‘The Broader Reality Is Not in Dispute’: Wes Moore Struggles To Substantiate Claims About His Grandfather As Aides Accuse Free Beacon of Racism

Pressed for evidence to support his oft-repeated claim that his great-grandfather and grandfather were run out of South Carolina in the 1920s by the Ku Klux Klan, Maryland governor Wes Moore (D.) produced no evidence. Instead, his aides pointed to the “broader reality” of race relations in the Jim Crow South.

The post ‘The Broader Reality Is Not in Dispute’: Wes Moore Struggles To Substantiate Claims About His Grandfather As Aides Accuse Free Beacon of Racism appeared first on .

'Couldn't find her reservation': Trump hilariously roasts  Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren in private dinner



President Donald Trump delivered another hilarious one-liner during a private dinner, this time aimed at Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Trump has repeatedly trolled the Massachusetts Democrat, namely for claiming she had Native American ancestry, plaguing her political prospects in 2020. Warren even went so far as to list her Native American heritage in university records, but she was quickly mocked when she revealed her actual genetic profile.

'She "couldn't find her reservation.'''

Warren released her DNA results in an attempt to combat ridicule, only to reveal that her Native American ancestry went back roughly 6-10 generations, equating to about 1/64th to 1/1,024th Native American.

The scandal quickly became the subject of mockery, with Warren later apologizing to the Cherokee Nation.

RELATED: Trump offers hilarious rebuttal to Tim Walz's absurd Civil War analogy

Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Years later, the controversy remains a hilarious memory for many Americans, including Trump, who has made several references to it since.

Most famously, Trump branded Warren with the nickname "Pocahontas" in reference to the negligible Native American ancestry she made a focal point of her academic and political career.

RELATED: Liz Warren hustles Trump with a housing bill from hell

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

His trolling streak has only continued, with Trump referencing the classic nickname during a recent black-tie dinner. In addition to reviving the "Pocahontas" nickname, Trump joked about Warren's absence from the dinner.

Warren was set to attend the dinner alongside other lawmakers, but Trump noted that she "couldn't find her reservation."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Antitrust panic helped kill an American robotics pioneer



Antitrust regulators claim to protect competition. Their decision to block Amazon’s acquisition of iRobot did the opposite. It helped drive an American robotics pioneer into bankruptcy last December and pushed it into the arms of a Chinese creditor.

Antitrust law is supposed to defend consumers and prevent monopoly abuse. In this case, regulators killed a deal that could have kept iRobot alive, preserved American jobs, and strengthened a U.S. company facing brutal Chinese competition. Instead, the collapse of the acquisition forced iRobot into a court-supervised restructuring in which Shenzhen Picea Robotics — its largest Chinese creditor and key supplier — will take the company’s equity and cancel roughly $264 million in debt.

Ultimately, the acquisition’s collapse pushed iRobot into a deal with its largest Chinese creditor.

iRobot began in 1990, founded by roboticists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The company built military and space exploration products before it introduced the Roomba in 2002, the device that turned home robotics into a household category. For years, iRobot stood as a rare American success story in consumer robotics.

Then the market shifted. Chinese manufacturers poured in with cheaper models, tighter supply chains, and rapid iteration. iRobot’s share price peaked in 2021, then slid hard over the next year. The company sought a lifeline and found one in Amazon, which agreed to acquire iRobot for roughly $1.7 billion.

That deal made strategic sense. iRobot needed capital, scale, and distribution power to compete against Chinese rivals such as Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, and Xiaomi. Amazon could have provided all three. Consumers likely would have seen faster innovation, deeper device integration, and lower prices, while iRobot kept more of its footprint and engineering talent intact.

Regulators saw a different story. The European Commission objected on antitrust grounds and signaled it would block the acquisition. The commission argued the deal could restrict competition in robot vacuum cleaners by allowing Amazon to disadvantage rival products on its marketplace. American critics piled on, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who framed the acquisition as an attempt to buy out competition, along with privacy fears about Roomba’s mapping technology.

Facing regulatory opposition, Amazon and iRobot terminated the agreement in January 2024. Amazon’s general counsel, David Zapolsky, warned that the decision would deny consumers faster innovation and more competitive prices, while leaving iRobot weaker against foreign rivals operating under very different regulatory constraints.

