Authored by Mitzi Perdue via RealClearPolitics,

When news broke of the massive child nutrition fraud in Minnesota, many Americans reacted with disbelief. During the pandemic, roughly $250 million intended to feed hungry children was siphoned off, prosecutors say, and spent on luxury cars, real estate, and other indulgences. To most people, it appeared to be a shocking betrayal of public trust.

To me, it felt unsettlingly familiar.

Decades ago, long before Minnesota became synonymous with one of the largest fraud cases in U.S. history, I had an experience in Somalia that permanently altered my perspective on aid, trust, and good intentions. It is why I read the indictments differently, not with surprise so much as recognition.

What struck me most about the Minnesota case was not only the scale of the theft but the silence surrounding it. The fraud appears to have operated in plain sight within tightly knit circles, yet few people spoke out.  

More than 40 years ago, when I was a rice farmer in California, American rice growers learned of famine conditions in Somalia. Competitors set aside their rivalry and donated an entire shipload of rice for humanitarian relief. I later traveled to Somalia, expecting to see that food had reached people on the brink of starvation.

It had not.

A powerful clan had taken control of the shipment. Once its own members’ needs were met, the remaining rice did not go to feed other Somalis. Instead, it was used to feed animals, while those outside the clan continued to go hungry.

At the time, I tried to explain what I had seen by blaming corruption, weak oversight, or a few bad actors. None of those explanations captured the deeper pattern. The behavior made sense only when I began to understand how differently trust and obligation were organized.

That realization came rushing back as I read about the Minnesota fraud.

According to federal indictments, the stolen money flowed through networks bound by kinship and loyalty. The theft was large, coordinated, and sustained. What stood out was not only who took the money, but who stayed silent. In societies with strong civic norms, whistleblowing is often praised, or at least protected. In tightly bound clan systems, speaking out can mean punishment.

Over time, I found language for what I had observed: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a concept from game theory that explains how cooperation and trust either compound or collapse. When two parties cooperate, both benefit and trust grows. When one cheats while the other cooperates, the cheater prospers and the cooperator becomes the loser. When both are defective, everyone loses.

High-trust societies solve this dilemma by extending cooperation beyond family and tribe. Laws, institutions, and norms reinforce the idea that cheating ultimately harms everyone, including oneself. Low-trust societies work differently. Trust is reserved for kin. Outsiders are assumed to cheat. In that environment, cheating is not necessarily immoral. It is often rational, expected, and even applauded.

Seen through this lens, both my experience in Somalia and the Minnesota scandal follow the same pattern. Institutions cooperated in good faith. Clan-based networks exploited that trust. Children and taxpayers paid the price.

Somalia represents the most destructive version of this equilibrium. When trust does not extend beyond blood ties, cooperation cannot scale. Investment dries up. Contracts mean little without enforcement beyond kinship. When everyone expects everyone else to cheat, no one can afford to cooperate.

In that context, Somalia’s ranking of 213th out of 215 countries in per-capita income is not shocking. It is almost inevitable. This is not an indictment of individual Somalis. We know that many, many Somalis live honest, productive lives, raise families, and contribute positively wherever they reside. Individuals can transcend the cultures they are born into. Social systems, however, change slowly and are likely to shape behavior.

Somalia sits at the end of a continuum, but the underlying dynamic is not unique to it. Whenever loyalty to the group eclipses loyalty to shared rules, corruption flourishes. The Minnesota scandal was not an aberration so much as a warning: When institutions assume trust without enforcing it, low-trust behavior fills the vacuum. Somalia shows what happens when that low-trust approach is entrenched.

Mitzi Perdue is a fellow at the Institute of World Politics and the co-founder of Mental Help Global, a philanthropy that uses AI to support mental health.

Crowds of Canadian citizens stood in long lines across Alberta for hours this week to sign a petition for a referendum on leaving Canada – officially titled “A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence.”  The petition requires at least 177,000 signatures in order to trigger the referendum, which would ultimately decide if the province will separate.

