors? It is a question I think everyone should pose.

So, what we plan to do, we mentioned this morning at the roundtable, is we are building out a prosecutor-led national fraud detection center, which breaks down those information silos and brings together data from federal agencies and also state partners so that we can bring that data together to see and identify the fraudsters who are defrauding multiple programs at the same time in many instances.

And this has never been done before, to have that cross-program visibility.

We’re going to build that. We’re in the process right now of doing that so that we can identify the very small percentage of people who rip off the United States time and time again. This will give us the ability to put a microscope on those people, and they won’t be able to hide because the data talks and it talks loudly.

And when we get everybody to give it to us and we can look at it, we are going to be able to unmask those fraudulent actors.

Cooke: Will taxpayers have access to this data once you’re able to create it nationwide?

McDonald: So, the fraud detection center will be prosecution-focused.

Cooke: So …

McDonald: It will fall in line with the standard protocols for the treatment and collection of criminal evidence. And so in that regard, no. But in the other sense, what we are trying to do is build out a robust platform for messaging to the American people.

What are we finding and who are we prosecuting?

And also, being able to use what we’re learning to go to the policymakers and share that with the policymakers to say, “Hey, these are the flaws in the system. This is how you need to do better with your security protocols to make sure that the money doesn’t go out the door in the first place.”

Because that’s better for everybody if there are systems in place that can prevent the money and capture the fraudster before they have consummated the fraud.

So, we will be as transparent as possible within the confines of what the federal rules of criminal procedure allow for us to be.

But also, we do plan to tell the American people how they are being ripped off, because the more they know, the more the public will support all the work that we’re doing and will ensure that no one can remain on the sidelines, that everyone will join the team because they’ll see that they need to get in the game.

Cooke: Well, that’s incredible because one of the big things you highlighted is not only transparency but deterrence, so that the bad guys out there know that you’re watching and that you’re exposing it, so they are less likely to commit fraud.

One of the best parts about the conference that you just led, the roundtable, was your drive to say there should be fewer prosecutions in years to come because deterrence is working. Can you comment a little bit more on that?

McDonald: Yes. The best case for a country, for a state, for a society, is in the end you have demonstrated the power of the prosecutor to be able to reach those who are committing crime.

And when you demonstrate that, if there is a crime, there is a consequence, that you will reap what you sow, and you demonstrate that the prosecutor apparatus is large enough to reach you, then people don’t commit crimes. They think twice. They realize, “I shouldn’t lie. I shouldn’t cheat. I shouldn’t steal.” Very basic things.

But where you do not have that apparatus built out, people think they can get away with it.

So, you have a lot of fraudsters who have, for many years, been enjoying the darkness and being able to steal from the American people in the dark, no visibility, and funding their very lavish lifestyles. So, they do not feel the concern that a prosecutor might be knocking on their door, or a federal agent might be knocking on their door at 6 a.m. the next morning. That’s what I want to change.

I want to change that whole dynamic such that if you’re a fraudster and you go to bed tonight, you are worried that you are going to get a knock on your door at six o’clock tomorrow morning. And if you make it to 6:30 tomorrow morning, you should say a prayer because you’ve got another day. But guess what? You’ve got to go to bed that night worried about six o’clock the next morning. That’s what I want. I want fraudsters worried about six o’clock in the morning.

Cooke: Well, I congratulate the drive and the implementation. Ohio’s the first state. What’s your message to other states about getting on board so we have a 50-state solution to fraud? And the most important part of this is, if there’s reluctance, what do you say to those states?

McDonald: I would say leave the reluctance behind. Get on board the fraud-fighting team. We have room for everyone. Our division that we’ve created is the National Fraud Enforcement Division, and we chose that word purposefully, which is that the fraud is national.

And we’ve announced in the last 64 days or so over 550 major fraud takedowns, arrests, convictions, and sentences across the entirety of the United States of America. So, we are moving quickly to build out our fraud-fighting apparatus.

We invite everyone to join us, as you’ve seen today with different members of the Ohio coalition agreeing to join us and come alongside us. That’s what we want. If we come together, we can solve this problem. If we stay in our own corners and not cooperate, it won’t work.

