MUNICH, Germany – At the Munich Security Conference in 2026, every line mattered. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech that drew heavy applause and ended with a standing ovation. He framed the United States as steady and committed to its allies.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tried to push back with a pointed critique. Instead, her comments came out uneven and sparked fresh questions about her command of foreign policy. The moment also showed a wider split in how each party wants the US to act on the world stage.

Rubio’s keynote focused on reassurance. He spoke to European leaders who have worried about US politics and long-term reliability. He promised a “new century of prosperity” built with partners, not apart from them.

He told the room, “America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity and that once again, we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies and our oldest friends.”

The crowd responded with frequent applause that built to a standing ovation. Rubio also urged European countries to guard their sovereignty, defend their “Christian heritage,” and turn away from what he called “self-destructive” choices. He pointed to issues like unchecked migration and deindustrialization. Even critics described the tone as calming, especially for attendees who feared a new strain across the Atlantic.

Key takeaways from Rubio’s address included:

• Backing alliances: Rubio said the US has “no interest in being polite caretakers of the West’s managed decline,” and he cast America as a leader with a clear direction.
• Shared culture and history: He used historical links, including the roots of American cowboy culture, to underline common ties.
• Border and economic themes: Stronger borders and renewed industry earned nods from leaders facing similar pressures at home.

With that performance, Rubio strengthened his position as a central voice in the administration’s foreign policy, mixing MAGA-style themes with older conservative ideas.

AOC’s Response: Big Expectations, Uneven Delivery

Ocasio-Cortez, often discussed as a possible 2028 contender, appeared on a panel focused on populism and inequality. When a moderator joked about her presidential future, she moved past it and steered toward domestic themes.

She called for a wealth tax and argued that rising inequality can feed authoritarian politics.

However, when she turned to Rubio’s speech, her critique stumbled. Viewers noticed long pauses, repeated filler words, and moments where she seemed unsure of key details. That contrast stood out because she usually sounds sharper in her online messaging.

The clip that traveled fastest came from her response to Rubio’s cowboy reference. Ocasio-Cortez said, “My favorite part was when he said that American cowboys came from Spain,” then added, “And I believe the Mexicans and descendants of African enslaved peoples would like to have a word on that.”

Her point aimed at inclusion, and it spoke to real parts of the story. Still, historians noted that Rubio’s core claim lines up with the record. The roots of cowboy culture trace to Spanish vaqueros, including Indigenous Mesoamericans trained by Spanish colonizers after their arrival in Mexico in 1519.

The word “vaquero” ties to the Spanish “vaca” (cow). In addition, common tools and terms carry Spanish origins, including lassoing (from “lazo”) and chaps (from “chaparreras”).

Ocasio-Cortez focused on later chapters of that history, not the starting point. After Texas’s independence and US annexation, Anglo settlers adopted many vaquero traditions.

Black cowboys also played a major role, with some estimates placing them at up to one-fourth of the workforce in the 19th century. Over time, Hollywood often pushed a whiter version of the cowboy story. Even so, Rubio’s reference centered on early European influence.

Online, the debate split quickly. Some praised her for highlighting groups often erased. Others called it a preventable error that exposed weak preparation on cultural history, a topic that often matters in diplomacy.

Taiwan Question: Halting Answer, Fast Backlash

Ocasio-Cortez faced another tough moment when asked about the US commitment to defending Taiwan. Her response came out broken up and uncertain: “You know… I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is a, this is of course a very long-standing policy of the United States.” She expressed hope for peace, but she didn’t offer a clear position.

Clips spread quickly, and critics compared the answer to a pageant-style response. The House Foreign Affairs Committee posted a sharp message, saying she “sounded like a third-grader in class attempting to give a report on a book she never read.”

A few reasons the Taiwan exchange landed poorly:

• Choppy pacing: Repeated “you know” and “I think” interrupted her point.
• Thin detail: She leaned on “long-standing policy” without explaining what it requires or where it draws lines.
• Instant memes: Social users pushed nicknames like “Mumble in Munich,” which kept the clip alive.

