News
Federal Watchdog Uncovers $550M Fraud in Biden DEI Business Programs
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Federal watchdogs and members of Congress are pursuing “pass-through” fraud within Small Business Administration (SBA) diversity programs, many of which expanded significantly during the Biden administration’s “equity in procurement” strategy.
A major accountability effort is unfolding across federal contracting. Evidence suggests widespread deception and misuse within the SBA’s primary diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These programs saw rapid expansion under the previous administration’s focus on equitable procurement.
The central issue in the emerging controversy surrounds the 8(a) Business Development Program. This decades-old initiative aims to provide federal contract preferences to firms owned by people considered “socially and economically disadvantaged.”
Lawmakers and investigators assert that the program, which granted over $40 billion in contracts in Fiscal Year 2024, became a way for large, unqualified corporations to misuse taxpayer money. They allegedly used small, disadvantaged businesses as facades.
Fraud Becomes Widespread
SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler suggested the current issue worsened due to the Biden administration’s “aggressive priority for DEI over merit in federal contracting.” This crisis follows several years of warnings from the SBA’s Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The situation escalated after two recent, highly publicized incidents provided strong evidence for critics.
The first was a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation in June. It revealed an alleged $550 million bribery plan spanning a decade. The scheme involved a former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracting officer and three company owners who took advantage of the 8(a) program.
This was followed in October by an undercover video. The footage reportedly showed a senior official from a large 8(a) firm, ATI Government Solutions, admitting to defrauding the program to obtain multi-million dollar, sole-source contracts.
The SBA subsequently suspended ATI, a Native-owned enterprise, from receiving new federal contracts. The firm faced allegations that it operated as a “pass-through,” subcontracting almost all of its work while keeping a minor fee.
This action clearly violated the rules meant to protect the program’s integrity. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent immediately ordered the suspension and cancellation of all Treasury contracts with ATI Government Solutions, which totaled more than $253 million.
Treasury and SBA Begin Broad Audits
The new Trump administration quickly ramped up its enforcement efforts.
Treasury Secretary Bessent announced a comprehensive, department-wide audit. The review targets approximately $9 billion in contracts awarded through preference-based programs. Bessent stated the department “will not tolerate fraudulent misuse of federal contracting programs.” According to the Treasury, many of these contracts were granted during the Biden administration’s equity push.
In a related move, SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler ordered a full review of all 8(a) contracts across every federal agency. Loeffler has already directed the agency to reduce its contracting goal for disadvantaged businesses to the legal minimum of 5 percent, down from the Biden-era high of 15 percent.
Loeffler said, “Evidence indicates that the 8(a) Program, initially designed for ‘socially and economically disadvantaged’ businesses, has become a pass-through vehicle for rampant abuse.”
In an unparalleled action, the SBA sent letters in early December to all 4,300 current 8(a) participants. The letters demand that firms submit extensive financial records by January 5, 2026, or risk being removed from the program. This massive request for documentation signals the administration’s strict policy against widespread program misuse.
Congress Calls for Immediate Business Program Suspension
Congressional reaction to the alleged waste of taxpayer funds has been immediate and strongly critical across both parties.
Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, is leading the legislative response. Just this week, Ernst sent letters to 22 federal agency heads. She pushed them to voluntarily cease all sole-source 8(a) contracting. She also urged them to conduct detailed reviews of all sole-source and set-aside 8(a) contracts dating back to Fiscal Year 2020.
“Despite concerns with the 8(a) program, Joe Biden opened the floodgates to fraud,” Ernst told reporters. “I have found evidence of alarming, potentially fraudulent 8(a) awards made across government that need to be investigated. The program must be halted at every agency while a thorough review is conducted to ensure taxpayers are not being ripped off by con artists.”
Ernst criticized the “sloppy oversight and weak enforcement measures.” She claimed these failures permitted “8(a) participants to act as pass-through entities, snagging unlimited no-bid deals with little transparency.”
Constitutional Hurdle Approaches
Beyond the extensive fraud allegations, the legal standing of the DEI-based contracting programs themselves faces a serious constitutional challenge.