Petitions have 120 days to collect the signatures needed.  Pro-separation groups say they could get as many as 1 million signatures, which would be a clear indication that Alberta will leave Canada.  Alberta’s population is currently 5 million people.

Some petition locations reported as many as 10,000 signatures in a day and the public response is described as “concerning” by critics who want to remain part of Canada’s “constitutional monarchy.”  Alberta is widely considered the most conservative province in the country and has been at odds with the far-left Canadian government (ruled by Ontario progressives). 

The referendum would mean a simply Yes/No question for voters on separation.  A majority (51% or more) would then lead to a legal process overseen by the Canadian federal government.  Come polls indicate that 60% of Albertan citizens are still opposed to the measure, however, the recent turnout for the petition suggests the tide is turning.  Recent conflicts with progressive elites in the Canadian government have driven Albertans to question their relationship. 

Alberta fought against the leftist government’s pandemic lockdowns, church and business closures and draconian vaccination requirements.  They remain in opposition to Canada’s new gun laws which are incrementally removing all firearms from private hands.  They have also been at odds with the federal government over resource development, energy policy, carbon taxation and economic marginalization. 

Essentially, Alberta is a different nation when compared to the Canadian norm.  It is also a commodity treasure trove that Canada exploits to feed its coffers while rarely giving anything back to provincial citizens. 

Wow, an absolute insane lineup of people – that goes entire city blocks – of people in Calgary waiting to sign a petition to make Alberta an independent sovereign nation. pic.twitter.com/HqB1xaJRs8

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 11, 2026

Canadian courts initially blocked a referendum question on separation, asserting that the implications of the question were too vague and did not align with constitutional requirements.  Instead of appealing the decision, Alberta turned to the legislature. Within days, the legislature passed Bill 14, amending the Referendum Act to remove the requirement that referendum questions align with the Constitution.  Separatists quickly got a revised referendum question approved, and the petition process resumed

Another obstacle to the separation is a lawsuit brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation goes far beyond provincial politics. The First Nation is seeking an urgent injunction to stop Alberta’s petition process.  They say a separation would be in violation of their original treaty with the Crown.  The claim sets up a possible loophole allowing the federal government to deny separation, but the notion that a Native treaty supersedes provincial law is rather thin.  Alberta’s separation would simply mean that the Cree would have to negotiate a new treaty.

Arguments against the referendum say that Alberta is “landlocked”, which would make its separation economically disastrous.  This is not entirely true.  Their shared border with the US and newfound sovereignty would allow the province to establish more significant oil pipelines (pipelines which the Canadian government has consistently blocked in the past).  This development along with greater resource exploration and an alliance with American interests would make Alberta one of the wealthiest regions in the western hemisphere.

Furthermore, Alberta stretches within 700 miles of the arctic, an area of the world which is quickly becoming central to geopolitics.  Early warning systems and NORAD bases in Alberta are integral to US security.  These bases could be shut down in the event that conflicts between Canada and the US escalate.  A free Alberta could become vital to US defense.

The debate over US ownership of Greenland is only one element of a larger global shift to the North.  Alberta’s exit from Canada and potential alliance with the US could have vast implications for international relations.       

Crowds of Canadian citizens stood in long lines across Alberta for hours this week to sign a petition for a referendum on leaving Canada – officially titled “A Referendum Relating to Alberta Independence.”  The petition requires at least 177,000 signatures in order to trigger the referendum, which would ultimately decide if the province will separate.

Petitions have 120 days to collect the signatures needed.  Pro-separation groups say they could get as many as 1 million signatures, which would be a clear indication that Alberta will leave Canada.  Alberta’s population is currently 5 million people.

Some petition locations reported as many as 10,000 signatures in a day and the public response is described as “concerning” by critics who want to remain part of Canada’s “constitutional monarchy.”  Alberta is widely considered the most conservative province in the country and has been at odds with the far-left Canadian government (ruled by Ontario progressives). 