The warnings proved accurate. After the deal collapsed, iRobot announced deep cost-cutting, including a 31% workforce reduction. The company shifted more production to Vietnam to compete on cost. Chinese brands continued to eat the market.

By December 2025, iRobot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and announced a restructuring deal that hands control to Shenzhen Picea Robotics. According to iRobot’s own announcement, Picea will acquire the equity of the reorganized company through the court process and cancel about $264 million in debt.

RELATED: Why Trump must block Netflix’s Warner Bros. takeover

Photo by Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

That outcome should haunt every regulator who claimed to defend competition. Regulators blocked an American acquisition and ended up delivering a storied American company to a Chinese creditor. They did not preserve a competitor. They helped bury it.

The iRobot collapse exposes a central problem with modern antitrust enforcement: Officials often substitute fear-driven hypotheticals for real-world consequences. They imagine a future in which Amazon squeezes competitors and consumers pay more. They ignore the present in which Chinese firms gain market power, American companies lose ground, and U.S. workers pay the price.

Markets discipline failure quickly. Regulators rarely pay for their mistakes. They can block a deal, watch a company fall apart, and declare victory because they prevented a theoretical harm.

This case produced the opposite of the intended result. Regulators killed a merger that could have strengthened an American company against Chinese competition. They weakened competition in the robot vacuum market by removing one of the few U.S.-based pioneers from the field. They also shrank the number of meaningful paths forward for iRobot until only one remained: a takeover by the company’s Chinese lender and supplier.

Policymakers should learn the right lesson. Antitrust action should not operate as a reflex against size or success. Regulators should measure outcomes, not slogans. If officials claim they protect competition, they should not celebrate decisions that end in bankruptcy and foreign control.

Republicans Struggle To Chart A Path On Trump’s Wall Street Housing Pledge

'It's time to loosen Wall Street's grip on the housing market'

'Nobody can get their equipment!' Senators from both sides explode at fire-truck giants' alleged price-gouging scheme



"9-1-1. What is your emergency?"

When crisis strikes, Americans in big cities and rural landscapes alike trust that first responders such as firefighters and EMTs are just a phone call away. However, recent spikes in costs and wait times associated with fire trucks have left fire departments across the country scrambling to make do with what they have — sometimes to the detriment of public safety.

'Your profits have grown five times over the last five years, $250 million, but nobody can get their equipment!'

Much of the problem appears to stem from a massive consolidation of fire apparatus manufacturers nearly 20 years ago. This consolidation "effectively created a duopoly" that severely restricted competition, according to a recent op-ed from Kansas City, Kansas, Fire Chief Dennis Rubin and retired New Haven, Connecticut, Battalion Chief Frank Ricci, who together have more than 60 years of field experience.

The problem has grown so wide in scope that it has drawn the attention of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. On April 3, 2025, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Management Chairman Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ranking Member Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sent a letter to the executives of Rev Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer, which collectively corner between 70% and 80% of the fire-truck market share.

In just the past few months, multiple class-action lawsuits have been filed against these companies alleging anti-trust law violations, and Hawley claimed at a subcommittee hearing in September that their "business models are identical."

One such "identical" tactic the companies appear to have taken, according to the lawmakers, is to delay fulfilling orders on purpose to keep costs and demand artificially high.

Just six short years ago or so, Rev Group, for example, had a backlog of fire equipment orders totaling about $1 billion, with an expected wait time of 12 to 18 months, the New York Times reported in February. Now, however, the company backlog total has quadrupled, and wait times have jumped to two or three years.

"Your profits have grown five times over the last five years, $250 million, but nobody can get their equipment!" Sen. Hawley railed to Mike Virnig, president of REV Fire Group, at the September hearing.

"What have these gigantic corporations done with all that market power? Well, they have hiked prices, restricted supply, and created a dangerous backlog of firefighting equipment," added Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Furthermore, even when departments can get the equipment, it shows no "discernible improvements in technology," the letter said.

RELATED: Retired Florida firefighter shot and killed by cops investigating 'horrific' child sex abuse material

Rubin and Ricci argued that this alleged market manipulation has had serious consequences. In the summer of 2023, so many pumper fire trucks were out of commission in Kansas City, Kansas, that firefighters were forced to use SUVs and a borrowed brush truck that lacked essential tools.

