Authored by Dylan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

The California Department of Insurance announced on May 4 it filed an enforcement action against State Farm, alleging the company significantly mishandled claims from survivors of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires.

“Wildfire survivors came to us for help, and we followed the facts,” Insurance Department Commissioner Ricardo Lara said.

“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives. That is unacceptable, and we are taking decisive action to hold them accountable.”

The Palisades Fire and the nearby Eaton Fire, which ignited in Altadena, California, on Jan. 7, 2025, claimed around 30 lives and destroyed more than 12,000 structures.

The Insurance Department said that State Farm received approximately 11,300 of the nearly 39,000 claims related to the Los Angeles wildfires filed across all insurers, and that Lara launched an investigation into the insurance company in June 2025 after the department heard many complaints.

According to the department, it examined 220 of the claims filed with State Farm and found a total of 398 violations in 114 of those claims.

These violations consisted of “slow and inadequate investigation” through failing to meet deadlines in investigating claims, accepting or denying claims, and providing notice for additional time.

The Insurance Department also alleged that State Farm made unreasonably low settlement offers and underpaid claims.

This enforcement action seeks millions of dollars in penalties, which the department said is the largest amount pursued this century relating to a wildfire disaster.

The department also wants State Farm to speed up payments and settle outstanding claims.

The property lines of homes burned during the Palisades Fire are visible in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

State Farm denied any mishandling or intentional underpaying of wildfire claims and said the violations the Insurance Department identified require only about $40,000 in additional payments beyond the more than $5.7 billion it has paid to those affected by the fires.

“California’s homeowners insurance market is the most dysfunctional in the country … the state is facing an availability and affordability crisis, and the California Department of Insurance should take responsibility for regulatory delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers,” the company said in its statement.

State Farm said it strongly disagrees with the department’s characterization of the company, and that any prospect or threat to suspend its licensing over “primarily administrative and procedural errors” is a reckless and politically motivated attack.

“Using a thin sample of claims to justify sweeping allegations turns regulatory oversight into a political weapon, creating headlines instead of delivering facts and real consumer protection. [The department’s examination] was based on a sample of 220 files, and most of the issues cited were administrative or process-related,” State Farm said.

The insurance company said every issue identified has already been, or is being addressed through claim reviews, and that it will provide supplemental payments when appropriate.

The same day, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement warning insurance companies they may be subject to state enforcement actions if they unlawfully delay or deny claims from survivors of the Los Angeles fires.

In November 2025, Los Angeles County launched its own investigation into State Farm’s handling of insurance claims.

“The County has heard loud and clear from wildfire survivors that State Farm’s delays are standing in the way of rebuilding. Fair and timely insurance payments aren’t a privilege; they’re a right,” Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Kathryn Barger said.

On March 31, President Donald Trump also weighed in on the situation, saying State Farm and other insurers should “get their act together” after meeting with California politicians and hearing about the difficulties the wildfire victims faced in their insurance claims.

“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

New York is taking direct aim at the city’s ultra-wealthy absentee owners. In a major policy shift announced Thursday, Governor Kathy Hochul and state legislative leaders reached a framework agreement on a $268 billion state budget that includes a new annual tax on multimillion-dollar second homes in New York City – a move designed to generate roughly $500 million a year to help close the city’s projected $5.4 billion budget deficit.

The proposal, often called a “pied-à-terre” tax (French for “foot on the ground”), would apply to luxury properties valued at $5 million or more that are owned by people whose primary residence is outside New York City. These high-end apartments and townhouses – frequently used only a few weeks a year by global elites, celebrities, and finance executives – have long been criticized as under-taxed symbols of inequality in one of the world’s most expensive housing markets.

“This is a tax on properties worth more than $5 million that are owned by people who do not reside in New York City – the super wealthy who can purchase properties and use them to store their wealth,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in support of the plan. “If you can afford a $5 million second home that sits empty most of the year, you can afford to contribute like every other New Yorker.”

Hochul’s Political Pivot

The tax represents a notable evolution for Governor Hochul. For years she resisted aggressive wealth taxes, warning they could drive businesses and high-net-worth residents out of the state. But after Zohran Mamdani – a 34-year-old democratic socialist and state assemblymember – won the New York City mayoral race in November 2025 in a stunning upset, the political math changed.

With Mamdani pushing an ambitious progressive agenda (including universal pre-K and 3-K) and with federal funding cuts looming under the Trump administration, Hochul agreed to the second-home surcharge as part of a broader budget deal. The revenue would flow directly to New York City, according to the NY Times. 

Hochul framed the tax as both fiscally necessary and morally fair:

“If you can afford a multi-million dollar second home in New York City, you can afford to pay your fair share.”

