WASHINGTON, D.C. – A Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing titled “Examining Fraud and Foreign Influence in State and Federal Programs” turned tense on February 10, 2026.

Senators argued over claims that huge sums were stolen from taxpayer-funded programs, with Minnesota at the center, while witnesses also raised concerns about foreign actors and hard-to-track nonprofit funding.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., led the hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Testimony focused on how failures at the state level may connect to larger national risks. Witnesses described organized fraud rings, possible overseas links, and “dark money” channels that they said help fund protests and protect bad actors.

The Main Issues Behind the Senate Clash

The hearing focused on two broad concerns. First, lawmakers examined large-scale fraud in state and federal programs. Second, they looked at whether foreign influence and hidden funding networks are weakening public institutions in the United States.

Senators pressed witnesses on how money meant for vulnerable people, including children, seniors, and disaster victims, may have ended up with criminal groups. Minnesota drew special attention because of several major cases tied to child nutrition programs, Medicaid services, and pandemic relief funds.

Critics said state officials ignored red flags, punished whistleblowers, and let the problem grow. Others warned that focusing too much on certain groups or donors could turn oversight into a political fight.

Major Fraud Claims Tied to Minnesota Programs

Minnesota State Sen. Mark Koran, a Republican, gave blunt testimony based on nine years of work on the Legislative Audit Commission. He said fraud in the state is “pervasive and systemic” and reaches from agencies to the executive branch.

• Agencies often failed to verify whether grant-funded work was ever done.
• In one case, documents were allegedly backdated to mislead auditors, which Koran said was a first in an auditor’s 27-year career.
• Koran estimated that billions of dollars were stolen, far beyond the public figures discussed so far.
• He said the damage hit programs serving children, older adults, vulnerable residents, and honest providers, including child nutrition and Medicaid-related services.
• Federal prosecutors have said as much as $9 billion may have been lost in Minnesota through fake daycares, food programs, and health clinics.

Koran blamed what he called “gross incompetence or willful complicity” under Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison. He pointed to ignored audits, retaliation against whistleblowers, and stalled reform efforts. He argued that Minnesota’s fraud crisis marks one of the largest and fastest-growing expansions of fraud in the country.

He also outlined tactics that fraud networks allegedly used:

• Setting up shell groups to bill the government for services never provided.
• Taking advantage of relaxed pandemic rules that sped up funding.
• Moving stolen money into luxury purchases, overseas accounts, or criminal activity such as drug trafficking and human exploitation.

Haywood Talcove, CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions, widened the scope beyond Minnesota. He said the federal government loses about $1 trillion each year to fraud, or about $115 million every hour. He added that roughly 70 percent of that fraud involves transnational criminal groups. According to Talcove, stolen funds often support organized crime, terrorism-related networks, or hostile foreign actors.

Talcove said criminals go after programs that elected and appointed officials are reluctant to challenge. He also said fraud rings learned during the pandemic that the government keeps paying out money and that the odds of getting caught are very low.

Claims About “Dark Money” and Foreign Influence

The hearing grew more contentious when the discussion shifted to nonprofit funding and protest activity linked to pushback against fraud enforcement.

Seamus Bruner, vice president of the Government Accountability Institute, testified that his group traced more than $60 million in payments to about 14 groups active in Minnesota. Some were local organizations, while others had a national reach. He said the money came through networks tied to George Soros, Arabella Advisors, Neville Roy Singham, and groups such as Tides and the Ford Foundation.

Bruner described the funding setup as a classic “dark money” model. In his view, layered grants make it hard to follow the money while shaping policy, protecting political interests, or organizing disruption when fraud probes put pressure on the system. He also linked some of the networks to coordinated unrest, including anti-ICE protests.

Witnesses and senators tied those concerns to foreign influence in several ways:

• Hawley pointed to the chance of money linked to the Chinese Communist Party and other transnational actors.
• Witnesses said some stolen funds move overseas or support activity that fuels unrest in U.S. cities.
• Talcove connected benefit fraud to larger criminal systems involving Russia, other countries, and hostile foreign governments.

Hawley said American taxpayers are being robbed of billions, especially in Minnesota, while foreign actors stir chaos in the streets. He called for the Department of Justice to investigate the networks and bring prosecutions.

Koran added that some protest activity in Minnesota appeared highly organized. He mentioned reports of training 30,000 observers, doxxing, attacks on federal agents, including one who lost a finger, and efforts to interfere with law enforcement.

