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’
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.
When BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales stumbled upon a flyer for a Muslim-run event at a water park in Texas, she quickly exposed it — only for organizers to change the flyer to reflect a more inclusive atmosphere.
However, Gonzales isn’t letting it go, pointing out that “screenshots are forever.”
“If you want to see how bad the Islamic invasion of Texas is getting, I’ve got to tell you, I didn’t have this on my bingo card. Now they’re taking over our water parks,” she says, pulling up the original flyer for the event.
Not only does the event boast a “private prayer area” and “modest dress code,” but it advertises that it is “closed to the public,” as it’s “Muslims only.”
“Guess segregation is alive and well in Texas. And the water park is, of course, it’s owned by the city of Grand Prairie, Texas. Taxpayers are paying for it,” Gonzales explains, pointing out that this is not the first time taxpayers have paid for this event.
“This is not the first, not the second, but the third annual ‘Muslim-only’ Epic water park,” she says, before reading testimonials from the first and second events.
“My daughter described it as ‘the best of her life.’ As a family, [sic] that values modesty finding a recreational activity that aligns with our principles can be challenging, however your event provided a safe respectful environment, where we could enjoy ourselves without compromise and the availability of a clean quiet prayer room allowed us to stay longer and enjoy,” one woman wrote.
“I loved the modesty and the Anasheed,” another event-goer posted.
“MashaAllah the event was very organized. Being with friends made it enjoyable and fun, Islamic-friendly, not crowded, and good food,” another testimonial read.
The organizers' website even gave examples of what to wear to the event, with a page full of photos of burkinis — which is swimwear for Muslim women that covers them from head to toe like a burka.
“It seems like a bad idea to have a head covering when you’re going into water,” she says. “That doesn’t seem safe.”
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Last weekend delivered yet another grim headline: political violence, an attempted presidential assassination, once again treated as a mystery by the left.
The alleged perpetrator, we are told, was not some fringe drifter living off the grid, but an award-winning teacher. This is a detail that would have seemed ironic a generation ago, but now seems almost predictable.
Reports indicate that the individual had a record of professional accolades and community involvement, the sort of résumé typically invoked to prove the impact of leftist ideologies.
If one wishes to understand what is happening to our country, there is no need to search for obscure explanations.
Alongside that résumé, there are early indications of ideological commitments and public expressions that fit comfortably within the increasingly militant strain of contemporary progressive activism and most university classrooms.
After such events, the public conversation follows a well-worn script. We are told this is an isolated incident. We are urged not to “politicize.” And yet, the same voices that warn against generalization in this context have no hesitation attributing sweeping moral guilt to entire categories when it suits the prevailing orthodoxy.
One is tempted to ask: How often must this pattern repeat before we permit ourselves the unfashionable act of noticing it?
It’s as if there are some mysterious places we send young adults to be indoctrinated to hate their country, hate their bodies, and hate God. The only thing worse is if we are footing the bill for tuition.
So let us ask, with due sobriety: Are there institutions in our country where young minds are being shaped, not merely to critique, but to despise?
Now that you mention it, yes, there are.
As a Christian and conservative professor, I have spent years calling attention to what occurs inside our universities.
Earlier this month, my college at Arizona State University formally adopted a Native American land acknowledgment as official policy.
These statements are often presented as benign gestures of historical awareness, but their actual function is quite different: They are meant to problematize the legitimacy of American land ownership and to “expose” what are called “structures of oppression.”
In practice, this language is not descriptive but rather accusatory. It does not invite inquiry; it prescribes judgment.
At the same time, faculty are encouraged to “decolonize” their curricula. That term, which sounds like a meaningless academic exercise, carries a very specific ideological payload. It teaches that Western civilization, particularly the United States, is not merely flawed but fundamentally illegitimate, built upon “white supremacy” and sustained by “structural violence.”
And if a system is fundamentally illegitimate, what follows?
Historically speaking, one does not reform such systems. One dismantles them. And so you find ASU professors calling for armed resistance to the United States.
This is not some abstract speculation. It is a demonstrable reality.
Across the country, we have seen:
Consider the broader pattern:
One begins to see the progression:
Step 1: Teach the youth that America and Christianity are evil.
Step 2: Teach that dismantling them is justice.
Step 3: Act surprised when someone takes the final step.
Step 4: Cash your state employee checks.
All of this brings us to a question that is at once practical and unavoidable: Where are the Arizona Board of Regents and similar institutions in other states?
Is it merely a ceremonial body, an occasion for polite applause and catered wine and cheese receptions, or does it exist to provide actual oversight of the institutions entrusted to it?