Details Still Being Finalized

While the framework has been agreed to in principle, key specifics remain under negotiation. Hochul said she would release more details “soon,” including exact rates, exemptions, and how many of the roughly 13,000 eligible properties would actually be taxed. Legislative leaders cautioned that the governor’s announcement was premature.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said Thursday that no final deal had been reached and that “there is no budget deal.” Senate Democratic spokesman Mike Murphy described the agreement as covering only “big concepts.”

Carl Heastie, the Assembly speaker, cautioned that no deal had been finalized, calling the governor’s announcement premature.Credit…Cindy Schultz for The New York Times

Still, the direction is clear: New York is joining a growing number of jurisdictions (including parts of Europe and several U.S. cities) that are experimenting with higher taxes on non-primary residences to fund public services amid housing shortages and affordability crises.

The second-home tax is just one piece of a wide-ranging budget that also includes:

$4.5 billion to expand child care statewide – a key priority for Mayor Mamdani.
Delays to the state’s aggressive climate targets under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (pushing full implementation to 2028 and adjusting methane calculations).
New restrictions on federal immigration enforcement, including barring ICE agents from wearing masks and limiting cooperation between local police and federal agents.
A cap on certain auto insurance payouts and speed-limiting devices for chronic “super-speeders” in New York City school zones.
A state-level exemption on up to $25,000 in tips for many workers (mirroring federal changes) and $1 billion in utility bill rebates.

Political and Economic Stakes

Republicans immediately attacked the package. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, Hochul’s likely Republican opponent in November’s gubernatorial race, called the budget a “triple threat to your wallet: more taxes, record spending, and a utility bill crisis.”

Environmental groups criticized the climate deadline extensions as a retreat, while trial lawyers and consumer advocates expressed concern that auto insurance changes could limit compensation for crash victims.

For Hochul – who is seeking re-election – the deal allows her to claim credit for delivering on affordability and child care while showing political flexibility in partnering with the city’s new progressive mayor. For Mamdani, it marks an early victory in his effort to make the ultra-wealthy “pay their fair share.”

The budget must still be finalized and passed by the Legislature. Details on the second-home tax rates and implementation are expected in the coming days.

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times,

In the coming academic year, old-fashioned calisthenics, timed runs, and the spirit of competition could return to many public schools.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a proclamation restoring the Presidential Fitness Test Awards, which date to the mid-20th century but ended under President Barack Obama’s administration. The May 5 White House action is a follow-up to the July executive order re-establishing the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.

This proclamation, which also recognizes May as National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, affirms the nation’s commitment to fitness and competition ahead of America’s 250th birthday and the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which the United States is cohosting with Canada and Mexico.

“Working alongside world-class professional athletes, major league organizations, teams, schools, and communities across our country, we are ushering in a new Golden Age of physical fitness—expanding access to wellness for every American, promoting the many benefits of exercise and good nutrition, supporting youth sports, and celebrating a culture of strength, vitality, and excellence,” the proclamation reads.

“I call upon public officials, sports educators, athletes, and all the people of the United States to get involved in sports and physical activity, especially our nation’s youth.”

Here’s what to know.

Push-Ups and Pull-Ups

The Presidential Fitness program, which benefits students ages 10 to 17, has changed over the years. It has existed since 1956, beginning with President Dwight Eisenhower, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website.

The test has timed runs to measure endurance, the sit-and-reach challenge to measure lower body flexibility, push-ups and pull-ups or curl-ups to measure upper body strength, and a timed shuttle run challenge that assesses quickness and agility as the participant sprints and pivots in different directions to pick up cones.

The benchmarks vary based on age and sex.

In the past, and with this re-implementation, high performers could be recognized by school district, state, and nationally.

The format of the program changed in recent years to emphasize participation and downplay the competitive aspect, but the test component remained in several states, including New York, for the purpose of assessing whether seventh- and eighth graders were fit enough to safely compete in high school sports.

The benchmarks, along with an image of a certificate of excellence signed by Trump that would be awarded to high performers, were recently posted on the White House website.

A 6-year-old girl, for example, could earn that certificate by remaining in a plank position for 71 seconds, performing two pull-ups or nine push-ups, and running one mile in 11 minutes and 20 seconds.

A 17-year-old boy would need to hold the plank position for 156 seconds, perform 13 pull-ups or 53 push-ups, and run one mile in six minutes and six seconds, according to the chart.

Competition Debate

Obama ended the fitness test in 2012, replacing the competitive elements with a national curriculum for health and the benefits of physical activity. He also called for the inclusion of disabled students and nutrition education and renamed the program the Presidential Youth Fitness Program.

Trump did not restore the test during his first term.

Biden also did not make any changes to Obama’s initiative. His only noted activity for the program was a “One Lacrosse Gathering Celebration” at the National Mall to recognize the Native American roots of lacrosse. Professional players provided a skills clinic to youth participants, who also learned about Native American culture and “indigenous foods and ingredients,” according to the Health and Human Services website.

The program had enjoyed significant growth through the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.

In 1985, President Ronald Regan initiated a data collection system to compare past results. Two decades later, President George W. Bush established the Fitness.gov website and launched the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award, which also recognized sports participation and the health benefits of physical activity.

