Trump flags fly as rioters take over the steps of the Capitol on the East Front on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Five years ago today, on January 6, 2021, a violent mob stormed the Capitol building. Following the attack, over a hundred major companies released statements condemning the insurrection and promising to stop donating to the 147 members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election, or to halt all political donations entirely.
Since returning to office, President Trump has continued to push false claims that the 2020 election was “rigged,” “stolen,” and filled with “fraud.” On Trump’s first day as president, he issued sweeping pardons and commutations for some of those involved in the Capitol insurrection. In a presidential action, Trump wrote that the pardons and commutations ended “a grave national injustice.”
The current members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election have embraced Trump’s return to the White House. None has expressed any regret for their vote.
Nevertheless, most companies that pledged to stop donating to these lawmakers have broken their promise.
After January 6, 2021, for example, a Cigna spokesperson gave CNN the following statement:
There is never any justification for violence or the kind of destruction that occurred at the U.S. Capitol last week – a building that stands as a powerful symbol of the very democracy that makes our nation strong. Accordingly, CignaPAC will discontinue support of any elected official who encouraged or supported violence, or otherwise hindered a peaceful transition of power.
Cigna, however, has since donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers who voted to overturn the election. In April 2021, a spokesperson for the company told the New York Times that resuming donations to members of Congress who voted to overturn the election did not violate its pledge because congressional voting is “by definition, part of the peaceful transition of power.” Cigna argued that its pledge only applied to “those who incited violence or actively sought to obstruct the peaceful transition of power through words and other efforts.”
Comcast, however, has since broken its pledge and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers who voted to overturn the election. Comcast also donated $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inaugural fund and was among the donors to Trump’s new White House ballroom, according to a list released by the White House.
After January 6, 2021, a spokesperson for General Mills said it had “suspended contributions to any member of Congress who voted to override the results of the U.S. presidential election.” In January 2025, Popular Information reported that the company had thus far upheld its pledge. Last year, however, General Mills resumed donations to lawmakers who voted to overturn the election. On March 27, the company donated $1,000 to Representative Kevin Hern (R-OK). On June 12, the company donated $1,000 to Representatives Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Adrian Smith (R-NE), and an additional $1,000 to Hern.
Popular Information is an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism since 2018. It is made possible by readers who upgrade to a paid subscription.
The promise keepers
While many companies have broken the pledges they made after January 6, 2021, some companies have kept their promises. Popular Information identified 10 companies that have upheld their promise to stop donating to members of Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election
Farmers Insurance
Following the Capitol insurrection, former Farmers Group CEO Jeff Dailey released a statement promising to suspend political donations. “Like many Americans, we were horrified by the acts of violence that took place in our nation’s capital. While we recognize and support all Americans’ right to peacefully protest and exercise free speech, we strongly condemn acts of violence and hateful rhetoric,” Dailey said in the statement, according to CNN. Since January 6, 2021, the insurance company has kept its promise and has not donated to any members of Congress who voted to overturn the election.
Unlike Farmers Group, several other insurance companies — including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Allstate — broke their promises to withhold their money from those who voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
Airbnb
After January 6, 2021, Airbnb released a statement promising to withhold donations from those who voted against certifying the election. “Airbnb strongly condemns last week’s attack on the US Capitol and the efforts to undermine our democratic process,” the company said. The company also released a safety plan for the 2021 inauguration, including canceling Airbnb reservations in Washington, D.C., made by those associated with a hate group and banning individuals involved in the Capitol insurrection from the platform. Since January 6, 2021, Airbnb has kept its promise and has not donated to any members of Congress who voted to overturn the election.
Expedia Group
While Expedia Group and Airbnb have not given any money to election deniers since 2021, other travel and hospitality companies have reneged on their vows to do the same. Marriott International and Hilton Worldwide, for example, both donated to former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Nike
In January 2021, Nike released a statement promising to halt donations to members of Congress who voted to overturn the election. “Nike’s Political Action Committee (PAC) helps our employees support elected officials who understand our business and whose values align with our mission of serving athletes. These nonpartisan values rely upon upholding the principles of democracy,” the statement said. “Nike’s PAC will not support any member of Congress who ignores these principles, including those who voted to decertify the Electoral College results.” Since the Capitol insurrection, Nike has kept its promise and has not donated to any members of Congress who voted to overturn the election.
Clorox
Since 2021, Clorox has not donated any money to election deniers’ campaigns. Ecolab, a company selling similar products to Clorox’s, promised to stop donating to all congressional candidates, according to CNN. But during the 2024 election cycle, Ecolab donated thousands of dollars to Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA), Hern, and other members of Congress who tried to overturn the 2020 election.
Eversource Energy
On January 13, 2021, Eversource Energy, a large electricity provider in the Northeast, announced that it would not donate to any of the members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 election results. In a statement, Eversource’s Chief Communications Officer Jim Hunt said, “at Eversource, we were deeply disturbed by the intentional disruption of our democratic process and the violence that occurred at the Capitol last week.”
Eversource has kept its promise not to donate to any election deniers and has made few political contributions in general. NRG Energy, a competing electricity provider serving some of the same states as Eversource, also promised not to donate to any election deniers, but has since reneged.
Holland & Hart LLP
Holland & Hart, among the top 200 earning law firms in the world, has not donated to anyone who voted to overturn the 2020 elections. In contrast, Cozen O’Connor, an even bigger firm, reneged on its promise.
Qurate Retail
Unlike other retail brands like Amazon and Walmart that have not followed through on their vows not to give money to election deniers, Qurate Retail — which has since been rebranded as QVC Group — has kept its promise.
Lyft
Lyft has kept its promise to withhold donations to election deniers after January 6. While Uber never made such a promise, the company and its CEO donated $2 million to Trump’s inauguration fund.
Whirlpool
Whirlpool has not given any money to people who voted to overturn the 2020 election. The company terminated its political action committee in 2023.