"Based on the lack of fire truck repair parts, our fire department in Kansas City, Kansas, has been negatively impacted on several occasions. This situation is not acceptable!" Chief Rubin — who previously served as chief of the department in Atlanta, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. — told Blaze News in a statement.

"The impact is real, and it directly affects ability to deliver the level of service the public counts on every day," added P.J. Norwood, retired deputy chief in East Haven.

'It is wrong when private equity companies deliberately distort the efficient operation of the free market.'

A spokesperson for Oshkosh indicated to Blaze News that disruptions to supply chains during COVID and customization are two major factors that can help account for the rise in prices and delayed orders.

"Depending on the options a customer chooses, producing a single fire truck can take up to 7,000 hours, with an average of approximately 2,000 hours," the spokesperson said.

"We acknowledged the lead time problem as soon as it emerged, and we have made — and will continue to make — historic investments to increase throughput," Dan Meyer, vice president of sales at Oshkosh's Pierce Manufacturing, told Sens. Hawley, Kim, Warren, and others at the September hearing.

"We know customers want and deserve shorter lead times, and the manufacturers who can accomplish that will win their business. Pierce is determined to meet our customers’ needs, which is why our company is committed to investing in our people and our manufacturing capabilities to reduce lead times and best serve the firefighter community."

Rubin and Ricci do not deny that specific customization demands from so many municipalities remain a major problem, and they encourage the adoption of "a more standardized production model, with separate lines for urban, suburban, or rural, and custom builds" to address this issue. They also believe that states and cities ought to revisit their bidding procedures to root out any unfair practices that further drive up prices.

Still they view the limited competition at the manufacturing level as the main cause.

"We must champion American manufacturing that wins on competition and merit — not monopolistic tactics," Ricci told Blaze News.

"There’s nothing wrong with earning a profit, but it is wrong when private equity companies deliberately distort the efficient operation of the free market on the one hand — and then fire departments rig the bidding process on the other," added Yankee Institute President Carol Platt Liebau. "If legislators aren’t willing or able to ask the tough questions, then of course it’s the taxpayers — as always — who are exploited and ripped off."

Rev Group, Rosenbauer, and Sen. Kim's office did not respond to a request for comment. Sen. Hawley's office directed Blaze News to his statements at the September hearing.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elizabeth Warren and Lina Khan Killed Amazon's iRobot Acquisition Over Data Privacy Concerns. Now China Gets The Data.

During the Biden administration, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and her fellow progressives teamed up with then-Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan to kill Amazon's merger with iRobot, the maker of Roomba, citing antitrust and surveillance concerns. Now, iRobot's technology and consumer data are headed to China, posing what an iRobot cofounder says will be a threat to U.S. national security.

The post Elizabeth Warren and Lina Khan Killed Amazon's iRobot Acquisition Over Data Privacy Concerns. Now China Gets The Data. appeared first on .

Liz Warren hustles Trump with a housing bill from hell



What is it about the National Defense Authorization Act that makes it a dumping ground for every dumb liberal pet project?

First the Trump administration pushed an AI data-center amnesty that would have stripped states of authority over massive, power-hungry facilities. Then lawmakers tried to slip in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s housing bill, a package built to subsidize Section 8 tenants and builders and to fuel the very forces driving the current housing bubble. After a backlash, both provisions came out of the NDAA. Now congressional leaders plan to pass the Massachusetts Democrat’s housing bill on its own.

The real crisis comes from government debt and the inflation it fuels. This is not a shortage of lumber or land. It is a monetary chokehold created by government policy.

Earlier this year, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) worked with Warren to move S. 2651, an omnibus housing package that expands every federal program Trump previously vowed to cut. They attached the legislation to the Senate’s NDAA, then lobbied House conservatives to adopt it in their version of the defense bill. At the last minute, House leaders stripped the language. The House Financial Services Committee now plans to mark up the bill next week.

Here’s the trouble: The bill misdiagnoses the housing crisis. It treats high prices as a supply shortage instead of a government-fueled asset bubble and inflationary pricing distortion.

The result is predictable. Its 40 provisions would expand Section 8, loan subsidies, “affordable housing” grants, and even looser mortgage programs for people priced out of the market. Every one of these items pours accelerant on the factors that drove the 2008 bubble and the post-COVID spike.

