Pro-Trans Doctors Lied To Keep Federal Money Flowing For Puberty Blockers

The NIH awarded millions of dollars in grants for studies seemingly designed to reach a particular conclusion pushing cross-sex hormones.

New York City’s Jews need more than Mamdani’s security grants



I'm a Jew who lives in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and nobody on my block can tell. I don't wear a kippah. I don't keep Shabbat. On a Saturday afternoon, I can walk down Eastern Parkway without standing out.

Many of my neighbors don't have that luxury. Their hats, coats, and tzitzit identify them from a block away. Those visible signs of Jewish life also make them targets in a city long considered one of the best places in the world to be Jewish.

New York already publishes hate-crime figures. It should also examine the rhetoric behind those crimes.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani says he wants to protect them. On September 29, he released New York City's first Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. Parts of the plan deserve credit. It directs $1 million to security at vulnerable houses of worship, doubles “hate-prevention” grants to $6.4 million, and expands eighth-grade visits to the Museum of Jewish Heritage. Synagogues struggling to pay for guards, cameras, and locks need the help.

But the 33-page strategy has a glaring blind spot: It never confronts the anti-Semitism that increasingly uses the word "Zionist" as a substitute for "Jew."

The report's concrete examples of anti-Semitic violence are Charlottesville in 2017, the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in 2018, and the Poway synagogue shooting in 2019. All were horrific. None happened in New York City. The document acknowledges that anti-Jewish crime increased after October 7, 2023, but does not examine the role of anti-Zionist agitation in that increase.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the share of anti-Semitic incidents in New York City involving Israel or Zionism rose from 5% in 2022 to 37% in 2023 and 58% in 2024. Yet the mayor's plan never addresses the relationship between anti-Zionist rhetoric and attacks on Jewish New Yorkers.

It also declines to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism. The city says it can fight hatred "without needing to adopt a definition for this specific form of hate." The report discusses competing definitions, then leaves the decision unresolved. That is convenient when some of the most poisonous language comes from activists on the mayor's side of the political divide.

In Crown Heights, we have heard that language firsthand. Last year, a group called Crown Heights Bites Back distributed free groceries near Utica Avenue and Eastern Parkway. It also distributed flyers warning that "Zionist white supremacists" would "kill us, exploit us, raise our rents and evict us." At a vigil for Gavin Cato, whose 1991 death preceded the Crown Heights riots, masked activists from the group shoved a Jewish man. The group also praised the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers.

The accusation has spread beyond my neighborhood. Nerdeen Kiswani of Within Our Lifetime claimed that “Zionist landlords” exploited black communities to fund settlements in Palestine. Brooklyn Democrat district leader Carmella Charrington compared a family property dispute to Israeli activity in the West Bank, even though the state attorney general’s office had described the underlying matter as an inheritance dispute. In Chelsea, flyers opposing a public-housing redevelopment denounced a “Zionist occupation”; others attacked “Talmudists” and “Rothschilds.” The same reporting documented both sets of accusations.

The housing grievance is especially perverse because Hasidic families struggle with rising costs, too. The borough president’s housing analysis identifies Borough Park and South Williamsburg among Brooklyn’s most rent-burdened neighborhoods. Some young Chabad families have moved to Brownsville because they cannot afford Crown Heights. Some Hasidic developers have grown rich in Brooklyn real estate. So have many others.

RELATED: Our enemies burn Israel’s flag. Our friends plant it.

Michal Fludra/NurPhoto/Getty Images

But the anger rarely lands on a developer. It lands on the man in the black hat waiting for the bus.

The ADL found that Orthodox Jews were victims in 36 of the city's 69 anti-Semitic assaults in 2024, though they constitute about one-fifth of New York City’s Jews. Mamdani's own report recognizes that visibly Jewish New Yorkers bear a disproportionate share of attacks. It never grapples with the local rhetoric that can turn a neighborhood housing complaint into an accusation against Jews as a group.

The strategy itself warns that anti-Semitism thrives on conspiracy theories that blame Jews for society's troubles. What, then, should the city call the claim that "Zionists" are responsible for a family's rent?

