The proposal drew sharp criticism from veterans, city council members, and former officials who called the cuts an insult to the men and women who served. City budget records show the Department of Veterans Services would drop from roughly $7.6 million in the adopted fiscal year 2026 budget to $6.6 million under Mamdani's plan, the New York Post reported.

The line items tell the story. The administration proposed zeroing out a $585,000 "Other Expenses, General" line entirely. It would gut "Temporary Services" funding from $441,000 down to $15,000. Another $57,000 in supplies and materials would be trimmed. And the mayor's savings plan calls for cutting $60,000 a year for veterans' events, not just next year, but every year from fiscal 2026 through 2030.

A parade replaced by a march

Among the most visible changes: the Mamdani administration would cancel a planned "Homecoming of Heroes" ticker-tape parade timed around the September 11 anniversary. In its place, a mayoral spokesperson said the city would hold a cheaper "Remembrance Ruck" march developed in consultation with unnamed veterans' groups.

City Hall said it will try to rely on private fundraising to cover the cost of ceremonies going forward. A mayoral spokesperson argued the changes will not affect essential services for veterans, though the administration did not specify which services it considers essential or how the remaining budget would be allocated.

Former Queens Council Member Bob Holden, who once led the City Council's Committee on Veterans, was not persuaded. He told the Post on Wednesday:

"Replacing a ticker-tape parade with a cheaper event and then planning these so-called 'savings' for years ahead is insulting to the men and women who served this country and sacrificed for New York City."

Holden went further, pointing to the city's broader spending habits:

"The city has no problem wasting billions of dollars, but suddenly when it comes to honoring our veterans and 9/11 heroes, they want to pinch pennies."

That contrast, billions flowing freely through the city's coffers while the veterans' budget gets a 13 percent haircut, is the kind of math that sticks with voters. Mamdani already faces growing criticism over his leadership of the city, and this budget fight hands his opponents a clean talking point.

'A slap in the face'

Osbert Orduna, a service-disabled Marine Corps veteran, shared what the proposed cuts mean to the people who would feel them most directly:

"It's a slap in the face to veterans, to New Yorkers and more specifically to service-disabled veterans, people who have sacrificed their minds and their bodies in service to our nation and live in the city."

Orduna stressed that veterans' events are not mere ceremony. They serve as lifelines for people who often struggle with isolation, homelessness, and mental health crises after leaving the military.

"Veterans from across every generation, from World War II to the present, the one time that we can all come together, build our community and support one another is at these functions."

He pressed the point even harder, connecting the gatherings to survival itself:

"Many lives have been saved by veterans just coming together and finding comfort in one another, and connecting so that we don't lose another veteran life, so another veteran does not add the word 'homeless' to the title of veteran."

That testimony is worth pausing on. When a disabled veteran tells elected officials that these events keep people alive, the city's response, offloading the cost to private donors and swapping a parade for a budget march, carries a particular weight.

A divided veterans community

Not every veteran opposed the shift. Ryan Graham, who served in the U.S. Air Force and chairs the New York City Veterans Advisory Board, sided with the mayor. Graham, described as a Mamdani ally, dismissed the events in blunt terms:

"Events are fluff. That's it, plain and simple."

Graham said he would rather see city money directed toward housing, mental health services, and food insecurity needs. He invoked a personal loss, his high school friend Kyle, a fellow veteran who later committed suicide, as the reason he prioritizes direct services over ceremonies.

"I don't want to see another Kyle or any other veterans take their lives because those services were not there."

Graham's argument has a surface logic. But the budget numbers complicate it. The proposed cuts don't appear to redirect event funding toward expanded housing or mental health programs. They simply reduce the department's overall footprint. Zeroing out a $585,000 general expense line and gutting temporary services funding from $441,000 to $15,000 does not look like a reallocation toward better care. It looks like a straight cut.

The City Council ultimately has to approve Mamdani's budget plan. The mayor has already drawn fire for a pattern of gestures that don't match his follow-through, and this budget fight may test whether the council will push back or fall in line.

Council members demand answers

City Council Member Frank Morano, who chairs the council's Committee on Veterans, vowed to seek clarity on "exactly what's being reduced, what's being preserved and where any savings are ultimately going." He called current funding for veterans "woefully inadequate", a description that applied before the proposed cuts, let alone after them.

Morano framed the issue in terms that should make any elected official uncomfortable:

"I'd love to see veterans become a much bigger priority for lawmakers at every level of government, not just during commemorative moments, but year round."

That line lands differently when the city is actively proposing to cut commemorative moments, too. If veterans aren't a priority during parades and they aren't a priority in the budget, when exactly are they a priority?

The open questions are significant. The administration has not detailed which veterans' groups were consulted on the replacement march. It has not explained how private fundraising will reliably cover ceremonies that the city itself has been funding. And it has not accounted for the full $1 million gap between the current and proposed budgets in a way that shows where every dollar went.

Mamdani has faced heated public criticism on other fronts as well, and the veterans' budget fight adds another constituency to the list of New Yorkers who feel the mayor's priorities are misaligned.

What the numbers reveal

Strip away the rhetoric and the budget tells a clear story. A department that serves the men and women who wore the uniform would lose more than one dollar in eight. The savings plan locks in $60,000-a-year event cuts for five consecutive fiscal years, through 2030, signaling that this is not a one-time belt-tightening but a long-term downgrade in how the city treats its veterans.

City Hall's answer, lean on private donors, is the kind of response that sounds reasonable in a press release and falls apart in practice. Private fundraising is unpredictable. It shifts the burden of honoring veterans from the government that sent them to serve onto the goodwill of strangers. And it gives the city a convenient exit from a commitment it should own.

Frustration with the Mamdani administration has surfaced even within the city's own uniformed ranks, and cutting veterans' funding will do nothing to quiet the growing sense that this mayor's budget reflects his ideology more than the city's obligations.

The City Council now holds the pen. Morano and his colleagues will decide whether the men and women who served this country get a parade or a budget line marked zero. The choice should not be difficult.

A city that can spend billions ought to be able to find $1 million for the people who answered the call.

The post Mayor Mamdani faces backlash over proposed $1 million cut to New York City veterans services appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

No other candidate in the field hit double digits.

The AtlasIntel survey, conducted May 4, 7, 2025, polled 2,069 U.S. adults and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It marks the first time Ocasio-Cortez has led in a major 2028 primary poll, and it tells you something about where the Democratic Party's energy is heading.

That direction should concern anyone who thinks the country needs less government, not more.

The numbers, and what they don't say

One poll does not make a nominee. And other surveys tell a different story. A Harvard/Harris poll released in April, surveying 2,745 registered voters from April 23, 26, showed Harris at 50 percent, up from 41 percent in March and 39 percent in January and February. In that poll, Newsom pulled 22 percent, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro took 9 percent, Ocasio-Cortez drew just 8 percent, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker got 6 percent.

A YouGov survey of 2,189 adults from April 8, 13, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, also put Harris on top at 24 percent. Newsom followed at 12 percent, and Ocasio-Cortez and Buttigieg each drew 9 percent. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders polled at 7 percent, and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly pulled 5 percent.

So the broader polling landscape has not crowned Ocasio-Cortez. But the AtlasIntel result matters because of the pollster's track record. Survey veteran Nate Silver ranked AtlasIntel the most accurate polling company of the 2024 election, and the firm previously earned the same distinction from FiveThirtyEight in 2020. When the outfit that gets elections right starts showing a new leader, the political class notices.

Prediction markets, meanwhile, still favor other candidates. On Kalshi, Newsom held a 25 percent chance of winning the Democratic primary, Harris sat at 9.1 percent, and Ocasio-Cortez trailed at 8.2 percent. Polymarket told a similar story: Newsom at 24 percent, Harris at 9 percent, Ocasio-Cortez at 8 percent.

The gap between the polling result and the betting markets is itself revealing. Bettors, who put real money on outcomes, still see Ocasio-Cortez as a long shot. But primary voters, or at least survey respondents, are warming to her faster than the smart-money crowd expected.