Since returning to office, Donald Trump’s personal wealth has nearly doubled, from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7.3 billion this past September, which includes $2 billion from his cryptocurrency ventures that no one had been buying into prior to his reelection. Donald Trump Jr. is now worth six times what he was in 2024, also due in part to the family crypto scam.
But did you hear? Zohran Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, wore some cute boots to his inauguration like a common Imelda Marcos! Quelle horreur!
Their “affordability” agenda got off on the wrong foot.
New York City’s first ladyRama Duwaji appeared to wear $630 “artisan” leather boots from a high-end designer to her Democratic socialist husband Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral swearing-in ceremony — a luxury look that flew in the face of the politician’s “everyman” image, eagle-eyed critics said Thursday.
Duwaji, a 28-year-old artist, gave more socialite than socialist on New Year’s Day as she apparently rocked one of the fashion house Miista’s pricey boot designs — one which is said to be crafted from “vegetable tan cow leather” and feature an “ultra-cushioned memory foam insole.”
Not “vegetable tan cow leather”! NOT A MEMORY FOAM INSOLE!
Not that it matters, really, but $630 for boots is not “luxury.” I mean that technically. Obviously $630 is a good amount of money, but it’s not luxury. It’s what’s called “bridge” — meaning that it’s high quality and expensive, but not at the same level as actual luxury brands, which cost at least twice that. It’s not Chanel or Versace or Alexander McQueen or Louis.
Rama wore a vintage Balenciaga coat from Albright Fashion Library and archival earrings from New York Vintage, both rented during a single marathon day spent diving into the racks and cupboards of the city’s best small, circular fashion businesses. […]
C’mon formal shorts!! Those are from The Frankie Shop, and the boots are *ON LOAN* from Miista.
I’m just going to have to get comfortable with the fact that people on the internet do not understand what being lent a SAMPLE that has been borrowed before and will be borrowed again means but, you know what, that’s okay.
This is a big part of what stylists do. Most of the time, when you see a celebrity wearing something fancy on the red carpet or at an event like this, it’s not something from their own closet, it’s on loan from a designer (because cheap advertising) or something like the Albright Fashion Library. This is also how a lot of wardrobing for television and movies works.
But even if they weren’t on loan, the idea that “it’s hypocrisy for a Democratic socialist or even a regular liberal to wear nice boots!” is absurd. It only seems like “hypocrisy” to people who think socialism means everyone should be poor and miserable and standing in bread lines all day wearing cardboard boxes on their feet instead of shoes.
The reality is … that’s capitalism. Like, for most people, that is capitalism, except you don’t even get any free bread out of it. Indeed, most of the people in the comments on the Post’s tweet for the article were talking about how they, the proud capitalists that capitalism is definitely working out really well for, only spend $40 on boots at Walmart or Amazon. Actually, buying shoes that will only last a season (and will fuck up your feet) because that’s all you can afford, instead of boots that cost a lot up front but last forever, is a perfect example of why it costs more to be poor than it does to be rich. (This is not to say that you can’t get decent boots for a not-crazy price — I do very well at Nordstrom Rack and Marshalls, thank you very much — but you get my point.)
What we want is for people to not have to spend $2,000 a month on health insurance or on rent so that they can have nice things, so that they can buy a nice pair of boots or a warm winter coat. So that they can go out to dinner sometimes without worrying about breaking the bank. That is the whole damn point! That’s the “hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses too” of it all.
Right now, 60 percent of Americans cannot afford $1,000 for an emergency expense. That’s not socialism that did that, that’s capitalism as practiced in the United States of America. Our economy literally has poverty built into the system. We literally cannot function without people to work the kind of jobs that currently do not pay enough for survival. Austerity is a way of life for a very large percentage of us, which also means that those whose income is dependent on other people having expendable income are also screwed.
New NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s affordability plans don’t just benefit the poor, they benefit everyone. If people aren’t taking certain jobs because transportation costs too much to make it worth their while or they can’t afford to live in the city, everyone’s quality of life goes down. A city where only rich people can afford to live is a city where rich people have absolutely nothing to do, which kind of defeats the whole point of being rich in the first place.
The commenters complaining about all the people they could supposedly feed with the $630 those boots cost are also missing the point. Besides clearly not being how socialism is supposed to work, caring for the poor by way of charity and philanthropy is lovely, but it’s not the most effective and efficient way of doing so. Taxes are. Social programs are. GoFundMe raises about $650 million a year for medical causes, with some people getting far more than they could ever need and others getting nothing. That is a stupid way of doing things. You want to spend less on healthcare? Make the entire United States one giant insurance group with a shit ton of leverage and bulk buying power, make medical school free and invest tax money into creating more internship programs. That is how you take care of people, not by not buying a pair of shoes.
Capitalists want philanthropy to replace taxation. Right-wing libertarians frequently argue that if you just didn’t tax the rich, they would happily give huge chunks of their fortunes away to the poor, which is patently ridiculous (and, again, not effective or efficient even if things did shake out that way).
Champagne socialists are good, actually. Why on earth would it be better to be a miserly rich person than a rich person who actually believes they should be taxed at a fair rate because they want to see everyone living well? The idea that the Left wants a world in which everyone lives like they’ve taken a vow of poverty and no one gets to be “successful” is a fantasy created by rich assholes who don’t want to share and don’t care if they live in a society where everyone has at least their basic needs met.
We actually love success, which is why we want more of it for more people, rather than just one percent of one percent of people. We love people, which is why we want a safety net that keeps them from falling so far they can’t get back up again. We love ingenuity, which is why we want people to be able to go into business for themselves without having to worry about what will happen to their kids if they can’t afford good health insurance on their own right away. We want their kids to feel like it’s not hopeless to try their best in school because they don’t think they’ll be able to afford to go to college without being in debt the rest of their lives. We don’t think it’s enough that people can “dream” of being billionaires but factually never be able to afford their own home.
And yes, we even want some people to be able to afford to actually buy $630 shoes, so that other people can get paid a fair wage for designing, making and selling those $630 shoes.