Cooke: Thank you so much for your leadership on this. It’s a pleasure to have you in Ohio, and I continue to see your great work across the country.

McDonald: Thank you so much.

AUTHOR

Mehek Cooke

Mehek Cooke is senior national security and legal analyst for the Daily Signal. Follow on X MehekCooke.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ohio Becomes First State to Share Business Data With Feds to Hunt Fraudsters

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Is Fighting Fraud Now Partisan?

More than a dozen state attorneys general (AGs) met with Vice President J.D. Vance at a Tuesday meeting of the Trump administration’s anti-fraud roundtable, but not one of them was a Democrat. “Democratic AGs were invited to that same meeting, and it won’t surprise you that none of them attended,” declared Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), who plans to participate in the initiative, on “Washington Watch”. The Democratic AGs not only avoided the event, but 23 of them even signed a public letter declaring that they would not.

“This absolutely should be an issue of concern to everyone,” warned FRC’s Jody Hice. Has fighting fraud now become a partisan issue?

The excuse offered in the letter was that Democrats did not believe the meeting was a “serious” discussion, and they were not given enough advance notice. “While we would appreciate the opportunity to engage in serious discussions, the invitation was provided with less than one business day’s notice with no agenda,” the letter complained. “With appropriate notice and a genuine opportunity for engagement, we would welcome the chance to participate in a future meeting and contribute to a productive dialogue.”

This complaint is not entirely without merit. According to an unnamed official cited by CNBC, invites were originally sent out only to Republican AGs. Apparently, whoever was responsible for organizing the meeting believed that fighting fraud was a partisan issue Democrats would not care about.

However, on Friday before the holiday weekend, Vice President Vance personally insisted that invitations be sent to Democrats too.

“This should not be a partisan effort,” Vance declared before the meeting. “Everybody should care about fraud. Everybody should care about rooting out fraud. Everybody should care about saving the American taxpayers money, and importantly, everybody should care about actually protecting the programs that only work and are only properly funded.”

But Democratic AGs chose to take offense at not originally receiving an invitation, rather than reciprocating Vance’s magnanimity to intervene on their behalf.

A last-minute (or last-business-day) invitation could provide a justification for some state AGs to skip the meeting. Some, like Marshall, likely had scheduling conflicts (although very few scheduling conflicts outweigh an invitation from the White House). Some, like AGs on the West Coast, could plead that the travel burden made the trip not worth the effort — not without time to schedule other East Coast meetings.

But many of the letter’s signatories are located much closer to Washington, D.C. than the West Coast. The letter was signed by the Democratic AGs of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and even the AG of D.C. itself. Instead of spending time adjusting their schedules to fit in a quick trip to the White House, these officials instead chose to spend their time drafting a letter to declare that they would not participate and circulating it for signatures. Several Democratic AGs even organized a press conference that afternoon to counter-program the event.

These factors suggest that the short notice was not the only reason — perhaps not even the main reason — why Democratic AGs organized a collective boycott of the anti-fraud roundtable.

What other possible reasons present themselves? These elected officials could be executing the common Democratic strategy of instinctively opposing any action the Trump administration tries to take — even to the point of being uncooperative on fraud prevention. Or they could be trying to avoid the embarrassment of showing up unprepared to a meeting where their own state’s fraud failure was on the agenda. There might be other reasons, but both of these are highly plausible.

The reason is the Trump administration’s narrative and focus on combatting fraud. This began with the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) highly publicized audits of government books. Those investigations found some substantial savings, although their results did not quite live up to the hype.

Since then, however, the Trump administration has continued to root out waste, fraud, and abuse through individual government departments, which are looking carefully at their expenses.

With the help of intrepid independent journalists, this focus on fraud blew open the Minnesota welfare fraud scandal late last year, which uncovered systematic fraud by Somali immigrants running fake daycares. In just one fraud scheme, Somali immigrants stole approximately $250 million in federal welfare dollars. But nearly 100 individuals were charged across multiple schemes.

The investigation spread beyond Minnesota and beyond the Somali community. By the end of 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice had charged 265 individuals with fraud, worth an alleged $15 billion in health care alone, and they had secured 235 convictions, either through guilty pleas or trials.