Across her panel, Ocasio-Cortez kept her focus on inequality. She argued that economic pain can drive populism, and she promoted global ideas like wealth taxes. She also connected Rubio’s themes to Vice President JD Vance’s earlier speech, calling both rooted in “cultural nostalgia.” In her view, the administration risks “tearing apart the transatlantic partnership” and treating the world as a “personal sandbox.”

Still, her broader argument got buried under the stumbles. While Rubio drew loud approval, her session received a quieter response. Some attendees also said she didn’t address specific flashpoints in enough depth, including Iran and Ukraine.

What People Said Afterward

Reaction came fast from all sides:

• Republicans cheered Rubio: Many GOP voices framed his remarks as proof of leadership and used the moment to boost his 2028 image.
• Democrats defended Ocasio-Cortez: Supporters said the coverage fixated on delivery, not her values or her critique of inequality.
• Media replayed the contrast: Outlets, including Fox News, highlighted the back-and-forth and treated it as a test of global credibility.
• Historians weighed in on cowboys: Scholars, including Pablo A. Rangel, pointed to how cowboy myths became romanticized and racialized over time. They supported her inclusion point while still affirming her Spanish origins.

Former Bush-era official Michael Allen also commented on the split visions, with tensions involving Iran hanging over the broader discussion.

What It Could Mean for US Politics and 2028

The Munich episode captured a shifting fight over US foreign policy. Rubio presented a forceful, heritage-focused approach. Ocasio-Cortez pushed an equity-first view tied to economic reform.

For Ocasio-Cortez, the clips may feed an “unready for the world stage” storyline, especially with early polling that shows her competing well against possible rivals such as Vance in hypothetical matchups. Meanwhile, European leaders left Munich still watching for signs of steadiness from Washington. Rubio’s reception suggested his message landed. Her rough moments may pressure her team to tighten her international talking points.

With 2028 getting closer, appearances like this can shape how voters and allies judge a candidate’s global credibility. Ocasio-Cortez has shown strength in domestic fights, but Munich highlighted how different the foreign policy spotlight can be.

Munich offered a clear contrast. Rubio delivered a speech that lifted the room and signaled renewed commitment to allies. Ocasio-Cortez tried to challenge that message, but pauses and a disputed history critique pulled attention away from her larger argument.

Whether the moment sticks as a lasting gaffe or fades into a learning step depends on what comes next. On the international stage, preparation shows fast, and so do mistakes.

Related News:

Rubio Slaps Visa Ban on 5 Europeans Over US Tech Censorship

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 16, 2026, House Republicans used a recent Ways and Means Committee hearing to press a warning they call urgent. They say foreign adversaries can exploit America’s nonprofit system to move huge sums into U.S. activist networks.

In their view, that money helps drive protests, sharpen social divides, and push overseas interests inside the United States.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) led the February 10 hearing, titled “Foreign Influence in American Non-profits: Unmasking Threats from Beijing and Beyond.” The discussion focused on alleged links between some nonprofit funding streams and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), along with other foreign donors.

Republicans and several witnesses argued that weak oversight makes it easier to route money through 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) groups. They also said these pathways can sidestep campaign finance limits and create risks tied to propaganda, disruption, and election interference.

Key claims raised during the Ways and Means Committee hearing

Lawmakers and witnesses pointed to a mix of specific examples and broader trends.

• Neville Roy Singham and an alleged network of groups: Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born tech entrepreneur now based in Shanghai, drew heavy attention. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Smith described what he called a “Singham CCP network.” He and other Republicans alleged that Singham has moved more than $100 million, and possibly more, through U.S. nonprofits. They said the goal is to amplify pro-CCP messaging and support far-left causes. Groups mentioned in connection with this claim included:
  • The People’s Forum (a New York-based organizing space tied to anti-ICE protests and pro-Palestinian actions)
  • CodePink
  • BreakThrough News
  • Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research
  • ANSWER Coalition
  • Party for Socialism and Liberation

  Witnesses also said some of these groups work alongside organizations such as the Democratic Socialists of America to mobilize demonstrations. They argued that these protests can overwhelm local authorities and inflame unrest.

• Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss and the 1630 Fund: Testimony highlighted Wyss’s giving, including $280 million to the left-leaning 1630 Fund, a major 501(c)(4). Republicans also cited claims that foreign sources have sent about $2.7 billion through parts of the nonprofit sector. They contrasted that figure with right-leaning groups, who they say block foreign funds.
• Other overseas foundations supporting U.S. activism: Americans for Public Trust referenced nearly $2 billion from five foreign charities. Examples named during the hearing included the Quadrature Climate Foundation and the Oak Foundation. According to the testimony, the money supported U.S. climate litigation, protest activity, and policy advocacy. Republicans said some of that work targets U.S. energy independence.

In his opening remarks, Smith said tax-exempt status is “a privilege, not a right.” He argued that some groups receive the benefits of U.S. tax policy, including deductions, while pushing what he described as foreign propaganda. He also raised concerns about alleged ties to extremist activity.

Testimony, pushback, and party-line friction

Most witnesses came from conservative-leaning groups, which shaped the tone and focus of the hearing.

• Scott Walter of the Capital Research Center said both parties agree foreign money should not shape U.S. politics.
• Caitlin Sutherland of Americans for Public Trust described how foreign “dark money” can move through donor-advised funds and fiscal sponsors.
• Peter Schweizer and others pointed to reported Singham links, including claims about shared office space with Chinese state media and attendance at pro-CCP events.

Democrats challenged the framing and the witness selection. They pointed out that one witness from Public Citizen had received Wyss funding. Members also argued that Republicans centered the hearing on left-leaning groups while downplaying other forms of foreign influence. As the debate sharpened, Democrats warned that the effort could slide into political targeting. Republicans said oversight is necessary when national security is at stake.

Calls for DOJ and IRS enforcement

The hearing did not stop at criticism. Republicans urged federal agencies to take action, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the IRS, and the Treasury Department. They called for reviews of possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), nonprofit tax rules, and election laws.

Several recent moves fed that push:

• Late in 2025, Republican state attorneys general asked the DOJ to investigate foreign funding tied to more than 150 climate groups.
• The Trump administration has signaled broader scrutiny of left-leaning NGOs. That includes groups linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Republicans said tools such as FBI task forces and IRS reviews should focus on alleged support for “political violence.”
• Smith has also urged the IRS to revoke tax-exempt status for groups such as Alliance for Global Justice, citing alleged terror-related links.

Even so, no formal DOJ action followed the hearing. Critics say aggressive investigations could chill speech protected by the First Amendment. Progressive nonprofits responded by defending their work as lawful advocacy and civic engagement.

Legal and practical hurdles also remain. Nonprofits can mask sources of money through layered structures, and investigators often need strong proof of direct foreign control or illegal coordination.

What it means for the nonprofit sector

The hearing highlighted a long-running tension in the U.S. nonprofit system. The country offers broad tax benefits to support charities and civic groups. Republicans argue that the same system can be misused by foreign actors, including China, to influence public debate and politics.

Republicans floated several policy options, including:

• tougher disclosure rules for foreign grants tied to 501(c)(4) groups
• Closing gaps that allow foreign nationals to shape elections through indirect routes
• more IRS audits of politically active nonprofits

As a result, the hearing became a flashpoint in a wider fight over foreign interference, domestic activism, and civil liberties. With claims of billions in play and national security concerns driving the debate, pressure on federal agencies continues to build.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Republican senators grilled Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Thursday during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee oversight hearing. The exchange stayed tense from the start.

Lawmakers focused on claims of large-scale fraud in federal aid programs, especially those expanded during the pandemic. They also raised concerns about possible foreign involvement, including money they said could connect to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

As the hearing moved along, arguments grew sharper. Republicans framed Minnesota as a prime example of weak oversight. Democrats pushed back and called the session political. Meanwhile, immigration enforcement and national security worries sat at the center of the fight.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) drove much of the questioning. He accused Ellison of moving too slowly as fraud networks allegedly drained huge sums from programs tied to child care, nutrition, and welfare. Hawley highlighted the “Feeding Our Future” case, where federal prosecutors charged multiple people with stealing money from a nonprofit that claimed to provide meals to kids during COVID-19 shutdowns.

At one point, Hawley told Ellison, “You ought to be indicted.” Hawley pointed to a 2021 meeting where Ellison allegedly met with people later tied to the scheme. He also suggested Ellison helped suspects by stepping into an investigation. Ellison strongly denied that claim.