Government subsidies for overbuilding and for buyers who cannot afford homes created the crisis. Yet like a dog returning to its vomit, Scott, the president, and Senate Democrats are endorsing Warren’s 2020 campaign platform to revive the same model. The bill promises builders and activist groups federal cash in exchange for regulatory concessions. The trade-off is disastrous.

Section 202 creates a new federal grant program to fund local housing projects in designated zones — a warmed-over version of the community-engineering schemes Obama’s Department of Housing and Urban Development pushed a decade ago.

Meantime, Section 209 establishes a $200 million yearly fund at HUD to award “innovative housing reforms” to localities that reshape zoning to favor dense, subsidized units.

Conservatives would call these incentives an invitation to replicate failed urban policies in red suburbs. The bill rewards grifting nonprofits and community organizers who treat federal housing programs as political infrastructure.

At the same time, the administration is pushing rules that limit red-state zoning authority to clear the way for data-center construction while promoting Section 8 expansion with new incentives and zoning guidance. It revives, in effect, Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regime — the same racial-gerrymandering tool Trump killed in his first term. Supporting the Scott-Warren bill would revive it in practice.

Worse, the bill rests on a false premise. America doesn’t have a housing shortage. According to Redfin, as of October sellers outnumbered buyers by 36.8% — about 529,000 more sellers — the largest gap since 2013. Census data shows about 148 million housing units for roughly 134 million households, a surplus of around 14 million units. When Trump took office, the vacancy count stood near 11 million, yet prices were far more affordable.

The real crisis comes from government debt and the inflation it fuels. Construction costs surged with inflation. Interest rates spiked to service that debt, creating an interest-rate cliff that locked millions of homeowners into sub-3% mortgages. They cannot sell without doubling their monthly costs. High rates froze the existing inventory in place. This is not a shortage of lumber or land. It is a monetary chokehold created by government policy.

RELATED: Why the kids are not all right — and Boomers still pretend nothing’s wrong

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Federal housing policy adds another layer. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac long prioritized “access to credit” over price stability. By guaranteeing high-risk loans and encouraging low down payments, they allow buyers to bid more than their incomes justify. Subsidized credit lifts prices for sellers, not buyers.

S. 2651 makes the problem worse by expanding the Community Development Block Grant and similar programs, encouraging activist groups and corporate developers to overbuild units no one can afford without subsidies. That process pushes prices upward and strengthens corporate buy-ups of suburban neighborhoods.

The administration previously acknowledged these distortions. In Trump’s FY 2021 budget, the Office of Management and Budget proposed eliminating CDBG and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, arguing that states and localities were better positioned to address affordability challenges. This new bill reverses that logic entirely.

The Federal Reserve’s rate whiplash — a decade of near-zero borrowing costs followed by sudden hikes — froze supply by trapping owners inside artificially cheap mortgages. Washington’s policies created the gridlock. The inventory exists. Monetary policy quarantined it.

What the administration needs to do is allow prices to fall back toward alignment with median incomes. That adjustment would restore affordability without new federal intervention. Instead, the FHFA is pushing lower credit-score requirements for subsidized mortgages. That mistake will repeat the pattern of enticing families into overpriced homes they cannot sustain.

Housing policy should stop trying to prop up inflated prices. The market must correct. A federal “solution” built around 40 expansionary programs will intensify the crisis, not solve it. Doing nothing would spur more affordability than this bipartisan blunder.

Inside the left’s push to reshape 2028 with ranked-choice voting



If Democrats seem extreme now, wait until they adopt ranked-choice voting. Some activists inside the party want exactly that — a reform that would push presidential nominations even further left and force establishment figures to navigate an ideological gauntlet to win.

Multiple reports indicate that Democratic Party activists and elected officials are pressuring the party to adopt ranked-choice voting for its 2028 presidential primaries. Axios notes that the push has grown serious enough that top party officials met in late October with advocates including Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), pollster Celinda Lake, and representatives from FairVote Action.

Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left.

Such an effort fits a long pattern: For decades, Democrats have shifted presidential nominations away from party leadership. On ranked-choice voting specifically, several states already use it — Maine and Alaska among them — along with deep-blue cities such as New York, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Ranked-choice voting takes multiple forms, but New York City’s model illustrates the dynamic. Voters rank up to five candidates. If no candidate wins an initial majority, the last-place candidate drops out, and those voters’ second-choice votes are redistributed. This “loser leaves” process continues until a candidate secures a majority.