“I think it’s very unfortunate that President Obama and President Biden abandoned it,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the May 5 signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

“He said competition is not good for kids, which is not true. If we’re going to be competitive internationally, we need to be competitive with each other. We need to teach people how to win and how to lose, and how to process victory and defeat.”

Added Trump: “We’re bringing it back. My administration is working very hard to defend America’s cherished athletic traditions and pass our values of excellence and competitiveness to the next generation.”

Michigan State University researchers criticized Trump’s initiative, calling the fitness test “demoralizing for many.”

“Kids don’t want to be embarrassed or have negative memories,” Spyridoula Vazou, an associate professor in MSU’s kinesiology department, said in a January report on the school’s website. “They don’t want to feel that they’re the worst.”

Obesity in Children

More than 21 percent of American youngsters ages 2 to 19 are obese, a nearly 500 percent increase since the 1970s. Severe obesity rates, meanwhile, have increased sevenfold in the past half century, with 7 percent of children now falling in that category, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

An April 28 report from that agency indicated that only five states have mandated federal recommendations for 150 minutes of weekly physical education for students in grades K-5, and 37 states require less than 60 minutes per week.

As for fitness testing, 24 states have no requirements. Eleven states recommend it, but only three require fitness tests annually. Only 16 states require some district oversight for fitness testing, but most don’t provide any enforcement measures, according to the report.

“For the Presidential Fitness Test to provide a meaningful lever for youth public health promotion and surveillance, systematic state policy reform and resulting school-level physical education infrastructure changes are necessary,” the report concludes.

What’s Next

U.S. public schools begin the 2026–2027 academic year in August or September.

Trump’s proclamation and prior executive order on the fitness test strongly encourage state and district participation but stop short of mandating it.

Many states and school districts are still awaiting federal guidance on implementation. Still, some leaders embraced the concept and took their own initiative to bolster fitness in schools.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, for example, issued an Oct. 30 executive order re-establishing the Presidential Fitness Test in schools ahead of the 2026–2027 academic year.

“Students across the country are spending far too much time sitting around looking at screens and eating too much highly processed junk food,” Reeves said in a news release. “We know that obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and poor nutrition lead to more negative health outcomes.

“If we want more healthy adults in our society, it’s important that we encourage students to be physically active and educate them on healthy eating habits. Mississippi will do its part to build a healthier America.”

The Tennessee Legislature and Gov. Bill Lee ratified a similar law earlier this spring. It supplements previous legislation that increased recess time from 15 minutes to 40 minutes per day. More physical activity in schools is needed, lawmakers said, considering that about 40 percent of children in the Volunteer State are overweight.

“Tennessee is setting the standard by helping students become healthier and more successful,” said Rep. Scott Cepicky, a Republican.

“This proposal is a critical component of our continued efforts to improve academic outcomes by promoting active lifestyles and a balanced diet.”

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity.news,

The Trump administration continues its aggressive push to root out waste and abuse in federal entitlement programs, exposing yet another layer of systemic fraud thriving in Gavin Newsom’s California. 

A new investigation highlights a single attending physician whose National Provider Identifier was tied to 17 different hospice operations in the Los Angeles area. 

These entities filed more than 3,000 claims on behalf of only 900 patients, billing Medicare for $16 million.

🚨 GAVIN NEWSOM JUST GOT CAUGHT ALLOWING EVEN MORE FRAUD

This “hospice” provider PANICKED when the reporter came up and exposed:

“[They] filed more than 3,000 claims for 900 patients, billing Medicare for $16 MILLION DOLLARS.” 🤯

“Anything over 100 patients at a given time… pic.twitter.com/vTNwyZ3MLR

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 5, 2026

Hospice care expert Ira Byock laid out the red flags clearly: “Anything over 100 patients at a given time that you have responsibility for as a hospice physician should start to raise red flags.”

This case fits the broader pattern of exploitation that federal authorities under the Trump administration have targeted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, led by Dr. Mehmet Oz, recently delisted around 450 suspected fraudulent hospice providers in Los Angeles County, suspending more than $600 million in questionable claims with no appeals filed.

Oz’s spotlighted billions in hospice fraud connected to foreign mafias and welfare scams that victimized seniors:

These revelations build directly on prior exposures of California’s entrenched fraud networks. As we previously detailed, the Trump administration dismantled elements of a sprawling $146 billion Medi-Cal fraud operation: 

California Democrats have responded by attempting to criminalize the very act of exposing such schemes, as independent journalist Nick Shirley confronted them over proposed measures that would silence watchdogs: 

The on-the-ground reporting captured providers panicking when approached. Doors closed quickly. Seniors in Visalia described feeling deceived. One couple stated plainly: “The way I see it we were just taken in.”