Pushback and Broader Reform Proposals

Still, not every witness or senator framed the issue the same way. Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette of the Project On Government Oversight, POGO, urged lawmakers to focus on broad, nonpartisan fixes to waste, fraud, and abuse across government. He said the problem goes well beyond one state or one community.

Some Democrats also warned against tying the issue too closely to certain groups, including Minnesota’s Somali-American community in some cases, or to high-profile donors. They said that approach could divide the public and undercut legitimate concerns.

Several reform ideas came up during the hearing:

• Koran backed an independent Office of Inspector General for Minnesota. He said the measure passed the state Senate with bipartisan support but was blocked in the House.
• He also called for stronger eligibility checks and federal incentives that reward states for lowering error rates.
• Talcove and other witnesses pushed for stronger identity checks, better data tools, and pre-payment screening to stop fraud before money goes out.
• Hawley and other Republicans stressed tougher prosecutions, more scrutiny of nonprofit funding webs, and using Minnesota as a warning sign for the rest of the country.

Witnesses agreed on one point: fraud hurts the people these programs are supposed to help. It delays aid, drains public money, and weakens trust in safety-net programs.

Why the Hearing Matters

The February 10 hearing was part of a wider congressional effort that includes House Oversight hearings on Minnesota funds and related Senate investigations. It showed how failures in one state can lead to major national losses and raise homeland security concerns tied to transnational crime and foreign influence.

Supporters of the hearing’s approach said unchecked fraud damages disaster response, pulls money away from people in need, and may help fund activity that destabilizes communities. Critics said the framing could distract from the deeper task of fixing weak systems across all programs.

One witness summed up the stakes in simple terms. Stolen taxpayer dollars do not just disappear. They often end up paying for luxury goods, moving overseas, or supporting criminal enterprises.

The hearing closed with fresh calls for accountability, stronger oversight tools, and Justice Department action. Whether that leads to new laws or criminal cases is still unclear. Still, the session exposed deep disagreements over how government should protect public money when fraud, politics, and outside influence all collide.

Related News:

Rep. Ilhan Omar Faces Heat as Minnesota Voters Seek Change

Fraud Under Tim Walz May Have Handed Minnesota State to the Republicans

MOSCOW –  Russia has publicly urged Iran to stop military action at once and move toward negotiations in its war with the United States and Israel. Kremlin officials said the region is now “catastrophically tense” and warned that more fighting could make the crisis much worse.

The statement comes as Washington and Tehran send mixed messages about possible talks. U.S. President Donald Trump says discussions have been productive, while Iranian officials say no direct contact has taken place. Since the war began on February 28, 2026, it has shaken oil markets and raised fears of a broader conflict across the region.

How the Iran War Started

The conflict began when U.S. and Israeli forces carried out surprise airstrikes on Iranian targets. Those strikes hit military bases, nuclear sites, and leadership compounds. Reports said the goal was to slow Iran’s nuclear work and ballistic missile program. Senior Iranian figures were killed, including former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran answered with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities and on U.S. allies in the region. It also moved to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil routes. As a result, energy prices jumped and global shipping faced major delays.

• Main trigger: U.S. and Israeli strikes launched on February 28, 2026.
• Iran’s response: Missile attacks, strikes on regional bases, and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Casualties: Reports suggest thousands have been killed or hurt on both sides, including civilians in Tehran and other cities.
• Economic impact: Oil prices surged, and shipping in the Persian Gulf was disrupted.

Satellite images have underlined the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has blocked major shipping lanes and affected roughly one-fifth of global petroleum trade.

Russia Issues a Sharp Warning

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a call requested by Tehran. During that conversation, Lavrov pressed for an immediate end to the fighting and called for a political and diplomatic solution that protects the legitimate interests of all sides, especially Iran.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeated that message during a briefing.

“The situation should have transitioned to a political and diplomatic settlement. This is the only thing that can effectively contribute to defusing the catastrophically tense situation that has now developed in the region.”

Peskov also said diplomacy should have begun “yesterday” if the goal was to stop the crisis from getting worse.

Russia has another major concern, Bushehr nuclear power plant, which it helped build in Iran. Last week, the UN nuclear watchdog said a projectile struck near the facility. Because of that, Moscow has spoken out strongly about the danger of attacks near nuclear infrastructure.

“We consider strikes on nuclear facilities to be potentially extremely dangerous and fraught with, perhaps even irreversible, consequences.”

Peskov said continued strikes near such sites create a very serious security risk.

The Bushehr plant, built with Russian support, has become a key flashpoint as fears grow over possible radiation hazards.