Assuming rational behavior, Democratic voters would likely rank candidates from more extreme to less extreme. That pattern would advantage the leftmost candidates again and again as lower-preference votes transfer upward.

This structural boost would encourage both supply and demand for extreme candidacies. Candidates on the ideological edge would have more incentive to run. Voters who prefer them would have more influence. Ranked-choice voting’s supporters tout this expanded participation as a virtue.

Offering voters multiple choices would foster coalition-building. Knowing the race may go to multiple rounds, candidates would angle for second- and third-choice votes. The horse-trading once done in old convention “smoke-filled rooms” would unfold publicly through a series of ranked ballots.

But the key question is simple: Why would ranked-choice voting necessarily supercharge extremism inside the Democratic Party? Because the system rewards voters for casting marginal votes — and among today’s Democrats, “marginal” means “further left.”

The party’s ideological shift is measurable. In Gallup’s 2023 polling, 54% of Democrats identified as liberal — an all-time high. Support for democratic socialists in major-city mayoral primaries shows how rapidly the party’s activist base has moved left. In 1995, the liberal share of the party was 25%, roughly equal to conservatives. Three decades later, conservatives make up just 10% of Democrats.

Exit polling confirms the trend: In 2024, 91% of self-identified liberals voted for Kamala Harris; only 9% of conservatives did.

Extrapolate from this trajectory, and the danger becomes even clearer. Extreme candidates increasingly win Democratic primaries in major cities. Those cities dominate statewide Democratic politics. And in closed primaries, only Democrats vote — meaning the hyper-engaged activist left already sets the terms of competition. Ranked-choice voting would amplify that influence. The same voters who nominated democratic socialists in New York and Seattle would wield disproportionate power in a presidential contest.

RELATED: Democrats are just noticing a long, deep-running problem

Photo by RYAN MCBRIDEDON EMMERTDON EMMERTKENA BETANCURROBYN BECKANGELA WEISSROBYN BECKROBYN BECKROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Consider how the 2020 Democratic primary might have played out under ranked-choice voting. Joe Biden — an establishment candidate favored by moderates — would have faced a field dominated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Tom Steyer, and others to his left. Ranked-choice voting would have forced him through a gauntlet designed by the party’s most ideological voters.

This trend is not new. In 1972, George McGovern reshaped Democratic nominating rules and then benefited from the changes. Since then, the party has repeatedly weakened its establishment’s role (with key exceptions). Ranked-choice voting would accelerate that shift dramatically.

With moderates now only 36% of the party, according to Gallup, how could they resist a move toward ranked-choice voting? More importantly, which remaining moderate or establishment Democrat could survive a ranked-choice system dominated by the party’s left wing?

Ranked-choice voting would pour accelerant on a process already pulling Democrats further left. The only question is how long it takes for the party to adopt it — and how long the party can remain viable nationally if it does.

Here are North America's top 5 fake Indians



The post-colonial grievance industry successfully infected the worlds of academia, entertainment, and politics over the past century with its anti-Western brand of revisionist victim politics. As a result, various middling individuals who were not personally injured by perceived historical injustices found it possible and even lucrative to exploit the guilt of the faultless many.

Following the recent revelation that the Sacramento native dubbed by Canadian state media as "one of the most influential indigenous writers and scholars of his generation" was never an Indian to begin with, Blaze News has finalized its top-five list of fake Indians in North America.

1. Thomas King

Since obtaining his doctorate in English/American studies from the University of Utah in the late 1980s, Sacramento-born Thomas King has made his supposed Cherokee heritage the center of his identity and output.

He taught native studies courses across the United States and Canada; lectured extensively on the subject of Native American identity, rights, history, and grievances; penned numerous books on theme, including "The Inconvenient Indian," "The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative," and "A Short History of Indians in Canada"; had a comedy radio show on Canadian state radio where he periodically mocked white people and their supposed misconceptions about Indians; and spent decades engaged in Indian-related political activism.

For his efforts, King has been showered with numerous lucrative awards — including the National Aboriginal Achievement Award — and government grants. He was not only made a member of the Order of Canada but promoted to companion of the Order of Canada for exposing "the hard truths of the injustices of the indigenous peoples of North America."

