Politics

Tim Walz Weak Racism Fears Cost Minnesota Taxpayers Over $1 Billion

Published

3 months ago

December 4, 2025

VORNews

Minnesota Gov Tim Walz Weak Racism Fears

MINNEAPOLIS – In Minnesota’s Twin Cities, Somali immigrants have built strong neighborhoods, busy businesses, and visible political influence. Their presence has reshaped parts of the state, especially areas like Cedar-Riverside in Minneapolis, often called “Little Mogadishu.”

At the same time, investigators now describe a very different story. Federal and state probes say more than $1 billion was stolen from public aid programs, much of it through schemes led by individuals with ties to the Somali community. These programs were meant to support low-income families, hungry kids, homeless residents, and children with autism.

At the center of the political storm stands Governor Tim Walz. Critics say his administration failed to act on clear warning signs, which allowed fraud to grow during the COVID-19 pandemic. Walz rejects that charge and says legal barriers and a focus on fairness limited what the state could do.

What began as a few unusual reports of inflated meal counts in child nutrition programs soon grew into a scandal on a national scale. U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson has called it “the largest pandemic relief fraud scheme in American history.”

So far, prosecutors have won 59 convictions, with many more charges pending. The fallout has fueled national arguments about immigration policy, welfare oversight, and political courage. Former President Donald Trump and other critics accuse Walz of avoiding tough action because he feared being attacked as a racist. Walz says that the charge is unfair and insists he followed the law.

Minnesota has the largest Somali community in the United States, with more than 80,000 residents, many of whom arrived as refugees from the civil war in the 1990s. They have opened shops and restaurants, run nonprofits, served in public office, and become an important voting bloc. Investigators stress that a small group, not the community as a whole, abused the state’s generous safety net.

According to federal filings, this group set up fake nonprofits and sham service sites that drew in huge sums from programs intended for food aid, housing support, and autism services.

The Feeding Our Future Scandal: 125 Million “Phantom” Meals

The core of the story is the Feeding Our Future case. Federal prosecutors say it was a $250 million scheme that involved 70 defendants, nearly all of Somali background.

From March 2020 through January 2022, the nonprofit founded by Aimee Bock sponsored more than 250 supposed food sites across Minnesota. Prosecutors say many of these locations barely served anyone, if they operated at all.

The group allegedly:

Submitted bills for about 125 million meals that were never provided
Created fake rosters of children, using online name generators
Filed false paperwork with the Minnesota Department of Education to trigger reimbursements

One small restaurant in Willmar, which served only dozens of real customers each day, claimed it provided 1.6 million meals in just 11 months. Investigators say its operators then paid themselves roughly $40,000 a month in kickbacks.

Loosened Pandemic Rules Opened the Floodgates

To keep kids fed during COVID-19 closures, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) relaxed rules for meal programs. The goal was speed, not bureaucracy.

These temporary waivers allowed:

Minimal or no in-person site inspections
Participation by for-profit groups
Fast payments with far less verification

A June 2024 state audit hammered the Minnesota Department of Education for “inadequate oversight.” Claims jumped by 400 percent, yet the agency did little to question the surge. The audit concluded that both actions and failures to act “created opportunities for fraud.”

Whistleblowers say they raised red flags early, but Walz’s team avoided strong action because they did not want conflict with Somali community leaders, who are viewed as an important part of the Democratic base. Walz and his staff reject that accusation and say they followed federal rules and relied on law enforcement.

Beyond Meals: Housing and Autism Programs Exploited

Feeding Our Future turned out to be only one part of a much broader problem. Federal and state investigators have uncovered at least two more major schemes, which they say could push the total fraud past $750 million on top of the meal program case.

Housing Stabilization Fraud

One group of suspects is accused of abusing housing stabilization programs that were designed to help people on the edge of homelessness.

Investigators say fraudsters:

Pretended to be service providers
Claimed to help clients who did not exist
Billed the state for rent assistance and services that never happened

Authorities say the money funded luxury lifestyles. Court filings describe suspects buying Rolex watches, Lamborghinis, and real estate in Ethiopia with stolen funds.

Autism Services Scheme

The autism services fraud followed a similar pattern. According to prosecutors, several providers filed bogus claims for therapy that never took place.