Trump’s Claims Clash With Iran’s Denials

President Trump has sounded hopeful in recent days. He said the United States and Iran had “very good and productive conversations” focused on a “complete and total resolution of our hostilities.” He also delayed threatened strikes on Iranian energy sites and pushed back an ultimatum demanding that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said his administration had made meaningful progress and had reached common ground on several issues. He even hinted at political change inside Iran. Still, Iranian officials have flatly denied that any direct talks have taken place. Some in Tehran have called those claims “fake news” or an attempt to sway markets.

• Trump’s moves: Paused strikes on power-related targets and held off attacks on energy infrastructure.
• Iran’s position: No direct talks confirmed, while missile retaliation continues.
• Current fighting: Strikes on Tehran and Iranian missile attacks have continued despite talk of diplomacy.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly spoken about the Iran war, mixing military pressure with public calls for a deal.

Why Russia’s Role Matters

Russia remains one of Iran’s closest partners, with long-running military and technical ties. Even so, Moscow has not stepped directly into the war. It has condemned the U.S. and Israeli strikes as “unprovoked aggression,” but at the same time it has pushed hard for de-escalation.

Several factors help explain Russia’s stance:

• National interest: More turmoil in the Middle East could send energy markets into further chaos and affect Russia’s own oil trade.
• Nuclear fears: Because Russia helped develop Iran’s nuclear program, it worries that damage at Bushehr could trigger an environmental crisis or raise new nuclear risks.
• Regional stability: A wider war could pull in more countries and unsettle nearby areas, including the Caspian region, which Russia and Iran also discussed.
• Diplomatic influence: Moscow wants to present itself as a stabilizing voice while keeping its ties with Tehran intact.

So far, Russia has not announced any public military support for Iran in this war. Instead, it has focused on calls for a settlement that also protects Iranian interests.

What Could Happen Next

Analysts say the situation remains highly unstable. If the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the global economy could take a harder hit. At the same time, any direct strike on a nuclear site could trigger severe environmental and public health damage.

Several outcomes are now in play:

• Short-term ceasefire talks, likely with outside mediators.
• Pressure on Iran to reopen shipping lanes in return for sanctions relief or security promises.
• A wider war if talks collapse or more regional actors get involved.

Even with diplomatic channels opening, both sides are still fighting. Reports say U.S. Marines are moving into the Gulf, while Iranian missiles have targeted parts of Israel in recent days.

International Response

• United States: The Trump administration says it wants a deal, but it is keeping military options on the table.
• Israel: Israeli forces continue to strike Iranian military targets.
• Iran: Tehran denies direct talks, though some reports say it may consider “sustainable” proposals.
• Global community: Concern is growing over oil prices, civilian deaths, and nuclear safety.

Russia’s warning shows that even a close partnership has limits. It also reflects how urgent the need for de-escalation has become in a region close to a much larger disaster.

As this “catastrophically tense” crisis continues, the next few days may decide whether diplomacy can take hold or whether the war spreads even further, with effects far beyond the Middle East.

Related News:

Iran Regime Threatens to Strike Tourist Spots Around the World

California’s 2026 governor race is starting to look very different from what many expected. New polling shows two Republicans at the front of the crowded nonpartisan primary. At the same time, thousands of residents and major employers are leaving the state, along with other blue states, for places with lower taxes and lighter regulation.

Many voters seem worn out by high prices, strict rules, and daily quality-of-life concerns. The trend is hard to miss. Californians are leaving in large numbers, and that frustration now appears to be shaping the early race for governor.

Poll Surprise: Republicans Move to the Front in the Primary

California’s June 2026 primary follows the state’s top-two system. The two highest vote-getters move on to November, no matter what party they belong to.

Recent surveys point to a close but meaningful contest. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released this week showed conservative commentator Steve Hilton at 17 percent and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 16 percent. Several Democrats followed behind them, including Congressman Eric Swalwell at 13 to 14 percent, former Rep. Katie Porter at 13 percent, and activist billionaire Tom Steyer at 10 percent.

Other polling has shown a similar pattern. In February, the Public Policy Institute of California found Hilton and Bianco among the top five candidates, both in double digits. Emerson College polls in recent months also placed Republicans near or at the top, while Democrats split support across several campaigns and many voters stayed undecided, in some cases as high as 25 to 28 percent.

That matters because Republicans almost never lead statewide polls in heavily Democratic California. Still, the Democratic field is crowded, with nine candidates dividing liberal voters. That gives Republican contenders a clear opening. Hilton has centered his campaign on lower costs and pro-business changes. Bianco has focused on public safety and reducing red tape. Both are speaking to voter anger over affordability and regulation.