AOC's careful positioning

The poll dropped just days after Ocasio-Cortez addressed presidential speculation in a conversation with David Axelrod, the former adviser to President Barack Obama. Her answer was classic Ocasio-Cortez, expansive, ideological, and carefully non-committal.

"My ambition is to change this country. Presidents come and go. Senate, House seats, elected officials come and go. But single-payer healthcare is forever. A living wage is forever, workers' rights are forever, women's rights, all of that, and so anyways...to a finer point to your question is that when you aren't attached, right, when you haven't been like fantasizing about being this or that since the time you were 7 years old, um, it is tremendously liberating."

That is not a denial. It is a holding pattern disguised as humility. She has not confirmed plans to run for president, and she has not ruled it out. Some on the left have also floated the idea that she should challenge Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer in a primary if he runs for reelection rather than retiring.

As we have previously reported, Ocasio-Cortez has framed her ambitions as reaching "way bigger" than any single office, a line that keeps every door open while committing to nothing.

The Washington Times noted that Ocasio-Cortez told Axelrod her ambition is "way bigger" than a specific seat or title. That phrasing is doing a lot of work. It lets her build a national profile without the scrutiny that comes with a formal campaign, at least for now.

Grassroots strength, general-election weakness

What Ocasio-Cortez does have is a grassroots fundraising machine that most Democrats would envy. Fox News opinion contributor Doug Schoen argued that she has raised more than $15 million in 2025, with 99 percent coming from small-dollar donors. Schoen wrote that she "appears to be the front-runner for Democrats' 2028 presidential nomination" and that Harris "will likely not be president in 2028, but AOC could very well be the Democratic nominee."

She and Sanders have drawn tens of thousands to rallies, more than 30,000 attendees in Los Angeles and Denver, by Schoen's account. That is real energy, not manufactured hype.

But a primary is not a general election. And there is a reason the right side of the political spectrum is not exactly panicking. The Washington Examiner laid out the case that Ocasio-Cortez's policy positions on energy, immigration, policing, and climate would make it extraordinarily difficult for her to win centrist voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. The Examiner also argued she struggles under pressure and avoids adversarial interviews, a pattern that would be far harder to sustain during a presidential campaign.

One Examiner writer put it bluntly: "This is about the best news anyone on the Right could expect because Ocasio-Cortez will never win a general election."

That confidence may be premature. But the underlying point is sound. Her platform, single-payer health care, a Green New Deal, expansive government spending, plays well in deep-blue districts and at progressive rallies. It plays less well in the suburbs of Philadelphia or the exurbs of Phoenix.

What this reveals about the Democratic bench

The more interesting question is what Ocasio-Cortez's rise says about the rest of the field. Harris, who lost to President Donald Trump in 2024, still leads in most polls but struggled with lower-propensity young voters during that campaign. Her support in the Harvard/Harris poll has climbed, but that may reflect name recognition more than enthusiasm.

Newsom carries the baggage of California governance, a state that has become a cautionary tale on crime, homelessness, cost of living, and regulatory overreach. Buttigieg's tenure at the Department of Transportation was defined more by culture-war commentary than infrastructure results. Shapiro and Pritzker remain largely unknown outside their home states.

Her careful media strategy has allowed Ocasio-Cortez to build a brand without subjecting herself to the kind of sustained questioning that a presidential campaign demands. That is smart politics, for now.

Candidates could potentially announce 2028 campaigns as early as 2027, after the midterms. That gives every contender time to build organizations, raise money, and test messages. But the early jockeying matters because donors and voters use these polls to gauge viability.

Breitbart reported that while the AtlasIntel poll showed Ocasio-Cortez on top, she has not announced a presidential run, and other polls still place Harris in the lead, a reminder that the Democratic field remains unsettled.

Meanwhile, the broader progressive orbit around Ocasio-Cortez continues to expand. Her former chief of staff recently launched a bid for Nancy Pelosi's seat while calling for the replacement of Schumer and Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, a signal that the AOC wing of the party sees itself as the future, not the fringe.

The real test ahead

Ocasio-Cortez recently called former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene a "proven bigot and antisemite" after some progressives suggested the two could work together on Gaza policy. That episode captures the tension in her brand: she is a coalition-builder on the left but a polarizing figure everywhere else.

There are also unresolved questions about her own conduct. A watchdog group has accused her of funneling $19,000 in campaign cash to a psychiatrist, allegations that would draw far more scrutiny in a presidential race.

Newsweek reported that it reached out to leading Democrats in the poll for comment via email. Whether any responded was not disclosed.

The 2028 race is still more than two years away. But the Democratic Party's leftward gravitational pull is not a future hypothetical, it is showing up in the data right now. Ocasio-Cortez's 26 percent in the most accurate pollster's survey is not a coronation. It is an early indicator of where the base wants to go.

Conservatives should not laugh this off. They should hope the Democrats are foolish enough to follow through.

The post AOC takes first place in 2028 Democratic primary poll — and conservatives should pay attention appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

It was the seventh time the Pennsylvania Democrat has broken with his party since the conflict began. And unlike some of his earlier crossover votes, on immigration enforcement funding, on ending a government shutdown, this one carried immediate strategic weight. Without Fetterman, Democrats had the numbers to pass the resolution and force a confrontation over the president's war-making authority.

They didn't get him. And the White House keeps its free hand in Iran.

The vote and who crossed over

The resolution invoked the 1973 War Powers Act, which allows any individual lawmaker to initiate a vote on withdrawing U.S. forces from a conflict zone. Under that law, forces should be withdrawn unless Congress specifically authorizes the conflict. Wednesday's vote was the first since a 60-day deadline passed earlier this month, a marker that, in the view of resolution supporters, made continued military action without congressional approval legally untenable.

Democrats argued that the war Trump launched on Feb. 28 was illegal and was not spurred by an imminent threat to Americans. They had successfully initiated multiple votes on resolutions to withdraw U.S. forces from the region. Each time, the effort fell short. This time, it came closer than ever.

Three Republicans voted with Democrats: Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Paul has criticized the intervention since it began. Collins and Murkowski voted with Democrats for the first time on Wednesday, after both had previously emphasized the importance of the War Powers Act deadline.

Those three GOP defections should have been enough to tip the balance. They weren't, because Fetterman walked the other way.

A Democrat who won't budge on Iran

Fetterman has not wavered in his support for the military campaign. He has repeatedly said the strikes were warranted to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and to dismantle the country's theocratic regime. Less than a week before Wednesday's vote, he published a column in the Washington Post pushing back on speculation that he might switch parties, a sign that he sees his Iran stance as consistent with his identity as a Democrat, even as his party's leadership sees it as a betrayal.

His public comments have grown sharper. Fox News reported that Fetterman appeared on "Hannity" and accused Democrats and the American media of undermining U.S. efforts against Iran, saying, "Iran must be so excited by the American media and the Democratic Party."

He added: "I'm the only Democrat effectively left in Congress to support Epic Fury", referring to the administration's name for the military operation.

That kind of rhetoric doesn't come from a senator hedging his bets. It comes from someone who has picked a side and is daring his party to do something about it. The growing backlash inside his own party has done nothing to slow him down.

Fetterman's record of crossover votes

Wednesday's vote did not emerge from nowhere. Fetterman has built a pattern of high-profile breaks with Democratic leadership that now spans several months and multiple policy fronts.

Last fall, he voted with Republicans to end a historic government shutdown. Earlier this year, he voted with Republicans to approve controversial immigration enforcement funding. On Iran specifically, Just The News reported that Fetterman had publicly signaled well before the vote that he was a "hard no" on the war powers effort. "Committed Democrat here. I'm a hard no," Fetterman said. "My vote is Operation Epic Fury."

That kind of advance notice strips away any pretense that the vote was a difficult call or a last-minute decision. Fetterman told his colleagues exactly where he stood. They couldn't change his mind.

His willingness to side with the president on national security echoes a broader pattern in which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has struggled to hold his caucus together on key votes.

What Fetterman has said about the strikes

The Washington Examiner reported that Fetterman praised Trump on social media for the U.S. strikes in Iran, writing that "President Trump has been willing to do what's right and necessary to produce real peace in the region." That put him sharply at odds with most Democrats, who largely condemned the military action.