Authorities say defendants:

Falsely diagnosed children to qualify them for intensive therapy
Submitted inflated bills for sessions that were not delivered
Paid parents kickbacks to sign forms and stay quiet

The cost of the autism program exploded, rising from $2.6 million in 2020 to $104 million in 2024. Officials say much of that growth came from false claims.

A Billion-Dollar Hit And A Community Under Scrutiny

Taken together, prosecutors estimate that these schemes stole more than $1 billion from public programs. So far, 86 people have been indicted, and 78 of them have Somali roots or heritage. Fifty-nine have already pleaded guilty.

Investigators say the stolen money did not only pay for designer clothes or luxury cars. Some of it moved overseas.

Law enforcement sources say millions of dollars flowed out of the U.S. through hawala, an informal money-transfer system that is common in Somalia. A City Journal report, based on unnamed federal counterterrorism officials, claimed that part of the stolen money ended up with Al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-linked group that controls areas in Somalia.

No terrorism charges have been filed. Still, the report was serious enough that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an inquiry on December 1. He pledged to track where the money went and to follow any links to extremist groups.

Congress Steps In: Subpoenas For Walz And Ellison

The scandal has drawn the attention of Washington. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) has launched his own investigation and issued subpoenas to Governor Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.

In a sharply worded letter, Comer accused the “Democrat-controlled administration” of allowing “millions to be stolen” through weak oversight and possible retaliation against whistleblowers. He claimed that state leaders failed to act, tried to downplay concerns, and may have shielded politically connected figures.

Comer also cited a recording in which Walz spoke about helping Feeding Our Future representatives and referenced campaign donations from Somali leaders. The committee wants all emails, texts, and internal memos related to what the administration knew and how it responded, including any effort to slow or limit investigations.

Whistleblowers Say Warnings Were Silenced

A group of current and former state workers has gone public with their anger. An X account that said it represented 480 employees at the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) posted a series of claims accusing top officials of blocking their efforts to uncover fraud.

The account, later renamed “Minnesota Staff Fraud Reporting Commentary,” called Walz “100% responsible” for what happened. The posters say staff raised concerns about strange billing patterns and fake clients, but instead of support, they received “monitoring, threats, repression,” and personal attacks on their credibility.

More than 400 DHS workers backed those posts on social media, saying management stripped auditors of real power in order to avoid political backlash. According to them, the message from above was clear: do not rock the boat.

Walz’s office has called these descriptions inaccurate and politically driven. They say the governor backed law enforcement cases and now supports reforms to strengthen oversight.

Inside The Somali Community: Shame, Fear, And Frustration

Some of the loudest critics of the fraud come from within the Somali community itself. Many residents feel betrayed and worry about lasting damage to their reputation.

Kayseh Magan, a Somali-American and former fraud investigator, wrote in a 2024 opinion piece that the state’s hesitation to act early had a cultural angle. He said many community members were not ringleaders but felt pressured to join schemes or keep quiet. In his view, state agencies held back because they feared being accused of bias.

A nonpartisan audit later backed part of this picture and found that agencies sometimes tolerated obvious red flags to avoid discrimination complaints. Walz strongly rejects the idea that politics or race-based fear guided his decisions.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Walz said, “Certainly, I take responsibility for putting people in jail. It’s not just Somalis. Minnesota is generous, but that attracts criminals.” Critics note that while federal prosecutors moved quickly, the state brought fewer cases until the scandal exploded in the press.

Trump’s Harsh Rhetoric Turns Fraud Into An Immigration Flashpoint

Former President Trump has used the Minnesota scandal to push for tougher immigration rules. On Truth Social, he said the state is a “hub of fraudulent money laundering activity” and pledged to deport offenders “back to where they came from.” He also called for ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis.

Trump claimed, without evidence, that “hundreds of thousands” of Somalis are abusing U.S. aid programs. His statements have raised fears in the Somali-American community and energized supporters who favor tighter borders and stricter benefits rules.

His allies in Washington are now pushing for:

Slower asylum approvals for Somali applicants
Review of existing green cards
Broad checks on aid programs in states with large refugee communities

Immigration groups warn these moves punish honest families for crimes committed by a small group of offenders.