Early this year, President Trump tapped Vice President Vance to head up an anti-fraud task force. That group is now looking at fraud in at least 14 state welfare programs totaling a potential $9 billion. Additionally, Vance said the task force had referred $22 billion in potentially fraudulent small business loans to the Treasury Department and deferred $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from states (like California) that had failed to sufficiently cooperate with fighting fraud.

Of course, some fraud is neither systematic nor narrative-building. Sometimes, fraud is simply a result of sinful human beings deciding it is easy to steal from the public — until they get caught. Earlier this month, a former CIA analyst with top-secret clearance was arrested for defrauding the U.S. government in a number of ways. He falsified the details of his Navy service record, claimed 744 hours of paid time off for active military service for a decade after his discharge, and scammed his agency for millions in “work-related expenses.” Federal investigators found $40 million in gold bars, $2 million in cash, and 35 luxury watches in his home.

Examples like this one show fraud for what it is: someone who seeks to enrich himself by stealing from the government. It is little different from insider trading and almost the same thing as an elected official embezzling public funds.

“This should not be a political issue,” Marshall maintained. “When someone is stealing taxpayer dollars, that should be one [thing] that both Democrats and Republicans can unite around.”

Unfortunately, some public officials seem reluctant to unite around this principle. After citizen journalists like Nick Shirley began to uncover welfare fraud in California of the scope and nature of the fraud he had uncovered in Minnesota, the U.S. DOJ in April formed a West Coast strike force in its fraud division to focus on the Westernmost states.

But California didn’t want to play along. It’s unclear whether state officials meant to save themselves the embarrassment of being shown for dupes, or whether they believe the fraud should continue because the beneficiaries are illegal immigrants (and, in some twisted version of Marxism, their theft is therefore justified).

On Wednesday, the California Assembly passed a bill to ban photographing or video-recording employees of nonprofit organizations without their consent. This seems similar to the law Kamala Harris used 10 years ago to prosecute David Daleiden for exposing Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby body parts. The difference is that it expands penalties.

The bill also seems suspiciously timed and targeted to suppress the type of journalism Nick Shirley and others have used to expose, for instance, daycare and at-home care nonprofits that don’t actually provide any services, but bill the government anyway. Critics of the legislation have dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

The good news is, Democratic state AGs do recognize they have a duty to combat fraud, and their letter to Vance at least acknowledges the nobility of the objective. Marshall expressed “hope” that his Democratic counterparts would come around to cooperate with the administration.

“It’s their legal responsibility, as the chief law enforcement officers of their state, to not only ensure that taxpayer money is spent appropriately, but also hold those accountable who violate the laws,” he said. “My hope is that they will see the wisdom of that. But yet we haven’t obviously seen a whole lot of action in Minnesota or in California yet.”

“We have a responsibility [to] the taxpayers of this country to root out waste, fraud, and abuse,” Marshall added. “We know what’s going on in the system. This administration has made it a priority, and we stand with them looking forward to best practices delivering results to the people across the country.”

The question is whether, in the age of Trump, even fighting fraud has become an issue divided along partisan battle lines. It should not matter whether the fraud is perpetrated by foreign nationals. What should matter is whether U.S. taxpayers are getting bilked out of billions by people leeching off the public coffers. In the eyes of the Left, though, the former question seems to get more attention than the latter.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump’s New Election Order Creates Mail-Ballot Chain of Custody — And Ballot Mills Are Panicking

The Founder of Election Watch Peter Bernegger explains President Trump’s new election-mail Executive Order USPS:

Most people have no idea what President Trump’s new election-mail Executive Order USPS rule actually does.