Neither the physician in question nor the associated hospice operation has faced discipline or charges in this latest instance. Both remain active in the Medicare program. This lack of immediate consequences underscores the inertia that oversight under Trump is now confronting head-on.

State officials have pointed out that Medicare is a federal program and highlighted their own enforcement actions, including a $267 million hospice fraud takedown announced in April. Yet the persistence of these schemes in Los Angeles County—home to far more hospice providers than many entire states—reveals deep vulnerabilities that predated the current federal pressure.

The Trump administration’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud is delivering results by acting decisively, protecting taxpayers and vulnerable Americans from networks that treat end-of-life care as a revenue stream. Newsom’s deflection cannot obscure the reality: California’s entitlement systems have operated with minimal accountability for too long.

Billions have been siphoned while seniors were enrolled without full understanding and providers cycled patients for maximum billing. The sunlight now being shone on these operations marks a decisive shift from previous neglect.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Texas city that had a Muslim-only celebration scheduled at a city-owned water park has said that the event would be canceled.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to the media at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 22, 2025. Eric Gay/AP Photo

“After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1 Eid event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled. No additional comment will be made at this time,” said Eric Alvarez, spokesman for the city of Grand Prairie.

Aminah Knight, the organizer of the event, said she was “deeply disappointed” by the event being canceled and had only been informed by a park manager.

“What began as a private event for the Muslim community to celebrate Eid in a joyful and modest environment became something much bigger than I ever imagined,” she said in a text message to The Epoch Times. “The flyer was originally shared within private community spaces, but it was later circulated more broadly by people who were not interested in attending, but rather in creating division and controversy.”

Knight said she is going to turn what she called a “painful experience” into “something beautiful” and will host an interfaith event called “The Great American Cookout” on July 4. She said the event would be a place “where people from different backgrounds can come together, connect, and truly get to know one another as Americans.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to pull $530,000 in state funding if the city of Grand Prairie allowed the celebration to go on.

The event was to celebrate Eid al-Adha, an annual Islamic celebration, and was promoted as being for only Muslims. While the city of Grand Prairie owns the water park, a private third-party contractor runs it.

“A city-owned water park in Grand Prairie openly advertised a ‘MUSLIMS ONLY’ event—closed to the general public,” Abbott posted on X on Wednesday. “That’s religious discrimination. It’s unconstitutional. I signed HB 4211 into law—banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas. The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants. Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.”

The city, prior to the cancellation, posted a message on its website.

“The City of Grand Prairie is aware of concerns that have been expressed about an upcoming private event at Epic Waters,” the statement reads. “The City has been in contact with the Epic Waters management team to ensure all policies and procedures have been followed. Epic Waters is owned by the City and managed by a third-party operator. Like other City-owned facilities, it is available for rental by individuals and organizations.”

Alvarez said earlier Wednesday in an email to The Epoch Times that the city reached out to Abbott’s office and was in discussions with the state government regarding the matter.

The third-party contractor did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Knight posted on the event’s website, “So if you are a friend of a different faith who wants to celebrate the Eid holiday with us and adhere to the modest dress code … this event is FOR YOU TOO!”

Knight continued: “DFW Epic Eid is a privately organized and privately funded event held through a standard rental of Epic Waters, just like many other private gatherings hosted at the park. This event was created to celebrate Eid al-Adha, one of the most important holidays in Islam, which commemorates faith, devotion, and gratitude. … In response to feedback, we have updated our materials to clearly reflect that this is a modest dress-only event, centered around a respectful and family-friendly environment.”

Mitch Little, a Republican Texas state representative, said in a video posted on Facebook that he learned the “Muslim-only” event had been held two previous times.

“I think this is a very serious civil rights violation that is going on here,” Little said in the video. “If you are making a public accommodation, whether it is a restaurant or a hotel or an entertainment venue like Epic Waters, you’re not permitted to exclude people on the basis of race, religion, etc. I think people are locally shocked at what is going on here.”

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

There are still some Trump supporters out there who continue to bill the Trump administration as some kind of great victory for the forces of populism against the “deep state.” A year into the second Trump administration, it is clear this is not a serious position. The populism of the Trump campaign has clearly failed and what we ended up with instead is a continuation and strengthening of the status quo. Over the next three years of this second Trump term, the welfare-warfare state will only get larger. Trump now actively pushes to strengthen the surveillance state, and to massively increase overall defense spending. He points to some miniscule trimming around the edges of the welfare state while overall spending continues to rise and federal deficits are near all-time highs. In turn, these huge deficits will require central-bank intervention to partly monetize the debt, pushing up price inflation. 

Far from being some sort of shock to the system in Washington, Trump is governing largely like a business-as-usual Republican. In other words, it should be abundantly obvious by now that there is not going to be anything coming out of this administration that will endanger the governing elites or their institutions which retain a firm grip on Washington institutions and the special interests that drive policy. 