Leaders Push Back On Collective Blame

Somali community leaders, along with many elected officials, say fraud must be punished but warn against blaming an entire community.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) have both spoken out about a rise in hate incidents targeting Somali residents. They urge the public and media to focus on those charged or convicted, not on ethnicity.

Governor Walz has echoed that message. He has urged Minnesotans not to “paint an entire group with that same brush” and points to his executive order creating a fraud task force and a new inspector general role at the Department of Education.

Republicans remain unconvinced. Potential 2026 gubernatorial challenger Scott Jensen says, “Walz’s incompetence cost us a billion, time to clean house.” Right-leaning media and activists have built a steady drumbeat around the scandal, tying it to a broader claim that Democratic-led welfare programs invite abuse.

The Real Human Cost: Families Left Behind

Behind the headlines and political battles, real people were supposed to receive this money.

Children missed meals when food funds were drained. Homeless families stayed on waiting lists while fake clients got checks. Kids with autism went without therapy sessions as bad actors billed the state for services they never delivered.

IRS agent Justin Campbell called the schemes “the epitome of greed.” The comment reflects what many investigators say they saw: public dollars meant for those in real need turned into luxury spending.

Single mother Aisha Hassan, who relies on legitimate aid to support her children, told VORNews that her benefits were delayed as the state scrambled to sort through claims. “We came here for hope, not handouts,” she said. “This hurts us all.”

Lavish Spending And Harsh Sentences

Federal case files read like a catalog of excess. Defendants posted photos of $1.2 million homes in suburbs like Edina, vacations to Dubai, and high-end cars. Some wore $100,000 Rolex watches while claiming to help families in poverty.

Prosecutors say one man, Abdihakim Osman Nur, used stolen funds to buy a large Minnesota home and invest in Somalia. Aimee Bock, the Feeding Our Future founder, was convicted in March on wire fraud and bribery charges and faces a potential sentence of more than ten years. Co-defendant Salim Said received 15 years for his role.

These stiff sentences are meant to send a message. Federal officials say they want to show that large-scale fraud against pandemic programs will bring serious punishment.

National Debate: How Weak Were Federal Safeguards?

The scandal has raised tough questions about how the federal government structured emergency aid.

Experts point to the USDA’s pandemic waivers, which were supposed to clear red tape so hungry children got meals. In practice, those relaxed rules gave scammers a wide opening.

Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute says these programs reveal how public benefits can be abused when identity checks and in-person reviews are weak. She has called for tools like biometric verification and frequent site visits before public money is released.

Democrats argue that fraud is not limited to one race, program, or political party. They point to white-collar crimes in areas like Medicare billing and corporate tax evasion. Still, even many of them admit that Minnesota’s fraud numbers are on a different scale than usual state-level scandals.

Walz’s Response: Reforms, AI Tools, And Political Fallout

Supporters of Governor Walz say he has taken meaningful steps since the scandals broke.

His administration has:

Tightened audits of food, housing, and healthcare programs
Invested in AI-based fraud detection systems
Reorganized parts of the Department of Education and DHS
Helped recover roughly $50 million in stolen or misused funds

Critics say these moves came too late and only after federal agents exposed the damage. They also point to reports that Walz and his son accepted campaign donations from some figures later tied to the scams, a detail that Rep. Comer has seized on.

Public trust appears shaken. A December poll shows Walz’s overall approval dropping to 48 percent. Among independents, 62 percent say they want stronger accountability from the governor and his team.

In “Little Mogadishu,” Repairing Trust From The Ground Up

In Cedar-Riverside and other Somali neighborhoods, community leaders are trying to repair both internal trust and public perception.

Mosques and community centers now hold workshops that explain fraud laws and warn residents about joining shady businesses. Imams speak during Friday sermons about honesty, public funds, and the religious duty to stay away from corruption.

One elder told VORNews, “We fled war for peace. Don’t let thieves steal our future too.” That mix of pride, shame, and determination is common in local conversations.

Many residents say they want harsh penalties for those who stole money, in part so the wider public understands that the community does not stand with them.

A Warning For The Rest Of The Country

Minnesota’s scandal is more than a local embarrassment. It offers a warning to every state that rushed out billions in emergency aid with limited checks during the pandemic.

Key questions linger:

Did fear of racism claims cause leaders to ignore early signs of wrongdoing?
Were state agencies simply overwhelmed and unprepared?
How can governments protect public money without punishing honest families who need help?