The 82-year-old writer turns out to have been of European stock all along.

Late last month, King, whose mother's side of the family is Greek, told the Globe and Mail that in a Nov. 13 meeting with the director of the North Carolina-based Cherokee group Tribal Alliance Against Frauds and a supposedly Indian professor at the University of British Columbia, he was confronted with genealogical evidence indicating there was no Cherokee ancestry on either side of his family.

RELATED: The campus left’s diversity scam exposed in 30 seconds flat

Thomas King, an influential writer of European heritage. Photo by Ulf Andersen/Getty Images.

"I didn't know I didn't have Cherokee on my father's side of the family until I saw the genealogical evidence," said King. "As soon as I saw it, I was fairly sure it was accurate. It's pretty clear."

'Indians don't cry.'

King indicated he had previously heard rumors that he was not an Indian but that nothing came of them.

"No Cherokee on the King side. No Cherokee on the Hunt side. No Indians anywhere to be found," King subsequently noted in an op-ed. "At 82, I feel as though I’ve been ripped in half, a one-legged man in a two-legged story. Not the Indian I had in mind. Not an Indian at all."

2. Iron Eyes Cody

The group Keep America Beautiful's iconic "Crying Indian" anti-litter public service announcement, which debuted on television in 1971, shows a supposed Indian, Iron Eyes Cody, dressed in beaded moccasins and buck-skin attire paddling his canoe down a river, past a dockyard, and onto a beach covered in garbage, where he sheds a tear at the sight of a vehicle passenger throwing a paper bag full of fast food out a car window.

This was hardly the first or only time Cody wore his feathers in front of cameras.

Iron Eyes Cody with President Jimmy Carter. Getty Images.

Cody, who the New York Times indicated initially resisted doing the commercial because "Indians don't cry," played an American Indian in numerous movies, engaged in Indian-related activism, and long maintained that he was the genuine article.

Although Cody claimed he was born in Oklahoma territory to a Cherokee Indian father and a Cree mother, he was in fact the son of Italian immigrants, Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, who arrived in the U.S. two years before his birth in Louisiana. His original name was Espera DeCorti.

According to Snopes, he changed his name from DeCorti to Cody after moving to Hollywood in the 1920s and began masquerading as an American Indian.

3. Sacheen Littlefeather

Sacheen Littlefeather, Marlon Brando's stand-in at the 1973 Academy Awards, refused the Oscar for Best Actor on behalf of the "Godfather" star, citing "the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry ... and on television in movie re-runs, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee."

RELATED: No more stiff upper lip: My fellow Brits are fed up with 'diversity'

Sacheen Littlefeather. Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images.

Throughout her life, Littlefeather claimed that she was an Apache Indian. Her sisters revealed, however, that Littlefeather, who died in October 2022, was the daughter of a Spanish-American and a woman of European descent.

The activist's real name was Marie Louise Cruz.

'Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess.'

Jacqueline Keeler, a member of the Navajo Nation who undertook genealogical research for Cruz's sister, reportedly found that "all of the family's cousins, great-aunts, uncles, and grandparents going back to about 1880 (when their direct ancestors crossed the border from Mexico) identified as white, Caucasian, and Mexican on key legal documents in the United States."

4. Buffy Sainte-Marie

Buffy Sainte-Marie is an Academy Award-winning folk singer who has claimed Native American heritage since the early 1960s.

In her agitprop and activism, Sainte-Marie has spoken from what Teen Vogue called an "indigenous perspective," repeatedly condemning colonization and referring to America's founding and the supposed erasure of American Indians as "genocide." She also has touted herself as a "survivor" of an allegedly racist government welfare program that placed certain Native American kids in foster homes.

After five decades of claiming to have Indian heritage — at one stage claiming she was a "full-blooded Algonquin Indian," at another that she was "half-Micmac by birth," and finally that she was Cree, born on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan — she was outed by Canadian state media as a fraud.

Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, including her birth certificate, revealed that Buffy Sainte-Marie was born in Stoneham, Massachusetts; that her original name was Beverly Jean Santamaria; and that her parents were Albert and Winifred Santamaria, who were of Italian and English backgrounds, respectively.

The singer's sister stated, "She's clearly not indigenous or Native American."