1. Plain English: it creates a chain-of-custody system for mail ballot envelopes in federal elections.

2. Not the vote, the envelope.

3. Under the proposed USPS rule, states using mail-in or absentee ballots for federal elections would have to use standardized ballot envelopes:

  • Official Election Mail logo
  • Automation-compatible design
  • Unique Intelligent Mail barcode
  • USPS review of envelope/barcode placement

4. That means the ballot envelope becomes trackable.

5. States or election mailers would also submit key data through a USPS portal:

  • Voter name
  • Voter address
  • Outbound envelope barcode
  • Return envelope barcode
  • Originating election office state

6. So officials can know: this ballot envelope was sent out, and this return envelope came back.

7. USPS would review outbound ballot mail before accepting it.

  • Is it in the right envelope?
  • Does it have the proper barcode?
  • Is it going to someone enrolled on that state’s mail-ballot participation list?

8. If not, the mailing goes back to the election mailer to fix.

9. The broader Executive Order also directs DHS + SSA to help create State Citizenship Lists using federal citizenship, naturalization, SSA, SAVE, and related data.

10. Those lists go to state election officials before federal elections.

11. Important: states still run voter registration. The federal list does not register anyone by itself.

12. Bottom line: this is not “tracking your vote.”

13. It tracks the envelope, creates a sent-vs-returned audit trail, helps flag discrepancies, preserves ballot-envelope records, and leaves states responsible for their voter rolls.

14. Chain of custody is not suppression. It is basic election accountability.

15. I used “proposed rule” because USPS has not finalized the rule yet.

16. The proposal says it applies to general, special, and runoff federal elections, not primaries or UOCAVA military/overseas ballots, and it requires unique barcodes on outbound and return envelopes.

17. The rule would require voter name/address plus outbound and return envelope barcode data through a USPS portal, with updates allowed until the last day ballots may be mailed under state law.

18. It also says USPS does not alter voter eligibility or manage state voter rolls.

19. The EO separately directs DHS/SSA to create State Citizenship Lists and directs DOJ enforcement and five-year preservation of participation records, excluding cast ballots.

20. There is one more thing it does, all I’ll say is, watch out ballot mills.

ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

White House.gov

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20901 et seq.), the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (52 U.S.C. 20501 et seq.), and the Federal Government’s constitutional obligation to guarantee a republican form of Government to every State in the Union, U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 4, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law.  Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations.  (18 U.S.C. 241; 18 U.S.C. 611; 18 U.S.C. 1015; and 52 U.S.C. 20511).  The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains records that, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program under 42 U.S.C. 1320b-7, can assist in verifying identity and Federal election voter eligibility.

The Federal Government has an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the United States to enforce Federal law, which includes preventing violations of Federal criminal law and maintaining public confidence in election outcomes.  To enhance election integrity via the United States Mail, additional measures are necessary.  Secure ballot envelope identifiers provide a reliable, auditable mechanism to enforce Federal law without unduly burdening or infringing on the rights of eligible voters.  Unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections.

Sec. 2.  Establishment and Transmission of State Citizenship Lists and Prioritization of Investigations and Prosecutions Related to Election Fraud.  (a)  To the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and in coordination with the Commissioner of SSA, shall take appropriate action to compile and transmit to the chief election official of each State a list of individuals confirmed to be United States citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election and who maintain a residence in the subject State (State Citizenship List).  The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases.  The State Citizenship List shall be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a State in connection with any special Federal election.  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish procedures to (i) allow individuals to access their individual records as well as to update or correct them in advance of elections; and (ii) enable States to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments to the State Citizenship List transmitted thereto.  An individual’s identification on the State Citizenship List does not indicate that the individual has been properly registered to vote in the State.  State and Federal laws and State procedures must still be followed for an individual to be registered to vote.  There may be State laws, not reflected in the State Citizenship List, that preclude voter registration, or the individual may choose not to be registered.

(b)  For purposes of this order, an individual is “eligible to vote in a Federal election” if the individual is a citizen of the United States, 18 years of age or older by the date of the upcoming election, and otherwise qualified under the laws of his or her State.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials or any others involved in the administration of Federal elections who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election, including under 18 U.S.C. 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 611(a), 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1015, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511.  Similarly, the Attorney General shall prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of individuals and public or private entities engaged in, or aiding and abetting, the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots to individuals who are not eligible to vote in a Federal election.

Sec. 3.  United States Postal Service Rulemaking on Mail-In and Absentee Ballots.  (a)  The unlawful use of the mail in connection with elections is prohibited by various Federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1341, 18 U.S.C. 1708, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511.

