News

The Censorship Crisis: How DEI and Woke Ideology Are Destroying Free Speech at Universities

Published

1 month ago

December 4, 2025

The Censorship Crisis: How DEI and Woke Ideology Are Destroying Free Speech at Universities

In what used to be centers of open thought, many American universities now feel tense and restricted. Places that once prized open debate now lean toward strict ideological rules. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, first sold as tools for fairness and belonging, have grown into powerful bureaucracies that police what people can say. Critics argue that these programs silence debate, punish disagreement, and enforce a narrow version of “woke” ideology.

Federal pressure, faculty firings, and rising student self-censorship have pushed the campus free speech crisis to a breaking point in 2025. As President Donald Trump’s new executive orders roll back what opponents call discriminatory DEI policies, universities are left dealing with years of speech controls and ideological tests. This is not just another policy fight; it is a struggle over what higher education should be and who gets to speak inside it.

The Rise of DEI: From Inclusion to Indoctrination

How a push for fairness turned into enforced orthodoxy

DEI programs started with a clear goal: to address past injustices and open doors for people who were shut out. Over time, many students and faculty say those programs shifted in focus. Instead of helping individuals, they now promote group identity and demand agreement with a specific framework on race, gender, and power.

These programs shape hiring, curriculum, training, and student life. On many campuses, they expect public support for ideas like “anti-racism” and “intersectionality.” Dissenting from these ideas can carry social or professional risks. Viewpoint diversity and merit often feel secondary.

A major study from Heterodox Academy found that schools with larger DEI bureaucracies, such as the University of California, Berkeley, tend to show less tolerance for conservative speakers and more support for protests that shut down unpopular views. UC Berkeley increased its equity staff from 110 in 2017 to 170 in 2022, and critics point to that growth as part of a system that enforces a single worldview using public money.

The climate on campus reflects this shift. In a 2025 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), more than 60% of faculty said they self-censor when discussing race, gender, or politics. Many fear investigations, online mobs, or career damage if they speak honestly.

The case of Dr. Tabia Lee at De Anza Community College stands out. A tenured Black faculty member who worked in a DEI post, she raised concerns about the constant focus on “whiteness” and “white supremacy culture” in her office. She refused to stereotype people by race and said she was branded the “wrong kind of Black person” for it. The college dismissed her. She is now suing under Title VII, saying her termination was retaliation for protected speech and disagreement with the dominant DEI outlook.

The roots of this trend go back to early 2010s activism linked to social justice movements and events like the Black Lives Matter protests. By 2020, many universities required DEI statements for hiring and promotion. Applicants had to show support for race-conscious and identity-based policies as part of the job process.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote in a widely discussed Wall Street Journal column that this DEI fixation creates “a climate of pervasive fear.” He argued that merit is pushed aside in favor of ideological tests and equity targets. The result is a campus culture where many feel forced to repeat approved views rather than think freely and argue honestly. Graduates leave college trained in cancel tactics, not in open debate.

Federal Hammer: Trump’s War on Woke Mandates

How new executive orders shook higher education

The political tide shifted sharply in January 2025. After returning to the White House, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The order shut down federal DEI work and described many of those efforts as illegal discrimination under civil rights law.

Soon after came Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This directive put colleges and universities in the crosshairs. It warned that federally funded schools must dismantle race-based scholarships, cultural centers that exclude by identity, and hiring preferences tied to race or ideology, or they would risk losing large sums of federal funding.

The fallout was immediate. On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to more than 4,000 institutions. The letter said that all race-conscious programs conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action. By March, over 50 universities, including Harvard and Yale, were under investigation for allegedly ignoring the new guidance.

States began to move as well. In Ohio, Senate Bill 1, signed by Governor Mike DeWine in March, banned DEI-based scholarships and added monitoring of faculty speech. Teachers’ unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, sued, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and restricts academic freedom.

The pushback exposed how entrenched DEI structures had become. The University of Michigan, once held up as a leader in campus diversity, quickly scaled back or closed some DEI offices due to fear of losing federal aid. Supporters said this showed federal overreach. Critics called it long overdue.

Commentators like Christopher Rufo praised the executive orders as a needed course correction. He warned that elite schools were “on notice” and must “abolish DEI or get wrecked.” Advocacy groups and DEI officials fired back. The National Association of Diversity Officers filed suit on February 21 and won a preliminary injunction from a New Hampshire judge, who said parts of the federal guidance were vague and presented a real threat to academic freedom and expression.

