WASHINGTON D.C.– U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is again pushing the federal government to act on what he describes as secretive “dark money” networks. He says these groups help drive division, protests, and possible fraud across the United States.

During a recent Senate hearing, he led, Hawley pointed to operations he tied to billionaire-linked networks connected to George Soros and Neville Roy Singham. He urged the Department of Justice to open wide-ranging investigations and bring charges if the evidence supports it.

Hawley made the remarks during a Homeland Security subcommittee hearing that focused on fraud in state and federal programs, along with foreign influence inside the country. He described nonprofit groups and funding pipelines that he says operate with limited public visibility. In his view, those networks help finance what he called radical political activity on U.S. streets.

What Hawley Said in the Hearing

At the February 10, 2026, hearing, titled “Examining Fraud and Foreign Influence in State and Federal Programs,” Hawley pressed witnesses about large funding structures tied to nonprofit grants. He leaned on testimony from Seamus Bruner, vice president of the Government Accountability Institute, who tracks nonprofit money flows.

According to Hawley, researchers compiled a large database with “hundreds of thousands of rows” of grant information. He said the data includes funding connected to:

• the Soros network
• The Arabella funding network
• The Neville Roy Singham funding network
• other similar organizations

When Hawley asked about the size of these operations, Bruner pointed to what he called massive NGOs with billions available for organized activity. He described spending tied to coordinated protests and, in some cases, riot activity.

Hawley argued that the money often moves through multiple layers of groups. He claimed that structure can make it hard to track who pays for what. He also pointed to protests in Minnesota, saying reports show more than $60 million went to about 14 groups, including national and local organizations. He tied that to broader claims of state-level fraud involving hundreds of millions in public funds.

Hawley said he sees the same patterns again and again, with funding routed through similar channels and then appearing around protests and unrest. He also said prosecutions should follow where investigators find criminal conduct.

Near the end of the hearing, Hawley repeated his request to the Justice Department. He asked prosecutors to investigate the groups, map out the funding web, and pursue charges when possible. He said Americans should be able to trust that their government is not being shaped by hidden money.

The People and Networks Hawley Named

George Soros, a Hungarian-American billionaire and philanthropist, has long drawn criticism from conservative lawmakers and commentators. His Open Society Foundations and related organizations support progressive causes. Critics often point to the way 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit structures can allow donors to remain anonymous. They argue this can hide major political spending behind legal nonprofit activity.

Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born tech entrepreneur who now lives in Shanghai, has also faced increased scrutiny. Reports have raised concerns about his alleged ties to Chinese Communist Party propaganda efforts. Those reports claim his money supports groups that promote left-wing causes in several countries, including organizations accused of repeating Beijing-aligned messaging. Hawley referenced Singham in the context of foreign influence and protest support inside the United States.

During the hearing, Hawley and witnesses suggested that some of these networks may overlap at times. They also described similar methods, such as sending money through intermediary groups to make the source harder to see.

Part of a Bigger Fight Over “Dark Money”

Hawley’s latest push follows earlier steps this month. In early February 2026, he sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for investigations into left-leaning dark money groups tied to anti-ICE protests across the country. Organizers described those demonstrations as grassroots, but Hawley argued that large donors, routed through less transparent channels, helped fund them.

He also connected the issue to larger cases, which he says show deep problems in public spending oversight. That includes allegations of major fraud in Minnesota tied to taxpayer dollars and pandemic-related programs. He also raised broader concerns about foreign actors taking advantage of U.S. systems.

In Hawley’s framing, the problem goes beyond politics and into public safety and national security. He argued that taxpayers lose huge sums to fraud, while foreign-linked efforts can help stir conflict and disorder at home. He said federal authorities should focus on shutting down illegal funding pipelines and stopping foreign influence where it crosses legal lines.

How People Are Responding and What Could Happen Next

Reactions to Hawley’s statements have split along familiar lines. Supporters say he is calling attention to hidden funding and demanding accountability from powerful networks. Critics respond that he focuses on left-leaning donors while downplaying conservative dark money, and they add that much nonprofit political spending remains legal and protected under free speech rules.

As of this reporting, the Department of Justice has not publicly responded to Hawley’s specific requests involving networks tied to Soros or Singham. If federal investigators move forward, they would likely review a mix of issues. That could include tax compliance, foreign agent registration rules, and possible criminal violations tied to fraud or money laundering.

Meanwhile, Hawley’s subcommittee continues its oversight work, and he has suggested that more hearings are coming. He also pointed back to the database of grant records referenced at the hearing, signaling that additional research could lead to more claims about funding links and organizational relationships.

Why This Story Matters in US Politics

Dark money, meaning political spending tied to donors who are not publicly disclosed, has concerned lawmakers and voters on both sides for years. The debate intensified after the 2010 Citizens United decision. Since then, Democrats and Republicans have traded accusations about nonprofits being used to influence elections, policy, and public opinion while shielding donors from view.