When asked previously whether he would support military strikes against Iran, Fetterman did not equivocate: "Sure, absolutely. And now if it continues to make more sense, absolutely."

The New York Post noted that Fetterman warned against ending military action if it would allow Iran to get closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb, a framing that puts the burden of proof on Democrats who want to pull back, not on the administration pressing forward.

That framing matters. Democrats who voted for the resolution positioned themselves as defenders of congressional prerogative and constitutional process. Fetterman positioned himself as the only member of his party willing to face the strategic reality: that Iran's nuclear ambitions do not pause for procedural debates in Washington.

The War Powers Act and what happens next

The 1973 War Powers Act was designed to prevent presidents from waging open-ended military campaigns without congressional authorization. Its supporters on both sides of the aisle have long argued that the law is the last meaningful check on executive war-making power. Democrats have leaned heavily on that argument since the Feb. 28 launch of operations against Iran.

But the resolution's failure leaves the president free to continue managing the conflict without a specific congressional mandate. The 60-day deadline referenced in the law has already passed. And with Fetterman blocking the Democratic path to 50 votes, the math for future war powers challenges looks no better, unless one of the remaining holdout Republicans flips.

The broader question is whether Fetterman's repeated breaks with his party reflect a genuine ideological shift or a calculated political bet. He insists he remains a committed Democrat. His voting record on Iran, immigration, and government funding says otherwise, at least by the standards his party's leadership applies. As previous Senate votes on Iran have shown, Fetterman's crossover pattern is not a one-off but a sustained trend.

Meanwhile, Schumer's inability to keep his caucus unified on a high-profile national security vote raises its own set of questions. If the minority leader cannot hold 50 Democrats together when three Republicans hand him a gift, the problem is not the math. It is the message. Schumer's weakening standing inside his own party only compounds the difficulty.

What the vote reveals

Strip away the procedural wrangling and the vote tells a simple story. A Democratic senator from Pennsylvania looked at his party's position on Iran, that the strikes are illegal, that there is no imminent threat, that the president must be reined in, and concluded it was wrong. He said so publicly, repeatedly, and without apology. Then he voted accordingly, and his single vote was the one that mattered.

Democrats can call it a betrayal. They can escalate the internal backlash. But they cannot pretend they didn't know it was coming. Fetterman told them weeks ago. He told them on television. He told them in the Washington Post. He told them on the Senate floor.

They had every chance to make their case to him. They failed. And the president's Iran policy continues unimpeded.

When a party loses a war powers vote by a single margin and that margin is one of its own members, the problem isn't the defector. It's the party that gave him every reason to walk.

The post Fetterman delivers the deciding vote to preserve Trump's authority on Iran appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

The 57-year-old scion of a legal dynasty that dominated South Carolina's Lowcountry for more than a century will not walk free. Murdaugh is still serving a 40-year federal sentence and a concurrent 27-year state sentence for financial crimes. But the ruling strips away his life-without-parole conviction for the June 7, 2021 shootings of his wife Maggie, 52, and his younger son Paul, 22, at the dog kennels on the family's 17,000-acre Moselle estate in Islandton, South Carolina.

The villain of this ruling is not the defendant. It is Becky Hill, the 58-year-old former Colleton County clerk of court, whose conduct the justices described in terms rarely seen in appellate opinions.

What the court found

The justices wrote that Hill "placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdaugh his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury." They called her jury interference "shocking" and said it was "accomplished outside the presence and knowledge of the outstanding trial judge and superbly competent and professional counsel for the State and the defense."

That last detail matters. The court went out of its way to absolve both the prosecution and the defense of wrongdoing. The problem was a single courthouse official who, Murdaugh's legal team argued, tried to influence the jury because she was writing a book about the case.

Hill resigned in 2024. In December she pleaded guilty to four charges: obstruction of justice, perjury, and two counts of misconduct in office. She admitted to showing sealed court exhibits to a reporter and lying about it, and to taking bonuses and promoting a book through her public office. For all of that, she received three years' probation.

Three years' probation, for conduct a unanimous state supreme court called "breathtaking," "disgraceful," and "unprecedented in South Carolina."

A case built on financial ruin and family secrets

The Murdaugh saga consumed national attention for years. Prosecutors argued at the six-week trial in March 2023 that Murdaugh killed Maggie and Paul to salvage his finances and reputation as his web of fraud unraveled. Partners at his law firm, PMPED, had confronted him about missing money. A hearing in a lawsuit tied to his son's legal troubles was due just three days after the murders.

Paul Murdaugh had been charged in 2019 with causing a boat crash that killed 19-year-old Mallory Beach. The family name was already under a cloud. The death of the family's housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield, in what has been described as a mysterious trip-and-fall accident at the Murdaugh estate, added another layer. And the Murdaugh name had been linked, without evidence, to the unsolved 2015 homicide of a teenager named Stephen Smith.

Murdaugh called 911 on the night of June 7, 2021, claiming he had returned home to find the bodies. Paul had captured a cellphone video at the kennels just minutes before the final activity on his phone. At trial, Murdaugh took the stand and admitted he had lied about his alibi. He also admitted stealing millions from law firm clients. But he maintained, and continues to maintain, that he did not kill his wife and son.

Three months after the murders, Murdaugh allegedly tried to hire his distant cousin, Curtis "Cousin Eddie" Smith, to stage his own shooting. He was arrested for the killings in July 2022.

The conviction came in 2023. It seemed, to many observers, like the end of the road. The Fox News report on the ruling noted the court found Murdaugh's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury "was violated", a finding that required reversal regardless of the strength of the underlying evidence.

Prosecutors vow retrial

Prosecutors had argued that Hill's actions did not sway the outcome because the evidence against Murdaugh was overwhelming. The Supreme Court disagreed. The justices held that Hill "egregiously attacked Murdaugh's credibility and his defense, thus triggering the presumption of prejudice, which the State was unable to rebut."

The distinction is important. The court did not say Murdaugh is innocent. It said the process was corrupted, and that the state could not prove the corruption didn't matter. When a courthouse official poisons the jury pool, the burden shifts. The state failed to carry it.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, as the New York Post reported, said his office "will aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible." Murdaugh's two consecutive life sentences for murder have been reversed, but the retrial clock is now ticking.

High court rulings that overturn major outcomes, whether in criminal cases or in redistricting fights with national political consequences, tend to send shockwaves far beyond the parties involved. This one will test whether South Carolina's prosecution can build a case strong enough to stand on the evidence alone, without the taint of a rogue clerk.

What the defense says about retrial

Murdaugh's attorney, Dick Harpootlian, told the Daily Mail his team would not comment on Murdaugh's personal reaction to the ruling. But in a public statement, Harpootlian made clear the defense sees this as a turning point. He said the court "rightly described her conduct as 'breathtaking,' 'disgraceful,' and 'unprecedented in South Carolina.'"

Harpootlian also signaled that the retrial will look substantially different from the first. He pointed to the volume of financial-crimes testimony the original jury heard, more than twelve hours, by his account, and said the court held that this evidence "went far beyond what was necessary and gave rise to unfair prejudice."

"On retrial, that will not be permitted. Alex has said from day one that he did not kill his wife and son. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this Court has provided."

If Harpootlian's reading of the ruling holds, prosecutors will face tighter constraints on how much of Murdaugh's financial fraud they can present to the next jury. That matters. The prosecution's theory at the first trial leaned heavily on the idea that Murdaugh killed to protect himself from financial exposure. Strip away twelve hours of fraud testimony, and the jury hears a different case.

The Washington Examiner noted that the reversal was driven by jury tampering concerns, not a finding of innocence, a distinction that will shape public understanding as the case moves forward.

The real cost of one official's misconduct

Whatever one thinks of Alex Murdaugh, and the facts paint a picture of a man who stole from clients, lied under oath, and left a trail of destruction across South Carolina's legal landscape, the principle at stake is larger than any single defendant. A clerk of court took it upon herself to influence the outcome of a murder trial. She did so, the court found, without the knowledge of the judge, the prosecutors, or the defense attorneys.

When government officials corrupt the process, the process breaks. That is true whether the defendant is sympathetic or despicable. The remedy is not to shrug and move on. The remedy is what the South Carolina Supreme Court did: reverse the conviction and start over.