As 2the 026 elections draw closer, voters will decide how much blame to place on Tim Walz and his administration. Walz says he welcomes scrutiny and stresses that there will be “no pardons for fraudsters here.”

For now, a state once seen as a model of generous social programs is forced to confront how that generosity was abused, and what it will take to rebuild faith in both the system and the leaders who run it.

Politics

Bill Clinton’s Testimony Triggers Backlash: Bill Says “I Saw Nothing, Did Nothing Wrong

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

Bill Clinton-Epstein Testimony Triggers Backlash

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Jeffrey Epstein saga took another sharp turn this week after former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke publicly about their past ties to the convicted sex offender.

Their comments followed closed-door depositions with the House Oversight Committee, and the reaction was immediate. Critics, survivors’ advocates, and political voices accused the Clintons of ducking hard questions and minimizing a well-documented association.

Lawmakers compelled the depositions by subpoena after early pushback, making the sessions a rare moment in which former top officials testified under oath in a congressional review tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking network.

Bill Clinton’s insistence that he “saw nothing” and “did nothing wrong,” paired with Hillary Clinton’s statement that she “does not recall ever encountering” Epstein, sparked a new wave of anger. Among the loudest critics, media personality Megyn Kelly called Clinton a “liar.”

The Latest Depositions: Firm Denials, Sharp Pushback

On February 27, 2026, Bill Clinton sat for nearly six hours of closed-door questioning in New York with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee. In an opening statement later shared on social media, he described Epstein as a “brief acquaintance” and said their contact ended long before Epstein’s crimes became widely known.

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said. “Even with 20/20 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause.” He added that if he had known what Epstein was doing, he would have “turned him in myself.” Clinton pointed to his upbringing in a home touched by domestic abuse as part of his explanation for why he would not have ignored misconduct.

He also confirmed he flew on Epstein’s private plane multiple times for charitable work, and he said Secret Service agents were present. At the same time, he denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and said he never saw illegal behavior. Clinton also said he didn’t recognize a woman pictured with him in a jacuzzi in Justice Department files that later became public.

A day earlier, on February 26, Hillary Clinton testified for more than six hours. In her opening statement, she said, “I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein.” She repeated that she never flew on Epstein’s plane, never visited his properties, and had no involvement with him. She also criticized the committee, saying it was using the matter for partisan distractions.

Both Clintons also tried to distance themselves from Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. In addition, they expressed support for survivors seeking justice and healing.

Critics React: Claims of Evasion and Unbelievable Answers

Even so, the pushback has been intense. Critics argue the denials don’t square with what’s already in the public record. That record includes flight logs that show Bill Clinton on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times, plus reports of Epstein visiting the White House during Clinton’s presidency.

Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and journalist, has led much of the public criticism. In media appearances tied to the Epstein files and the depositions, Kelly rejected Clinton’s account. She called him a “liar” and referred to him as a “predator.” Her comments matched a broader view among detractors that Clinton’s past makes his assurances hard to trust.

Meanwhile, survivors’ advocates and online commentators said the testimonies felt dismissive. Many described the answers as evasive and inadequate for victims who have waited years for clarity.

At the same time, political analysts say the depositions widened partisan gaps. Republicans have focused on the Clintons’ connection to Epstein, while Democrats have pointed to scrutiny of other public figures with their own links to Epstein’s circle.

Bill Clinton’s Record of Controversies Involving Women

This moment also revived attention on Bill Clinton’s long history of allegations involving women, including repeated denials that later collided with new facts or admissions.

Some of the most talked-about episodes include:

Monica Lewinsky affair (1995 to 1997): Clinton initially denied having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” He later acknowledged an improper relationship under oath. The House impeached him in 1998 on perjury and obstruction charges, although the Senate acquitted him.
Paula Jones lawsuit: In 1994, Arkansas state employee Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment tied to his time as governor. He settled the case out of court for $850,000 in 1998.
Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation: Broaddrick said Clinton raped her in 1978. Clinton denied the claim through representatives.
Kathleen Willey and Gennifer Flowers: Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the Oval Office. Flowers said she had a long-term affair with him. Both claims became part of the wider scrutiny during his presidency.