Sainte-Marie, who like Thomas King had been made a member of the Order of Canada, had her membership revoked after it was revealed she was another fake Indian. She was also stripped of her Juno Awards and Polaris Music Prizes, although she was reportedly able to keep the substantial cash prizes they came with.

5. Elizabeth Warren

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is another affluent liberal woman who masqueraded for decades as an American Indian for apparent personal gain, going so far as to contribute five recipes to a 1984 cookbook characterized as "recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families" called "Pow Wow Chow."

Warren told reporters in 2012, "Being Native American has been part of my story, I guess, since the day I was born."

While working at the University of Texas School of Law, Warren not only claimed "American Indian" status on her State Bar of Texas registration card but listed herself in the Association of American Law Schools annual directory as a minority law professor. Since she did not bother correcting her minority identification after the release of the 1986-1987 edition, it appeared that way in the next eight editions, reported the Boston Globe.

Just after she began formally identifying as a minority in the late 1980s, Warren landed a full-time job offer from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Three years after securing the job, university records reportedly indicated that Warren leaned on the university to ensure that her ethnicity was listed as "Native American" instead of "white."

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

UPenn's April 2005 Minority Equity Report clearly lists Warren was a "minority." According to the Boston Globe, for at least three of the years Warren taught at the law school, she was listed as the solitary American Indian female professor.

In the 1990s, Warren moved on to work at Harvard Law School, which was sure to note her supposedly Indian heritage. The Globe indicated that Harvard Law School used Warren's fake minority status to justify not hiring more minorities.

'I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life.'

In 2018, President Donald Trump, who had long derided Warren as "Pocahontas," challenged the senator to get a DNA test to prove she was Native American. The test results came back showing that she was only 1/1,024th Native American if at all.

When Warren ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020, over 200 Cherokee and other Native Americans signed an open letter to the senator noting, "Whatever your intentions, your actions have normalized white people claiming to be native, and perpetuated a dangerous misunderstanding of tribal sovereignty. Your actions do not exist in a vacuum but are part of a long and violent history."

Dishonorable mentions

Among the others who have benefited greatly from pretending to be Indians are:

  • Jamake Highwater was an award-winning writer and journalist who penned over 30 books, including "Anpao: An American Indian Odyssey" and "The Primal Mind: Vision and Reality in Indian America," usually from an American Indian perspective. Highwater led the public to believe that he was born to an illiterate Blackfoot mother and a Cherokee father, who dumped him in an orphanage, where a couple in Southern California picked him up and raised him. However, Assiniboine activist Hank Adams and Washington Post columnist Jack Anderson exposed Highwater as another fraud. Highwater's original name was Jackie Marks. He was apparently the Jewish son of a Russian mother and a father of Eastern European descent who worked as an actor in Hollywood.
  • Elizabeth Hoover is an associate professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who long claimed to be of Mohawk and Mi’kmaq descent. Hoover admitted in May 2023, "I am a white person who has incorrectly identified as native my whole life." The Berkeley professor confirmed that had she not been "perceived as a native scholar," she may not have received some academic fellowships, opportunities, and material benefits. Despite admitting to causing harm and benefiting from her fraudulent identity, she did not resign.
  • Heather Rae is an award-winning producer who served on the Academy of Motion Pictures' Indigenous Alliance and previously led the Sundance Institute’s Native American program. She was accused by the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds in 2023 of lying about being Cherokee. Rae told the Hollywood Reporter in a puff piece that appeared to vex the Tribal Alliance Against Frauds, "I think there's a lot of nuance to this identity."
  • Joseph Boyden is a prominent Canadian novelist who was regarded at one point as "arguably the most celebrated indigenous author in Canadian history." His writing largely centered on Indian characters and their experiences. Boyden, the recipient of numerous awards and grants, claimed over the years that there was Métis, Mi’kmaq, Ojibway, and/or Nipmuc blood in his family's mix. In one instance, when buying a significant portion of land, he reportedly claimed to be Metis and showed a photocopied tribal card. When he was first exposed as another fraud in 2016, he claimed that his family's Indian roots had been "whitewashed" due "to the destructive influences of colonialism." While Boyden later admitted he was a "white kid from Willowdale," he maintained that he had "native roots" on his Irish Catholic father's side as well as on his mother's side.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!