The political difficulty is plain. City Hall rolled out the plan with support from progressive Jewish organizations, including Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Bend the Arc, and J Street's local chapter. The rent-and-Zionism rhetoric comes from parts of the same political world. Naming it would require Mamdani to criticize allies as well as enemies.

He can do so when he chooses. In December, after an incoming staffer’s old posts about “money hungry Jews” surfaced, he accepted her resignation. When offensive Chelsea flyers appeared, City Hall denounced them.

RELATED: Mamdani boycotts NYC Israel Day Parade despite attending other ethnic celebrations

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

But when Jewish Insider asked about Charrington, a Democrat district leader elected with progressive backing, the mayor refused to answer three times. His office later condemned her conspiracy rhetoric as anti-Semitic but did not say whether she should remain in party leadership. The condemnation was welcome. The refusal to confront her position was revealing.

City Council Member Eric Dinowitz, an ally who praised the plan’s education and prevention measures, said it missed an opportunity to confront the overlap between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. He was right. That omission leaves a serious hole in an otherwise useful effort.

New York already publishes hate-crime figures. It should also examine the rhetoric behind those crimes, including attacks that connect Jewish identity to Israel or blame Jews for housing costs. And the city’s new prevention money should reach Crown Heights, Williamsburg, and Borough Park, where visibly Jewish residents have suffered assaults.

Mamdani should come to Crown Heights and say the words himself: Blaming Hasidic Jews for your rent is anti-Semitism. If he cannot say that much, no 33-page strategy will close the gap between his promises and the lives my neighbors lead.

DEI Mandates In Federal Retirement Agency Contracts Are At Odds With Trump’s Discrimination Ban

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's contracts with BlackRock and SSGA to oversee a federal retirement program contain DEI mandates that are at odds with Trump's agenda.

EPA ‘Considering’ Possible SCOTUS Appeal In Battle To Ax Billions In ‘Climate’ Grants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is “considering” whether to ask the Supreme Court to pause a lower court injunction blocking its bid to ax “climate” grants for nongovernmental groups. In a statement to The Federalist, an EPA representative said that the agency is “reviewing” a Tuesday decision by the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of […]

The Trump Administration’s Proposed Grant Reform May Lead To More Earmarks

The changes could lead to an increase in congressional earmarks, which are associated with higher spending and institutional corruption.

The housing bill from hell targets red America



Preserving the continuity, vitality, and quality of life of exurban and rural red America should be a top priority for conservative policymakers.

Instead, red America faces a multifront assault on land use and development. Corrupt local Republican politicians and their developer donors are pushing data centers, solar and wind farms, and Section 8 housing for foreign labor. Now, Congress has sent President Trump a uniparty housing bill — the Obamacare of housing — that will open the floodgates for the federal government, globalists, and special interests to force more of that transformation on red communities.

Conservatives need communities that remain intact, counties that can govern themselves, and neighborhoods that are not remade by federal bribes and developer schemes.

After years of negotiations, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) just sent the largest housing bill in recent memory to the president’s desk. Only five Senate Republicans voted against it. Every Democrat supported it. Trump had signaled he would sign the bill — but only after Congress passes the SAVE America Act.

The bill is being sold as a magic wand to lower housing prices. In reality, it expands the Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration programs that helped fuel the housing bubble through artificial subsidies.

Conservatives are being told the bill bars corporate ownership of residential homes. But that provision was tacked on at the 11th hour, accounts for only 19 of the bill’s 381 pages, and is riddled with loopholes. Worse, the bill’s main provisions incentivize overdevelopment and Section 8 expansion in red America, negating whatever limited utility the corporate ownership provision might have.

The result is more social transformation than the partial corporate ownership ban claims to prevent.

Obama-style zoning incentives

Section 107 sets the tone by creating a federal zoning standard for “directing local reforms,” including “mechanisms to encourage adoption” of loose zoning rules — all in the name of increasing housing inventory. It also creates a national standard for developers and builders to request special zoning and appeal denials of variances.

That may sound appealing when discussing onerous regulations in blue states. But in red America, already overbuilt since COVID, this bill will create a federal standard that pressures communities to drop one of their few remaining tools of self-defense against the transformation of their neighborhoods.