The justices acknowledged the cost plainly. They wrote that they were "aware of the time, money, and effort expended for this lengthy trial" but had "no choice" except to reverse. The families of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh now face the prospect of reliving the worst chapter of their lives in a second trial, not because of anything the prosecution or defense did wrong, but because one public official decided the rules did not apply to her.

Courts across the country continue to grapple with the downstream consequences of institutional misconduct, whether it involves halted elections after a map is thrown out or a murder conviction vacated because a clerk couldn't keep her hands off the jury. The pattern is the same: when officials act outside their authority, the public pays the price.

Becky Hill got three years' probation. The taxpayers of South Carolina get to fund a second murder trial. The Murdaugh victims' family gets to endure it all again.

And the broader lesson, one that recent Supreme Court tensions have only underscored, is that the integrity of the justice system depends entirely on the people who run it. When those people fail, no amount of evidence, no length of trial, and no strength of conviction can hold.

What comes next

Murdaugh remains behind bars. His financial-crimes sentences ensure that. But the murder charges are now back at square one, and the attorney general has promised an aggressive retrial. The defense has signaled it will fight to limit the scope of evidence. The court's ruling provides a roadmap, one that constrains both sides.

The open questions are significant. When will the retrial be scheduled? How much of Murdaugh's financial history will the next jury hear? Will prosecutors adjust their strategy, or will they present essentially the same case minus the tainted jury? None of these answers are clear yet.

What is clear is that a six-week trial, a life sentence, and years of national attention have been undone by a single courthouse official who thought she was above the rules. The system caught it. The system corrected it. But the damage, to the victims' families, to the taxpayers, to public confidence in South Carolina's courts, is already done.

Fair trials are not optional, even for defendants the public despises. The moment we allow that principle to bend, it breaks for everyone.

The post South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturns Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction, orders new trial appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

The footage, released May 12 under the banner "O'KEEFE EXPOSE: The White House Tapes," captured Ellisten making a series of pointed remarks about the president he serves, remarks that prompted swift action from his employer.

A White House official confirmed the leave to the Daily Caller, adding that Ellisten "has no direct access to the President or Senior Staff, and does not work on the White House campus." The official went further, saying the views Ellisten expressed "are not reflective of patriots who admirably serve in the Administration."

What Ellisten said on tape

The hidden-camera recording captured Ellisten speaking with remarkable candor to someone he apparently believed was a sympathetic listener. His comments went well beyond the kind of grumbling you hear at any workplace water cooler.

He called Trump a "madman," then elaborated:

"Literally. He's invincible. Nothing can stop him, and that's dangerous."

Ellisten also questioned the president's judgment in personal terms:

"The way his decisions are so erratic, you would think he drinks. He doesn't drink. And that's what makes it so dangerous, that someone could be of sound mind and body, totally coherent, could just be so reckless in their decision-making. That's scary."

He didn't stop there. Ellisten floated an accusation of insider trading connected to the administration, telling the undercover journalist that Trump "knows that he affects how people react to the stock market." He then claimed:

"So one of the things that looks like it's going on, and going on a lot, is insider trading. Like, for instance, with the war going on in Iran, the price of oil is expensive."

Just The News reported that Ellisten also said the White House needed to "get rid of him", referring to the president, and called Trump a "mess" who was "f***ing it up for everybody."

These are not minor policy disagreements. A federal employee entrusted with budget analysis and funding management was caught on tape leveling unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conduct against the president of the United States while simultaneously calling for his removal.

A second official caught on camera

Ellisten was not the only White House staffer captured in the sting. Maxim Lott, a special assistant on domestic policy who previously worked as a producer on John Stossel's show, also spoke with the undercover journalist. His comments painted a picture of an administration where policy decisions flow without rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

"The decision-making processes are a little bit chaotic. I think it's just the overall tone that, like, you know, the government right now is a little bit uncontrolled."

Lott described a chain of command where lower-level staffers exercise broad discretion, claiming that decisions don't always originate with the president himself:

"But it might come from the level below him, where they're like, 'I think I know the president well enough to say what he would say on this.' It's like, 'Yeah, he would wanna do that, that would be popular.' And then, at my level, at five levels below or whatever, still there's a lot of discretion to be like, this is clearly like, what he would wanna do."

He also offered a blunt assessment of how spending decisions get made:

"There's no like, 'Oh well, this will cost $10 million but save people $20 million.' There's like nothing like that, it's just, 'this feels like a good idea' or 'the base supports this,' alright, just sign."

The Ellisten case is hardly the first time a federal employee serving in a sensitive role has been sidelined over conduct unbecoming the position. A DHS counterterrorism official was recently placed on leave amid allegations of lavish gifts and other misconduct, illustrating a broader pattern of accountability failures inside the federal workforce.

Lott's defense

Unlike Ellisten, Lott responded when O'Keefe's team contacted him. His statement tried to thread the needle, acknowledging the conversation happened while insisting his words were taken out of context.

"I went out with an individual I thought was a genuine person, but it goes to show how insidious politics and this city can be."

He added:

"Nothing I said was contradictory of this Administration, and I remain fully committed to carrying out its agenda."

Whether that framing holds up is another matter. Describing an administration's decision-making as "chaotic" and "uncontrolled," and saying policy choices rest on gut feeling rather than analysis, is not exactly a ringing endorsement. But Lott was not placed on leave, at least not as of the Daily Caller's reporting. The White House drew a clear line between the two men, Ellisten's comments crossed it; Lott's, apparently, did not.

Security and conduct concerns around the White House have surfaced repeatedly in recent months. Separate incidents involving a Secret Service officer arrested and charged with indecent exposure have raised questions about the vetting and oversight of personnel entrusted with protecting the presidency.

The deeper problem

Ellisten has worked at the White House since 2024, O'Keefe's reporting stated. That means he was hired into a Trump administration role, and then, behind closed doors, called the president a madman, accused his administration of insider trading, and said the White House needed to remove him.

This is the permanent government problem in miniature. A mid-level budget analyst with no direct access to the president or senior staff, by the White House's own admission, nevertheless occupies a position of trust. He manages funding. He touches the levers of the federal budget. And all the while, he apparently holds the elected president in open contempt.

The White House's response was measured but firm. Placing Ellisten on administrative leave signals that the comments were taken seriously. But the episode raises questions the official statement did not address. How did someone with these views operate inside the White House for roughly two years? What, if any, internal mechanisms exist to identify staffers who are actively hostile to the administration's mission? And will administrative leave lead to termination, or will Ellisten quietly return to his desk after the news cycle moves on?

These are not abstract concerns. The federal bureaucracy employs millions of people. Most serve honorably regardless of which party holds the White House. But when someone in a position of budgetary authority openly accuses the sitting president of criminal behavior and calls for his ouster, the question isn't whether he has a right to his opinions. He does. The question is whether he can be trusted to faithfully execute the duties of his office.

The broader context of ongoing security and operational questions surrounding the White House only sharpens the point. Every administration inherits a workforce it didn't fully choose. Managing that workforce requires vigilance, and consequences when trust is broken.

O'Keefe's undercover operations have always drawn criticism from the left, which tends to question the methods rather than confront the substance of what the cameras capture. That pattern will likely repeat here. Expect the conversation to center on whether it was fair to record Ellisten rather than on what Ellisten actually said.

But the tape speaks for itself. A White House budget official called his boss a madman, accused the administration of insider trading without evidence, and said the president needed to go. He said all of this to a stranger he'd just met. That's not a private political opinion shared with a spouse over dinner. That's a federal employee broadcasting hostility toward the president he's paid to serve, to anyone willing to listen.

Incidents of misconduct among personnel connected to the presidency are not limited to policy staff. A Secret Service agent was recently arrested in a Miami hotel case, a reminder that the standards expected of those who serve near the Oval Office extend across agencies and roles.

Accountability, not outrage

Administrative leave is a start, not a resolution. The American public deserves to know whether Ellisten's role gave him any ability to slow, redirect, or otherwise obstruct the administration's budgetary priorities. If he managed funding streams, who audited his work? Did his contempt for the president ever translate into action, or inaction, on the job?