As our income shrank Ron and I found ourselves cutting back on buying books to read and movies to watch. Then one day I read about how many libraries offer these things for free if you just sign up. I was like what is the catch? But Ron and I went to our local library, got new cards, and told them what we really wanted was the online stuff. The person behind the desk was so excited to explain it to us. They were happy even though we only wanted to online stuff. Ron and I have watched movies, read a bunch of books including new ones, and it doesn’t cost us anything but time. When Ron’s sister’s husband was in the hospital before he died he complained of being bored. She set him up with a local library online account and he was happy while in the hospital. If you have a family member who is a shut in please think of this for them. I love it. Hugs
Criminal Israel has violated every aspect of the “ceasefire” and made a mockery of the promises of security guarantees tRump gave Hamas / the Palestinians. It should make Ukraine really nervous of the same things he has promised them. All tRump can see or cares about is his personal profit of building on Palestinian lands making profits over the dead bodies of the Palestinians. He is OK with Israel hurrying up the slaughter to get to that profit point. I hate this. You should also. Hugs
People attend the funeral of Dr. Hussein Najjar, a member of the Doctors Without Borders team who was killed by shrapnel from an Israeli airstrike, in Deir al Balah, Gaza on September 16, 2025
(Photo by Alaa Y. M. Abumohsen/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“The humanitarian response in Gaza is already highly restricted, and cannot afford further dismantlement,” the renowned organization warned.
The Israeli government said Tuesday that Doctors Without Borders, one of the largest medical organizations currently operating in Gaza, is among the 25 humanitarian groups that will be suspended at the start of the new year for their alleged failure to comply with Israel’s widely criticized new registration rules for international NGOs.
According to the Associated Press, Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs “said the organizations that will be banned on January 1 did not meet new requirements for sharing staff, funding, and operations information.” The Israeli government specifically accused Doctors Without Borders, known internationally as Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), of “failing to clarify the roles of some staff that Israel accused of cooperation with Hamas and other militant groups,” AP reported.
In addition to providing medical assistance to desperate Palestinians, MSF has been an outspoken critic of what has it described as Israel’s “campaign of total destruction” in Gaza. The group said in a report released last December that its teams’ experiences on the ground in Gaza were “consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place.”
Ahead of Tuesday’s announcement, Doctors Without Borders warned that the looming withdrawal of registration from international NGOs “would prevent organizations, including MSF, from providing essential services to people in Gaza and the West Bank.”
“With Gaza’s health systemalready destroyed, the loss of independent and experienced humanitarian organizations’ access to respond would be a disaster for Palestinians,” the group said in a statement last week. “The humanitarian response in Gaza is already highly restricted, and cannot afford further dismantlement.”
“If Israeli authorities revoke MSF’s access to Gaza in 2026, a large portion of people in Gaza will lose access to critical medical care, water, and lifesaving support,” the group added. “MSF’s activities serve nearly half a million people in Gaza through our vital support to the destroyed health system. MSF continues to seek constructive engagement with Israeli authorities to continue its activities.”
Pascale Coissard, MSF’s emergency coordinator for Gaza, noted that “in the last year, MSF teams have treated hundreds of thousands of patients and delivered hundreds of millions of liters of water.”
“MSF teams are trying to expand activities and support Gaza’s shattered health system,” said Coissard. “In 2025 alone, we carried out almost 800,000 outpatient consultations and handled more than 100,000 trauma cases.”
Israel’s announcement came shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with US President Donald Trump in Florida, where both dodged questions about their supposed “peace plan” for Gaza after more than two years of relentless bombing. The Israeli military has been accused of violating an existing ceasefire agreement hundreds of times since it took effect in October.
Al Jazeera reported Tuesday that “Israeli forces have carried out strikes across the Gaza Strip as they continue with their near-daily violations of the ceasefire agreement, with Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged enclave continuing apace and displaced Palestinians enduring the destruction of their few remaining possessions in flooding brought about by heavy winter rains.”
Another more than $200 million in medical debt has been wiped out for Arizonans.
And the recipients are going to know who to thank: Gov. Katie Hobbs.
The new figure was announced Monday by Allison Sasso. She’s the president and CEO of Undue Medical Debt, a company that agreed earlier this year to use some $10 million in state American Rescue Plan COVID relief dollars to buy up medical debt from hospitals and doctors for a few pennies on the dollar, eliminating a negative mark on the credit reports of those who racked up the bills.
All totaled, according to the governor’s office, the program has so far erased $642 million owed by more than 485,000 Arizonans.
And under a deal the state cut with Undue Medical, the beneficiaries all get letters crediting not just United Medical but also the governor.
What’s behind all this is a program that United Medical has been offering across the nation.
Established in 2014, it uses government funds and private donations to acquire portfolios of medical debt from health care providers or debt buyers.
What makes the money go farther, according to company officials, is the debt has reached the point where those holding the rights are willing to sell them for pennies on the dollar.
People can’t actually apply. Instead, Undue Medical has to find them. It starts with eligibility.
The program is aimed at those whose medical debt whose income is less than 400% of the federal poverty level. That is currently $128,600 for a family of four.Also eligible are those whose debt is 5% or more of their annual income. That would aid those who have higher income levels than the cutoff—but much higher debt than they may be able to handle.
Undue Medical works with a credit reporting agency, buying what it calls “relevant income data” from them. That’s how it gets the names of individuals who owe money.
That is then compared with the information it gets from medical providers and others who are the holders of past-due debts.
Once the bills have been paid off, the patient gets a letter in an Undue Medical envelope informing for the first time that the obligation has been wiped out and the credit bureau has been notified.
But the recipients do get some inkling at that time of who to credit.
The deal Hobbs cut with the charity when she first signed the deal in 2024 requires that beneficiaries know that the financial relief is happening because governor’s action: It spells out that any fliers, advertisements, press releases or other marketing materials to include “logos or insignia as required by the governor’s office and approved by the governor’s office before publication.”
Gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater, in defending that provision when the program was announced in July, said that is appropriate. He said the letters are designed to tell people not just that their medical debt was relieved but “how it happened.”