(b)  To ensure the faithful execution of Federal law, protect the integrity of the mail as a medium for transmitting Federal election ballots and establish uniform standards for mail-in or absentee ballot services implemented through the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Postmaster General is hereby directed to initiate a proposed rulemaking pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 401 and other applicable authority within 60 days of the date of this order.  The notice of proposed rulemaking shall include, at minimum, the following:

(i)    Proposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that:

(A)  is marked as Official Election Mail, including through designated markings provided by USPS for this purpose, such as the Official Election Mail logo, as necessary and appropriate;

(B)  is automation-compatible and bears a unique Intelligent Mail barcode, or successor USPS technology, that facilitates tracking and is consistent with the other requirements of this section; and

(C)  has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance with USPS mailing standards, including barcode placement.

(ii)   Proposed provisions specifying that, no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify the USPS if it intends to allow for mail-in or absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS.  As part of that notification, any notifying State should further indicate whether it intends to submit to the USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of voters eligible to vote in a Federal election in such State to whom the State intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS.

(iii)  Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list described in subsection (b)(iv) of this section with the USPS pursuant to this subsection.

(iv)   Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals (Mail-In and Absentee Participation List) who are enrolled with the USPS, pursuant to a process specified in the rulemaking directed by this subsection, for mail-in or absentee ballots provided by such State, along with unique ballot envelope identifiers, such as bar codes, for mail-in or absentee ballots provided to such individuals.  The preparation and transmission of each State-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List shall comply with the Privacy Act and all applicable use agreements.

(v)    Proposed procedures enabling each State to routinely supplement and provide suggested modifications or amendments to the State’s Mail-In and Absentee Participation List in advance of any Federal election, consistent with applicable State law.

(c)  The USPS shall coordinate with the USPS Office of Inspector General and the Department of Justice for investigation of suspected unlawful use of the mail involving Federal election materials.

(d)  Any final rule pursuant to this section shall be issued no later than 120 days from the date of this order.

Sec. 4.  Implementation.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of SSA, and the Postmaster General shall coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce in effectuating all relevant aspects of the implementation of this order.

(b)  The Attorney General shall enforce compliance with the applicable Federal statutes referenced herein and provide guidance to election officials, including any instrumentalities thereof; contractors; individuals involved in the administration of Federal elections; or public or private entities engaged in the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots.

(c)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, establish the infrastructure necessary to compile, maintain, and transmit the State Citizenship List described in section 2(a) of this order, and shall designate a point of contact within DHS to receive and process requests from individuals and State election officials regarding the relevant State Citizenship List.  The Commissioner of SSA shall provide all necessary citizenship and identity data to the Secretary of Homeland Security in support of this requirement, consistent with applicable law, the Privacy Act, and all applicable use agreements.

Sec. 5.  Enforcement.  The Attorney General and the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) with relevant authority shall take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with Federal law, including withholding Federal funds from noncompliant States and localities where such withholding is authorized by law.  Evidence of violations of existing Federal laws by State or local election officials; States or localities, including any instrumentalities thereof; contractors; individuals involved in the administration of Federal elections; or public or private entities engaged in the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots may be referred to the Department of Justice for consideration of investigation or charges under 18 U.S.C. 2(a), 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 611(a), 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C. 1015, 52 U.S.C. 10307, and 52 U.S.C. 20511.  States and localities should preserve, for a 5-year period, all records and materials — excluding ballots cast — evidencing voter participation in any Federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carrier).

Sec. 6.  Severability.  If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any agency, person, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other agencies, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 31, 2026.

Related

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The DOJ Was Already Primed. Todd Blanche Lit the Fuse.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has been on the job for less than two months, and he’s already made himself hard to ignore.

The president’s restless base is paying attention, and his reputation, at least from the outside, is that he is more aggressive than the woman he replaced.

That read isn’t entirely wrong, insiders tell the Daily Caller. Blanche’s years of federal experience and his time as number two at DOJ have left him with his hands on a lot of projects and the institutional knowledge to actually move them.