These questions matter more than the spectacle of the tape itself. Undercover stings make for dramatic viewing. But the real story is structural: how many Benjamin Ellistens are scattered across the federal payroll, and what tools does any administration have to find them before a hidden camera does the job instead?

Taxpayers don't fund White House salaries so that budget analysts can moonlight as opposition researchers. If the system can't catch disloyalty this brazen on its own, the system needs fixing, not just one man's desk cleared out.

The post White House budget analyst placed on leave after undercover sting captures him disparaging Trump appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

The exchange marks the latest flashpoint in a running dispute between the Pentagon and congressional Democrats over whether the administration is leveling with the public about the true cost, in dollars and hardware, of the ongoing military campaign against Iran.

Hegseth's blunt message to Congress

Hegseth left little room for ambiguity during Tuesday's hearing. He told the subcommittee that the munitions issue "has been foolishly, and unhelpfully overstated," and added plainly:

"We have all the munitions needed to execute what we need to execute."

At a separate recent congressional hearing, Hegseth went further, directly challenging the framing that American magazines are empty:

"I take issue with the characterization that munitions are depleted in a public forum. That's not true."

He described an active process of managing tradeoffs with Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper. Hegseth said the Pentagon is "ensuring that any munitions we're using, we know what we're trading off of to preserve capabilities. So we have maximum optionality across the globe."

That language, "maximum optionality", is the kind of phrase defense officials reach for when they want to signal strategic flexibility without disclosing classified inventory numbers. Whether it satisfies skeptics on Capitol Hill is another matter entirely.

Caine offers a measured but consistent assessment

Gen. Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs chairman, struck a slightly more careful tone during the same recent hearing but did not contradict his boss. Caine told lawmakers that U.S. forces currently have "sufficient munitions for what we're tasked to do right now." He acknowledged that commanders will "always want more", a concession that, in military-speak, amounts to saying the shelves aren't overflowing but the mission isn't at risk.

The gap between "sufficient for current tasks" and "ready for a second major contingency" is exactly the space where the political fight lives. Democrats have seized on that gap. The Pentagon, for now, insists the concern is overdrawn.

Kelly's classified briefing and the leak accusation

The sharpest part of the dispute centers on Sen. Mark Kelly, the Arizona Democrat and former Navy pilot. After a recent classified Pentagon briefing, Kelly told reporters it was "shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines." He pointed specifically to the use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, and Patriot air defense interceptors, all high-end systems that take years to replace.

Hegseth responded on X with a blistering post. He wrote that "'Captain' Mark Kelly strikes again," and continued: "Now he's blabbing on TV (falsely & d***ly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath... again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review."

That accusation, that Kelly disclosed classified information in public, is a serious charge. Pentagon lawyers have been directed to review Kelly's remarks to determine whether the senator crossed a legal line. Kelly has pushed back, saying the information he shared was not classified and noting that Hegseth himself had made similar public comments about munitions levels.

The dispute raises a fair question: if Kelly's comments were truly classified, why has the Pentagon not moved beyond a legal review? And if they weren't, the accusation looks more like political counterpunching than a genuine security concern. The facts available so far don't resolve that tension.

What the numbers actually show

The Iran conflict has clearly stressed the U.S. defense industrial base. American partners in the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, entered the conflict with deeper and more layered interceptor stockpiles than the United States maintains for its own forward-deployed forces. U.S. and allied forces relied heavily on high-end air defense systems to counter Iranian missile and drone attacks.

A recent analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that stockpiles have been drawn down but remain sufficient for the ongoing conflict. That assessment tracks closely with what Caine told Congress, enough for now, but the margin for error is thinner than anyone would like.

The production timeline is the real worry. Before recent conflicts, it typically took about two years from contract award to initial delivery for many missile systems. Analysts now say new orders could take four to five years to fully deliver, as demand has outpaced manufacturing capacity. That is not a crisis today. It is a crisis waiting to happen if a second front opens.

Defense contractors are moving to close the gap. RTX has said it is increasing missile deliveries and investing billions to expand manufacturing capacity. Lockheed Martin is working to significantly boost production of systems like the Patriot interceptor. The Pentagon, for its part, is pursuing multi-year procurement deals designed to give companies more predictable demand and incentivize factory expansion.

None of that happens overnight. The industrial base was allowed to atrophy for years, a bipartisan failure stretching back well before the current administration. Rebuilding it is a multi-year project regardless of who sits in the secretary's chair.

The broader political context

Hegseth has faced relentless political pressure from congressional Democrats since the Iran conflict began. House Democrats have pushed impeachment articles against him in an effort widely regarded as symbolic rather than viable. The attacks have come from multiple directions and have escalated in rhetoric over time.

One Arizona Democrat introduced a separate set of impeachment articles specifically tied to the Iran conflict, and Rep. Seth Moulton went so far as to accuse Hegseth of war crimes and invoke a Nazi-era tribunal comparison, the kind of overheated rhetoric that tells you more about the accuser's strategy than the accused's conduct.

Hegseth has also drawn controversy for personnel decisions inside the Pentagon. His move to force the Army chief of staff into immediate retirement drew pushback not just from Democrats but from Republicans who rallied behind Gen. Randy George. That episode showed Hegseth is willing to make aggressive leadership changes, even at the cost of bipartisan friction.

Against that backdrop, the munitions debate is not purely a policy disagreement. It is a political weapon. Democrats want to frame the conflict as mismanaged. Hegseth wants to project confidence and competence. The truth, as usual, lives somewhere in between, but the available evidence does not support the claim that U.S. forces are unable to execute their current mission.

The real question nobody is answering

What neither side has addressed honestly is the cost. Kelly said the expense of the conflict "had yet to be fully explained to the American people." On that narrow point, the senator is not wrong. Tomahawk cruise missiles cost roughly $2 million apiece. Patriot interceptors are not cheap either. And the multi-year procurement deals the Pentagon is now pursuing will carry price tags that taxpayers will eventually see.

The administration has every reason to project strength. An adversary watching this debate in real time does not need to know exact inventory counts. But Congress has a legitimate oversight role, and the public has a right to understand what this conflict is costing in treasure and readiness, even if the precise numbers must remain classified.

Hegseth is right that broadcasting weakness serves no strategic purpose. Kelly is right that lawmakers who receive classified briefings have an obligation to press the executive branch on readiness. The dispute over whether Kelly crossed a legal line will play out through the Pentagon's legal review. Until then, both men are playing to their respective audiences.

The munitions are sufficient for now. The industrial base is strained but expanding. The real test comes if the world delivers a second crisis before the factories catch up, and that is a risk no amount of congressional speechmaking can fix.

The post Hegseth calls munitions stockpile fears 'foolishly overstated' as Iran conflict draws down U.S. weapons inventory appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat who has himself clashed with his party over its posture toward Israel and Jewish Americans, said he understood the justice's decision. "The Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem," Fetterman wrote on X.

The break is significant. Wecht is not a marginal figure. He served as vice-chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party from 1998 to 2001, ran as a Democrat when he won his seat in 2015, and began serving on the state's high court in 2016. Voters retained him in a 2025 election. His departure strips the party of a once-loyal standard-bearer at the highest level of the state judiciary, and his stated reasons make the split harder for Democrats to dismiss.

Wecht's statement: 'I can no longer abide this'

In a statement obtained by Fox News Digital, Wecht laid out his case in blunt terms. He described a party he no longer recognizes, one that, in his telling, has moved from passively tolerating anti-Jewish hostility to actively enabling it.

"From 1998 to 2001, years that preceded my judicial career, I served as Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. In the quarter century that has passed since then, the Democratic Party has changed. Nazi tattoos, jihadist chants, intimidation and attacks at synagogues, and other hateful anti-Jewish invective and actions are minimized, ignored, and even coddled. Acquiescence to Jew-hatred is now disturbingly common among activists, leaders and even many elected officials in the Democratic Party."

Those are not vague complaints about "tone" or "messaging." Wecht named specific conduct, Nazi tattoos, jihadist chants, attacks at synagogues, and accused party leaders of coddling it. He did not frame the problem as a few bad actors on the fringe. He described something systemic.