Ellison, a Democrat and former U.S. representative, responded with equal force. He called the accusations partisan attacks. He also said his office has pursued fraud cases tied to the same networks.

At the same time, Ellison criticized federal immigration actions in Minnesota, including the Trump administration’s “Operation Metro Surge.” He said the large federal presence led to conflict on the ground. Ellison also demanded more transparency after two U.S. citizens died in shootings during enforcement activity in Minneapolis, and he urged better cooperation from federal agencies.

Fraud Claims Drive the Hearing

Republicans used the hearing to argue that Minnesota became a hub for pandemic-era fraud. Witnesses, including Minnesota State Sen. Mark Koran (R), told senators that Gov. Tim Walz and Ellison oversaw systems that failed basic checks. As a result, they said, fraudsters stole billions through programs tied to childcare reimbursements, SNAP, and other benefits.

In addition, journalists and watchdog groups described what they called fake businesses collecting real money. They pointed to examples like empty or inactive daycare sites that still received large reimbursements. One case repeatedly cited in related discussions involved “Quality Learning Center” in Minneapolis. Critics described it as a front operation, and they referenced a video showing a site that appeared deserted while billing for services.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republicans used those examples to push policy changes. They argued for tighter rules and stronger proof before federal payments go out in childcare programs. Cruz also referenced photos of facilities he said showed the scale of the problem and the failure of oversight under Minnesota’s Democratic leadership.

Republicans claimed the overall losses in Minnesota could reach $9 billion or more. They said that the estimate does not include separate schemes tied to nutrition and welfare programs. They also argued Ellison shares responsibility, either because he did not act fast enough or because of political connections. Some Republicans pointed to campaign donations from people they said had links to suspects.

Republican Claims of CCP-Linked Money and Foreign Influence

Republicans also elevated another theme, alleged foreign funding tied to fraud and activism. Several witnesses described “dark money” networks they said connect to transnational crime and foreign rivals, including entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party.

Before the hearing, Hawley said senators would show how stolen funds in Minnesota could connect to wider networks. He claimed money may have been moved overseas or used to support protest activity. Witnesses argued that foreign actors can exploit U.S. aid programs and also back groups that oppose immigration enforcement, including anti-ICE organizing.

Still, Republicans did not present direct evidence that Ellison personally received CCP-linked money. Even so, the topic became a major talking point. Senators tied it to other congressional attention on political funding networks, including scrutiny of groups allegedly connected to U.S. expat Neville Roy Singham, who has been accused of sending CCP-aligned money to far-left organizations. Some of those groups have been active in Minneapolis protest activity.

Ellison rejected the foreign funding claims as unsupported. He shifted the focus back to federal enforcement, arguing that Washington has overreached in Minnesota. He urged lawmakers to limit ICE operations and protect due process during enforcement actions.

Personal Clashes and Sharp Exchanges

Tempers flared several times during the hearing. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) accused Ellison of “smirking” while senators discussed anti-ICE Signal chats used by activists. Johnson called Ellison’s reaction “despicable.” Ellison fired back and called Johnson’s approach “theatrical.”

Later, Hawley and Ellison talked over each other in a shouting match. Hawley demanded resignation and accountability. Ellison defended his record and accused Republicans of staging a show for cameras.

Democrats on the committee tried to widen the scope. They pointed to fraud and misconduct, which they said happened under the current administration. They also argued that Republicans ignored broader problems outside Minnesota.

What It Could Mean for National Policy

The hearing showed how Republicans plan to connect state-level fraud to national security threats. They argued that foreign adversaries and criminal groups take advantage of weak controls. Hawley and others called for broad reforms to stop future abuse and reduce the chances of money flowing to bad actors.

Ellison’s testimony is unlikely to be the last confrontation. He is expected to appear before the House Oversight Committee in March, alongside Gov. Walz. Meanwhile, federal investigations tied to Minnesota fraud cases continue to expand, and prosecutors have signaled more charges could follow.

As fights over immigration, federal spending, and foreign influence grow louder, Thursday’s hearing captured the mood in Washington. Fraud claims ran headfirst into accusations of political theater, and warnings about CCP meddling added even more heat to an already volatile debate.

Related News:

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