The rest of the bill offers incentives to communities that follow this national standard. Inevitably, that will encourage localities to rezone not just for housing but also for other uses, including data centers.

HUD should not exist. It certainly should not dictate zoning policy to rural America.

The zoning guidelines would push communities to “reduce minimum lot sizes and setbacks,” increase the number of “duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes,” and promote “transit-oriented development.” Nothing good will come from federal incentives that effectively impose Section 8-style housing and density mandates on suburbs, exurbs, and rural towns.

RELATED: Another tax credit won’t fix what Sunday schools used to teach

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Grant money as a weapon

Ask any conservative living in red America under RINO leadership — which describes much of America — and he will tell you that one of the greatest threats to the character of his county comes from developers working with corporatist GOP politicians, usually their donors, to transform the neighborhood through overdevelopment.

This bill does not directly mandate adoption of the zoning standards. It does something almost as dangerous: It offers local communities and developers incentives that will function like a mandate.

Section 207, written by pro-Hamas Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), creates new competitive HUD grants for states, localities, tribes, and other entities for planning, zoning reform, barrier reduction, and implementation to increase “affordable” housing supply.

Some grants will go toward reducing environmental barriers, which is how Warren got Republicans to support the bill. But much of the remaining criteria is rooted in urbanizing more of America.

The funds are contingent on adopting plans to rezone and “increase the availability of affordable housing and access to affordable housing.” In practice, this provision places a loaded gun to the head of communities that want to keep out Section 8. Nothing gets between local politicians and grant funds.

Section 208 goes further by granting funds to communities that have already demonstrated measurable progress in expanding housing supply at all costs. Eligibility criteria include localities that build more multiunit housing, reduce lot sizes, create “zoning overlays for mixed-income housing,” and use “local tax incentives or public financing for attainable housing.”

Want to densify your suburb and destroy single-family neighborhoods? This bill is for you.

Then comes the Community Development Block Grant program. Rather than following through on every Trump budget proposal’s promise to abolish this program, the bill expands it. Worse, it creates a zero-sum reallocation within the existing CDBG formula by shifting money from low-growth communities to high-growth communities.

Build more homes, and you get rewarded. Build fewer, and you get punished.

That will either shift more money to blue areas, which make up the lion’s share of places needing more inventory, or incentivize red areas to overdevelop.

Subsidizing the next bubble

No bad housing bill would be complete without provisions expanding the FHA’s authority to extend even more loans to people who cannot afford houses, thereby fueling the next housing bubble.

Section 213 allows the FHA to insure larger loans for apartment buildings, enabling more and bigger multifamily projects to be financed with FHA insurance.

Outside the Northeast, home prices are already beginning to tumble from COVID-era overbuilding, and builders are desperate to sell. In June, 35% of builders cut prices, while 62% used sales incentives to attract buyers. America does not need to expand HUD’s reach into local communities to incentivize what is already happening.

Ironically, this bill is being sold as a way to prevent corporations from transforming neighborhoods by purchasing too many homes. But almost every other provision accelerates an even greater transformation.

Section 1001 supposedly bans very large corporate investors from buying more single-family houses. But it carves out practical exceptions for new construction, build-to-rent developments, meaningful renovation programs, and certain pathways that help renters eventually buy homes.

In other words, the same corporations will enjoy even more subsidies to build Section 8 rentals in the suburbs under the bill’s extremely limited ban than they enjoyed before it.

RELATED: Home builders say immigration reform is essential to ease housing affordability crisis

Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

No one is home

This is why Congress should not rush through a bill of this magnitude on the suspension calendar without debate.

Then again, nobody is home in the so-called conservative movement to flag a bill this large. Obamacare could pass overnight, and the loudest voices on the right might not even notice.

The bill’s supporters claim they are solving a housing crisis. In reality, they are giving HUD, developers, corporate investors, and local Republican sellouts more tools to transform red America.

Conservatives do need homes. They need communities that remain intact, counties that can govern themselves, and neighborhoods that are not remade by federal bribes and developer schemes.