And then the bottom line, delivered without equivocation: "I can no longer abide this. So, I won't. I am no longer registered within any political party."

Wecht also offered a broader appeal. "It is my hope that Pennsylvanians, and Americans, of all viewpoints and backgrounds will oppose and resist the scourge of Jew-hatred before it undermines what our ancestors have built here," he said.

Wecht traces the problem from right to left

One detail worth noting: Wecht did not pretend antisemitism lives on only one side of the political spectrum. Just The News reported that Wecht acknowledged the threat from the right as well, stating, "That terror came from the right. Jew-hatred has always festered on the fringe of that sector." But he went further, describing a shift: "In the years that have followed, that same hatred has grown on the left. Increasingly, it has moved from the fringe to the mainstream."

That distinction matters. Wecht is not claiming the right has clean hands. He is saying the left's problem has metastasized, moving from fringe activists into the mainstream of Democratic politics, into the ranks of elected officials and party leaders. And he is saying the party has not merely failed to stop it but has accommodated it.

The justice did not switch to the Republican Party or any other affiliation. He registered as unaffiliated. That choice underscores the nature of his protest: this is not a partisan conversion. It is a public rebuke of an institution he once helped lead.

Fetterman responds, and agrees on the core problem

Fetterman's reaction, posted on X, threaded a careful needle. He affirmed his own party loyalty while validating Wecht's grievance. The senator has carved out an unusual position among Democrats, willing to break with party orthodoxy on redistricting and other issues, and his response here followed that pattern.

"I know David and his legendary father, Cyril. As I've affirmed, I'm not changing my party, but I fully understand David's personal choice."

Fetterman then added the sharper line: "The Democratic Party must confront its own rising antisemitism problem." That is not a hedge. It is a sitting Democratic senator publicly confirming the same diagnosis that drove a state Supreme Court justice out of the party.

Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to the Pennsylvania Democratic Party for comment. The article did not indicate whether the party responded.

A pattern of judicial and political shake-ups

Wecht's departure comes during a period of unusual turbulence in the judiciary. A Utah Supreme Court justice recently stepped down amid ethics questions, and courts at every level have become focal points for political conflict.

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has been a particularly high-stakes battleground. The court's decisions on redistricting, election law, and other politically charged matters have made its composition a matter of intense partisan interest. Wecht's shift to unaffiliated status does not change the court's ideological balance in any formal sense, Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices serve ten-year terms and face retention elections, not partisan re-elections, after their initial race. But the symbolism is hard to miss.

A justice who once served as vice-chair of the state Democratic Party looked at what his party has become and decided he could no longer put his name next to it. That is not a policy disagreement over tax rates or health care. It is a moral judgment about whether the party tolerates hatred directed at Jewish Americans.

Courts have increasingly become the arena where political power is contested, and the people who sit on those courts carry enormous weight. Wecht's public break with his party, and the specific reasons he gave, will be difficult for Democrats to wave away as a one-off.

The silence that speaks

What is absent from this story is almost as telling as what is present. Wecht did not cite a single policy disagreement on economics, health care, education, or any of the traditional fault lines that divide the parties. He did not mention Donald Trump, Republican overreach, or any external threat that might have given him reason to stay.

His entire rationale was about antisemitism, and the Democratic Party's failure to confront it.

Fetterman, for his part, has been one of the few Democratic officeholders willing to say the word out loud. But saying it and doing something about it are different things. The senator affirmed he is staying in the party. The question is whether the party gives him, or anyone else, reason to believe it is listening.

Recent developments involving members of the federal judiciary have reminded Americans how much rides on the character and independence of individual judges and justices. Wecht's statement is a reminder of a different kind: that party loyalty has limits, and that some lines, once crossed, cannot be walked back with a press release.

Democrats can ignore David Wecht's exit. They can dismiss it as one man's personal choice. But when a former vice-chair of your state party and a sitting Supreme Court justice tells the world he cannot put his name next to yours because you coddle hatred, that is not a messaging problem. That is a mirror.

The question is whether anyone in the Democratic Party is willing to look into it.

The post Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice leaves Democratic Party, citing tolerance of antisemitism appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

The Hill reported that Ocasio-Cortez's comments "immediately fueled fresh debate in Democratic circles" over whether she could be among the most viable candidates in the 2028 presidential race. The response from party strategists ranged from admiring to effusive, with several calling it one of the best answers to the ambition question they had heard in years.

For conservatives watching a Democratic Party that has been adrift since its 2024 losses, the spectacle is worth studying. The left's most recognizable House member is now being positioned, or positioning herself, as a future standard-bearer. And the fact that so many Democratic insiders are cheering suggests the party may be preparing to double down on the same progressive ideology that cost it the last election.

The answer that wasn't an answer

When Axelrod raised the subject, telling Ocasio-Cortez that many people want her to run for president in 2028 and asking for her response, she pushed back on the premise rather than the question itself.

"They assume that my ambition is a title or a seat. And my ambition is way bigger than that. My ambition is to change this country."

She went further, casting her goals in sweeping ideological terms.

"Presidents come and go, Senate, House seats, elected officials, come and go but single payer healthcare is forever, a living wage is forever, worker's rights are forever."

It was a polished piece of political rhetoric. And it was not a "no."

Notice what Ocasio-Cortez did not say. She did not say she was happy representing her district. She did not say she had no interest in higher office. She did not name a single reason the presidency would be the wrong job for her. She said her ambition was "bigger", which, in political grammar, means she considers herself bigger than the offices being discussed. That is not modesty. That is positioning.

As the Washington Examiner noted, Ocasio-Cortez was asked specifically about both Chuck Schumer's Senate seat and a presidential bid, and she tied her answer to neither. The Examiner pointed to her fundraising strength, large social media reach, and growing influence inside the Democratic Party as reasons the speculation persists.

Democratic strategists line up to praise her

The reaction from party operatives was revealing, not because they praised the answer, but because of how eagerly they framed it as evidence she could win a national race.

Democratic strategist Joel Payne told The Hill that Ocasio-Cortez "spoke with the confidence of someone who understood the power of their voice nationally and the knowledge that she has the option to mount a national campaign should she ever choose to do that." He added that she could enter a presidential race "with 20 percent of the base of the Democratic Party feeling good about her."

That is a striking claim. Payne is essentially arguing that one-fifth of the Democratic base is already in her corner before a single vote is cast or a single policy paper is released. Whether that reflects genuine strength or the progressive movement's grip on the party's activist class is a question Democrats seem uninterested in asking.

Ocasio-Cortez has been laying groundwork for a potential 2028 bid while courting skeptical progressives, and the Chicago event fits that pattern.

Jen Psaki, the former Biden White House press secretary who now hosts MS NOW, wrote on X that it was "probably the best answer anyone's given to this question in... in a very, very long time." Our Revolution, the progressive organization that grew out of Bernie Sanders's presidential campaigns, reposted a clip of Ocasio-Cortez's response with the note: "The future is bright."

Democratic strategist Eddie Vale called it "one of the best answers anyone has given to what should be an easy question that too many candidates whiff on off the bat." He also urged Democrats "to let go of what they think will make the best candidate, let everyone who wants to run, run, and let the crucible of the campaign trail and voters figure out who rises to the top."

The polls, and what they actually show

The early polling numbers give Ocasio-Cortez something to talk about, though they hardly guarantee anything. An Echelon Insights poll released last month showed Kamala Harris leading among likely Democratic voters at 47 percent, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg tied at 37 percent. Ocasio-Cortez came in at 36 percent, close behind, but still behind.

A Yale Youth poll from the same period told a different story among younger voters. Newsmax reported that Ocasio-Cortez led Harris and Newsom among voters aged 18 to 34, while voters 65 and older preferred Newsom.

That generational split matters. It suggests Ocasio-Cortez's appeal is concentrated among younger, more progressive voters, exactly the cohort that turns out inconsistently and that Democrats have struggled to convert into reliable general-election margins. Meanwhile, the candidates who poll better with older Democrats are the ones with broader name recognition and more conventional résumés.

Her careful media strategy as 2028 speculation has intensified suggests she understands the difference between generating excitement online and building a coalition that can win a general election.