And why do they need to know that the governor gets credit?
“The medical debt relief would not be possible without the governor’s leadership and focus on lowering costs and delivering economic opportunity for every Arizonan,” Slater said.
Undue Medical said what’s also crucial is that the patient starts from scratch.
Generally speaking, when a debt is forgiven, it can be considered income for tax purposes. But Courtney Story, the charity’s vice president of government initiatives, said in July that doesn’t apply when the money comes from a “disinterested third party.”
“Because we’re a nonprofit, we’re not part of the health care system, we count as a disinterested third party, as does the government,” she said.
Ditto, Story said, with private donors, though they have the option of remaining anonymous or disclosing their names to recipients.
In the press release Monday, Hobbs included the anonymous comments of three Arizonans who said they were thankful that the debt had been wiped out.
She got them because the contract the state has with Undue Medical said that “patient stories and related insights shall be shared with the governor’s office on a regular basis.”
As to what the governor can do with those testimonials, a company spokesman said when the program was announced that, “to my knowledge, there isn’t a restriction on how they can be used.”
In unveiling the plan in 2024, Hobbs insisted that there’s nothing illegal about the state using money it has received from the federal government to pay off the medical debts of private Arizonans.
A provision of the Arizona Constitution makes it illegal to “make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association or corporation.”
“I can assure you we would not be taking this action if we weren’t fully confident in the legality of it,” Hobbs said.
Anyway, she said, Arizona wouldn’t be the first jurisdiction to use COVID dollars from the American Rescue Plan Act in this way.
Undue Medical has provided press releases from other jurisdictions that have taken advantage of the program, with recent press releases from Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and one from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for a local program.
Please note the article is 4 months old. However in this time of constant AI talk and every company trying to push us into using it against out will I think we also realize how dangerous AI can be. Hugs
Open AI to change way it responds to users in mental distress as parents of Adam Raine allege bot not safe
Adam Raine’s parents are suing Open AI after he discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, including shortly before taking his own life. Photograph: the Raine Family
The makers of ChatGPT are changing the way it responds to users who show mental and emotional distress after legal action from the family of 16-year-old Adam Raine, who killed himself after months of conversations with the chatbot.
Open AI admitted its systems could “fall short” and said it would install “stronger guardrails around sensitive content and risky behaviors” for users under 18.
The $500bn (£372bn) San Francisco AI company said it would also introduce parental controls to allow parents “options to gain more insight into, and shape, how their teens use ChatGPT”, but has yet to provide details about how these would work.
Adam, from California, killed himself in April after what his family’s lawyer called “months of encouragement from ChatGPT”. The teenager’s family is suing Open AI and its chief executive and co-founder, Sam Altman, alleging that the version of ChatGPT at that time, known as 4o, was “rushed to market … despite clear safety issues”.
The teenager discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, including shortly before taking his own life. According to the filing in the superior court of the state of California for the county of San Francisco, ChatGPT guided him on whether his method of taking his own life would work.
It also offered to help him write a suicide note to his parents.
A spokesperson for OpenAI said the company was “deeply saddened by Mr Raine’s passing”, extended its “deepest sympathies to the Raine family during this difficult time” and said it was reviewing the court filing.
Mustafa Suleyman, the chief executive of Microsoft’s AI arm, said last week he had become increasingly concerned by the “psychosis risk” posed by AI to users. Microsoft has defined this as “mania-like episodes, delusional thinking, or paranoia that emerge or worsen through immersive conversations with AI chatbots”.
In a blogpost, OpenAI admitted that “parts of the model’s safety training may degrade” in long conversations. Adam and ChatGPT had exchanged as many as 650 messages a day, the court filing claims.
Jay Edelson, the family’s lawyer, said on X: “The Raines allege that deaths like Adam’s were inevitable: they expect to be able to submit evidence to a jury that OpenAI’s own safety team objected to the release of 4o, and that one of the company’s top safety researchers,Ilya Sutskever, quit over it. The lawsuit alleges that beating its competitors to market with the new model catapulted the company’s valuation from $86bn to $300bn.”
Open AI said it would be “strengthening safeguards in long conversations”.
“As the back and forth grows, parts of the model’s safety training may degrade,” it said. “For example, ChatGPT may correctly point to a suicide hotline when someone first mentions intent, but after many messages over a long period of time, it might eventually offer an answer that goes against our safeguards.”
Open AI gave the example of someone who might enthusiastically tell the model they believed they could drive for 24 hours a day because they realised they were invincible after not sleeping for two nights.
It said: “Today ChatGPT may not recognise this as dangerous or infer play and – by curiously exploring – could subtly reinforce it. We are working on an update to GPT‑5 that will cause ChatGPT to de-escalate by grounding the person in reality. In this example, it would explain that sleep deprivation is dangerous and recommend rest before any action.”
Right wing provocateur Nick Shirley has published a video claiming he has proof of fraud in Somali daycare centers. I watched the video so you don’t have to. The entire video is, in a word, propaganda. Despite this complete lack of substantiation, Vice President JD Vance praised Shirley and suggested he deserves a Pulitzer Prize. MAGA media has since moved immediately to demonize the Somali community in Minnesota as a whole—facts be damned.
That framing is not just reckless—it is intentionally racist. And it obscures the real issue entirely. Here are the critical facts they leave out, and hope Americans don’t see.Let’s Address This.
Watch my breakdown on YouTube, or read the full article below.
Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A Propagandized Claim With Zero Evidence
Shirley begins his interview with a man named “David,” who apparently investigated this alleged fraud for years. Shirley provides no explanation of who David is, what qualifications he has, or what actual evidence of fraud he’s uncovered. Instead, while waving around documents that he never bothers to validate, David makes the following bombastic and factless claims:
“Compared to worldwide, the fraud is worse here in the Twin Cities than anywhere else ever, in history, anywhere.”
“The allegedly stolen funds are being sent to terrorist organizations.”
“We have to be careful because these [Somali] people are very violent, they’re exceptionally violent.”