Because of this history, critics say Clinton has a pattern of denial followed by partial acknowledgment. As a result, they compare his old responses to his current statements about Epstein.

Where This Fits in the Wider Epstein Case

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while he awaited trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Before his death, he built relationships with influential people across politics, business, and entertainment. Since then, document releases, including flight logs and photographs, have kept the Clintons in the headlines. Still, no evidence has surfaced that links them to criminal conduct.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-KY), has issued subpoenas to several people, including the Clintons. The stated goal is to map Epstein’s network and review how government agencies handled related cases. Depending on who’s speaking, the probe has been described as a “serious investigation” or a “clown show.”

Bill Clinton said he cooperated to help prevent future abuse. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton framed the process as politically driven.

The Public Response, and What Comes Next

The depositions quickly dominated news coverage, and social media seized on the Clintons’ wording. Supporters say the couple is being singled out without proof of wrongdoing. Critics say the testimonies reflect how powerful people avoid accountability.

Transcripts and video from the depositions are expected to come out, and the argument is likely to grow louder once they do. For many Americans, the latest chapter keeps the same questions alive: who knew what, who looked away, and why it took so long to get answers tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.

Related News:

Megyn Kelly Slams Hillary Clinton For Extraordinary Hypocrisy

Politics

Calls Mount to Expel Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress

Published

4 days ago

February 28, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech on February 24, 2026, some Republican lawmakers and conservative voices have renewed calls to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from Congress.

The push follows Ilhan Omar’s loud interruptions during the address, which critics say crossed a line and disrespected the chamber. Omar and her supporters, however, say the outbursts were a form of protest against policies they believe cause real harm.

The night’s clash has reopened a familiar fight in Washington: how far can protest go inside Congress before it becomes misconduct? At the same time, it has added fresh fuel to an already tense and divided House.

What Happened During the State of the Union?

Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress included sharp moments, especially when he turned to immigration and border security. During key parts of the address, Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) shouted objections from the floor. Eyewitnesses and video clips show Omar yelling words such as “liar” and “murderer” as Trump discussed immigration enforcement and referenced incidents involving Somali-American communities in Minnesota.

When Omar interrupted, the loudest moments came as Trump spoke about alleged fraud tied to Somali immigrants and about deaths involving federal agents. Later, Omar said she spoke up to point out what she views as the administration’s role in the deaths of two constituents.
Omar’s guest was removed and arrested: The situation escalated when Omar’s guest, Aliya Rahman, was arrested by U.S. Capitol Police after standing during the address. Police cited “unlawful conduct” and disruption, and they said guests are told that demonstrations are not allowed. Reports also say Rahman is autistic and has shoulder injuries, and that officers warned her before removing her.
Trump answered in the moment: Trump paused and criticized the heckling, calling Democrats “crazy.” He also aimed a direct remark at Omar, telling her, “You should be ashamed.”

In a post-speech interview on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Omar said she didn’t regret what happened. “I do not [have regrets], and I think many people look at that moment when the president says, ‘It is our responsibility to protect Americans,’ and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans… were killed,” she said. Omar framed her interruptions as a reminder that policy choices can have life-and-death effects.

Backlash Builds, With Fresh Demands for Expulsion

The interruptions drew quick condemnation from Republicans and conservative media. The next day, Trump posted at length on TruthSocial, attacking Omar and Tlaib as “Low IQ” and calling them “crooked and corrupt politicians.” He also suggested they should be sent “back from where they came, as fast as possible,” echoing earlier remarks that have brought him criticism.

Because Omar is a U.S. citizen, deportation is not a legal option. Still, the comments helped drive online talk about other punishments, including censure or even expulsion.

Republicans call for action: Several House Republicans backed some form of discipline. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, posted that Omar’s conduct embarrassed Congress and argued for expulsion to restore order.
Conservative media turns up the volume: Fox News and prominent social media accounts pushed the story. Commentator Trish Regan shared a Facebook post about “new calls” to censure Omar and Tlaib after the State of the Union clash. In the replies, some commenters went further and asked for expulsion.
Public reaction splits fast: Videos of the incident spread on YouTube and other platforms, drawing angry comments demanding Omar’s removal. Meanwhile, supporters defended her right to object, saying political speech should not be punished simply because it’s uncomfortable.