Public universities are not private salons for ideological experimentation. They are taxpayer-supported institutions with a mandate to educate, not indoctrinate; to pursue truth, not enforce orthodoxy.
In Arizona, professors sign an employee contract agreeing not to undermine the Constitution. And yet, when faculty openly promote ideas that undermine the constitutional order they are employed under, the response is silence or, worse, complicity.
Meanwhile, those who raise concerns find themselves subject to scrutiny, marginalization, and, in some cases, professional penalty.
RELATED: The anti-Christian myth of First Amendment 'neutrality'
American families send their children to universities like ASU at considerable cost. It is easily tens of thousands of dollars per year and sometimes far more when all expenses are counted and taxes are factored in.
What do they expect in return? An education in truth. Training in reason. Preparation for responsible citizenship. Maybe even a little wisdom and fear of God.
But that is not what they get. Instead, their kids receive instruction in grievance. Classes about envy and training to hate your neighbor. Formation in ideological hostility. Encouragement to view their own country, their own traditions, even their own families as objects of suspicion or contempt.
And occasionally, as we are now forced to confront, something worse: calls for violent resistance by professors on the state tax dime.
If one wishes to understand what is happening to our country, there is no need to search for obscure explanations.
It is happening, in large measure, in our universities. And it is paid for by taxes in the very country these professors hate so much. Parents don’t know how bad it is and continue to send their children, paying tuition, into these ideological training camps.
And — this is the uncomfortable part — we don’t stop paying for it. It’s much worse than you think, and it is time to say enough is enough. No more state checks for those who hate America. They are free to start their own private university and teach their hatred there.
I have documented these trends extensively. I will continue to do so. If you would like to keep updated on what goes on within our universities, you can subscribe to my Substack as I report from within the belly of what some call the Devil’s University.
If you find yourself in conversation with someone who asks, in genuine bewilderment, “What is happening to America?” you might offer a simple reply: “Look at the institutions shaping the next generation.”
Kentucky is on track to become the first state where the legislature overrides a governor’s opposition and opts into President Trump’s new school-choice program, part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The federal initiative lets states opt in to tax-credit scholarships that expand options for families without tapping public school budgets.
The Kentucky Senate just passed House Bill 1 by a 33-5 vote. All Republicans backed it, joined by one Democrat. The House had already approved the bill 79-17, with two Democrats voting yes. Now it heads to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, a reliable opponent of school choice.
Governors don’t get a permanent veto over school choice when legislatures have the votes — and families are demanding options.
Kentucky’s override rules make this fight different. Lawmakers need only a simple majority in each chamber to overturn a veto — and the vote totals suggest they have it.
Beshear’s own education choices underscore the disconnect. He attended Capital Day School, a private school, for part of his education. He also enrolled his children in private schools for portions of their schooling. He wants those options for his family, but he resists expanding similar opportunities statewide.
North Carolina provides the contrast. Republicans there advanced an opt-in bill to Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, but the state requires a 60% vote in each chamber to override a veto. The GOP lacks that margin, making success unlikely.
In Kentucky’s Senate debate, Majority Floor Leader Max Wise (R) singled out Democratic Rep. Tina Bojanowski for her yes vote. Another senator pointed to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis — the first Democratic governor to opt his state into Trump’s program. Polis called participation a “no-brainer” and said he “would be crazy not to” do it.
Here’s the key design feature: Any U.S. taxpayer can contribute to these scholarships and claim a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Families can access scholarships only if their state opts in. That means residents of opt-out states can fund scholarships in opt-in states — a built-in incentive for governors and lawmakers to join rather than watch their taxpayers’ dollars flow elsewhere.
The program relies on private contributions. It does not divert funds from public schools. That approach likely explains the bill’s wide support — more than 80% of members present and voting in each chamber backed it. Kentucky’s 2024 school choice constitutional amendment never came close to that kind of consensus.
For Kentucky families, the opt-in may be the only viable path right now. The Kentucky Supreme Court unanimously struck down the state’s tax-credit scholarship program in 2022. It also blocked charter schools last month. Unless and until the court’s composition changes, the Trump program offers a practical workaround.
RELATED: When parents pay twice to escape public schools, the verdict is in
That matters because the 2024 ballot measure tried to amend the state constitution to sidestep the court. Teachers’ unions spent millions opposing it. The language confused voters, and constitutional amendments don’t deliver immediate, tangible benefits like scholarships. When ballot measures confuse people, they default to the status quo.