By November, the State Department proposed removing 38 universities, including Stanford and Duke, from the Diplomacy Lab program due to DEI hiring practices that appeared to favor identity over merit. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million in penalties and committed to race-neutral hiring. The University of Virginia’s president stepped down as Justice Department pressure grew.

Supporters of the crackdown see these developments as proof that DEI structures have crossed a line into compelled speech and discrimination. Opponents call it a political attack on diversity efforts. Either way, the clash has drawn national attention to how deeply DEI has reshaped campus culture and how much it affects free speech.

Silencing Dissent: The Human Cost of Woke Orthodoxy

What happens to the people who refuse to fall in line

The impact of these trends shows up most clearly in the lives and careers of those who speak against them. Since 2015, FIRE has recorded more than 600 attempts to punish scholars for protected speech. Over half of those cases have come since 2020, many tied to criticism of DEI or to comments on hot-button issues like gender identity and race.

In the last few years alone, almost three dozen tenured professors have lost their jobs. Their supposed offenses usually fall under vague labels like “harmful” or “offensive” speech, or they are accused of “creating an unsafe environment.”

History professor Matthew Garrett at Bakersfield College offers a clear example. He helped start the Renegade Institute for Liberty, a campus group focused on free speech and open inquiry. After he questioned a racial climate survey, the college fired him in May 2024, claiming “immoral conduct” and “dishonesty.” A federal judge later recommended that he be reinstated and found that his punishment was based on “pure political speech,” not misconduct.

Garrett’s successor, philosophy professor Daymon Johnson, also came under fire. Johnson opposed DEI policies and argued for color-blind standards. Administrators labeled his views as “promoting exclusion” and opened investigations. In July 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived key parts of his lawsuit, recognizing a credible threat to his First Amendment rights.

The pattern repeats across the country. At St. Philip’s College in Texas, biology professor Johnson Varkey taught that biological sex is linked to X and Y chromosomes, a view still common in standard textbooks. After some students complained that this clashed with their beliefs about gender identity, the college fired him after 19 years.

At the University of Arizona, Professor Brent Abraham says he was removed from faculty governance roles because he opposed race-based DEI hiring. He has filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging retaliation. Other campuses, including UC Berkeley and Northwestern, have removed or disciplined faculty members over pro-Palestine statements or mild criticism of Trump, often under the banner of fighting “antisemitism” or “hate.”

Students feel the pressure as well. A GB News investigation into UK and U.S. campuses found widespread self-censorship. Many students said they avoid speaking in class if their views challenge dominant opinions on topics like gender, colonialism, or race. One student at Colchester described seminars where people stay silent to avoid being shamed or reported.

FIRE’s 2025 student survey paints a similar picture in the U.S. About 70% of students said that professors who say something “offensive” should be reported to administrators. That number reflects a generation more willing to involve authorities in speech disputes instead of answering words with words.

Protest or Persecution? Woke Activism’s Disruptive Edge

When activism crosses from expression into suppression

Campus activism has always been part of university life. Recent protests, however, have taken on a more aggressive and censorious style. During the 2024–2025 academic year, protests over Gaza swept campuses. At Columbia, Rutgers, and many other schools, student encampments blocked buildings, shouted down speakers, and demanded more DEI staff and race-based programs.

Protesters often borrow language from the 1960s Free Speech Movement, but the tactics look different. Instead of pushing for more speech, many modern activists try to deny platforms to those they dislike, citing “safety” or “harm.” Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has called this trend “safetyism” in his book “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Under safetyism, emotional discomfort is treated like physical danger, and offensive words are seen as a form of violence.

Past incidents show how harsh this can get. At Middlebury College, protesters physically attacked social scientist Charles Murray and a faculty host. At William & Mary, students shouted down an ACLU representative with chants like “The oppressed are not impressed” until the event had to be canceled.

Irony runs through many of these episodes. Activists say they stand against oppression, yet often target conservative, religious, or Zionist voices for silencing. In response, some states have passed laws to curb what they see as ideological training. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act tried to forbid certain “woke” ideas in schools and workplaces. Courts struck down parts of the law for targeting viewpoints, saying the government cannot favor one side of a debate.

Trump’s executive orders have already prompted schools such as the University of Iowa and Ohio State to scale back or close DEI offices. Leaders say they do this to protect funding, but it also shows how quickly institutions will change course when money is at stake.

The tension between protest rights and speech rights is now central to campus life. A peaceful protest is part of free expression. Shutting down events, threatening speakers, and turning disagreement into grounds for discipline crosses into censorship.