This is apparently the best that the “militant” populists could come up with: yet another milquetoast republican administration that will ensure the gravy train continues for politically favored allies. This administration is basically just a Marco Rubio administration with some “mean tweets” thrown in for color. 

The populist “victory” of the Trump administration is perhaps the best evidence yet that a strategy of “vote harder” is simply not going to lead to any significant change of any kind. After all, the media, academia, and even the GOP’s old guard fought tooth and nail to keep Trump out of the White House. And in the end, it was much ado about nothing. Now, just imagine if someone ran for the presidency who actually opposed the regime’s power on principle. That person would simply not be allowed to get the nomination, let alone win. 

So, there won’t be any viable candidates who will actually tear down the federal state through legal or constitutional means. That will not be permitted via any federal election. The logic of the welfare state, moreover, ensures that no candidate can hope to get elected while also favoring significant cuts to defense spending, old-age pensions, or any of the beloved federal programs that support millions of Americans on the dole, such as pensioners and government contractors. 

The only way significant change comes to this tightly constructed system of patrons and clients will be via a significant crisis that disrupts standards of living. This must be severe enough that it shakes the population’s faith in the regime to the point that people actually begin to question the state’s legitimacy. Only when real economic pain is felt will there be any real change. So long as the most of the population feels comfortable enough with an ample supply of Doordash and pornography and reality TV, the system will be deemed to be working “well enough.” 

Eventually, however, the ruling elite, through either miscalculation or laziness or complacency, will no longer be able to deliver on its promises to guarantee ease, safety, and “free” goods and services for a growing population on the dole. Once the elites become unable to buy compliance from the population, the regime will turn to brute force. This, however, can only last as long as the ruling elites are able to draw upon loyal personnel in large enough numbers as to be able to force obedience from the general population. This is easier said than done, especially in a period of economic stagnation or decline. The Soviet Union is a key example. In 1989, when the Soviet Government was crumbling, the Soviet Regime still commanded six million personnel in military uniform. But when the regime tried to shore up control, that enormous military proved to be largely AWOL and of little use. 

But then what? Once the ruling elite and its regime cease to be seen as legitimate, and once the usual methods of control fail, what is the next step? Unfortunately, the next step is usually to simply replace the outgoing group of governing elites with a new group. This is the usual progression of events. Uprisings turn into civil wars and civil wars turn into contests over who will control the state’s enormous apparatus of coercion. The French revolution is perhaps the quintessential cautionary tale here. The revolutionaries won with lavish promises of freedom and “rule by the people.” Yet, there is no such thing as rule “by the people,” and there never has been. Any polity that is more complex than a tribal village ultimately ends up with the civil government in the hands of a relatively small elite.

What usually happens is this: the state and most of its powers endure, but under new management. As the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto put it: “The revolution at the end of the eighteenth century led merely to the bourgeoisie taking the place of the old elite.”  Pareto further notes that in the wake of a revolution, the population discovers “they have merely exchanged yokes.”

This will be the ultimate end game of every scheme hatched by those who imagine themselves to be anti-regime radicals, but who ultimately want nothing more than to keep the state fully in tact and use it to their own ends. And make no mistake, the power will be used to benefit the small new class of governing elites, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers. Whatever rhetoric may be used about serving “the people” will be nothing more than window dressing designed to trick unsophisticated non-elites into supporting the new regime. 

Whether from the Left or the Right, this type of centralist “revolutions” will provide no escape from the endless cycle of replacing one set of elites with another, and which characterizes much of human history which is, Pareto writes, “a graveyard of aristocracies.” Again and again, we find that the “liberators” are doing little more than replacing the people’s current yoke with a slightly different one.

Consequently, the only hope in providing any truly limiting factors on state power will be the dismemberment of the state into smaller and weaker pieces. It will be necessary to check power with power through true decentralization. This is why the Soviet state never re-emerged under a new name with similar prerogatives. Thanks largely to the centrifugal forces of latent nationalism within the various republics of the Soviet Union, the new Russian elite that replaced the old Soviet elite was unable to maintain the “union.” The result has been greatly beneficial to many of the former Soviet republics—especially the Baltic states—and to the old states of the Warsaw Pact which were informally under the boot of the Soviet regime.   In other words, the dismemberment of the Soviet State, through a variety of de jure and de facto secession movements, accomplished what would not have been through simply placing a new elite atop the Soviet state. 

Similarly, the American revolution, which was primarily a movement to secede from the British state, created a highly decentralized new “state” which possessed few of the powers of the old regime.

We can conclude that any American who actually values human freedom—and its necessary antecedent, the weakening of the central state—will desire a similar dismemberment of the United States. After all, as the French revolution showed us, it is not enough to simply transfer the regime from the hands of one elite to another. Rather, radical decentralization, via secession and other means, will have to take place in order to create new power centers and new elites that can push back against the established elites and power centers of the rump state. Only when power is allowed to check power will there be any meaningful institutional limits on state power. 