That is the home conservatives must ultimately construct. Where is the bill to expedite that construction?

OpenAI wants to make its losses public property



The only things certain in life are death, taxes, and the permanence of a government program. But what happens when a private company turns its agenda into a government program?

You cannot build a more financially secure business model than permanence. That helps explain why OpenAI is now reportedly in discussions with the Trump administration about a possible public equity stake in the company.

Unlike the dot-com bubble, whose infrastructure later supported real economic growth, rotting data centers will not leave behind comparable public value.

After all, what else is a company with $1.4 trillion in obligations and only $14 billion in revenue supposed to do?

Why was OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Capitol Hill last week? According to the Financial Times, he was effectively selling Americans the rope to hang themselves. The plan proposed by OpenAI and other companies would reportedly create a sovereign-wealth-style fund into which AI companies would contribute equity so that the public could share in the sector’s soaring valuations.

That sounds generous until one remembers that this is still a loss-making sector built on staggering capital demands.

What is the rationale? Asked about equity stakes on Air Force One, President Trump suggested that “pieces” of AI companies could be “given to the American public” to quell growing alarm over the rapid rollout of the technology.

In other words, Americans are being asked to surrender farmland, neighborhood continuity, and the reliability of the electric grid to cloud-based, surveillance-enabling chatslop. In return, they may receive the honor of owning the losses from an insolvent business model.

The president confirmed the idea at a press conference on Wednesday, saying he would soon meet with “the top 12 or 15 executives” about “giving back something to the public.” He promised that “the public will become very rich.”

That promise should terrify everyone.

Once generative AI becomes a public project, the industry will move beyond “too big to fail.” Whatever happens to the companies or the broader sector, their success will become artificially and inextricably tied to the economy. Every government favor, subsidy, guarantee, and bailout will then be justified as necessary to protect the public’s stake.

RELATED: The AI boom is turning public meetings into crime scenes

Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Last November, OpenAI’s chief financial officer let the cat out of the bag when she said the company would need the government as a “backstop” for its business model. Sarah Friar later denied seeking a bailout. But a leaked 11-page letter from OpenAI to the Office of Science and Technology Policy urged the government to provide “grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees” to build America’s AI industrial base — all, naturally, to “compete with China.”

Fast-forward six months, and “backstop” now appears to mean a public “stake” in the company.

Everyone knows OpenAI’s generative AI model is unsustainable. It is built on unfathomably expensive capital expenditures for every token of AI usage.

Companies such as JPMorgan are reportedly finding that employees, after being pushed to use generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Claude, are spending more on tokens than their individual salaries. Uber’s chief technology officer said last month that the company burned through its entire 2026 budget for Claude Code and Cursor in just four months. In the irony of ironies, Microsoft itself reportedly told engineers in a major division to stop using an AI coding tool because the cost-to-utility ratio was not there.

The reality is that AI would work better through localized edge computing with low latency than through cloud-based hyperscale data centers that require unsustainable amounts of land, capital, resources, and power while causing other harms. China is producing cheap open-source AI. America is pouring concrete.

But the scale of that concrete — and all the materials, inputs, and power needed to support it — is unsustainable. Everyone knows it. Google, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle issued 47% more debt in the first five months of this year than they did from 2020 through 2024 combined. Total spending per capita now exceeds spending on the railroads in 1859, which at least served a clear public need that could be monetized over time.

RELATED: After fierce debate, Trump opts for federal controls in AI development

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

There is no amount of monthly household or business subscription fees that will make this investment break even. The costs will only increase because the model depends on a resource-stripping industrial footprint and GPUs that have few other useful functions and depreciate within a few years.

Unlike the dot-com bubble, whose infrastructure later supported real economic growth, rotting data centers will not leave behind comparable public value.

The tech companies, land developers, and venture capital firms understand that this is a Ponzi scheme. They are racing to take these companies public so that they can be folded into indexes, ensuring that trillions in pension funds are funneled into an unsustainable business model. Once that happens, even if a more efficient approach to AI becomes obvious, the economy and government will already be too dependent on the data center model to let it fail.