A Path Forward: Reclaiming the Ivory Tower

How universities can protect free speech without giving up fairness

The current crisis has created a rare opening for real reform. Princetonians for Free Speech, a faculty and alumni group, predicts that 2025 could become a turning point. In Congress, H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, is moving forward in the House. The bill would require colleges that receive federal funds to protect free speech, teach basic principles of open inquiry, and stop using ideological litmus tests in hiring and promotion.

Faculty advocacy groups have begun to organize as well. Backed by large grants, including a $100 million gift to the University of Chicago, some professors are building new centers focused on free thought and academic freedom. Their goal is simple: create spaces where people can argue, learn, and change their minds without fear of punishment.

For universities to regain trust, they need to return to their core purpose: the pursuit of truth through evidence, debate, and open discussion. That means rejecting any enforced orthodoxy, whether it comes from the left or the right. As FIRE often warns, once a single viewpoint becomes untouchable, academic freedom withers.

Students are also pushing back. People like Inaya Folarin Iman are starting free-speech projects across campuses, even while facing heavy bureaucracy and resistance from administrators. They remind their peers that a real education requires the right to hear and express unpopular ideas.

Policy makers can help by tying public funding to clear, neutral protections for speech, not to ideological goals. The focus should be on viewpoint-neutral rules that protect everyone’s rights, including those who hold minority or controversial views.

In the end, what some describe as a “DEI-woke” grip on the university is not just about controlling language. It shapes what students learn, which ideas they consider, and which careers survive in academic life. As federal scrutiny grows and campus conflicts intensify, higher education faces a choice. It can renew its role as a home for free inquiry, or it can double down on ideological enforcement and censorship.

The outcome will affect more than just universities. A society that trains its future leaders to fear open debate will struggle to keep a healthy democracy. The stakes could not be higher.

News

Mosque Set Ablaze in Iran a Citizens Revolt Against the Islamic Regime

Published

3 days ago

January 11, 2026

VORNews

Mosques in Iran Torched a Citizens Revolt Against the Islamic Regime

TERRAN – Protests across Iran have surged in a way opposition voices and activists abroad call the biggest threat to the Islamic Republic since 1979. In city after city, crowds have torched mosques, hit government sites, and attacked symbols tied to clerical power.

Women have also burned mandatory hijabs in public, a blunt act of defiance that recalls the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom protests, but appears broader and more confrontational.

The unrest is now in its third week. It began on December 28, 2025, driven by economic strain, soaring inflation, a crashing rial, and growing shortages. Early rallies started among merchants, truckers, and workers in places such as Bandar Abbas.

Within days, chants shifted from economic anger to demands for the fall of the regime. By early January 2026, demonstrations had reached all 31 provinces. Many point to years of resentment after past crackdowns, plus a government seen as weakened after recent regional blows, including a 12-day war with Israel.

Economic Anger in Iran Turns Into Attacks

Videos and eyewitness reports, shared despite near-total internet shutdowns, show crowds lighting fires at mosques in Tehran neighborhoods such as Saadat Abad and Gholhak. One verified video dated January 8 shows the Al-Rasool Mosque burning as people chant “Death to the dictator” and wave pre-revolution Lion and Sun flags. State outlets, including Press TV, have aired images of the damage. They describe those involved as “rioters” supported by foreign enemies, naming the United States and Israel.

Anti-regime sources say more than 30 mosques have been attacked nationwide. Other reported targets include seminaries in Mashhad, Islamic Republic Broadcasting offices in Isfahan, and vehicles tied to security units.

In southern cities such as Lordegan and Fasa, protesters have pushed into administrative offices, Foundation of Martyrs buildings, and banks. Videos also show crowds burning pictures of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the Iranian flag. In some clips, women use the flames to light cigarettes, a message meant to show full rejection of clerical rule.

Hijab burnings have become one of the clearest images of this wave. Young women in Tehran and other cities take off their headscarves, set them on fire, and walk uncovered in public. That directly challenges the state’s core policy of forced Islamic dress.

Many tie this defiance to Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Kurdish woman whose death in morality police custody in 2022 sparked nationwide outrage. That movement was crushed with deadly force and mass arrests, but analysts say public trust in the government has slipped even more since then.

Regime Pushes Back Hard

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has denounced the crowds as “saboteurs” and “vandals,” insisting they are being steered by foreign powers. In a televised speech on January 9, he promised “no leniency.” Security forces have answered with live fire, tear gas, and large-scale arrests.

