Trump has the chance to end the welfare free-for-all Minnesota exposed



It’s the $1.2 trillion question.

The United States spends roughly $1.2 trillion every year on means-tested welfare programs — cash aid, food assistance, housing subsidies, and medical care. The list runs through a thicket of acronyms: SNAP, TANF, SSI, EITC, ACTC, WIC, CHIP, ACA subsidies, and CCDBG, plus school meals, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing.

States that eliminate fraud can afford to provide better aid to real residents in need — creating a race to the top in administration rather than a race to exploit Washington.

This guaranteed-income architecture now fuels a destructive cycle. Federal spending drives debt. Debt fuels inflation. Inflation expands dependence. And Washington responds by printing more money and sending it back to the states — without demanding serious accountability.

The result is a bottomless pit of spending, fraud, and inflation, with states handed endless federal funds and almost no incentive to police abuse.

Minnesota’s massive Somali-linked fraud scandal exposes this system in its most grotesque form. The question is whether President Trump will use it to force states to reclaim ownership — and responsibility — over welfare.

The day-care, nutrition, and medical fraud uncovered in Minneapolis is not an aberration. It is the predictable outcome of an open-ended entitlement state. Fraud networks thrive wherever federal money flows without limits or consequences. While the Minneapolis cases involved tight-knit ethnic networks, the underlying problem is national and structural. As long as states do not have to pay their own way, fraud will remain rational behavior.

California offers a parallel example. A report last summer found that roughly one-third of all community college applications in the state were fake — submitted solely to extract federal financial aid. That scam could not survive if California had to pick up the tab.

It isn’t just a blue-state problem, either. As Alex Berenson has reported, Indiana’s Medicaid spending on “autism behavioral therapy” exploded thirtyfold in just six years, reaching $75,000 per child for a few hours a week of unproven playtime therapy. When federal dollars cover the bill, discipline evaporates.

RELATED: Government fraud meets its worst enemy: Some dude with a phone

Wanlee Prachyapanaprai via iStock/Getty Images

Many Americans ask how Minnesota allowed the Feeding Our Future scandal to persist for years. The answer is simple: Washington supplied unlimited money, and the state faced no budgetary consequence for ignoring warning signs.

Over 200 day-care and medical providers allegedly siphoned billions across Medicaid, child care, and nutrition programs. That scale of fraud does not occur without political indifference — or worse.

States have every incentive under this system to look away. Federal money enables a closed loop of special interests, dependency, and electoral protection. Oversight threatens the flow.

Devolving welfare programs to the states — using fixed block grants rather than open-ended federal matches — would cut this dynamic off at the knees. States must balance their budgets. They do not have a printing press. When fraud costs real money, enforcement follows.

This is the moment for Trump to make that case. Either states raise taxes to fund welfare programs themselves, or they reform and prioritize them. That choice restores democratic accountability.

Consider the contrast. The United States spends roughly $1 trillion on national defense — protecting everyone. Yet we now spend even more on means-tested welfare that serves narrower populations while distorting the economy for all. Open-ended welfare spending drives inflation, which then forces more people onto welfare. End the money-printing, and fewer people will need subsidies in the first place.

RELATED: The insane little story that failed to warn America about the depth of Somali fraud

NoraVector via iStock/Getty Images

In response to the Minnesota scandal, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget froze $10 billion in funding for TANF and the Child Care Development Fund across several states. That is a start. But temporary freezes will not survive the next Democrat administration.

The durable fix is statutory restructuring — through budget reconciliation — to force states to assume full financial responsibility for welfare programs. Without unlimited federal backstopping, abuse becomes politically and fiscally intolerable.

Critics warn that block grants spark a “race to the bottom.” The 1996 welfare reform suggests the opposite. When states gained ownership, many innovated — emphasizing work, child-care support, and fraud reduction. Accountability improved because incentives changed.

Yes, benefits should be limited to the truly needy. Open-ended entitlements allowed 250 “meal sites” to appear almost overnight in Minnesota, claiming to feed 120,000 children a day.

Force states to balance their books, and they will treat taxpayer money with respect. States that eliminate fraud can afford to provide better aid to real residents in need — creating a race to the top in administration rather than a race to exploit Washington.

The real way to “feed our future” is to end inflationary money-printing and dismantle the infinite entitlement state — so families can afford food on their own again.

I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind



After the House narrowly passed President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” — in true Washington fashion, it’s already been reduced to an acronym: BBB — the usual suspects sounded the alarm. Libertarians and deficit hawks recoiled. Elon Musk, the former DOGE chief, called it a “disgusting abomination.” He warned it would pile another $2.4 trillion onto the national debt over the next decade. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed it as hypocritical, saying Republicans can’t keep pushing tax cuts without real spending cuts to match.

I sympathized. I flinched at the trillion-dollar price tag too. My immediate thought: “This is what Democrats and GOP sellouts do — not fiscal conservatives.”

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

Then Stephen Miller showed up.

While critics accused the bill of being just another bloated omnibus, Miller pushed back. He took to X to argue that the BBB isn’t some lobbyist-driven monstrosity. It’s a focused, unapologetic conservative package: secure the border, overhaul welfare, and revive the economic growth unleashed by the 2017 tax cuts. For the first time in a long time, I decided to hear the argument out.