That is why these companies are also seeking federal land for their projects, a favor not extended to ordinary industries. SoftBank, the Japanese investment company trying to underwrite much of OpenAI’s speculative build-out, is reportedly pushing for a federal land project in Ohio to reduce costs. But banks are already balking at these ventures after SoftBank failed to secure a $6 billion loan for OpenAI.

Green energy taught us a simple lesson: When the only path to profitability runs through government favors, we should not start down that path.

OpenAI does not need a public stake. It needs public skepticism.

Americans should not be asked to subsidize a speculative industry, sacrifice land and power, and then call the bailout wealth creation. If AI companies cannot survive without government backstops, loan guarantees, public land, and pension-fund capture, then they are not building the future.

They are building the next permanent government program.

Grants are a secret weapon for American communities



Most people think of grants as free money handed out at random or as something reserved for large nonprofits with powerful connections. In reality, however, grants are one of the most structured and intentional forms of funding in the American economy. They are designed to connect capital with specific outcomes, and both sides benefit when that connection is made.

Essentially, a grant is a non-repayable investment. A donor, whether an individual, foundation, or corporation, allocates capital toward a defined purpose. A recipient, whether a nonprofit, business, or project leader, applies for that funding with a plan to execute that purpose.

Unlike a loan, there is no repayment, and unlike a general donation, there are expectations.

That structure is what makes grants so effective.

Understanding how that system works is the difference between missing out and getting ahead.

For recipients, the benefit begins with access to capital without added risk. Organizations can fund new programs, hire staff, or invest in infrastructure without having to take on debt or divert limited funds. That security opens the door to growth.

Grants are often used as seed funding, supporting early-stage ideas that would otherwise struggle to attract financing. They allow organizations to think beyond short-term constraints and plan for the long term.

Just as importantly, grants create credibility. When an organization is awarded funding through a competitive or structured process, it signals validation. That recognition can attract additional donors, partners, and opportunities, creating momentum that extends far beyond the initial award.

But grants are not just one-sided. For donors, instead of broadly contributing to a cause, grantmakers can define exactly what they want to support. Grantmakers can also establish criteria, require reporting, and track outcomes over time. That creates accountability and ensures that funding is tied to results, not just good intentions.

Matching grants, for example, are designed to unlock additional funding by requiring others to contribute. This approach not only increases total dollars raised, but it also expands participation and engagement. According to data from the Bolger Foundation, these types of campaigns consistently drive higher donor involvement and overall contributions.

There are also practical advantages on the donor side. Contributions can offer tax benefits, and tools like donor-advised funds allow individuals and families to strategically manage their giving over time.

However, the grant system only works when the right capital meets the right opportunity. Too often, organizations struggle to identify funding sources that match their mission. At the same time, donors can find it difficult to connect with projects that align with their goals.

RELATED: No more free ride for federal grant hogs

Porcorex/Getty Images

That disconnect slows everything down.

That’s why more and more firms like mine have grown increasingly focused on grant matching as a way to close that gap.

By helping connect recipients with funding opportunities that align with their work and aligning donors with clearly defined outcomes, the process becomes more efficient for both sides. The alignment happens, and the results are tangible: Projects move forward faster, funding is deployed more strategically, and donors and recipients alike have greater confidence.

Grants are part of a system designed to direct resources where they can have the greatest impact. Understanding how that system works is the difference between missing out and getting ahead.

For organizations looking to grow, grants offer a path to funding without added burden. For donors looking to make a difference, they offer a way to turn intention into measurable results.

The opportunity is already there. The question is whether more people are ready to use it.

No more free ride for federal grant hogs



Washington has an old joke: Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.

Look past the quip and a pattern emerges. Programs created to address specific problems rarely disappear when those problems recede. They develop constituencies, build bureaucracies, and acquire defenders. Programs meant to die are kept alive through zombie funding long after their original purpose has faded.

Federal grants are not entitlements. Recipients should earn and re-earn them through demonstrated performance.

Milton Friedman spent decades explaining why. In “Free to Choose,” he distilled the point into a simple insight: When you spend your own money on yourself, you care about cost and value. When you spend someone else’s money on someone else — which is precisely what federal grantmaking entails — neither cost nor value receives the same scrutiny it would if the money were your own.