What Democrats aren't asking

Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau offered the most candid assessment of Ocasio-Cortez's position. He said she "certainly has a lane" and would likely begin a presidential race "with a built-in progressive infrastructure and engaged grassroots following." He predicted she would inherit some of Sen. Bernie Sanders's supporters while also drawing on her own base.

Mollineau also called Ocasio-Cortez "a media curiosity," adding that "the amount of earned media that she is going to get by running is going to triple that of many other candidates." That phrase, "media curiosity", is worth pausing on. It is not a description of governing competence or policy depth. It is a description of celebrity.

And that gets to the heart of what Democrats seem unwilling to examine. The party's leadership class, described in The Hill's reporting as "leaderless and searching for direction since its bruising defeats in 2024," is rallying around a House member whose signature policy positions, single-payer health care, a "living wage," expansive government control of the economy, are precisely the proposals that alienated swing voters in the last cycle.

Ocasio-Cortez herself framed her vision in ideological terms that would make any general-election strategist wince. Single-payer health care "is forever," she said. A living wage "is forever." These are not the words of a candidate trying to win moderates in Pennsylvania or Michigan. They are the words of a movement leader speaking to the faithful.

She has also claimed her ambition reaches "way bigger" than the presidency, a formulation that lets her keep the door open without making a commitment she would have to defend.

The real tell

Ocasio-Cortez offered one other remark that deserves attention. Referencing what she described as establishment resistance to her rise, she said: "This was the elite saying, 'If you want this job, you just stepped out of line.'" It was a shot at her own party's power structure, the kind of anti-establishment posture that works in primaries and creates chaos in general elections.

Democrats who remember how Sanders's insurgent campaigns divided the party in 2016 and 2020 should recognize the pattern. Ocasio-Cortez is younger, more media-savvy, and arguably more disciplined than Sanders. But the underlying dynamic is the same: a progressive firebrand claiming the party's base while the institutional wing scrambles to maintain control.

Meanwhile, she has been notably selective about her public appearances. As reporting on her limited media availability has shown, Ocasio-Cortez delivers headline-grabbing moments on her own terms while limiting broader press access, a strategy that maximizes favorable coverage and minimizes tough follow-up questions.

The Chicago event fit that model perfectly. A friendly interviewer. A friendly audience. A carefully prepared answer that sounded spontaneous. And a wave of glowing coverage from Democratic operatives and sympathetic media figures who treated a non-answer as a masterstroke.

What it means for 2028

None of this means Ocasio-Cortez will run. She may decide the timing is wrong, the field too crowded, or the risk too great. But the infrastructure is being built, the praise is being collected, and the door is being held wide open.

For the Democratic Party, the question is whether rallying behind a candidate whose core platform sits well to the left of the median voter represents growth or repetition. The 2024 results offered a clear answer. Whether Democrats choose to hear it is another matter.

For the rest of us, the spectacle is clarifying. When a party's strategists call a non-answer "the best answer anyone's given" in years, the problem isn't the question. It's the party.

The post Ocasio-Cortez fuels 2028 presidential speculation with carefully crafted non-denial appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

The complaint states that Mohamed "received $1,141,082 in EBT payments" and that the operation "involved a high degree of sophistication or planning or occurred over a lengthy period of time." If found guilty, Mohamed faces up to 20 years in prison or a $100,000 fine.

The alleged scheme worked like this: Mohamed used EBT cards registered to other people to purchase items at Sam's Club and Costco in 2021, then resold those goods in his own store. Hennepin County authorities say they observed Mohamed making the purchases and followed him back to his shop with the merchandise, Fox News Digital reported.

The case lands in the middle of a massive and still-expanding fraud scandal across Minnesota's social services programs. Federal prosecutors have estimated that fraud against 14 Medicaid programs in the state could total $9 billion, a figure so large it has drawn national attention and congressional scrutiny.

A private retailer caught what the state could not

Minnesota state Sen. Mark Koran, a Republican, told Fox News Digital that the case follows a pattern that should embarrass state agencies. It was Walmart's Global Investigation Team, not a government watchdog, that initially flagged the suspect.

Koran called the case "yet another example of why Minnesota is target number one for fraudsters." He did not mince words about the state's detection failures:

"The sheer volume of welfare programs, combined with the inability of state agencies to detect obvious fraud is alarming. Once again, it was a private retailer, not the state, that uncovered this fraud scheme."

Koran also demanded full accountability for everyone involved in the alleged operation, not just the store owner. "All individuals involved, including the people that sold their EBT cards to Abdi Mohamed, have to be fully prosecuted," he said.

That detail matters. The scheme allegedly required EBT cardholders to hand over their government-issued cards so Mohamed could use them. Those cardholders were participants, not bystanders. Whether they will face charges remains an open question.

Republican state Sen. Michael Holmstrom offered a blunter assessment of the brazenness on display. He told Fox News Digital the case might be the most openly careless fraud attempt yet:

"We had this guy, Abdi Mohamed, and he named his scam company 'Minnesota Food Grocery LLC.' They aren't even trying, because they have been conditioned to believe there are no consequences."

That line, "conditioned to believe there are no consequences", captures a frustration that runs well beyond this single case. Minnesota Republicans have pushed for months to hold state leadership accountable for the broader fraud crisis, only to meet resistance from the Democratic majority. Earlier this year, Minnesota Democrats blocked an impeachment probe of Governor Tim Walz on a party-line vote even as estimated fraud losses climbed toward $19 billion.

'Minneapolis didn't become America's fraud capital by accident'

Dalia al-Aqidi, a Republican running for Congress in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District against Rep. Ilhan Omar, connected the Mohamed case to a broader culture of fraud she says has taken root in the state.

"Minneapolis didn't become America's fraud capital by accident. It was earned. This week, it's a grocer charged with running up $1.1 million in charges on other people's EBT cards. Next week, it will be something else, but the bill always lands on the Minnesotans who actually pay taxes."

Al-Aqidi said politicians talk about "affordability" as an issue that "keeps them up night," but called the real situation a "cruel joke" because "the money is here to really make a difference for people."

She went further, naming names up the chain. Al-Aqidi told Fox News Digital that the fraudsters "are only half the story" and pointed directly at those administering the programs:

"The other half are the people administering these programs, from the front lines all the way up to Ilhan Omar, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Governor Tim Walz. There has been talk about ending fraud in Minnesota for years. I am going to Washington to actually do it."

Fox News Digital reached out to Walz's office for comment on the case. The governor's response, or lack of one, was not reported. Walz did testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on March 4, 2026, at a hearing examining alleged misuse of federal funds for Minnesota social services and Medicaid programs.

That hearing came amid a broader fight over who deserves credit, and blame, for confronting the fraud. Earlier, FBI Director Patel pushed back publicly after Walz attempted to claim credit for federal fraud raids in Minneapolis, a dispute that laid bare the tension between state and federal authorities over the investigation.

SNAP's broken promise

The Mohamed case is a textbook example of the kind of abuse that has plagued SNAP for years. The program provides food assistance to low-income households through EBT cards that function like debit cards. When the system works, it feeds families who need help. When it doesn't, it feeds fraud rings.

In a Fox News op-ed published in March, Brooke Rollins and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. addressed the program's vulnerabilities directly:

"Since its inception, SNAP has helped our most vulnerable citizens afford the essential and nutritious food they need. At least, that is what the program is supposed to do."

They added that "over time, however, SNAP has been taken advantage of, allowing many to game the system and leaving millions of vulnerable Americans without healthy, nutrient-dense food options." The op-ed signaled that the administration views SNAP reform as a priority, a position this case only strengthens.

Meanwhile, efforts to investigate the wider fraud network in Minnesota continue to face political headwinds. Democrats in the state legislature have blocked subpoenas of Rep. Ilhan Omar over Feeding Our Future fraud records, frustrating Republican lawmakers who argue transparency is the bare minimum the public deserves.

The pattern is hard to miss. Fraud surfaces. A private company or federal investigators catch it. State agencies scramble. Democratic leaders resist oversight. And taxpayers foot the bill.