Human rights groups, including Iran Human Rights and the Center for Human Rights in Iran, say at least 51 people have been killed since late December, including minors, with hundreds more hurt. Reports say hospitals in Tehran, Mashhad, and Karaj are struggling under the load.

On January 8, authorities rolled out wide internet and communications restrictions. The blackout has limited outside reporting and led Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi to warn that mass killings could be hidden from the public. Even so, protests have continued. Crowds have returned to streets in Tehran, Karaj, Zahedan, Tabriz, and Qom, even after deadly crackdowns.

Tehran’s prosecutor has threatened death sentences for people accused of burning state buildings or fighting security forces. The army and the IRGC have mobilized, but some reports suggest units are stretched and have pulled back in places due to the size of the crowds.

Regime Change Chants Grow

Many protesters now call openly for regime change. Some back a return of the monarchy under Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince. He has called for a peaceful transition and a referendum on Iran’s future. The movement has no clear leadership on the ground, but its reach appears to have grown since his January 8 call for large demonstrations.

Outside Iran, the United States under President Donald Trump has issued warnings, saying the U.S. would step in if authorities increase killings. Leaders in Europe, including Germany, France, and the UK, have condemned the crackdown and urged Iran to restore internet access. Airlines have also canceled flights into Iran as the situation worsens.

A Moment That Could Redefine Iran

Iran’s leadership blames “Zionist” and American interference. Analysts point to pressures at home, including economic breakdown, uneven hijab enforcement, a high number of executions (reported as more than 1,500 in 2025), and stress linked to war.

As the uprising moves deeper into its second week, the torching of mosques and the burning of hijabs mark a sharp symbolic break. These acts strike at institutions that sit at the center of the Islamic Republic. It’s not clear if this ends with the regime falling or a harsher crackdown. For many Iranians in the streets, it looks like a point of no return.

With communication lines cut and violence rising, the world is watching a country under extreme pressure. The next days may shape whether 2026 becomes the year Iran’s theocracy collapses, or holds on through more bloodshed.

Related News:

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Urges Khamenei’s Removal

News

AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Sexualizing and Harassing Her

Published

5 days ago

January 10, 2026

VORNews

AOC Accuses Jessie Watters of Fox News of Serializing and Harassing Her

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez AOC rejected an invitation to appear on Fox News’ Jesse Watters Primetime on January 7, saying host Jesse Watters has “sexualized and harassed” her on air.

The back-and-forth, filmed outside the U.S. Capitol, quickly spread online and set off another round of partisan arguing. Her response, delivered while cameras and reporters crowded around, pulled millions of views and landed where most political clips do now, in fast-moving social media fights.

The moment happened just after Ocasio-Cortez spoke to reporters about a separate issue, a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent in Minneapolis. She framed it as part of wider problems tied to immigration enforcement.

As she wrapped up, Fox producer Johnny Belisario walked up with a microphone and a camera crew and passed along an invitation. “Jesse Watters would like you on his show,” Belisario said, according to video shared by MeidasTouch Network and reposted widely on X (formerly Twitter).

Ocasio-Cortez didn’t hesitate. “He has sexualized and harassed me on his show,” she replied, sounding angry and firm. She added that Watters “has engaged in horrific, sexually exploitative rhetoric.”

Belisario responded, “That’s not true, Congresswoman.” Ocasio-Cortez pushed back with a direct example. “It is true, because he accused me of wanting to sleep with Stephen Miller,” she said. “So why don’t you tell me what you think is acceptable to tell a woman?” She then walked away, leaving the producer without much to add.

AOC’s Comment Sets Off a Dispute

Her reference pointed to an October 2025 segment on Fox’s The Five. During a panel discussion about an Ocasio-Cortez post that mocked Stephen Miller’s height, calling him “4’10” and “insecure,” Watters joked, “I think AOC wants to sleep with [Stephen] Miller… it is so obvious. I’m sorry you can’t have him.”

The line got laughs on set, but it also drew criticism from women’s rights advocates who said it reduced her to a punchline and treated her like an object. Ocasio-Cortez, who has spoken publicly about being a sexual assault survivor, later reposted the clip on X with the caption: “You can either be a pervert or ask me to be on your little show. Not both. Good luck!”

Watters Responds On Air, Calls It Another “Fabrication”

Watters addressed the exchange on his January 8 broadcast and rejected Ocasio-Cortez’s claim. He described her response as “dramatic street theater” and said she was calling a joke harassment. He also argued that her accusation fit what he called a pattern of exaggeration and lies.