Yet, for the foreseeable future, we are likely to hear over and over again that the only acceptable “strategy” is to embrace elections and party politics. This is the “vote harder” argument. The usual “reformers” prefer this because voting, from the perspective of the regime, is harmless and quite ineffective in mounting any sort of meaningful opposition to the core powers and institutions of the state and its elites. Moreover, even in the highly unlikely event that elections were able to bring about any significant replacement of the current elite, this would only leave the current centralized state and its institutions intact, with only a change in those who control the means of exploitation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

A few short weeks ago House Democrats were riding high. They had spent tens of millions to win a Virginia referendum that promised up to four new seats. President Trump was struggling in the polls. The path to a House majority looked plausible.

Yet in the span of roughly two weeks, a combination of aggressive Republican redistricting and a pivotal Supreme Court decision has dramatically altered the battlefield. What was once a Democratic advantage has become a steep uphill climb. Republicans are now positioned to gain as many as 10 to 14 seats through map changes alone – enough to transform a narrow 217–212 majority into something much more durable.

Supreme Spark

The turning point was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The decision effectively curtailed the use of race in drawing congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For Democrats, who had long relied on VRA protections to create majority-minority districts in the South, the ruling was a gut punch. For Republicans, it was an opening.

Southern states with Republican trifectas moved with remarkable speed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a map that could eliminate four Democratic seats. Alabama called a special session to redraw its map with the goal of flipping two Democratic districts and giving the GOP all seven seats. Tennessee targeted the lone Democratic stronghold in Memphis. Louisiana, South Carolina, and even Mississippi began exploring ways to eliminate their remaining Democratic representatives.

Republican Redistricting Surge

Here’s a clear breakdown of the Republican-led redistricting efforts and their potential impact:

Here’s the updated version with black text in the header (since the black background is being locked out):

State
Current GOP Seats
Potential Change
Status / Notes
Florida
20 of 28
+4
Map signed by Gov. DeSantis. Multiple lawsuits pending.
Texas
24 of 37
+5
New map approved by Supreme Court. Most aggressive early move.
Alabama
5 of 7
+2 (aiming for 7–0)
Special session called. Targeting Reps. Figures and possibly Sewell.
Tennessee
8 of 9
+1 (targeting Rep. Steve Cohen)
Special session underway. Memphis seat in crosshairs.
Louisiana
4 of 6
+2 (aiming for 6–0)
Redrawing after SCOTUS ruling. Primary delayed.
South Carolina
6 of 7
+1 (targeting Rep. Jim Clyburn)
Considering new map to eliminate Clyburn’s deep-blue seat.
North Carolina
7 of 14
+1
New map approved; flips one Democratic seat.
Mississippi
3 of 4
+1 (targeting Rep. Bennie Thompson)
Gov. Reeves considering it — most likely for 2028.

Total Potential Republican Gains: 10–14 seats

Democrats have tried to mount a counteroffensive in states where they still hold power, but their efforts have been more limited and face greater legal headwinds. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 last year, a Democratic-drawn map designed to net the party five additional seats – though the map is now under legal challenge following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. Virginia appeared to deliver one of Democrats’ biggest victories when voters approved a redistricting referendum on April 21 that could give the party as many as four new seats – potentially 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, that victory is now in serious jeopardy after a Virginia judge ruled the referendum invalid just one day later, nullifying the results. Efforts in New York to flip the state’s lone Republican seat were blocked by the Supreme Court, while proposed maps in Maryland and Illinois have either been rejected by Democratic lawmakers or paused over legal concerns. Utah remains a rare bright spot for Democrats, where a court-imposed map could add one seat. Overall, Democratic gains have proven far more fragile and uncertain than the aggressive Republican advances in the South.

Democratic Counter-Moves

Democrats have not been passive. They’ve pursued their own aggressive strategies where they hold power:

State
Current Dem Seats
Potential Change
Status / Notes
California
13 of 52
+5
Proposition 50 passed by voters. Now facing lawsuits after SCOTUS ruling.
Virginia
6 of 11
+4 (could reach 10 of 11)
Voter-approved referendum. Major uncertainty — Virginia Supreme Court may strike it down.
Utah
1 of 4
+1
Court rejected GOP map and imposed a new one drawn by a centrist group.
New York
15 of 26
Limited / blocked
Attempt to flip Staten Island’s GOP seat blocked by SCOTUS. Now pushing to amend state constitution.
Maryland
7 of 8
None
Gov. Moore’s map rejected by Democratic legislature over legal concerns.
Illinois
14 of 17
None (paused)
Proposed race-based amendment paused after SCOTUS decision.

Bottom Line

Republicans currently hold a clear structural advantage, especially across the South, where they control the process in multiple states, while Democratic gains are more limited and face greater legal uncertainty (particularly in Virginia and California). Virginia remains the single biggest near-term variable for Democrats. If the court overturns the referendum, their path to a House majority becomes significantly harder.