“Tim Walz is guilty of misconduct with a public employee.”
Note—the above are actual quotes from David. At no point in the video does David or Shirley provide any actual evidence for the above claims. We are simply meant to believe them—even to the absurdity that in the entirety of human history, the alleged fraud in Minnesota outranks all of them. As far as the claim that “Walz committed misconduct with a public employee,” there’s zero evidence of this malicious claim. It’s especially rich coming from two men who are silent on Trump’s dozens of cases of sexual assault of women, and God only knows the full extent of his involvement in Epstein’s child sex trafficking atrocity.
Shirley and David espouse obviously and demonstrably false claims. The majority of Shirley’s video then entails he and David driving from center to center, harassing employees, and attempting to enter childcare centers without permission. The employees are clearly frightened that two angry men with cameras are repeatedly yelling “where are the children!”, while trying to gain unauthorized access to spaces meant to protect children. Unsurprisingly, the employees refuse to answer questions from men they rightly see as strangers. Shirley and David therefore conclude that the employees’ refusal to answer their questions means there must be fraud.
That is the extent of their “evidence” of fraud.
Shirley Ignores What Actual Journalists Have Already Reported
Now, let’s make four points absolutely clear—points Shirley deliberately ignores, and hopes his viewers don’t realize.
First, what Shirley allegedly “uncovered” is not some new scandal. Since 2022 several of these same day care centers have been fined and shutdown for violating the law. Local media in Minnesota has already reported on that alleged fraud and reported on the subsequent FBI investigations. Even in his video, Shirley admits that the FBI is already investigating these facilities and is already aware that there may be potential fraud. You can literally see him at the exact same locations that have already been investigated and reported upon.
Top Screen grab: News report from local Minnesota reporters 1 year ago. Bottom screen grab: Shirley pretending he’s breaking new news right now.
Top Screen grab: News report from local Minnesota reporters 1 year ago. Bottom Screen grab: Shirley pretending he’s breaking new news right now.
Fourth and finally, for as much as Shirley insists fraud problems in Minnesota begin and end with Somalis, nowhere in his 42 minute propaganda piece does he admit, let alone acknowledge, that the accused ring leader who was convicted of leading the largest prosecuted fraud in Minnesota is a white woman named Aimee Bock.
Aimee Bock was found guilty in a jury trial of defrauding Minnesota $250M in an overlapping “Feeding Our Future” fraud case.
In short, Shirley hasn’t broken any new news, this alleged scheme has nothing to do with terrorism, the day care center employees themselves sounded the alarm, and Shirley ignores Aimee Bock altogether. What exactly is Shirley exposing? Will his next story reveal Watergate? It seems quite clear that Shirley saw news reports from years ago, saw Donald Trump demonize Somalis, and attempted to recreate work done by actual journalists while trying to pass it off as his own to gain clout, clicks, and views.
Here Are The Facts
Now, let’s discuss what is true.
Shirley alleges that Somalis have somehow “taken over” Minnesota. This is fear-mongering and racist propaganda. Minnesota is home to approximately 60,000 Somalis, representing a whopping 1% of Minnesota’s population of 6 million people.
Moreover, it is absolutely not the case that Somalis somehow uniquely committed fraud. It is the case that, among the people accused of fraud in Minnesota, some happen to be Somali. That is a critical distinction. Fraud, where it occurs, should be investigated and prosecuted fully and fairly—for everyone involved, regardless of race, religion, or immigration status. No person gets a pass, and no group deserves collective blame. But Shirley or MAGA figures are not interested in accountability. They are interested in scapegoating.
Shirley’s video ends with him demanding answers from a Democratic member of the Minnesota legislature—who correctly reminds him that such fraud is in all 50 states, under Democrats and Republicans, and that this is not a partisan or racial issue. Shirley never actually rebukes her. He cannot, for the very simple reason that she is absolutely correct. On June 30, 2025, The Department of Justice reported:
The Justice Department today announced the results of its 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants, including 96 doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other licensed medical professionals, in 50 federal districts and 12 State Attorneys General’s Offices across the United States, for their alleged participation in various health care fraud schemes involving over $14.6 billion in intended loss. The Takedown involved federal and state law enforcement agencies across the country and represents an unprecedented effort to combat health care fraud schemes that exploit patients and taxpayers. (emphasis added)
If fraud were actually the MAGA concern, their outrage would not be selectively triggered only when the accused are Black, brown, Muslim, or immigrant. Yet we have overwhelming evidence that the same political movement now pretending to care about alleged fraud in Minnesota, instead openly celebrate and reward white fraudsters—at vastly larger scales—nationwide.
When MAGA Approves Fraud
And yet here’s another critical and substantive point that Shirley entirely ignores. Donald Trump has personally granted clemency or pardons to at least two dozen individuals convicted of fraud totaling well over one billion dollars. None of them are Somali. Nearly all of them are white. And this fraud has also been well reported, meaning Shirley and his supporters are either willfully ignorant, or deceptively censoring it. Among them include:
Trevor Milton, founder of an electric truck company, was convicted of securities fraud and wire fraud and ordered to pay $676 million in restitution.
Ross William Ulbricht, founder of Silk Road, was convicted of running a massive criminal enterprise facilitating drug trafficking and money laundering and ordered to pay nearly $184 million.
HDR Global Trading Limited, operator of a cryptocurrency exchange, was fined $100 million for violating anti-money laundering laws.
Lawrence Duran, owner of a Miami-area mental health company, was convicted of healthcare fraud and sentenced to 50 years in prison with $87.5 million in restitution.
Trump pardoned them anyway. In total, Trump has pardoned at least 24 mostly white Americans (so far) for committing Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud, and/or securities fraud. And not in his first term either—this is right now as we speak while the alleged fraud in Minnesota is taking place. And I say “so far” because Trump’s pay to pardon bribery scheme has become so open and brazen, that the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s handlers are now reportedly charging convicted fraudsters upwards of $1M to lobby their pardon before Trump.