A new major lawsuit, filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) and the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), seeks to invalidate a core SBA regulation. This rule creates a “rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage” for people belonging to specific racial and ethnic groups. Plaintiffs argue this mechanism, which was adopted across dozens of Biden-era programs, is a “code word for race discrimination.” They contend it violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Federal courts have already ruled against using this presumption in several federal programs, including parts of the 8(a) program. Under the new administration, the DOJ formally informed Congress that it will no longer defend the presumption in certain Department of Transportation programs. This suggests a major policy shift that could end race-based preferences throughout the federal government.
The convergence of massive fraud accusations and a growing constitutional crisis has made the SBA’s diversity programs a central focus of the administration’s commitment. This commitment is to eliminate what it calls “radical and wasteful” DEI-based contracting and to root out waste. The sheer number of contracts now under examination, along with the threat of legal action for firms that fail to comply, suggests this cleanup operation is just beginning.
Trending News:
Trump’s Calls European Leaders Weak, Warns Over Mass Migration
News
U.S. Forces Hit and Destroy 16 Iranian Mine-Laying Boats Near the Strait of Hormuz
Washington, D.C.- U.S. forces destroyed 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels near the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The strikes took place on March 10 and focused on boats officials said posed a near-term risk to commercial and military traffic in the area.
CENTCOM shared the announcement on X (formerly Twitter) and posted a video of the operation. The footage shows repeated precision hits on Iranian naval craft, with clear impacts and blasts. Several targets look stationary in the clips. The message from the U.S. is clear: it intends to keep shipping moving through the Strait of Hormuz, where about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil travels each day.
The operation followed strong public warnings from President Donald Trump, who said Iran must not mine the waterway. On Truth Social, Trump wrote that the U.S. had already “hit, and completely destroyed, 10 inactive mine laying boats and/or ships, with more to follow.” He also said any mines placed in the strait must be removed right away. Otherwise, he warned of “military consequences at a level never seen before.”
Those statements came as reports circulated that Iranian forces had begun placing naval mines. Soon after, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth backed up the White House position on X. He said CENTCOM was “eliminating inactive mine-laying vessels” with “ruthless precision” under the president’s direct orders. He added that the U.S. won’t allow “terrorists to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage.”
Key takeaways from the strike
- Timing and scale: The strikes happenedon March 10, 2026, and hit multiple Iranian vessels, including 16 mine-layers.
- CENTCOM confirmation: CENTCOM posted about the action on X and included video of the strikes near the Strait of Hormuz.
- Trump’s role: Trump first reported 10 destroyed vessels, then later statements and reporting reflected a total of 16.
- Why it matters: The action targets a mine threat that could endanger or slow commercial shipping in a major energy route.
- Wider conflict: The strikes fit into broader U.S.-Iran fighting, with reports of thousands of U.S. strikes on Iranian targets since late February 2026.
- Iran’s position: Tehran has threatened to block Gulf oil exports in response, raising concerns about a wider regional crisis.
The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and remains one of the most tense hotspots in the Middle East. If traffic there gets blocked or tightly restricted, oil prices could spike fast, and the shock could spread through the global economy.
What the video shows and why the targets mattered
In the footage CENTCOM released, U.S. munitions hit several Iranian vessels one after another. Fires and secondary blasts follow some impacts, which suggests heavy damage. Officials described the targets as mine layers that could place naval mines in shipping lanes. Although some were labeled “inactive,” U.S. leaders treated them as a ready threat because they could move quickly once ordered.
U.S. forces have hit Iranian maritime assets in the region before. One often-cited example is the 1988 Operation Praying Mantis, when the U.S. Navy attacked Iranian platforms and vessels after a mine damaged a U.S. frigate.
By knocking out the mine-laying boats, the U.S. says it’s protecting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Officials have also signaled they may escort commercial tankers if threats continue. Meanwhile, energy markets have moved sharply as traders watch for the next step on both sides.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have promised countermoves, including threats to choke off Gulf oil routes. If disruptions drag on, analysts warn crude prices could climb quickly, and supply chains could face a new strain.
Related News:
Trump Praises Albanese Over Giving Iranian Women Footballers Asylum
Canada’s Carney Betrays the US, Condemns Defensive Strikes on Iran
News
CBS Caught Making Deceptive EDIT to 60 Minutes Interview With Hegseth
WASHINGTON, D.C.– CBS is taking heat over an edit in its 60 Minutes interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The dispute centers on a segment that aired March 8, 2026, during the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran. In the broadcast, correspondent Major Garrett pressed Hegseth on U.S. foreign policy priorities.