The referendum would mean a simply Yes/No question for voters on separation.  A majority (51% or more) would then lead to a legal process overseen by the Canadian federal government.  Come polls indicate that 60% of Albertan citizens are still opposed to the measure, however, the recent turnout for the petition suggests the tide is turning.  Recent conflicts with progressive elites in the Canadian government have driven Albertans to question their relationship. 

Alberta fought against the leftist government’s pandemic lockdowns, church and business closures and draconian vaccination requirements.  They remain in opposition to Canada’s new gun laws which are incrementally removing all firearms from private hands.  They have also been at odds with the federal government over resource development, energy policy, carbon taxation and economic marginalization. 

Essentially, Alberta is a different nation when compared to the Canadian norm.  It is also a commodity treasure trove that Canada exploits to feed its coffers while rarely giving anything back to provincial citizens. 

Wow, an absolute insane lineup of people – that goes entire city blocks – of people in Calgary waiting to sign a petition to make Alberta an independent sovereign nation. pic.twitter.com/HqB1xaJRs8

— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 11, 2026

Canadian courts initially blocked a referendum question on separation, asserting that the implications of the question were too vague and did not align with constitutional requirements.  Instead of appealing the decision, Alberta turned to the legislature. Within days, the legislature passed Bill 14, amending the Referendum Act to remove the requirement that referendum questions align with the Constitution.  Separatists quickly got a revised referendum question approved, and the petition process resumed

Another obstacle to the separation is a lawsuit brought by the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation goes far beyond provincial politics. The First Nation is seeking an urgent injunction to stop Alberta’s petition process.  They say a separation would be in violation of their original treaty with the Crown.  The claim sets up a possible loophole allowing the federal government to deny separation, but the notion that a Native treaty supersedes provincial law is rather thin.  Alberta’s separation would simply mean that the Cree would have to negotiate a new treaty.

Arguments against the referendum say that Alberta is “landlocked”, which would make its separation economically disastrous.  This is not entirely true.  Their shared border with the US and newfound sovereignty would allow the province to establish more significant oil pipelines (pipelines which the Canadian government has consistently blocked in the past).  This development along with greater resource exploration and an alliance with American interests would make Alberta one of the wealthiest regions in the western hemisphere.

Furthermore, Alberta stretches within 700 miles of the arctic, an area of the world which is quickly becoming central to geopolitics.  Early warning systems and NORAD bases in Alberta are integral to US security.  These bases could be shut down in the event that conflicts between Canada and the US escalate.  A free Alberta could become vital to US defense.

The debate over US ownership of Greenland is only one element of a larger global shift to the North.  Alberta’s exit from Canada and potential alliance with the US could have vast implications for international relations.       

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With the fighting continue to rage and north and northeast Syria between central government forces and the nation’s Kurdish minority, the US government appears to have decided that they are backing the former, and that US military support for the Syrian Kurds is over.

US envoy Tom Barrack declared the Kurds to have a “great opportunity” to be taken over by the Islamist central government of Syria, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He assured that the Kurds would definitely be offered “equal rights” under the law in this scenario.

AFP/Getty Images

In many ways, Barrack’s comments were less about why they are no longer backing the Kurds than why they did in the past, saying at one point in the fight against ISIS, the US didn’t consider the Assad government a “viable partner” so they backed the Kurds instead. Now, with the US seeing the HTS as aligned with their interest, that’s no longer the case, so they’ll be backing the HTS instead.

Syrian Kurdish officials and locals have expressed disappointment with this turn of events, saying that after more than a decade of being aligned with the US they are being effectively “abandoned” at the exact moment the HTS has begun launching military offensives against Kurdish-controlled territory that the US helped the Kurds gain in the first place.

Though the US has broadly supported the Kurds through the Syrian proxy war and after, it has not been uniform. In 2019, Turkey launched an offensive against the Syrian Kurds and the Trump Administration at the time similarly (and controversially) withdrew backing for the Kurds, with President Trump famously claiming it was because he had just learned that the Kurds were not present at the Normandy Invasion during WW2.