That is the system the Trump administration is now trying to change through a sweeping overhaul of federal grant regulations developed by the Office of Management and Budget. The core idea is simple enough that it should not require federal rulemaking to defend: Public money should produce public results. If it does not, the money should not continue automatically.

Washington has often operated on the opposite assumption. Grants get awarded. Organizations build staffs around them. Those staffs lobby to preserve them. Programs that fail rarely disappear cleanly; they are restructured, rebranded, and refunded. The constituency for any particular line of spending is loud and organized. The constituency for cutting it is diffuse and quiet. That is not a bug. It is a feature that benefits insiders and leaves taxpayers with the bill.

The proposed reforms rest on a simple principle: Federal funding should be earned continuously, not granted automatically. Stronger reporting requirements would force grantees to demonstrate results rather than document activity. Expanded use of the Treasury Department’s Do Not Pay system would help prevent improper payments before funds go out — a meaningful safeguard given that the OMB reported roughly $236 billion in improper payments government-wide in the 2023 fiscal year. Enhanced transparency rules would make it easier for taxpayers to see where federal dollars go and what they produce.

The goal is to shift federal grantmaking from routine renewal to ongoing performance review.

The proposal also takes on something Washington rarely discusses honestly: grantee capture. When a nonprofit receives most of its revenue from federal grants, it no longer operates as a purely independent civic institution. It functions as a publicly funded contractor with a development office. Taxpayers deserve to know when groups presenting themselves as independent advocates also depend heavily on federal money.

RELATED: ‘Pigs at the trough’: Spencer Pratt and Bill Maher come together to blast California ‘socialists’

Man_Half-tube/iStock/Getty Images

One provision deserves special support: ensuring that faith-based organizations can compete for grants on equal terms with secular ones. Charitable-choice provisions dating to the 1996 welfare reform law, executive-branch guidance under President Bush, and Executive Order 14332 signed by President Trump in 2025 already prohibit religious discrimination in many grant competitions.

But law on paper and law in practice often diverge. The federal government should judge applicants on their ability to deliver results — not on whether they pray before staff meetings.

Critics will argue that these reforms could be used to disadvantage political opponents. Some of that criticism will land. Implementation will matter enormously, and the effort’s credibility will depend on whether agencies apply performance metrics consistently and transparently across programs.

But the underlying principle should command broad support: Federal grants are not entitlements. Recipients should earn and re-earn them through demonstrated performance. Any serious steward of public resources should embrace that standard.

Friedman understood that bad incentive structures produce bad outcomes regardless of the intentions of the people operating within them. The federal grant system has tolerated weak incentives for too long. Large flows of public money require constant oversight. Without it, mistakes, waste, and fraud become predictable.

After decades of promises to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, the Trump administration’s reforms represent something Washington too rarely attempts: real change.

Every dollar the federal government spends was earned by someone outside Washington. Taxpayers deserve to know it was used well.

Democrat melts down after Secretary Doug Burgum drops bombshell about NGOs during committee hearing



Democrats had a meltdown during a committee hearing while grilling Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum on all of the programs he is attempting to shut down.

And no one was ready for his answer.

'We found organizations that were receiving grants from Interior where 80 to 100% of the revenue of that NGO was a grant from the federal government.'

In a Monday House Committee Hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) asked for clarification on Burgum's proposed "complete elimination" of some programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service, including some state and tribal wildlife grants.

Burgum replied with a shocking statistic about where some "nongovernmental organizations" get their money.

RELATED: Revamped National Parks program prioritizes Americans and ensures foreigners 'contribute their fair share'

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

"There was a review done of the grants," he said.

"And that is an area where there's been substantial review. We found organizations that were receiving grants from Interior where 80 to 100% of the revenue of that NGO was a grant from the federal government."

"And yet those organizations, we were the sole source of their revenue, but they would have a CEO making $650,000 and four $400,000 lobbyists," Burgum continued.

DeLauro stammered in reply: "It would be very interesting because we can't get any information. We may agree with you. Give us the reasons why all of these grants are cut, the organizations are cut. ... We just can't take your word."

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