Jonathan Karl Confronts Chris Van Hollen Over ‘Holding Up’ DHS Funding
'That's just the fact'
America built smart cars on dumb road funding
On Friday, in an open letter to the 119th Congress, I joined more than 100 economists and public policy experts from universities, think tanks, and businesses across the country urging practical reform of the Highway Trust Fund. Our message is straightforward: Congress can — and should — take incremental, bipartisan steps now to put the fund on a stable, sustainable path.
The Highway Trust Fund long embodied a simple user-fee compact: People who use the roads pay for them. That bargain delivered predictable funding and reinforced fiscal discipline.
Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.
Now the system is fraying. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with inflation, rising construction costs, or improved fuel efficiency. Electric and hybrid vehicles — a growing share of the fleet — often contribute little or nothing through fuel taxes. Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.
Congress does not need to solve every long-term challenge in one bill. It can make meaningful progress in the next surface transportation reauthorization, which lawmakers must pass by Sept. 30.
First, lawmakers should reinforce the user-pay principle by ensuring all road users — including drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles — contribute a fair share through transparent, enforceable mechanisms. Fairness demands no less. When some users effectively get an exemption, the burden shifts to everyone else or to taxpayers at large.
Second, Congress should improve price sensitivity. Heavy commercial vehicles impose disproportionate wear and tear on highways and bridges. User fees should better reflect vehicle weight and road impact. That change would improve fairness and send clearer economic signals about infrastructure costs. A system that reflects actual use and damage is more rational — and more defensible.
Third, legislators should evaluate a transition from per-gallon fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees. A well-designed road-usage charge would ensure payments reflect miles driven and vehicle characteristics.
Any transition must preserve the core user-pay principle while avoiding disproportionate burdens on low-income households, small businesses, and farmers. State pilot programs show mileage-based systems can protect privacy and maintain public trust. Congress should build on that experience rather than delay modernization.
Fourth, Washington should reduce reliance on general-fund bailouts and set clearer expectations for revenue reform in the next major reauthorization cycle. Temporary patches undermine fiscal responsibility and create uncertainty for state planners and private investors.
RELATED: Trump is getting the job done for American truckers
Revenue reform alone will not secure the system. Transportation infrastructure now depends on digital systems that guide vehicles and manage logistics. America’s economy relies heavily on GPS-enabled positioning and timing. Disruptions to systems overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation would ripple across freight networks, emergency services, and daily commutes.
China and Russia have shown the capability to interfere with satellite systems and GPS signals. A prolonged outage would cost billions of dollars per day. Vehicles sold in the U.S. should incorporate tested backup positioning technologies to guard against such threats.
Supply-chain security also demands attention. Chinese firms such as BYD and CATL dominate global battery production. The concentration of manufacturing — and embedded telematics — in companies subject to influence by the Chinese Communist Party raises legitimate concerns about espionage and strategic vulnerability.
The U.S. should expand domestic battery production and charging infrastructure, reducing dependence on foreign-controlled systems that can compromise data security and resilience.
Finally, Congress should pursue sensible federal deregulation to reduce the needlessly high cost of transportation projects — and require state and local partners to do the same. Streamlined permitting, faster reviews, and fewer duplicative requirements would stretch every Highway Trust Fund dollar and deliver projects faster.
These proposals are not partisan. They are practical steps rooted in fiscal responsibility and national security. A stable source of funding for roads is not merely a budget issue; it is essential to economic competitiveness, national mobility, and public safety. By reinforcing the user-pay principle, modernizing revenue mechanisms, protecting digital infrastructure, and strengthening supply chains, Congress can signal a shared commitment to safeguarding America’s transportation future.
The 119th Congress has an opportunity to restore the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity. Lawmakers should seize it.
'Sham businesses': Vance announces the halt of Medicaid funds to Minnesota over alleged fraud
Vice President JD Vance announced Wednesday that the federal government will temporarily halt certain Medicaid payments to the state of Minnesota, citing what he described as verified fraud within a state-run program.