Border security for real this time

I didn’t need much convincing on border security. But Miller pointed out something the corporate left-wing media barely mentioned: The BBB fully funds the border wall — both physical infrastructure and new tech. Republicans have promised that since 2016. Nearly a decade later, they finally have a bill that delivers.

— (@)

This isn’t more messaging fluff. The bill puts $45 billion toward border security — the largest commitment in U.S. history. It increases Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention capacity by 800% over the previous fiscal year, funding facilities to detain more than 100,000 people per day. It also includes $8 billion to hire 10,000 new ICE officers and staff.

If the bill ended there, it would be a no-brainer. But I still had concerns — starting with the deficit.

Does it add $2.4 trillion to the deficit?

We can’t call ourselves fiscal conservatives while borrowing like Democrats. Miller knows that, and he didn’t dodge the question.

The bill, he argued, enacts the most sweeping welfare reform in U.S. history. It includes over $2 trillion in net spending cuts. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps would be tied to citizenship and work requirements — policies conservatives have supported for years but rarely fought for seriously in Congress.

And then there’s the tax side.

The BBB extends the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — one of the clearest drivers of economic growth during Trump’s first term. That’s what triggered the $2.4 trillion deficit estimate, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But here’s the twist: The CBO’s figure isn’t based on new spending. It’s based on continuing tax relief. Miller’s argument is straightforward — there’s a world of difference between scoring a bill that way and actually running up the national credit card.

RELATED: Trump’s $9.3B rescission push faces a GOP gut check

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Attributing the deficit to tax cuts is like blaming hydrogen peroxide for the wound it’s meant to treat. The real cause of the deficit isn’t lower taxes. It’s decades of spending on bloated welfare, bureaucratic waste, and corporate handouts that the DOGE identified — exactly the kind of garbage the BBB cuts.

Even ABC News, buried in the middle of a critical write-up, admitted that the bill would cut taxes by $3.7 trillion and reduce spending by $1.2 trillion. If that’s not a conservative win, what is?

Letting the 2017 tax cuts expire over CBO scoring fears would amount to a massive tax hike on the working and middle classes. Extending them strengthens the economy, boosts small businesses, and keeps the government from choking growth just to massage a deficit number.

Why not pass these reforms separately?

Border security — check. Welfare reform — check. Pro-growth tax cuts — check. So why cram it all into one bill? Why not pass each measure individually, on its own merits?

Miller addressed that too. In a perfect world, each item would pass as a clean bill. But in the real world, every one of these provisions would require 60 votes in the Senate — including Chuck Schumer’s. That’s not happening.

— (@)

The reconciliation process, however, only requires a simple majority. It’s the only legislative path available. For once, Republicans are using the rules the way Democrats do: to win.

I didn’t like it at first. It felt like a compromise. But now I see it as the only way to do what we’ve been saying we want to do for years.

Miller won me over

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t water down core principles. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

And unlike Louisiana Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s endless parade of “small ball” continuing resolutions, the BBB actually moves the ball down the field. It lays out a coherent conservative agenda — and the administration is determined to get it passed.

— (@)

I’m still a fiscal hawk. I still want smaller bills, much less spending, and a federal budget that doesn’t look like a summertime pig roast. But I also want results. And this might be the only chance we have to deliver the policy victories we’ve been promised for a generation.

Stephen Miller changed my mind. I hope other conservatives will give him a fair hearing too.

Ending Expectations That Adults Work For A Living Erases Human Dignity

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the most crippling form of poverty was seen as the poverty of dignity. To read all the letters and diaries and recollections of the time is to see that the severe economic hardship caused by the loss of a job was often considered temporary and survivable. But what […]

How America’s Welfare System Can Stop Separating Kids From Their Fathers

The consequences of fatherlessness are devastating, especially for children, yet the government continues to disincentivize marriage in its welfare programs without recognizing the pitfalls.

Wisconsin’s Great Recession Recovery Shows The Path Forward After COVID-19: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

A new study shows a clear path forward as Americans stare another recession in the face thanks to COVID-19. The most important focus? Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Trump admin announces work requirement reforms for food stamps

The following is an excerpt from Blaze Media’s Capitol Hill Brief email newsletter:

In yet another example of policy news that happened while the impeachment circus took up most of Washington’s attention, the Trump administration announced a new rule yesterday that tightens work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps.

“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue stated on Wednesday. “Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work.”

Under current law, work-eligible adults without dependents under the age of 50 can only get three months of benefits over a three-year period if they don’t meet a work requirement of 20 hours per week. The new rule simply cuts back on states’ ability to exempt work-eligible people from the work requirements via waivers.

Nancy Pelosi said that the finalized rule “showcases the Trump Administration’s complete and devastating disregard for the health and well-being of millions of Americans.”

Republican lawmakers, in contrast, lauded the change.

“There is simply no reason today why, for example, an able-bodied adult male with no health problems and no dependents should not [be] employed – or at least contributing as a productive volunteer in his community,” said Republican Study Committee Chair Mike Johnson, R-La. “Our public policy in this country should always emphasize the virtue of hard work as a pathway out of poverty, while public assistance programs should be reserved only for those who are truly in need.”

“With unemployment at record lows, with 7 million available job openings, work opportunities are abundant,” said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. “Able-bodied adults should never be allowed to vote for a living rather than work for one.”

Keep reading...Show less