On March 9, Megyn Kelly opened The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM by pointing to what she called a key change. She said CBS replaced Garrett’s original question, which referenced criticism from “America First” voices (including Kelly), with a version framed around Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In Kelly’s view, that swap changed the meaning of Hegseth’s answer and could have given viewers a different impression of what was being discussed.
The Interview Setting: The U.S.-Iran War and Hegseth’s Message
The 60 Minutes segment featured Hegseth, a former Fox News host who now serves as Defense Secretary under President Donald Trump. He spoke about the escalation tied to “Operation Epic Fury.” By the time the episode aired, U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian assets had entered their second week. During the interview, Hegseth stressed resolve, said more casualties were likely, and predicted Iran would eventually surrender.
CBS also posted a longer version of the interview online. That extended cut includes more on possible American losses, risks tied to Russia, and the administration’s wider goals.
What Kelly Says CBS Changed
Kelly said she compared the on-air segment with the longer online interview and found a major difference in one exchange.
- Broadcast version (aired on 60 Minutes): In the edited segment, Garrett’s question (or narration around it) referenced criticism that Israel, or Netanyahu, was pulling the United States into conflict. Hegseth’s response then appeared to address concerns linked to Israel’s role.
- Online extended version (full exchange): Garrett asked, “You mentioned America First. Some who identify with that movement, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, have said, from their perspective, this isn’t an America First campaign. Do you want to address that criticism?”Hegseth answered, “All I know is I’m in the room every day, and I see how President Trump operates and what he’s putting first, and it’s America, Americans, and American interests at every level.”
Kelly said the broadcast edit pushed Israel into a moment that, in the longer cut, had nothing to do with Israel. She argued that the new framing made it sound like Hegseth was defending Israel’s part in the war, instead of answering “America First” critics. Kelly called the change “deceptive” and said it looked like an attempt to “rehabilitate” public views of Israel’s involvement in the Iran fight.
“What kind of bulls–t is this?” Kelly reportedly said, accusing CBS of shaping the narrative through editing.
CBS Editing Choices Get Fresh Scrutiny
As of March 10, 2026, CBS had not released a formal statement addressing the claim. Still, the network’s decision to publish the extended interview online made it easy for viewers to compare both versions. That side-by-side access helped drive the backlash.
Kelly and other critics tied the issue to bigger arguments about media bias. Some also pointed to CBS News leadership under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, whom they described as having pro-Israel views. Kelly argued the edit fit an agenda that casts U.S. actions as tied closely to Israeli interests, even when the original exchange did not focus on that angle.
60 Minutes has faced similar complaints before. Past disputes have accused the program of selective editing in political interviews, which has kept questions about transparency alive.
Reactions and the Bigger Stakes
The clip dispute quickly spread across media outlets and social platforms.
- Conservative voices praised Kelly and said the edit showed how mainstream outlets treat “America First” views.
- Others defended CBS, saying edits are normal when a long interview must fit a tight broadcast window.
- Some supporters of the administration said it looked like another attempt to weaken Trump’s foreign policy message.
Because the U.S. military campaign is active, the timing matters. Hegseth’s appearance was meant to project strength and certainty. Instead, the argument over editing shifted attention to media trust and how much framing can change what viewers take away.
Kelly ended by urging people to watch both versions. She stressed that, in her view, “The Q&A you saw never mentioned Israel at all,” and said CBS changed the question to make it about Israel.
What It Means for Media Trust
With audiences already split along political lines, even small shifts in wording can fuel bigger mistrust. When a network changes the framing of a question, it can look like agenda-driven editing, even if the rest of the answer stays the same. CBS’s release of the full interview gives the public a way to verify what happened. At the same time, it shows how a broadcast cut can reshape the story people think they heard.
As the Iran conflict continues, both the war itself and the coverage around it will draw more scrutiny. For now, the Hegseth interview has become another flashpoint in the fight over fairness, accuracy, and where editing ends and manipulation begins.
Related News:
Karoline Leavitt Slams CBS News Over ICE Deportation Numbers
AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Sexualizing and Harassing Her
News
Trump Praises Albanese Over Giving Iranian Women Footballers Asylum
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Donald Trump praised Anthony Albanese for his response to the situation, saying he is doing a “very good job,” for granting the Iranian Women’s Soccer Players asylum in Australia after their Gold Coast Escape.