Hawley’s campaign fits with a broader Republican message about elite power and foreign influence. By naming Soros and Singham, he is trying to put faces on a larger argument about secrecy in political funding. He also hopes that public pressure will push federal agencies toward stronger enforcement and more transparency.

Hawley closed his argument with a familiar point: Americans should be able to control their own government. Whether the DOJ acts on his renewed call remains unclear, but Hawley’s continued focus keeps dark money, protest funding, and foreign influence in the spotlight.

Trending News:

Supreme Court Orders CNN to Respond in High-Stakes Defamation Case

NEW YORK – Megyn Kelly went after Hillary Clinton during a heated segment on Sky News Australia, accusing the former secretary of state of blatant hypocrisy. Kelly argued that Clinton is trying to tie President Donald Trump and his Department of Justice to a Jeffrey Epstein file “cover-up” while ignoring how often Bill Clinton shows up in the same material.

The clash comes as renewed attention hits the ongoing release of millions of pages tied to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender. Speaking to the BBC during the Munich Security Conference in mid-February 2026, Hillary Clinton claimed the Trump administration had dragged its feet on full disclosure. She also alleged the DOJ has kept key names out of view through redactions and has resisted congressional requests.

“Get the files out. They are slow-walking it,” Clinton said, framing the delays as an effort to protect powerful people, with Trump implied in her remarks.

On Sky News host Paul Murray’s show, Kelly said Clinton’s comments look like a distraction. She pointed to Bill Clinton’s history with Epstein and argued that Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Trump don’t hold up when her husband’s name appears so often in the record.

Megyn Kelly’s blunt message: Bill Clinton shows up again and again

Megyn Kelly didn’t soften her point during the interview.

“There are few in the Epstein file as many times as Bill Clinton,” she told Murray. “There is a long, long history between those two.”

Over the years, court filings, flight logs from Epstein’s private jet (often called the “Lolita Express”), and witness accounts have repeatedly referenced Bill Clinton’s travel and connections to Epstein after Clinton left office.

No criminal charges have ever been brought against the former president tied to Epstein’s crimes. Still, Kelly stressed that his name appears frequently in unsealed materials, more often than many other prominent figures.

From Megyn Kelly’s view, that context undercuts the Clintons’ posture in the current debate.

“They folded like cheap tents because they knew they didn’t have a leg to stand on,” she said, arguing that efforts to keep the spotlight on Trump fade fast once Bill Clinton’s links come up.

That theme matches a wider conservative argument. Critics say Democrats push Trump-Epstein angles hard while minimizing or brushing past Bill Clinton’s documented association with Epstein.

The Epstein files fight, and why it won’t go away.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. After his death, public pressure grew for transparency about his circle of wealthy and influential contacts, which included political figures, business leaders, scientists, and celebrities.

Several developments have kept the issue alive, including:

• Rolling releases of court records from civil cases, including Virginia Giuffre’s defamation lawsuit involving Ghislaine Maxwell.
• Congressional action in late 2025orderedg the Department of Justice to declassify and release remaining Epstein-related materials.
• A large document release in early 2026 that totaled millions of pages, although critics on both sides say heavy redactions remain.

During Trump’s current term, the DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi has overseen the latest round of releases. Supporters of the process say the DOJ must protect victim privacy and follow legal rules. Opponents, including Clinton, argue the government is shielding elites connected to the current president.

Clinton’s BBC interview added fuel to the partisan fight. She said potential congressional subpoenas for her and Bill Clinton were meant to distract from Trump.

“Why do they want to pull us into this? To divert attention from President Trump. This is not complicated,” she said.

In response, the White House said the administration has “done more for the victims” than previous administrations and remains committed to transparency.

The hypocrisy argument, and the broader political fallout

Megyn Kelly’s comments highlight a familiar pattern in US politics, where each side accuses the other of playing favorites in major scandals.

Critics point to Bill Clinton’s Epstein connections, including:

• Multiple trips on Epstein’s plane.
• Shared social circles and overlap in philanthropic settings.
• No proven criminal wrongdoing, but ongoing questions raised by unsealed documents.

At the same time, Trump’s Epstein-related history has also drawn attention, including:

• Past social ties in New York and Palm Beach circles.
• A 2002 comment describing Epstein as a “terrific guy” who liked “beautiful women… on the younger side.”
• Later separation from Epstein, including a ban from Mar-a-Lago.
• Mentions in released files, though Kelly and other commentators claim they appear less often than Bill Clinton’s.

Megyn Kelly’s central claim is that Hillary Clinton’s focus on Trump ignores that imbalance. She argues Clinton can’t credibly demand answers from others while sidestepping her own family’s exposure in the same story.

The debate also reflects a split in coverage. Right-leaning outlets, including Sky News Australia, have highlighted Kelly’s pushback. Meanwhile, many mainstream US outlets have placed more focus on Clinton’s claims of a cover-up and on congressional efforts aimed at the Clintons.

What it could mean for 2026 politics

As Trump’s second term moves forward, the Epstein files remain a political flashpoint. Each new release risks naming more people and reshaping public opinion across party lines.