Somalis face demonization on the mere accusation of a crime—yet we hear complete silence from Shirley and MAGA pundits on Trump’s open bribery to pardon convicted felons who are white. Thus the open hypocrisy—when white Americans commit fraud, they are treated as individuals. When Black, brown, Muslim, or immigrant communities are accused—even speculatively—the entire community is put on trial. One person becomes “proof” that everyone is guilty. That is de facto racism.
So let’s be explicitly clear: if you are outraged at alleged fraud involving Somali daycare operators, but celebrate Trump for pardoning white men convicted of fraud at ten or twenty times the scale, then fraud is not what you care about. What you care about is protecting white supremacy.
The Core Issue Remains Ignored
Just as importantly, we cannot forget this critical point: Racializing fraud allegations to demonize all Somali Americans of Minnesota, while ignoring the much greater fraud nationwide by predominantly white Americans, is another culture war waged by the MAGA right. And they’re waging it right now for two reasons.
One, to distract Americans that MAGA Republicans have failed to extend ACA subsidies, which means come New Year’s Day your ACA premiums will skyrocket. MAGAs will point to Minnesota to convince Americans that the “real” reason premiums are spiking is not the exploitative for profit healthcare system or the deliberate failure of MAGA Republicans to extend ACA subsidies—but the lie that it is due to Somali Americans. MAGAs will try to convince Americans nationwide that this is a “Somali problem.” Do not let them.
Two, to prevent Americans from realizing these devastating facts—that 16 years after the ACA was passed, Republicans still don’t have a healthcare plan. That Trump has pardoned far more fraud than is alleged to have happened in Minnesota. That Medicare and Medicaid fraud is a nationwide cancer caused by our exploitative for profit healthcare system, that could be addressed with a universal healthcare model, but that would cost politicians immense financial loss in campaign donations and in their stock portfolios, so they will not let it happen.
In short, MAGAs are demonizing Somali people to ensure healthcare remains a for profit exploitation scheme.
The truth is this: fraud in healthcare is not an aberration. It is a feature of a system designed to extract wealth rather than deliver care.
I have already written at length about America’s HELL Corporations, and the fraud ridden for profit exploitation business model that causes at least 68,000 preventable deaths annually. For example, UnitedHealth is being sued for denying 90% of valid Medicaid claims to senior citizens—undoubtedly enabling preventable death. Yet, we don’t see MAGA Republicans or their pseudo-journalists like Shirley accosting them to explain their billions in fraud.
Closing Points
The difference between MAGAs outraged over alleged fraud in Minnesota by some Somali Americans, and the rest of us, is this. We loudly condemn that fraud whether its committed by a Somali American, European American, Latino American, or Asian American. MAGAs only care if the alleged fraud is committed by non-white people, and celebrate the pardoning of convicted fraudsters who are white. This is not my opinion, as the above receipts show this to be true.
But we have a solution to this fraud enabled by an exploitative, for-profit insurance system. If we joined every other developed nation and guaranteed healthcare, politicians could no longer use our lives as bargaining chips. And fraud—real fraud—would be far harder to commit in a system built around care rather than profit extraction.
So when MAGA figures obsessively target Somalis in Minnesota, understand what is really happening. They are not exposing corruption. They are deflecting from it. They are protecting an exploitative system by redirecting rage toward a vulnerable community. Because two things can be and are true at once: individuals who committed fraud should be held accountable regardless of their racial background, and the overwhelming majority of fraud—and harm—comes from a corporate healthcare system that thrives on exploitation, protected by politicians who pardon billion-dollar criminals while demonizing immigrants.
Until we confront that reality honestly, we will keep repeating the same cycle: scapegoats on the margins, impunity at the top, and a system that continues to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year—quietly, profitably, and with corporate media silence.
Let’s Address This with Qasim Rashid is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Tiny, nimble, and sporting a bold black mask and “bib” under its bill, the Golden-winged Warbler might be mistaken for a Black-capped Chickadee at first glance. But it’s the long, thin bill and the splashes of vivid golden-yellow on its crown and wings that distinguish this long-distance migratory warbler.
Though they are denizens of shrubby, early successional habitats (areas that are in the early stages of regenerating following a disturbance, such as a fire or a clearcut) in the nesting season, Golden-winged Warblers and their recently fledged young relocate to nearby mature forests that provide adequate cover for fledglings from predators. The loss of quality brushy, young forest habitat across much of its breeding range has contributed to sharp declines in an already uncommon warbler.
Another threat comes from a close relative, the Blue-winged Warbler, which shares more than 99 percent of its genetic material with the Golden-winged Warbler. The two species regularly hybridize, and the once-uncommon Blue-winged Warbler has surged northward into the Golden-winged’s range. The Golden-winged Warbler has become much scarcer and is at risk of being genetically “swamped” by its more numerous and widespread relative where their ranges meet.
To gain a foothold and begin to recover from the loss of more than 60 percent of its population, the Golden-winged Warbler needs active habitat conservation throughout its annual life cycle, from the shrubby, early successional habitats where it nests to the open forests of Latin America and the Caribbean, where it spends its nonbreeding season.
Threats
Birds around the world are facing threats, and many species are declining. The Golden-winged Warbler has experienced a drop in its population of more than 60 percent, including a loss of nearly all of its population in the Appalachians. In addition to competition and hybridization with the Blue-winged Warbler, the Golden-winged Warbler faces challenges throughout its full annual cycle from habitat loss and degradation, and collisions. (snip-More on the page, including the songs)
The “super flu” behind outbreaks in the US and UK is a new variant of influenza A H3N2, subclade K. Here’s what you need to know.
The spread of influenza became more severe this fall, particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated the 2024-25 flu season as the most severe season since 2017-18. In the UK, the spread has begun earlier than at any time since 2003-04.
Against this backdrop, some media outlets have begun using the term “super flu.” However, this term is not an official medical term. The actual name is “subclade K,” a new variant of influenza A H3N2.