A potential 10-to-14 seat Republican gain would be significant. In a chamber this closely divided, it could mean the difference between a fragile majority and comfortable control heading into 2028.

Yet, the devil is in the details (including election-related malarkey). Even the most skillfully drawn maps can be overwhelmed by national political tides. If the economy weakens, if President Trump’s approval ratings remain low, or if a major scandal erupts, some of these newly Republican-leaning districts could still flip. Conversely, a strong Republican environment would amplify the advantages of these new maps.

So for now, the momentum belongs to Republicans, but the situation remains fluid. Multiple maps face lawsuits, Virginia’s fate is uncertain, and candidate recruitment and national conditions could still reshape the battlefield.

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Dana White touched some nerves this week when he mocked modern concerns over toxic masculinity and warned that society is increasingly pushing young men aside.

Cue the shrieks in 3…2…1…0

White’s broader point, however, resonated with millions of Americans who see young men struggling socially, economically, and emotionally while much of modern culture (read: feminazis) treats masculinity itself like a behavior problem needing correction.

White appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, where the host and wife of Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, asked him about the state of young men and women in America today. 

DANA WHITE: “When you’re a man, you are the provider. You are the one that that takes care of your family. You are the example for your kids when they grow up and your sons, and your daughters.

“You can’t be that guy that I see posting on social media. Oh, I had a bad day, and… pic.twitter.com/3P1M8GsTZY

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) May 5, 2026

White went on to argue that young men are struggling with a wildly different set of circumstances than the ones he grew up with.

“Times are changing from when I was young,” he said. “These young men, I think, you know, we went through COVID and the whole woke era and all the weird s— that went on during that period. A lot of the young males felt displaced.”

The UFC president noted that he often gets accused of outlandish things like “being the head of the manosphere, whatever that means” and of “toxic masculinity.”

Around 12 years ago, I ran into such a proud feminist who started to rip me a new one because I held a door open for her. I let her go for about five seconds before laying some truth on her, saying, “You know who taught me to hold a door for women? My mother, the strongest person I’ve ever known.”

It stopped her cold. Maybe because of what I said, but I really think it’s because of how I said it. My guess was that she was used to rolling over men trying to be polite.

For years, political activists, academics, and media commentators have used phrases like “toxic masculinity” to describe aggressive, destructive, or antisocial male behavior.

So when White opines on what manhood supposedly is or isn’t, it offers insight into the perspective of some men in the MAGA movement, which is deeply obsessed with performative masculinity. That’s why I found it pitiful to see him publicly berating men who openly discuss their mental health.

White delivered his commentary, fittingly, on the podcast of MAGA influencer Katie Miller, who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. White, after saying it’s a “man’s job” to make sure a woman feels “safe” and is “treated right,” admitted that his idea of masculinity is “toxic” and railed against men who talk about their feelings

And that’s fair; real abuse, violence, and recklessness deserve criticism regardless of gender.

Problems start when the conversation expands so broadly that ordinary masculine traits begin falling under suspicion too. Competitiveness becomes dangerous, stoicism becomes unhealthy, physical toughness becomes outdated, and leadership becomes problematic.

Even fatherhood sometimes gets discussed less as a social necessity and more as an optional accessory.

Young men notice.

Many of them also notice who usually delivers the lectures. Discussions surrounding masculinity often happen in universities, activist circles, corporate HR departments, entertainment panels, and political spaces where traditional male culture receives little respect.

Blue-collar values, physical labor, risk-taking, hunting, mechanical trades, competitive sports, and military service were, for years, increasingly viewed through a skeptical culture lens instead of being treated as honorable parts of society.

White’s comments gained traction partly because he works inside one of the few major industries where unapologetic masculinity still openly exists. The UFC built an audience around discipline, competition, toughness, accountability, and merit. Fighters either win or lose, and excuses carry little value once the cage door closes.

Many cultural leaders still respond by doubling down on criticism instead of asking why so many young men feel disconnected from institutions increasingly dominated by ideological messaging. 

Could it be that those institutions have been increasingly hostile in their ideological messaging?

Our entertainment industry has talked about empowering nearly every demographic group imaginable, while conversations involving boys and men frequently center around correction, privilege, or danger.

White argued that society risks creating a generation of displaced young men searching for identity and purpose. Recent political trends suggest he may have found something. President Donald Trump made major gains among younger male voters during the 2024 election cycle, especially among working-class men frustrated with cultural hostility toward traditional masculinity.

Not every criticism of masculinity is unfair; plenty of destructive male behavior exists. Every society needs standards involving responsibility, self-control, and respect. Yet healthy masculinity historically built families, defended nations, worked dangerous jobs, and carried enormous physical burdens most people preferred avoiding.

Society heavily depends on those traits today, even while portions of “elite” culture mock them.

White’s critics often frame masculinity discussions as a battle between progress and backwardness.