Expulsion is difficult. It takes a two-thirds vote in the House, and Congress has used it only five times in U.S. history, usually for severe misconduct such as treason or corruption. Critics of the expulsion push say Omar’s behavior may have been disruptive, but it doesn’t meet that standard. They also warn that it could create a new way to silence opponents.

Omar’s Earlier Controversies and Long-Running Claims of Anti-Semitism

Omar has faced removal talk before. Since entering Congress in 2018, she has drawn intense scrutiny, including repeated accusations of anti-Semitism tied to comments about Israel and pro-Israel lobbying. In 2019, her remarks triggered bipartisan criticism and helped lead to a House resolution condemning hate.

2019 tweets: Omar’s “all about the Benjamins” phrase and comments about dual loyalties brought claims that she used anti-Semitic stereotypes. She apologized, while also saying she still wanted to criticize Israeli policy.
2021 comments: Omar compared the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban, which prompted backlash, including criticism from Democratic leaders.
A debate that never stops: Allies describe Omar as outspoken on progressive causes, including Palestinian rights. Opponents say her statements cross into anti-Semitism. Groups such as the Anti-Defamation League have called for accountability, though past efforts to remove her have not succeeded.

While the State of the Union dispute centered on immigration, it revived these older arguments. Some conservatives claim the outburst fits a larger “anti-American” pattern, and some also repeat the anti-Semitism charge, even though Israel was not the focus of the speech. Omar has repeatedly denied anti-Semitic intent and says her criticism targets policy, not identity.

Democrats Push Back, Warning of Political Payback

Many Democrats have defended Omar and described the expulsion talk as partisan retaliation, especially against minority lawmakers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called the rhetoric “divisive and unhelpful” and urged lawmakers to focus on policy fights instead of personal attacks.

Omar calls for scrutiny of the arrest: In a press release, Omar demanded an investigation into Rahman’s arrest. She described the response as heavy-handed and said it sends a chilling signal about democratic rights.
Progressives rally around her: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) posted support, arguing that pushing back on lies is part of democracy, not disrespect. Groups such as Justice Democrats echoed that message.
What could come next: Republicans could try censure, which only needs a simple majority. That path looks more realistic than expulsion unless Democrats cross party lines. The episode also reflects a wider breakdown in House decorum, similar to Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during a 2009 address.

Political strategists say the fight may fire up both sides before the midterms. Republicans can use it to brand Democrats as extreme, while Democrats can use it to energize voters against what they see as racism and Islamophobia.

Can Congress Actually Expel Omar?

The Constitution gives each chamber power to discipline members under Article I, Section 5. Still, expulsion remains rare, and most rule violations lead to lesser penalties. Legal experts often note that while House rules demand order during major speeches, Congress typically reserves expulsion for the most serious cases.

Past examples:
- 1861: The House expelled three members for supporting the Confederacy.
- 1980: Rep. Michael Myers was expelled after the Abscam bribery scandal.
- More recent attempts: Efforts to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in 2021 over inflammatory statements did not pass.

Free speech adds another layer of conflict. The First Amendment complicates any punishment tied to speech, although it does not give members unlimited freedom inside House proceedings. An ethics review is possible, but Omar’s allies also point to Trump’s own history of inflammatory language and call the outrage selective.

Social Media Erupts as Hashtags Take Over

The argument quickly moved online. #ExpelOmar trended on X (formerly Twitter) and drew millions of impressions as users posted clips, reactions, and calls for discipline. Conservatives praised Trump’s response, while progressives circulated Omar’s interview and defended her actions.

Common reactions online:
- Pro-expulsion: Posts calling Omar an embarrassment and demanding removal.
- Anti-expulsion: Posts arguing that speaking up against power should not be treated as a crime, often using #StandWithOmar.
- In-between voices: Others urged both parties to cool it, saying civility in Congress keeps getting worse.

Polling after the address shows a wide partisan split. A Rasmussen survey reported that 52% of Republicans support expulsion, while 12% of Democrats agree. Independents landed in the middle, with 35% in favor.

What This Could Mean for Congress Next

As lawmakers review Rahman’s arrest and draft possible resolutions, the fallout could shape how Congress handles both guests and members during major events. Some lawmakers may push tougher enforcement, while others may resist, warning that stricter rules can turn into political weapons.

For Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, the episode highlights the pressure minority members often face in high-profile fights. She has weathered past controversies, but continued attacks could still shape her 2026 campaign in Minnesota’s 5th District.

At a time when the country argues over immigration, protest, and political norms, this State of the Union clash shows how fragile trust has become. The coming weeks will likely bring more motions, more headlines, and more hard feelings, with little sign that either side plans to back down.

Politics

CNN’s Harry Enten Calls the 2028 Democratic Primary a “Clown Car”

Published

6 days ago

February 26, 2026

VORNews

ATLANTA, Georgia – CNN data analyst Harry Enten delivered a blunt take on the early 2028 Democratic presidential primary. On air, he called the field a “downright clown car” and a “total mess.”

Early polling shows a tight pack, with no one breaking 25% and several names sitting within the margin of error. That sparked a lively discussion about whether Democrats are sliding into a fight between progressives and moderates, and what the rise of figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani could mean for the party’s next era.

All of this lands at an uneasy moment for Democrats. The party is still dealing with the fallout from the 2024 losses, and many voters see no clear next leader. At the same time, Democrats are preparing for the 2026 midterms while facing a Republican Party energized under President Donald Trump. As a result, these early signs of a fractured primary could make unity harder when it matters most.

Polls Show a Crowded Race With No Breakout

Recent surveys suggest Democratic voters are spread out across the field. A Yahoo/YouGov poll from February 2025 showed a close contest among likely contenders:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom leads at 19%, helped by his national profile and messaging on issues like climate change and abortion rights.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris sits at 18%, backed by experience but followed by doubts tied to 2024.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg pulls 13%, with support from many moderates drawn to his pragmatic style.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) gets 12%, reflecting continued strength among progressives focused on economic justice and climate policy.

None of these candidates clears 25%, a level Enten pointed to as a common marker for an early front-runner. Because many polls carry a margin of error of around 3 to 4 points, the top tier looks more like a statistical tie than a settled race. In other words, Democratic voters haven’t rallied around a single option.

Other polling and commentary reinforce the same theme. CNN’s data team has also highlighted how unusual it is to see an open primary with no dominant figure at this stage. In past cycles, such as 2000, 2008, and 2016, big names like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had built clearer leads by this point. This time, name recognition and money may not translate into early momentum.

Enten’s On-Air Take: “Total Mess”

On “CNN News Central” with host John Berman, Enten walked through the numbers and used sharp language to describe what he saw. “Yeah, they’re all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side,” he said, pointing to how tightly packed the field is.

He also stressed how rare it is for no one to top 25% two years out. While Newsom held a small edge, Enten argued that Newsom also carries a “flailing” image, tied to California’s struggles with homelessness and high taxes. He added that Harris has “baggage” from her time as vice president, while Buttigieg and AOC signal very different paths for the party that could keep the base split.

Enten summed it up with another jab: “This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear frontrunner at this particular point on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is going to be in two years?”

The moment moved fast online. Clips spread on X (formerly Twitter), where both critics and supporters of the party debated what it said about Democratic strength. A post from a conservative account picked up traction, using the segment to mock Democratic disarray.

Panel Response: Jokes, Then Real Worry

The panel’s reaction mixed laughter with concern. Berman chuckled at the “clown car” line, then pushed the group to look at what the numbers might mean. Other guests offered different reads on the same data.

One panelist sounded upbeat, arguing that a wide-open field can boost interest and turnout. They framed it as normal competition that could pull in different groups of voters. Another guest saw danger ahead, warning that a long, bitter primary could drain money and time, while also turning off independents.

Soon, the conversation shifted to the party’s internal split. Moderates defended figures like Newsom and Buttigieg as safer bets in swing areas. Progressives pointed to AOC’s strength with younger voters and many voters of color. Even when the room laughed, the tension underneath was hard to miss.

Progressive vs. Moderate Split, and Why It Feels Bigger Now

Democrats have dealt with factions for decades, but the current divide looks sharper. Progressives want bigger moves on climate, health care, and wealth gaps. Moderates prefer smaller steps, arguing that bold messaging can backfire in close races.