This variant has multiple mutations in a protein on the surface of the virus called hemagglutinin, making it antigenically different from the variants used in existing vaccines. This allows it to partially evade immunity acquired through previous infection or vaccines, making people more susceptible to infection. Genetic analysis by the UK Health Security Agency has revealed that 87 percent of H3N2 viruses detected since late August 2025 are subclade K.
The Outbreak Began Earlier Than Usual
The term “super flu” is not necessarily scientifically accurate. The H3N2 strain already caused severe illness in the elderly and children, and the new mutant strain has not made it more deadly. Contrary to the name, the virus’s inherent danger is said to be no different from the conventional H3N2 strain.
In 2025, the US influenza pandemic peaked in early February, with active epidemics occurring in 87.3 percent of the country. For 11 consecutive weeks, more than 50 percent of the country recorded high epidemic levels, an anomaly that led to 287 child deaths. However, these figures reflect the scale of the epidemic and do not imply an increase in the lethality of the virus itself.
The influenza epidemic is hitting earlier this year in many parts of the world. While the usual peak in Japan occurs between late December and February, in 2025 the epidemic began in earnest at the end of September. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, of the 23 H3 virus strains collected in Japan between September and November 5 that could be analyzed, 22 were subclade K.
The reason for the early outbreak is thought to be the decline in immunity of the population due to the countermeasures against new coronavirus infection (Covid-19), as well as a decline in physical strength due to the record-breaking heat wave. During the three years of the coronavirus pandemic, the influenza epidemic was largely suppressed. As a result, it is possible that population immunity to the virus was reduced. In fact, with the 2024 influenza pandemic in Australia at its highest level since 19 years, it would not be surprising to see a similar trend in the Northern Hemisphere.
Existing Vaccines Are Effective
There has also been much interest in vaccine efficacy in the face of this virulent strain. The vaccine for the 2025-26 season is based on the conventional J.2 lineage (subclade), which has different antigenicity from subclade K. However, early data from the UK has confirmed that 70-75 percent of vaccinated children and 30-40 percent of adults did not end up visiting the emergency room or being hospitalized after infection. This means that even if the antigenicity is not completely identical, the vaccine remains effective in preventing severe illness.
The basic prevention measures are the same as for conventional influenza. Vaccination is recommended from October to November before the epidemic, and the effect appears about two weeks after vaccination. It is particularly recommended for people aged 65 and over, people with underlying medical conditions, pregnant women, children aged 6 months to 5 years, and medical workers. In daily life, it is effective to thoroughly wash and disinfect your hands, and wear a mask when in crowds. Ventilation in rooms and maintaining appropriate humidity levels are also important in suppressing viral activity.
If symptoms appear, it is best to wait at least 12 hours after the onset of fever before visiting a medical institution. Anti-influenza medication is most effective when taken within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms, and Xofluza and Tamiflu are considered effective. People should refrain from going out for five days after the onset of symptoms and two days (three days for children) after the fever has subsided, and should make sure to get plenty of rest and stay hydrated.
Contrary to the impression given by the word “super,” this current epidemic is an extension of the traditional influenza. For this reason, it is essential to respond calmly based on scientific understanding rather than fear.
In fact, the risk of developing severe symptoms can be significantly reduced by combining vaccination with basic infection control measures. Because this is a rare situation in which there are consecutive high-severity seasons, making responsible choices based on accurate information will help protect the health of society as a whole.
This story originally appeared in WIRED Japan and has been translated from Japanese.
Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Thursday, January 01, 2026 at 12:36:07p EST
(Kenneth Fowler/CNN)
This article is going to explain what we’re actually facing, lay out its four preconditions, and show you that America meets every single one. It will then explain why knowing this is important, and what we can do once equipped with that knowledge.
There’s a name for what’s happening: electoral autocracy. Elections happen. Multiple parties compete. But the system is rigged to favor one faction through gerrymandered maps, voter suppression, captured courts, and media control. When the wrong side wins anyway, those captured courts block them from governing. Hungary operates this way. So do we.
Start with gerrymandered maps. The Brennan Center’s September 2024 analysis found Republicans hold approximately 16 extra House seats due to favorable district lines.¹ Republicans drew 191 congressional districts while Democrats drew 75.¹ Only 69 of 435 House seats are rated competitive.² The Senate is worse. California’s 39 million residents have the same representation as Wyoming’s 579,000, a ratio of 68 to 1.³ The 50 Republican senators who confirmed Trump’s Supreme Court justices represented 43.5 percent of the American population. Their 50 Democratic colleagues represented 56.5 percent.⁴ The last time Republican senators represented a majority of voters was 1996.⁵
Rigged maps only work if the right people show up to vote. That’s where voter suppression comes in. The evidence includes confessions. During floor debate on Montana’s HB 176 in 2021, a Republican state representative explained he wanted to end Election Day registration because young voters are “not on our side of the aisle.”⁶ The bill passed. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court that same year, Arizona Republican Party attorney Michael Carvin was asked what interest his party had in maintaining voting restrictions. His answer: eliminating them “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”⁷ When the Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina’s HB 589, the court found the legislature had requested data on voting practices broken down by race, then restricted exactly those practices disproportionately used by Black voters. The law, the court wrote, “targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.”⁸ North Carolina enacted that law less than two months after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. Between 2021 and 2024, states passed 79 restrictive voting laws, nearly three times the number passed between 2017 and 2020.⁹
Gerrymandering and voter suppression tilt the playing field. Media control ensures tens of millions of Americans never realize the game is rigged. Sinclair Broadcast Group owns or operates 178 television stations reaching approximately 40 percent of American households.¹⁰ The company requires stations to air “must run” segments including commentary from Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House official, nine times per week.¹⁰ In March 2018, Deadspin compiled footage of nearly 200 Sinclair anchors reading identical scripts warning about “fake news” at other outlets.¹¹ You can watch the video. Sinclair executive chairman David Smith reportedly told Trump in 2016: “We are here to deliver your message.”¹² When your local news is owned by a conservative media conglomerate pushing partisan content through trusted local faces, voters cannot punish leaders for policy failures they never learn about.