Minnesota Congressman Tom Emmer has demanded accountability from Walz over the state's fraud probe, alleging the governor is either incompetent or complicit in the theft of billions in taxpayer funds. Those are strong words, but the numbers behind them are real. Nine billion dollars in estimated Medicaid fraud alone makes Minnesota an outlier, and not the kind any state should want to be.

Critics have also raised concerns about the institutional incentives at play. Walz has pushed to give the very agency at the center of the Medicaid fraud crisis even more control over the program, a move that strikes many observers as rewarding failure with expanded authority.

The accountability gap

Several questions remain unanswered in the Mohamed case. No plea or public statement from the defendant has been reported. The specific criminal counts have not been detailed in available reporting. And the identities of the EBT cardholders who allegedly handed over their cards, and whether they will face prosecution, remain unknown.

What is known is that the alleged fraud ran from at least 2021 through the filing of charges, a span of years during which state agencies apparently failed to notice more than a million dollars flowing through a single grocery store via other people's benefit cards. It took Walmart's internal investigators to raise the flag.

That fact alone should prompt uncomfortable questions in St. Paul. If a private retailer's fraud team can spot the pattern, why can't the agencies that administer the programs? And if those agencies cannot police the money they distribute, what reforms are needed to protect both taxpayers and the genuinely vulnerable families SNAP is supposed to serve?

Sen. Holmstrom's observation lingers: the alleged fraudsters "aren't even trying" because they've learned that Minnesota's system lets them get away with it. Until the people running that system face real consequences for its failures, the next million-dollar scheme is already underway.

When the watchdogs won't watch, the wolves don't bother hiding.

The post Minnesota grocer charged in $1.1 million SNAP fraud scheme as state's welfare scandal deepens appeared first on Capitalism Institute.

DuRousseau, who has become a conservative content creator and personality for PragerU, laid out his transformation in a recent appearance on "The Riley Gaines Show," as Fox News Digital reported. His account traces a path from childhood liberal politics through campus activism, BLM organizing in the summer of 2020, and finally a sharp turn toward conservatism after he started asking where the money was going.

The timing of his public statements lands alongside a federal investigation that has put real legal weight behind the kind of suspicions DuRousseau says he developed years ago. In 2025, federal prosecutors launched a probe into whether senior Black Lives Matter leaders defrauded donors of tens of millions of dollars. And in December 2025, the executive director of BLM OKC was indicted on 25 federal counts, including wire fraud and money laundering, after allegedly embezzling over $3 million in donations to fund international travel, shopping, and real estate.

From marches to doubts

DuRousseau said his awakening came during the 2020 George Floyd riots. While protesters climbed street signs near burning barricades in Washington, D.C., and marched past the Minneapolis 1st Police Precinct, DuRousseau was watching the chaos and feeling something shift.

He told Riley Gaines:

"I thought it was weird that so many people were demonizing every single cop, and I thought it was insane to watch the looting and the rioting happening."

But his involvement with BLM went back further than 2020. As he told Breitbart, "I was always promoting Black Lives Matter, from high school, even before George Floyd." After Floyd's death, he said, "I was out marching. I helped some people organize in their small towns."

He described growing up with a strong focus on race, which he said pushed him toward liberal politics and what he now calls woke activism. In college, he said he spent his time "spreading woke stuff on campus." The whole trajectory, in his telling, was less a series of free choices than a conveyor belt.

DuRousseau put it bluntly on the podcast:

"I have just been drinking the Kool-Aid because this was the indoctrination that was put upon me from the age of a little child."

The money question

What turned doubt into departure, DuRousseau said, was following the dollars. He began asking whether the millions raised in the name of victims and their families were actually reaching those families. One case stuck with him, Breonna Taylor's.

He said on the show:

"[Breonna Taylor's] mother was even speaking out saying that her daughter's name and death was exploited, and there [were] millions of dollars made off of her death. Not a single dollar went to her, went to legal fees, or anything of that nature. So, I just started seeing the fraud pretty early on."

When he raised these concerns within activist circles, the response was not engagement. It was discipline. "Whenever I called it out, I was told that I needed to stay in line or that I was losing the plot," DuRousseau said. "And I just got sick of it."

That pattern, loyalty enforced through social pressure, dissent treated as betrayal, is a recurring theme among people who have publicly broken with progressive institutions. A Michigan Democrat recently walked away from her party on similar grounds, saying she could no longer reconcile her faith with the direction of the left.

DuRousseau's shift accelerated, he said, while he was being cast for Netflix's reality show "The Circle." The experience prompted him to research conservative arguments more seriously. What he found, he said, dismantled what he had believed his entire life.

He now describes the movement he once championed in unsparing terms, calling it "performative" and summarizing his conclusion this way:

"Socialism has literally never worked. BLM has always been a scam and the Democratic Party has always been the party of racism and violence."

Federal prosecutors catch up

DuRousseau's personal account of disillusionment now sits alongside a federal paper trail. The Justice Department's investigation into BLM's finances has moved from rumor to indictment. The 25-count case against the executive director of BLM OKC, announced through the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleges the director used donated funds for personal enrichment, international travel, shopping sprees, and real estate purchases.

The broader federal probe is examining whether senior leaders across the Black Lives Matter organization defrauded donors of tens of millions of dollars. That investigation remains ongoing.

These are not abstract governance disputes. They are allegations that an organization which raised enormous sums on the back of racial grief funneled that money away from the communities it claimed to serve. The pattern DuRousseau says he spotted years ago, money in, nothing out to victims' families, is now the subject of a federal criminal case.

The left's institutional ecosystem has faced a string of similar accountability questions. A watchdog report found that teachers unions steered more than $1 billion to left-wing causes over the past decade, raising questions about whether member dues were being spent in line with members' wishes. The thread connecting these stories is the same: large organizations, progressive branding, and money that doesn't end up where donors or members expect.

A broader pattern of fracture

DuRousseau is not the only voice breaking publicly with the left's institutional consensus. The Democratic coalition has shown visible cracks in recent years, with figures from different backgrounds concluding that the party's direction no longer matches their values or their common sense.

James Carville, the veteran Democratic strategist, recently told Rep. Ilhan Omar to leave the party after she attacked White male voters, a sign that even longtime insiders see the coalition fraying under the weight of its own contradictions.

DuRousseau's story adds a specific dimension to that fracture. He is a young Black man who did the marching, did the organizing, and believed the slogans, and who now says the entire framework was a con. His criticism is not coming from the outside. It is coming from someone who was inside the machine and watched it operate.

He has since rejected the idea of systemic racism in America and built a public platform arguing against the progressive worldview he once promoted. His criticism of San Francisco's proposed reparations plan, which included $5 million payments to eligible Black residents and would have cost an estimated $50 billion, captured the same instinct. He called the proposal "111 ways to gaslight black Americans into thinking that we need to be dependent on a system of handouts in order to be successful."

That line cuts to the core of his broader argument: that progressive institutions do not empower the people they claim to champion. They create dependency, enforce conformity, and punish anyone who asks hard questions.

What the record shows

Several open questions remain. The federal investigation into BLM's national finances is still unfolding, and it is not yet clear how far the alleged fraud extends beyond the Oklahoma City chapter. The name of the indicted BLM OKC executive director was not included in Fox News Digital's reporting. The case number and full court filings have not been detailed publicly in the coverage reviewed.

DuRousseau's claims about money not reaching victims' families are his own characterizations, though he pointed to Breonna Taylor's mother speaking publicly about exploitation of her daughter's death. Whether those claims hold up in every instance is a matter the federal probe may eventually clarify.

What is not in dispute is the trajectory. A man who spent years inside the BLM movement walked away, went public, and now watches federal prosecutors follow the same trail of questions he says got him told to "stay in line."

Meanwhile, the broader left continues to face defections from people who once carried its banners. Activists who ask where the money went. Elected officials who can no longer square their conscience with the party line. Strategists who see a coalition eating itself. The pattern is not a coincidence. It is a consequence.

When even the people who marched for you start calling it a scam, the problem is not the messengers. It is the message, and the missing money.

The post Former BLM activist details his break with the left, calls movement a 'scam' built on 'indoctrination' appeared first on Capitalism Institute.