Watters pointed to past moments he says show she plays loose with the facts, including debates about her background and protest footage. He also ran clips, including Ocasio-Cortez’s 2019 60 Minutes interview, where she suggested being “morally right” matters more than being “factually” exact, a comment Watters mocked as an excuse to stretch the truth.

This wasn’t his first attack along those lines. In 2023, he criticized her during a segment about the Green New Deal and accused her of having “a history of lying.” On the January 8 show, he told viewers that if she wouldn’t come on the program, he would keep “fact-checking” her anyway.

Fox News has not released an official statement about the clash. The original report also claimed Primetime viewership rose 15% after the exchange.

The argument also landed in a bigger debate about media standards and how public figures get treated on air. Ocasio-Cortez has avoided Fox for years. Since Watters Primetime launched in 2022, she has said she doesn’t want to help what she describes as disinformation aimed at Democrats. Watters has regularly targeted Ocasio-Cortez and other members of “the Squad,” often painting her as a socialist who is out of touch.

This time, the language got sharper. By using the term “sexual harassment,” Ocasio-Cortez raised the stakes and put more pressure on the network. Progressive groups, including UltraViolet, called for Fox to look at its internal standards and how hosts talk about women on air.

OOC Faces Long-Running Claims About Truthfulness

Ocasio-Cortez has drawn intense attention since she arrived in Congress, and critics, especially on the right, often accuse her of making misleading statements. Supporters say the attacks are political and designed to discredit her. Some fact-checking groups have rated certain claims as wrong or misleading. Below is a partial list of criticisms that have circulated in public reporting and commentary.

Background and class messaging (2018 to present): Ocasio-Cortez has often described herself as coming from the working-class Bronx. Critics, including National Review, have pointed to her family’s home in Yorktown Heights, Westchester County, reported as costing more than $500,000. A 2018 Washington Post fact-check described parts of her narrative as “misleading,” noting her father worked as an architect. Conservative outlets, including The Daily Caller, accused her of playing up class identity for political effect.
Unemployment claim (2019): She tweeted that unemployment under Democratic presidents was “significantly lower” than under Republicans. PolitiFact rated it False, saying the comparison didn’t hold up when looking at the broader context and economic cycles.
Medicare for All election claim (2020): After the election, she said on X that “every single swing-seat House Democrat who endorsed #MedicareForAll won re-election.” PolitiFact rated that False, saying at least two endorsers lost or faced very tight outcomes.
Bernie Sanders and lobbyist money (2020): While backing Sanders, she said he had “never taken corporate lobbyist money” in his career. Fact-checkers called the claim misleading, citing campaign fundraising details that included bundled donations tied to lobbyist-connected sources.
Debt and deficit comments (2023): She said the Trump tax cuts were “the largest contributor” to the debt ceiling and deficit. The Washington Post gave the claim Four Pinocchios, pointing to pandemic spending and policies from multiple administrations as larger drivers.
Texas abortion law statement (2022): She said Republicans “passed a law allowing rapists to sue their victims for getting an abortion.” PolitiFact rated the claim Mostly False, saying the law’s private enforcement system allows lawsuits but doesn’t set it up in the way the tweet described.
Migrant detention remarks (2019): Ocasio-Cortez called some detention facilities “concentration camps” and said women were told to “drink out of toilets.” Critics said she was lying, while reports acknowledged harsh conditions, and the “toilets” line was tied to detainee accounts that inspectors and others disputed as overstated.
“Faked arrest” claim (2022): Viral posts said she pretended to be arrested during an abortion-rights protest. FactCheck.org said that claim was false and pointed to Capitol Police records, though critics still frame the moment as performative.
Social Security rumor (2025): A viral story claimed her family cashed her deceased grandmother’s checks for 15 years. Reuters traced it to a satire site. The rumor spread anyway, alongside talk about a 2025 House Ethics Committee review of her campaign finances, which the text says ended without findings.

Together, these disputes feed a familiar argument about her style. Critics say she favors punchy lines over careful wording. Supporters say she speaks plainly, pushes hard, and gets nitpicked because she threatens the status quo. Her 2019 60 Minutes comments about moral clarity versus “semantic correctness” still get quoted by opponents who say it proves she’s fine with bending facts.

What It Says About Politics and Cable News Right Now

The clash landed as political tensions rose again, with Donald Trump’s second term looming in the background of many debates. Ocasio-Cortez has positioned herself as a leading voice against tougher immigration moves she expects from a new administration.