Vance said the move is aimed at ensuring Minnesotans are “good stewards of the American people’s tax money.”
'They’re going to fraudsters in Minneapolis. That is unacceptable.'
“We’re announcing today that we have decided to temporarily halt certain amounts of Medicaid funding that are going to the state of Minnesota in order to ensure that the state of Minnesota takes its obligation seriously,” Vance said.
Vance clarified that providers on the ground in Minnesota have already been paid by the state. The federal government is pausing reimbursement payments to the state government, not direct payments to providers.
RELATED: 'This is disgraceful': Mamdani raked over the coals for attack on NYPD
Vance pointed to what he described as a confirmed case of fraud involving a program intended to provide after-school services to autistic children.
According to Vance, some individuals set up “sham businesses,” created fake clients, and even listed individuals “who are not even autistic” in order to collect Medicaid funds.
“A program that existed to ensure that autistic children had access to some after-school services has made a number of people rich,” Vance said, adding that the money “ought, by right, go to American citizens and to American families.”
He argued that the alleged fraud not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also diverts services away from children who genuinely need them.
“There are kids in Minnesota who deserve these services, who need these services, and they’re not going to those kids,” Vance said. “They’re going to fraudsters in Minneapolis. That is unacceptable.”
“One of the things I love about our country is that we’re a generous country,” Vance said.
“We take care of our fellow citizens who can’t afford medical care because they’re down on their luck.”
He added that programs like Medicaid and food assistance exist to ensure families have access to “food, medical care, after-school services when their family needs them.”
However, Vance said that in Minnesota and other states, “the generosity and the good hearts of our fellow Americans are being taken advantage of.”
“This is disgraceful. It has happened for too long,” Vance said. “Far too many people have gotten rich by taking what is the best of the American spirit and getting rich off of it instead of providing services to kids who need it.”
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz's office and the Department of Human Services of Minnesota did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Civil courts check the powerful. This Republican wants them weaker.
A new bill before Congress claims it will curb lawsuit abuse. It won’t. In reality, it will limit ordinary Americans’ access to civil courts.
The Protect Third Party Litigation Funding from Abuse Act, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would force plaintiffs in “any civil action” to disclose “the identity of any person (other than counsel of record) that has a legal right to receive any payment or thing of value” from the case.
Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.
Plaintiffs would need to provide that information to defendants and the court. Anyone with a functioning brain can see what will happen next: The names leak, activists and corporate PR shops pick targets, and the people financing the lawsuit get punished for it.
If that sounds like a blackmail scheme, it is. And it would be perfectly legal.
Third-party litigation funding works like this: An individual, company, or organization advances money to a plaintiff or law firm to cover the costs of a lawsuit. In exchange, the funder receives a share of any judgment or settlement. If the plaintiff loses, the funder gets nothing.
The arrangement exists for a reason. Lawsuits can be expensive. Complex cases require investigators, expert witnesses, depositions, document review, and months or years of legal work. Deep-pocketed defendants know they can bury a plaintiff under delays, discovery fights, and endless motions while the meter runs at hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars an hour.
Litigation funding helps level that field. It gives plaintiffs a fighting chance against defendants who can afford to grind them down.
Issa calls this “abuse” because hedge funds and speculators sometimes fund cases in hopes of a return. “We believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world,” Issa said when he announced the bill.
That sounds reasonable only if you ignore what trials are for.
A civil trial asks three questions: Did the defendant do what the plaintiff alleges? Did the defendant’s actions cause harm? If so, what were the damages (if any)? The identity of a funder does not help a jury answer any of them. If anything, it distracts from the merits and invites a side show: the defendant arguing the plaintiff is a puppet and the case is illegitimate because someone with money helped pay the bills. That argument deserves no special protection.