Why Blue States Are Losing Residents at a Record Pace

California posted a net loss of 229,000 residents to other states between July 2024 and July 2025, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. That was the biggest domestic migration loss in the country. New York and Illinois also saw major outflows.

Over the last five years, blue states together lost nearly 3.8 million people through net internal migration. Meanwhile, red and purple states added millions.

Top reasons many Californians give for leaving:
• Very high home prices and rent
• California’s top state income tax rate of 13.3 percent, along with proposed wealth taxes
• Tough business and environmental rules
• Homelessness, crime, and a high overall cost of living
• Better job options in other states

A proposed 2026 “Billionaire Tax” on net worth above $1 billion appears to have added to the rush. Tech executives and investors say the one-time 5 percent levy, applied retroactively to January 1, 2026, pushed many wealthy residents to relocate sooner. Some estimates say $1 trillion to $2 trillion in wealth has already left California, or is preparing to do so.

The same pattern has shown up elsewhere. New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts all posted net losses as people moved to states with lower taxes and fewer restrictions.

Companies Are Leaving Too, and the List Keeps Growing

The flow of people out of California mirrors what many businesses are doing. In 2025 alone, several major companies moved out of the state:
• Chevron moved its headquarters to Houston, Texas
• In-N-Out Burger relocated to Tennessee
• John Paul Mitchell Systems moved to Wilmer, Texas
• Public Storage shifted to Texas
• Playboy Enterprises relocated to Miami, Florida

Tesla, SpaceX, and X, formerly Twitter, had already moved under Elon Musk. Oracle left years earlier. Reports show that hundreds of headquarters have exited California since 2017, and the pace appears to be picking up. One analysis found that 3 percent of California businesses relocated out of the state in 2025.

Why companies are leaving:
• High corporate taxes and heavy regulation
• Rising labor and energy costs
• Easier permits and lower taxes in states like Texas and Florida
• Better access to growing markets without the same level of red tape

Texas and Florida led the way in attracting new businesses. Both states have no state income tax, lower overall tax burdens, and policies widely seen as business-friendly. In addition, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Idaho ranked high for inbound moves in 2025 U-Haul and Census data.

How the Exodus Is Affecting the Governor’s Race

Voters are paying attention to the outflow. Polls show affordability is the top issue for nearly two-thirds of likely voters. Because of that, views on taxes, housing, and jobs are shaping support more than party labels in many cases.

Independent voters have split their support between Hilton, Bianco, and the top Democratic candidates. Many say they want a break from the status quo. Bianco has argued that California needs bold new ideas to lower costs and grow jobs, a message that lines up with the frustration behind so many moving trucks heading out of state.

Hilton has made a similar case, saying California must reduce regulations that push employers away. Both Republicans say they want to make the state competitive again. Democrats in the race offer different answers, but they also face pressure to explain why California keeps losing residents after years of Democratic control.

Democrats still have an edge in a general election because of voter registration. Even so, the early Republican lead points to broad dissatisfaction. If one or both Republicans reach November, the race could center on taxes and regulation, the same issues driving many people and businesses to leave blue states.

A Bigger Pattern Across Blue States

California is not alone in dealing with this shift. New York, Illinois, and New Jersey are seeing similar trends. Census data shows that several red states continue to gain residents:
• Texas: +67,000 net domestic migrants
• Florida: +22,000, lower than pandemic highs but still positive
• North Carolina: +84,000, the highest in the nation
• South Carolina, Tennessee, and Idaho also posted strong gains

These states tend to offer lower taxes, fewer rules, cheaper housing, and in many cases stronger public safety. In simple terms, people move to places where they believe life will be easier for their families and better for their businesses.

Economists say this shift is also costing blue states large amounts of tax revenue. California alone has lost tens of billions of dollars in recent years. The pattern has continued into 2026, and fears over new wealth taxes seem to be speeding it up.

What’s Next for California?

The June primary will decide which two candidates move on. Early polling gives Republicans their strongest opening in decades to reach the November ballot. Whether they win or not, the message from voters is getting harder to ignore: high taxes and heavy regulation are pushing people and jobs elsewhere.

Leaders in blue states are now under pressure to respond. They can lower costs and ease rules, or they can watch more residents and employers move to lower-tax states.

For now, the numbers point in the same direction. Republicans are gaining momentum in California’s governor race. The migration data helps explain why. Families and businesses are choosing places with lower taxes and fewer barriers. The 2026 race may show whether California is ready to change course, or keep losing more people and investment.

Related News:

Midterm Election Predictions: Where Do President Trump and the Republicans Stand?