None of this would hold without the final piece: captured courts that enforce the rigged system and block any attempt to change it.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to decide whether federal district judges have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies. The Court declined to hear the case.¹³ The Trump administration asked the same question. The Court took it, ruled in Trump’s favor, 6-3.¹⁴
Same legal question. Same Court. Different answer depending on who asked.
The judiciary abandoned neutrality decades ago. Bush v. Gore stopped votes from being counted. Shelby County gutted voting rights. Citizens United flooded elections with dark money. What we’re watching now is the endgame.
The Niskanen Center analyzed the Court’s treatment of lower court injunctions and found that within the first six months of Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court lifted approximately 77 percent of injunctions blocking administration actions. For the Biden administration over four years, the Court lifted 10 percent.¹⁵ Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck documented that in the first 20 weeks of Trump’s second term, the administration sought emergency action from the Supreme Court 19 times. That equals the total number of requests the Biden administration made over four years.¹⁶ The Court sided with Trump nearly every time.
In July 2024, the Court ruled 6-3 that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts within their core constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all other official acts.¹⁷ The Court held that Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General about overturning the 2020 election fell within his exclusive constitutional authority and were therefore absolutely immune.¹⁷ Courts cannot inquire into a president’s motives. An action does not become unofficial merely because it violates the law.¹⁷ Justice Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the decision makes the president “a king above the law.”¹⁷
A president can now direct the Justice Department to prosecute political enemies. He can order federal law enforcement to investigate, harass, and charge anyone he designates as a threat. He can pardon co-conspirators before, during, or after any scheme. He can fire any official who refuses to comply. If these actions fall within his official duties, he faces no criminal liability. The Court manufactured this immunity from whole cloth. No statute authorized it. No constitutional text required it. No precedent compelled it. Six justices simply declared that presidents need this protection to act “boldly.”
The Court is simultaneously dismantling the independence of federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, currently before the Court, the administration argues that the president can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioners at will, eliminating the for-cause removal protections that have governed independent agencies since 1935.¹⁸ The D.C. Circuit has already ruled that Trump’s firings of Merit Systems Protection Board and National Labor Relations Board members were lawful.¹⁸ If Humphrey’s Executor falls, the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, and every other independent agency comes under direct presidential control. A president could fire the Fed chair for refusing to cut interest rates before an election. He could purge every agency of anyone who might resist.
Criminal immunity for official acts. Direct control of every federal agency. And now, with the nationwide injunction ruling, illegal orders take effect everywhere except in the specific jurisdictions where individual plaintiffs have standing to sue. The Court has built a legal architecture in which a Republican president operates with essentially no constraint.
Now consider what the same Court does when a Democrat holds office. In June 2023, the Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, a $430 billion initiative affecting over 40 million borrowers.¹⁹ Chief Justice Roberts invoked the “major questions doctrine,” holding that agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic significance without explicit congressional authorization.¹⁹ The previous year, the Court used the same doctrine to strike down the Clean Power Plan.²⁰ In June 2024, the Court overturned Chevron deference entirely, eliminating the 40-year principle that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.²¹ The six-justice majority handed every conservative federal judge in the country a veto over Democratic governance.
The student loan program and the Clean Power Plan were not radical initiatives. They were exercises of delegated authority that prior courts would have upheld without controversy. This Court invented new doctrines to stop them. As Justice Kagan wrote in dissent, the Court’s approach “overrules Congress’s decisions about when and how to delegate” and makes the Supreme Court itself “the arbiter, indeed, the maker, of national policy.”²²
SCOTUSblog’s analysis calls this the “who-what duality” of the Roberts Court: expanding presidential power over personnel while restricting presidential power over policy.²³ But that framing is too neutral. The personnel expansions let a Republican president fire anyone who might resist. The policy restrictions prevent a Democratic president from using the administrative state to do anything at all. One president gets to destroy. The other gets blocked from building. This is not judicial philosophy. It is collaboration.
None of these tools will transfer. A Democratic president attempting to invoke the immunity ruling, the removal power, or the elimination of nationwide injunctions would discover new limits, new doctrines, new procedural barriers. We know this because we already have the data. Seventy-seven percent versus ten percent. Nineteen emergency requests in twenty weeks versus nineteen in four years. Same questions, different answers, depending entirely on who is asking.
Here is what all of this means in plain terms. One faction wins elections while losing the popular vote, governs without constraint, and installs lifetime judges who validate the structures that enabled minority rule. The other faction needs supermajorities to win, cannot govern when it does, and watches every policy achievement get struck down by courts it cannot reform. The gears turn freely toward authoritarian consolidation. Try to turn them back and the teeth catch.
This is why nothing ever gets better. Two-thirds of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.²⁴ Seventy-three percent believe the healthcare system needs major change or a complete rebuild, including 67 percent of Republicans.²⁵ Exposed to policies without party labels, supermajorities support them. Yet the federal minimum wage has not moved since 2009. Healthcare remains broken. Housing stays unaffordable. Climate action stalls. Not because these policies are unpopular. Because the system is designed to prevent the popular will from becoming law. Gerrymandered legislatures will not pass them. If they pass, captured courts strike them down. If courts uphold them, the next minority-elected president dismantles them.
Every precondition is met. This is not a warning about where we are headed. We are already here.
The federal government will not save us. It has been captured. Any strategy for preserving democratic governance must begin by acknowledging what we are actually facing. What remains is the ground we still hold at the city and state level, and the willingness to use it.
The Introduction to Soft Secession booklet explains exactly what that looks like: public banking, interstate compacts, criminal prosecutions of federal officials under state law, and revenue strategies that reduce dependency on a captured federal government. It’s free at BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER, along with the Educate Activate Recruit Repeat Method for actually getting these policies passed, Being Dangerous: How to Go from Activist to Operative, a printable trifold you can hand out, and Conservatism: America’s Personality Disorder, the full book explaining how we got here. Physical copies and merch at TheExistentialistRepublic.com.
(Kenneth Fowler/CNN)
Scottie's Playtime 