For Democrats, Clinton’s public push for more transparency may rally supporters, but it also risks pulling Bill Clinton’s past back into headlines. For Republicans, Kelly’s comments offer a ready counterattack, framing Democratic criticism as selective and self-serving.

Above all, the fight shows how little trust many voters have in institutions handling cases that touch powerful people. Full, unredacted disclosure still isn’t guaranteed, and the argument over what’s being held back keeps growing.

Megyn Kelly’s bottom line, that the Clintons “didn’t have a leg to stand on,” captures the tone of the moment. As more documents surface and pressure continues, the Epstein saga remains a tool in ongoing political warfare, and neither side seems ready to let it drop.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Talks With Buck Sexton About Left-Wing Brainwashing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), a top progressive voice in the Democratic Party, drew global attention at the 62nd Munich Security Conference in February 2026. However, her debut on that stage quickly became a flashpoint.

Organizers invited her to talk about changes in U.S. foreign policy and the rise of authoritarian politics. She tried to offer a working-class-focused alternative to the Trump administration’s style.

Instead, several awkward moments and charged lines sparked criticism from conservatives, moderates, and even some Democrats. As a result, talk grew about possible weak spots if she pursues bigger plans, including a potential 2028 presidential run.

The conference ran from February 13 to 15, 2026. It brought together global leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to discuss transatlantic security.

The agenda focused on alliances, migration, and major power rivalry. AOC joined panels on populism and U.S. foreign policy. Throughout, she argued that economic inequality links directly to the global rise of far-right movements.

Key moments that drove the AOC backlash

Several parts of Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance set off immediate pushback across the political spectrum:

• Taiwan’s defense hesitation
  During a Bloomberg-hosted discussion, she was asked whether the United States should commit troops to defend Taiwan if China invaded. She paused for a noticeable moment, then gave a careful answer centered on deterrence and alliances. Critics called the exchange a “word salad” and said it showed she wasn’t ready for core national security questions.
• Venezuela geography mistake
  While talking about Latin America, she wrongly said Venezuela sits south of the equator (it’s in the Northern Hemisphere). The slip spread quickly online and in media coverage, and opponents questioned her grasp of basic geopolitics.
• “Cowboy culture” jab at Rubio
  She tried to respond to Secretary Rubio’s comments about the Spanish roots of American cowboy culture. In that context, she said Mexicans and descendants of enslaved Africans “would like to have a word.” Critics argued the line was historically off and flattened a complex history into a quick punchline.
• Wider foreign policy framing
  She linked U.S. aid to Israel to enabling “genocide” in Gaza. She also urged a progressive, class-first foreign policy as a way to push back on authoritarianism. Those positions energized many progressives. At the same time, they turned off centrists and some pro-Israel Democrats.

Republican voices moved fast. Strategist Matt Whitlock called the weekend an “absolute train wreck,” and he pointed to the Taiwan moment and her history references as the biggest problems. Former President Donald Trump and allies also boosted clips on social media, aiming to frame her as out of her depth on a world stage.

Criticism from the left and center-left

The blowback didn’t stay on the right. Some veteran Democrats and liberal commentators said the mistakes were avoidable and distracting.

• New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf said the appearance showed “a complete lack of chops about international issues,” and he added it wasn’t “ready for prime time.”
• Moderate and left-leaning voices, including social media commenters and opinion writers, admitted the Taiwan answer “was not great” and could hurt her credibility.
• Even some progressive outlets said the stumbles pulled focus from her main point, that inequality fuels far-right populism.

In later interviews, Ocasio-Cortez defended the trip and pushed back on the idea that it was about personal ambition. “I went to Munich not because I’m running for president,” she told The New York Times, “but because we need to address runaway inequality.”

What it could mean for her political future

After Munich, attention on Ocasio-Cortez’s national path only grew. As a leading member of “The Squad” with a large online following, she has a loyal base. Still, she also faces ongoing questions about whether she can expand beyond progressive voters, especially on foreign policy.

• Near-term downside
  The missteps give opponents ready-made clips for future campaigns. They could also make fundraising and endorsements harder with establishment Democrats who worry about national security gaps.
• Longer-term staying power
  Supporters argue the reaction reflects discomfort with her class-based challenge to elite foreign policy thinking. They also point to her joint appearance with Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), where she promoted a “working-people” approach. In contrast, Rubio leaned into messages focused on migration and borders.
• National-level math
  Analysts say her base turnout remains strong. However, broader viability often requires steady command of tough topics, including China policy and Middle East conflicts.

Overall, the Munich episode highlights a familiar challenge for progressive leaders who step into national security debates. With global tensions high, any sign of inexperience can carry a real political cost.

Ocasio-Cortez has faced controversies before and often turns criticism into motivation for her supporters. Whether Munich slows her down or fires up her base is still unclear. Even so, it marked a high-stakes test of her first major foreign policy appearance.

In the days after the conference, she said she was frustrated that coverage of “slip-ups” drowned out her warnings about authoritarianism. Yet the wide pile-on from both parties suggests the moment may stick in the public memory as her profile continues to grow.

Related News:

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