“He knows how to uncork the bottle quickly and where the levers of power are in DOJ,” a former Justice official tells the Caller.

In less than two months, he’s indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center and former FBI Director James Comey, and signed off on a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for victims of political prosecutions.

The pace has left Trump allies impressed. But they’re quick to add context: Blanche didn’t build these cases from scratch. He inherited a loaded weapon and knew exactly how to fire it.

“Pam Bondi had to take all the slings and arrows to get where we are now. And now Todd is taking the baton, and he’s the next man up,” Mike Davis, Trump ally and founder of the Article III project, told the Caller.

Trump dismissed Bondi from the Attorney General position in early April. At the time of her firing, a White House official told the Caller that there is no “bad blood” between the president and the AG, but that he was overall dissatisfied with her job performance. In short, the president wanted Bondi to be more aggressive and bring forward more prosecutions.

Bondi, who was never a federal prosecutor, faced a steep learning curve navigating the inner workings of the DOJ, the former official told the Caller. It made her transition to AG more complicated. But her tenure, insiders say, was more spent laying groundwork for the results she wouldn’t get to see through.

Blanche doesn’t have the same problem.

The Acting AG came up as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, one of the country’s most demanding federal districts, and later served as the president’s personal criminal defense attorney before entering the Trump administration as number two at the DOJ. By the time he stepped into the top job, he already knew which cases were live, which prosecutors to trust, and how to push a grand jury toward an indictment.

“The advantage of a number two rising to become the acting number one is that you know where all the balls are in the air,” a former DOJ official told the Caller. “Todd could immediately grab some of those balls and put them into play.”

Nineteen days after Bondi’s firing, Blanche called a press conference alongside FBI Director Kash Patel to announce an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The left-wing activist group had been covertly directing millions to individuals tied to white supremacist and other extremist organizations, Blanche said. The announcement was celebrated as a win for conservative organizations, many of whom were targeted by the SPLC and labeled as “hate groups.”

A few days later, Blanche’s DOJ unveiled a second indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. This one was tied to a since-deleted social media post featuring the numbers “8647,” which some interpreted as a veiled call to kill the president.

Under Bondi, the department brought an indictment against him in September over allegations that he lied and obstructed a congressional investigation during 2020 testimony. But that case was dismissed in November.

A DOJ official told the Caller the SPLC case had been in the works for some time, but that Blanche’s arrival as acting AG was what got it across the finish line. His familiarity with grand juries, prosecutors, and the mechanics of building a federal case made the difference.

“A lot of that job is knowing the justice system and how to get things across the finish line. Having that understanding, I think, is where he has found success,” the DOJ official told the Caller.

Still, Bondi’s DOJ played a role in helping build the case, insiders explained.

“I think Blanche is doing a good job, but I don’t think that they’ve just suddenly gotten more aggressive. I, some of this work, particularly like the SPLC, as a result of work that was clearly in progress when Bondi left,” von Spakosky added.

Davis agreed.

“[Blanche is] taking it to the next level, from a strong foundation behind the scenes, to action in public… you can’t just wave a magic wand and bring indictments or predicate investigations. That takes a lot of work. It takes months of work,” he told the Caller.

Whether Blanche gets a permanent nomination remains an open question, and it may stay that way deliberately.

“Congress takes more recess than kindergarten,” a former DOJ official told the Caller. “Why would you waste political capital trying to confirm Todd when what happens if he doesn’t get confirmed?”

Politico has reported there may be a loophole allowing Blanche to remain in the acting role beyond the standard 210-day limit. The White House, for its part, isn’t signaling any urgency to change course.

“President Trump has a great relationship with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and is very pleased with the job he’s doing so far,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Caller.

In the meantime, Davis has a prediction for Blanche’s next move.

“I have very publicly, for four years since the Mar-a-Lago raid, called for a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida to indict Obama for their conspiracy against rights — against President Trump, his top aides, and his allies,” Davis said. “I fully expect this to happen under Todd Blanche.”

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tulsi Gabbard Says She’s Referring Obama For Criminal Charges

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Has No Problem Seeing Comey, Brennan Behind Bars For Russiagate Hoax

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.