What counts is what the defendant did or didn’t do and whether it hurt the plaintiff. Who finances the plaintiff’s lawyers doesn’t change the facts of the case.
RELATED: A one-way national divorce: Anarchy for them, coercion for us
A successful plaintiff also has the right to spend an award as he or she chooses, including paying debts and obligations incurred to bring the case. Issa’s bill would chill that option by scaring off funders through forced disclosure. The bill doesn’t touch defendants, who can hire every white-shoe law firm on the planet. It targets the side that usually needs help.
Issa’s bill also pretends it’s solving a crisis that doesn’t exist. The number of lawsuits filed each year in the United States, at both state and federal levels, has fallen by roughly one-third since 2012, according to Consumer Shield. Meanwhile fewer than 1% of state civil cases go to trial, and fewer than 2% of federal civil cases do. Most settle or get dismissed. Third-party funding is not clogging courts. It expands access to justice.
The bill also reaches far beyond any plausible federal interest. Federal cases account for only about 1.4% of civil litigation nationwide. States already have authority to regulate litigation funding — and some have. As of July 2025, seven states — Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin — had regulations governing litigation funding, according to the Washington Legal Foundation. The fact that most states haven’t bothered tells you what lawmakers think: This isn’t a pressing problem.
The broader claim — that litigation funding drives frivolous suits — fails under scrutiny. A 2022 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found funders vet cases carefully and avoid interfering in litigation. They do that for a simple reason: They get paid only if the claim succeeds. The report put it plainly: “Funders select the most meritorious cases to fund because they only receive returns when claims are successful.”
Economic reality imposes its own discipline. Third-party funding does not “abuse” the system. It democratizes access to it.
Issa’s bill would do the opposite. By threatening people who finance lawsuits, it would tilt the playing field further toward big corporations and the ultra-wealthy — the parties most able to outspend and outlast everyone else.
Like it or not, civil suits help keep a free society free. They allow ordinary people to hold powerful actors accountable for harm. Restricting access to courts doesn’t stop abuse. It increases it — by giving the powerful more insulation from consequences. That’s the kind of “reform” Americans don’t need.
Government shutdown looms after Democrats tank key DHS vote
The Senate failed Thursday to advance a government funding package that includes the Department of Homeland Security, significantly increasing the likelihood of a partial federal government shutdown as Democrats push for limits on immigration enforcement practices.
In a procedural vote required to move the six-bill appropriations package forward, the measure fell 45-55, well short of the 60 votes needed to clear the hurdle. Multiple Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, though most GOP opposition stemmed from procedural calculations.
'Because no agreement has been reached, the failed Senate vote could allow funding for DHS and other agencies to expire at midnight Friday'
Democrats withheld support for the package while demanding changes to DHS policy, especially reforms tied to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operate. Party leaders say they will not back the funding bill without significant adjustments or separating the DHS from other appropriations, a stance that directly stalled the vote.
The Senate was expected to vote again Thursday night but postponed the vote until Friday morning.
RELATED: All you need to know about shutdown day
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and other Democrats outlined proposed reforms this week — including restrictions on agent conduct, enhanced accountability measures, and limits on mask use by federal agents — tied to heightened scrutiny after recent shootings by immigration agents.
"Let me be clear: Until ICE is properly reined in and overhauled, the DHS funding bill won’t have the votes to pass the Senate," Schumer said.
Because no agreement has been reached, the failed Senate vote could allow funding for DHS and other agencies to expire at midnight Friday, bringing the government closer to a partial shutdown.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
46 House Republicans Help Democrats Defeat Measure Defunding ‘Activist’ Judges Boasberg, Boardman
Forty-six House Republicans joined their Democrat colleagues on Wednesday in defeating a bill amendment that would have stripped funding from two activist judges and the D.C. federal courts. Proposed by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, as an amendment to an appropriations package considered by the House for the 2026 fiscal year, the measure sought to cut […]Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com