So far, 27 governors have opted their states into Trump’s school-choice program. That group includes 26 Republicans — all except Vermont Gov. Phil Scott — and one Democrat, Polis. Republican-led legislatures in other states are exploring opt-ins and, in some cases, overrides against Democratic governors.
In Arizona, the state senate passed an opt-in bill, but Republicans likely lack the votes to override a veto from Gov. Katie Hobbs. Kansas and Wisconsin are also in play. Wisconsin Republicans don’t have the votes for an override. In Kansas, it remains unclear whether Republicans will unify the way Kentucky’s did.
Kentucky’s move shows why this program has momentum. It expands options without reopening state-funding fights or running into the same court barriers. The tax-credit mechanism encourages private giving while keeping scholarship access tied to states that opt in.
If Kentucky lawmakers follow through, they won’t just deliver scholarships. They’ll set a precedent: Governors don’t get a permanent veto over school choice when legislatures have the votes — and families are demanding options.
President Donald Trump announced America's withdrawal from the scandal-plagued World Health Organization late in his first term, citing the organization's abysmal response to COVID-19, its willingness to help the communist Chinese regime cover up the spread of the virus, and its refusal to adopt urgently needed reforms.
Former President Joe Biden swooped in, however, to prevent the withdrawal, which was scheduled for July 6, 2021.
'The United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal.'
On his first day back in office, Trump put the country back on track for withdrawal, giving the WHO a one-year notice period as required by U.S. law. In the months since, the Trump administration has cut off funding, withdrawn all personnel from the organization, and pivoted initiatives previously executed with the WHO to bilateral engagements with other countries and outfits.
Pursuant to the president's order, the United States has — as of Thursday — officially finished its exit from the WHO.
In a joint release confirming the completion of the withdrawal, the U.S. State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services stated, "Going forward, the U.S. government will continue its global health leadership through existing and new engagements directly with other countries, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and faith-based entities."
"U.S.-led efforts will prioritize emergency response, biosecurity coordination, and health innovation, including for noncommunicable diseases, to protect America first while delivering benefits to partners around the world," added the departments.
In a corresponding fact sheet, the departments indicated that in addition to terminating all funding to the WHO and recalling all U.S. personnel and contractors previously assigned to or embedded with the agency, the U.S. has "ceased official participation in WHO-sponsored committees, leadership, bodies, governance structures, and technical working groups."
"Withdrawing from WHO restores long-overdue accountability and transparency for U.S. taxpayers," says the fact sheet.
The WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations that was founded in 1948, has long depended on the U.S. for financial and technical support. The U.S., a founding member, has historically been the organization's single largest contributor, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the WHO yearly and regularly accounting for over 20% of all member-state assessed contributions.
While the Trump administration satisfied its statutory obligation to give a one-year notice, critics of the withdrawal and officials at the globalist organization claim the U.S. has not met its financial obligations under the provisions of the congressional resolution that first enabled the country to join the WHO.
The amount supposedly owing for the 2024-2025 period is reportedly $278 million.
"The United States will not be making any payments to the WHO before our withdrawal," a State Department official told NPR earlier this week. "The cost borne by the U.S. taxpayer and U.S. economy after the WHO's failure during the COVID pandemic — and since — has been too high as it is."
Lawrence Gostin, director of the WHO's Center of National and Global Health Law, told NPR, "This is a very, very public and messy divorce."
"The man says, 'No, I'm not going to pay you any money, and we're no longer married.' And the woman says, 'No, you can't not be married unless you pay me,'" said Gostin.
Unlike in Gostin's analogy, the man in this scenario is the world's pre-eminent nuclear superpower.
Despite the apparent futility of the effort, the WHO's principal legal officer, Steven Solomon, indicated earlier this month that the organization's member states will discuss whether the U.S. has met the requirements for leaving, reported Stat News.
"It’s a lose for the U.S., and it’s also a lose for the rest of the world," Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week of America's imminent departure. "I hope they will reconsider."
Bill Gates, a funder of some of the WHO's work, told Reuters, "I don’t think the U.S. will be coming back to WHO in the near future."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
At a time when multiple budget analysts have highlighted an explosion in Medicare spending due to the IRA, what did Wyden’s white paper propose? More of the same.
The IRS notice in my mail represents another piece of evidence suggesting the Trump administration is taking the fight against fraud seriously.
Yes, we should be skeptical of Newsom’s crony-run diaper giveaway, and here's why.
In too many cases, autism therapy is at best a joke designed to bilk money out of Medicaid and at worst a danger to the patients themselves.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com