If you’re considering looking to White for lessons on manhood or mental health, consider that this is a person who was recorded slapping his wife in public in 2023 (White said afterward, “I’ve been against this. I’ve owned this. I’m telling you that I’m wrong” but faced no repercussions) and said he had “almost no feelings about” the death of his parents, from whom he was estranged.

And yet, there he was on Miller’s podcast, lecturing American men on how they should ignore their feelings and make women feel “safe.” 

A man discussing his feelings or openly referencing his mental health issues obviously doesn’t preclude him from providing or being present for his loved ones. It’s suggestions to the contrary that contribute to the men’s mental health crisis, which people like White seem to want us all to ignore.

Many ordinary Americans instead see fathers coaching Little League, mechanics fixing engines, linemen restoring power after storms, soldiers serving overseas, and construction workers building homes. Most don’t view those men as threats to society.

Fighter culture understands something modern politics often forgets: young men usually respond better to purpose than humiliation. They want challenge, respect, direction, and responsibility. Constantly framing masculinity itself as suspicious leaves many entirely tuning out.

Ironically, the furious backlash toward White helped reinforce his argument; a culture truly comfortable with masculinity probably wouldn’t panic each time somebody yelled “Man!” in a crowded theater.

The IPCC has published a new generation of climate scenarios – and buried in the fine print is a remarkable concession: the extreme warming pathways that dominated climate research, policy, and media coverage for decades were never actually plausible. It took a while to notice because almost no one in mainstream media bothered to report it.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. wrote, calling it “big news” that “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.” 

The conclusion was unambiguous. “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”

Those “impossible futures” formed the backbone of a decade-plus of apocalyptic climate messaging – melting ice caps, submerged coastlines, mass extinctions, widespread crop failures, and global hunger, always around the corner, always demanding immediate, economy-reshaping action to avert a catastrophe that, it now turns out, the underlying science community had assigned to a category closer to science fiction than projection.

The new IPCC framework formally demotes its remaining “HIGH scenario” from expected outcome to “exploratory – a thought experiment, not a projection.”

That’s a significant institutional retreat. 

Pielke noted that the previous framework lacked “any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios,” meaning the scariest pathways were able to dominate the policy debate for years without anyone in the room applying a basic reality check. 

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

Curiously, the revised framework was technically adopted back in 2021, but has only now filtered into public view as related technical and institutional changes caught up. And it’s fair to ask why. The policy consequences of those “impossible futures” were very real.

As the Daily Sceptic’s Chris Morrison opines; 

It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of ‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little more than an insult to average human intelligence.

When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of recoverable reserves.

At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.

Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful process of rehabilitation now seems likely.

RCP8.5 assumed high emissions of carbon dioxide leading to a radiative forcing (extra energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere) of 8.5 watts per square metre. The new pathways act as agreed guidelines for computer models that will then provide information for the IPCC’s forthcoming seventh assessment reports. Pielke has run the figures and estimates that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit a diminishing one, still believes in the politicised agitprop of a ‘climate emergency’.

* * *

Climate change has been sold for years as an existential race against the clock, and despite decades of failed predictions, the alarmism hasn’t stopped.

In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) warned that if we don’t address the climate issue, the planet would be destroyed in just 12 years.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned in a video posted on social media in 2023 that climate change is the “greatest threat facing our country and all of humanity,” and warned that “If there is not bold, immediate, and united action by governments throughout the world, the quality of life that we are leaving our kids and future generations is very much in question.”

This regular framing of the need for immediate action has prompted Democrats to impose massive spending and sweeping mandates. Billions in taxpayer dollars have gone into green energy boondoggles, all justified by the promise of stopping catastrophic climate change. The same narrative fueled a wave of regulations that hit ordinary Americans with higher costs and fewer choices. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom put that agenda into action, signing Executive Order N-79-20 to phase out gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035 and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. Two years later, Gov. Kathy Hochul followed through in New York with her own executive order, mandating that 35% of 2026 model-year cars sold in the state be “emissions-free,” scaling to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. These Zero-Emission Vehicle mandates, along with aggressive federal emissions standards, were sold to the public as necessary responses to scenarios the IPCC now effectively acknowledges were describing things that could never happen.

Climate alarmism, of course, didn’t exist in a vacuum. It grew into a full-blown political and financial ecosystem – a machinery of grants, advocacy groups, media narratives, and regulatory agendas built on the premise that civilization had twelve to fifteen years to change course or face collapse. 

“The now-implausible upper-end scenarios […] are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research,” explains Pielke. “They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital.”

That reality should spark real outrage. 

For years, the public was bombarded with worst-case scenarios that drove policy, justified massive spending, and steered hundreds of billions in capital – all under the banner of urgency and fear. If those dire projections were overstated or outright implausible, then the scale of the misallocation is staggering, and the media should be taking an interest in this story. Americans were told the clock was about to run out, and they were forced to pay accordingly. The fact that this reckoning hasn’t triggered a broader backlash says as much as the original alarmism ever did.