Several pressure points keep coming up:

Policy fights: Progressives push for major programs like Medicare for All, while moderates tend to support narrower changes.
Electability arguments: Supporters of Buttigieg and other centrists say they can win swing voters. Critics say that the approach can fall flat with the base.
2026 primary battles: Progressive challengers are stepping into key races, which puts party splits on display. For example, Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s bid in Texas has drawn GOP attention, with Republicans claiming Democrats are “in shambles.”

Gallup has also tracked movement in Democratic attitudes. One recent Gallup poll found 45% of Democrats want the party to become more moderate, up from 34% in 2021. That shift shows the tug-of-war inside the coalition. If leaders can’t calm it down, the party could lose ground in 2026 and enter 2028 even weaker.

In a podcast episode titled “Can Liberals, Progressives & Moderates Unite to Beat Republicans in November , and 2028?”, guests discussed how fragile the coalition feels. Many agreed that costs and affordability unite Democrats, yet they disagree on the fix. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has argued for a class-first message focused on jobs, wages, and everyday costs, rather than culture fights.

Rising Names: AOC and Zohran Mamdani Point to a Shift

The growing profile of younger progressives like AOC and Zohran Mamdani signals a possible change in who drives the party’s future. AOC, now 38, has grown from a 2018 upset winner into a major national figure, boosted by strong media skills and a clear message on economics and climate.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old New York State Assembly member and democratic socialist, represents the next wave. First elected in 2020, he has backed policies like rent control, police reform, and Palestinian rights, and he has often challenged establishment Democrats. His rise also highlights the expanding influence of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in some areas.

Together, they represent a bigger progressive push:

Stronger pull with younger voters: They focus on issues such as student debt relief and environmental justice.
More direct attacks on party power: Mamdani’s critiques of corporate influence echo themes AOC has used for years.
More presence in the national talk: Their inclusion in polls shows progressives aren’t on the sidelines.

Still, critics argue this trend could push away swing voters. After the 2024 losses, some Democrats blamed progressive positions on topics like immigration and crime. Supporters answer that progressive candidates keep winning in many blue districts, and they see that as proof that the message works where turnout matters.

A Familiar Story, Even if the Stakes Feel New

Today’s clash fits a long pattern. Democrats have housed competing groups since the New Deal, with shifting alliances between liberals, moderates, and conservatives. The civil rights era broke the party’s old Southern power base, and later decades elevated more centrist leaders such as Bill Clinton.

More recently, the Obama years ended with a party split between Clinton-style pragmatism and Sanders-style populism. Democrats united behind Joe Biden in 2020, but that unity didn’t erase the underlying strain. After 2024, the arguments returned louder, and the lack of an incumbent for 2028 makes the power struggle even clearer.

A FiveThirtyEight analysis has noted that House Democrats now include roughly similar numbers of moderates and progressives. That balance could swing either way, depending on the next few elections. History also offers cautionary tales. For some Democrats, the 1972 McGovern campaign still stands as a warning about moving too far left and paying for it later.

What a Wide-Open Field Means for Party Leadership

A messy primary creates real risks. Without a clear leader, donors and endorsements can scatter. That can stretch the race out and leave the eventual nominee bruised. Party leaders, including DNC Chair Jaime Harrison, could face pressure to keep the contest from turning into a damaging brawl. Some also talk about changes like superdelegate rules or stronger party platforms, although those debates come with their own baggage.

At the same time, an open contest can help the party. A stronger nominee can emerge after real testing. Some Democrats see figures like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly as possible unifiers. Progressives, on the other hand, argue Democrats need bolder economic plans to compete with Trump’s populist appeal, including an “abundance agenda” tied to housing and energy.

Some analysts, including voices at the American Enterprise Institute, warn the internal split could hurt Democrats in 2028 if it stays unresolved. One strategist summed up the moderate case this way: being moderate means taking popular positions and breaking with party habits when needed.

What Comes Next for Democrats

With the 2026 midterms approaching, Democrats need a clearer message and fewer internal fights. They also need to rebuild support with working-class voters, especially on costs, wages, and housing. The rise of AOC and Mamdani hints at a stronger leftward pull, while moderates keep warning that swing voters decide national elections.

Enten’s “clown car” line may stick because it captures the mood. Democrats face a hard reality: they can’t afford years of public infighting while Trump’s coalition stays energized. A truce, even a fragile one, may be the price of staying competitive.