Her refusal also fit a wider feminist argument about how women in politics get talked about on male-led shows, including reminders of Fox’s own history with harassment scandals and the 2023 settlements.

Watters’ response speaks to a different crowd. He framed Ocasio-Cortez as someone using “woke” outrage for attention, a message that often plays well with Trump-aligned viewers.

As clips and memes continued to bounce around X, the fight turned into what cable news often rewards most, a loud moment that keeps people watching. Ocasio-Cortez remains one of the most visible Democrats in the country, and she also remains one of the most targeted.

Whether the dispute becomes a formal complaint or fades into the next news cycle, it underlines how quickly “banter” can turn into a boundary fight, and how rarely either side backs down once cameras are rolling.

Trending News:

Democrats in Turmoil Over Hopeless Impeachment Drive Against HHS Secretary RFK Jr.

News

JD Vance Exposes Walz’s Fraud and CNN’s Lies in White House Presser

Published

5 days ago

January 9, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C – Vice President JD Vance stepped to the White House podium in an unusually blunt briefing and went after Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, calling his administration a mess tied to widespread welfare fraud. He also accused major outlets, including CNN, of misreporting key facts to shield Democrats, a move he said puts law enforcement officers in danger.

Vance spoke as tensions rose after a fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis and fresh claims of billions in taxpayer-funded fraud tied to programs run under Walz. Standing with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Vance outlined new actions the administration says it will take to fight fraud across the country and defend federal agents facing backlash from state and local officials.

Walz Under Fire as Fraud Investigations Grow

Vance focused much of his criticism on Walz, whose administration has faced investigations tied to fraud estimates that Vance said top $9 billion. He pointed to the Feeding Our Future case, which involved allegations that hundreds of millions were siphoned from child nutrition programs during the COVID era.

“Look, Tim Walz is a joke. His entire administration has been a joke,” Vance said, linking those claims to Walz’s recent announcement that he will not run for re-election. Vance framed the decision as a retreat brought on by growing scrutiny.

He argued that Walz either knew the fraud was happening or failed to act when warning signs appeared. Vance said the schemes allowed organized networks to exploit programs meant to help children and families, and he claimed some of those networks were tied to parts of the Somali immigrant community in Minnesota.

Conservative researchers and whistleblowers, boosted by widely shared reports online, have pointed to daycare sites that appeared empty while still submitting claims for large reimbursements, including meals that investigators say never existed. Vance said the administration has already stopped billions in federal funding to Minnesota and other Democrat-led states it suspects of similar misuse.

Vance also announced a new Assistant Attorney General role focused on prosecuting fraud nationwide, with Minnesota as a top priority. “This official will have nationwide jurisdiction over the issue of fraud,” he said, adding that the White House plans to push for a fast Senate confirmation. He described the alleged fraud as a large network that has drained public money for years.

Vance Targets CNN, Calls Coverage an “Absolute Disgrace”

Vance also aimed his sharpest words at the national press, singling out CNN over its reporting on Wednesday’s ICE shooting in Minneapolis that killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good.

He read a CNN headline during the briefing and argued it painted a one-sided picture of what happened. “The way that the media, by and large, has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace, and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day,” Vance said.

According to Vance, videos show Good attempting to hit federal agents with her car during an immigration enforcement action. He said the ICE officer fired in self-defense and noted the agent had been badly hurt in a prior incident involving a vehicle.

Vance claimed some coverage left out those details and helped stir anger against law enforcement. “They’re lying about this attack,” he said, warning that misleading reports can feed hostility and raise the risk for officers in the field.

He also said the administration will back the ICE officer and pushed back on talk of investigations into the agent’s actions. Vance said the officer should not be punished for following orders during a dangerous situation, and he criticized Walz and local activists for pushing the issue.

Backing ICE and Federal Agents, Message to Sanctuary Cities

The briefing reinforced the Trump administration’s support for ICE and tougher enforcement, while Vance blamed Democratic leadership for disorder in sanctuary cities, including Minneapolis.

As protests build and Walz calls in the National Guard, Vance urged the public to reject what he described as a false story pushed by political leaders and friendly media outlets. He said criticism of immigration policy should not turn into attacks on officers.

With fraud investigations expanding and more federal attention on Minnesota, Vance’s appearance signaled that the administration plans to press harder on both corruption claims and public safety. Republicans praised the remarks as overdue accountability, while Democrats pushed back and defended Walz’s record.

Vance ended with a clear message: the administration says it will no longer allow large fraud cases to be ignored, and it will not stay quiet when federal agents are publicly blamed for carrying out their jobs.