During the AFC Women’s Asian Cup 2026, five players from Iran’s national women’s soccer team have received humanitarian visas that let them stay in Australia. They approached the Australian Federal Police (AFP) after breaking away from team minders and asking for protection.
The athletes named in reports are Captain Zahra Ghanbari, Fatemeh Pasandideh, Zahra Sarbali, Atefeh Ramazanzadeh, and Mona Hamoudi. They left their Gold Coast hotel on Monday night, March 9, 2026.
Soon after, officers moved them to a secure location. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke met with them late that night, then approved the visas around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.
They say they feared persecution if they returned to Iran. Concerns grew after Iran’s opening match against South Korea, when the team stood silent during the national anthem. Many saw that silence as a protest during a tense period, including the ongoing US-Israel conflict involving Iran.
After that match, Iranian state television called the players “wartime traitors” and accused them of reaching “the pinnacle of dishonour.” At the same time, conservative voices pushed for harsh punishment.
Because of those comments, human rights advocates and members of the Iranian diaspora warned that the players could face prison, torture, or worse if forced to go home.
In later matches against Australia and the Philippines, the squad sang and saluted during the anthem. Even so, some observers believed officials traveling with the team pressured them to comply.

Escape From the Hotel and AFP Support
Reports say the five women slipped away from minders at the Royal Pines Resort. Australian authorities had kept a police presence at the hotel for days. As a result, players had a way to seek help quietly if they chose to.
- AFP response: Officers escorted the women out and took them to a safe location.
- Humanitarian visas: Officials issued the visas quickly after security checks, allowing the players to live, work, and study in Australia.
- Tony Burke’s comments: “They are safe here, they are welcome to stay in Australia, and they should feel at home here,” Burke said at a press conference. He also said the offer remains open to other team members who ask for help.
Meanwhile, protests formed outside the team hotel as the remaining squad prepared to leave for Iran. Demonstrators shouted “save our girls” and briefly blocked a bus. Some videos appeared to show players signaling distress from inside the vehicles.

International Spotlight After Trump and Albanese Speak
The situation quickly became a diplomatic issue. US President Donald Trump called Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the early morning hours, around 2 a.m. local time. Trump urged Australia to grant asylum and said sending the players back would be a “terrible humanitarian mistake.”
Before the call, Trump posted on social media criticizing any forced return. He also suggested the US would consider asylum if Australia refused. After speaking with Albanese, Trump praised his handling of what he called a “delicate situation.” He also said five players had been “taken care of.”
Albanese called the athletes “brave.” He added that Australia stands ready to assist other players if they come forward.
Wider Context and Ongoing Safety Concerns
Iran’s participation in the tournament happened during a period of regional unrest. That backdrop added to fears about what could happen to the players once they returned home. Groups such as FIFPRO, the global players’ union, raised alarms. Exiled Iranian figures, including Reza Pahlavi, also drew attention to the defections.
Australia’s quick decision stood out because the country is known for tough border rules. Still, officials pointed to Australia’s humanitarian responsibilities under international law. They also repeated that protection remains available to any other squad members who request it.
As of March 10, 2026, reports said the remaining players were still at the Gold Coast hotel, with some expected to fly back to Iran. The five who sought asylum reportedly celebrated after receiving approval, chanting “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!”
The episode shows how sport, politics, and human rights can collide fast. What started as a silent gesture on the field turned into a global asylum story within days.
Related News:
Trump Pushes Back on War Hawks, Choosing Deals Over a Long Iran Overthrow Plan
Trump Takes Aim at China’s Critical Minerals Control With Project Vault
-
Crime2 months agoYouTuber Nick Shirley Exposes BILLIONS of Somali Fraud, Video Goes VIRAL
-
China1 month agoChina-Based Billionaire Singham Allegedly Funding America’s Radical Left
-
Politics3 months agoIlhan Omar Faces Renewed Firestorm Over Resurfaced Video
-
Business2 months agoTech Giant Oracle Abandons California After 43 Years
-
Politics1 month agoCNN Delivers Stark Reality Check to Democrats Over Voter ID
-
Crime3 months agoMinnesota Fraud Scandal EXPANDS, $10 Billion in Fraudulent Payments
-
Midterm Elections2 months ago2026 Midterms Guide: Candidates, Key Issues, and Battleground States
-
Politics2 months agoAccusations Fly Over Alleged Zionist Takeover of (TPUSA) Turning Point USA