This move may similarly be controversial, even if Normandy isn’t invoked as a justification this time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) had warned the HTS against continuing attacks on the Kurds and had warned that the US might reimpose sanctions against Syria if the attacks continued.

That position may have some support in the Senate, though it plainly does not within the White House, as President Trump has been loudly enamored with HTS leader and former al-Qaeda in Iraq figure Ahmed al-Sharaa, praising him as “young, attractive tough guy.” When push came to shove, it was perhaps unsurprising that the administration chose Sharaa over the Kurds when the two sides were at odds.

The US has been expressing annoyance with the Kurds for not quietly submitting to Sharaa’s rule for months now, with Barrack, as the representative of the US Federal Government, declaring that they had learned “federalism doesn’t work” and that the Kurds should abandon any hope of autonomy within Syria.

Sharaa, for his part, has given the Kurds a four-day ultimatum to accept his terms for integration into the Syrian state. Since Sharaa had previously denied the Kurds a single spot in his cabinet and postponed parliamentary elections in Kurdish parts of the country, what if any representation that will actually entail remains unclear.

I am sorry to say I can confirm this https://t.co/1dP0yp2C1O

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

Whatever it is, however, the US clearly views it as sufficient.

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With the fighting continue to rage and north and northeast Syria between central government forces and the nation’s Kurdish minority, the US government appears to have decided that they are backing the former, and that US military support for the Syrian Kurds is over.

US envoy Tom Barrack declared the Kurds to have a “great opportunity” to be taken over by the Islamist central government of Syria, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He assured that the Kurds would definitely be offered “equal rights” under the law in this scenario.

AFP/Getty Images

In many ways, Barrack’s comments were less about why they are no longer backing the Kurds than why they did in the past, saying at one point in the fight against ISIS, the US didn’t consider the Assad government a “viable partner” so they backed the Kurds instead. Now, with the US seeing the HTS as aligned with their interest, that’s no longer the case, so they’ll be backing the HTS instead.

Syrian Kurdish officials and locals have expressed disappointment with this turn of events, saying that after more than a decade of being aligned with the US they are being effectively “abandoned” at the exact moment the HTS has begun launching military offensives against Kurdish-controlled territory that the US helped the Kurds gain in the first place.

Though the US has broadly supported the Kurds through the Syrian proxy war and after, it has not been uniform. In 2019, Turkey launched an offensive against the Syrian Kurds and the Trump Administration at the time similarly (and controversially) withdrew backing for the Kurds, with President Trump famously claiming it was because he had just learned that the Kurds were not present at the Normandy Invasion during WW2.

This move may similarly be controversial, even if Normandy isn’t invoked as a justification this time. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC) had warned the HTS against continuing attacks on the Kurds and had warned that the US might reimpose sanctions against Syria if the attacks continued.

That position may have some support in the Senate, though it plainly does not within the White House, as President Trump has been loudly enamored with HTS leader and former al-Qaeda in Iraq figure Ahmed al-Sharaa, praising him as “young, attractive tough guy.” When push came to shove, it was perhaps unsurprising that the administration chose Sharaa over the Kurds when the two sides were at odds.

The US has been expressing annoyance with the Kurds for not quietly submitting to Sharaa’s rule for months now, with Barrack, as the representative of the US Federal Government, declaring that they had learned “federalism doesn’t work” and that the Kurds should abandon any hope of autonomy within Syria.

Sharaa, for his part, has given the Kurds a four-day ultimatum to accept his terms for integration into the Syrian state. Since Sharaa had previously denied the Kurds a single spot in his cabinet and postponed parliamentary elections in Kurdish parts of the country, what if any representation that will actually entail remains unclear.

I am sorry to say I can confirm this https://t.co/1dP0yp2C1O

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

Whatever it is, however, the US clearly views it as sufficient.

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” – a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms – could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026

Justice Jackson has never distinguished herself on the bench for her bright legal mind, but it was frankly remarkable to see her treating some of the most overtly racist laws in American history as potentially valid reference points for modern gun control.