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. – 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?

NEW YORK – New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has kicked off a heated fight in Albany and at home. Just six weeks into the job, he is asking state lawmakers to approve a 2% increase in personal income taxes for residents who earn more than $1 million a year.

Mamdani says the city inherited a serious budget problem, so he wants a long-term fix. However, business groups, several lawmakers, and conservative voices warn that the plan could push high earners to leave the city faster.

Before becoming mayor, Mamdani served in the New York State Assembly and represented Astoria in Queens. He took office on January 1, 2026, as the city’s 112th mayor. He is also the first Muslim and South Asian mayor, and one of the youngest in modern city history.

During the campaign, he promised big changes aimed at making life cheaper for working New Yorkers. Those promises included free bus service, tuition-free college, and more investment in public transit. To pay for it all, Mamdani has repeatedly argued that top earners and large companies should pay more.

On February 11, Mamdani testified at a New York State Senate budget hearing, a day many locals call “Tin Cup Day.” During that appearance, he asked Albany to approve both the millionaire tax hike and a higher combined corporate tax rate, topping 22%.

He said a person making $1 million a year can handle an extra $20,000 in taxes. He also framed the increase as a steady source of revenue that could help balance the books without cutting services.

“The wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations should contribute a little more so that everyone can live lives of dignity,” Mamdani told lawmakers. He pointed to recent improvements in the city’s numbers. For example, the projected shortfall dropped from about $12 billion to roughly $7 billion.

He credited stronger-than-expected Wall Street bonuses, cost savings, and updated revenue forecasts. Still, he said the city remains “on a ledge.” In his view, the tax hike could cover close to half the remaining gap while also supporting his broader agenda.

Under the plan, the city’s local income tax rate for top earners would rise to 5.86%. As a result, the combined state and city marginal rate would hit 16.76%, on top of the federal top rate of 37%. That would put New York City’s tax burden on high-income residents near the top nationally.

Critics Warn of a Bigger Millionaire Exodus

Opponents quickly argued the plan could backfire. For years, business groups and many Republicans have blamed New York’s high taxes for people moving out. Recent data has shown the city’s share of the nation’s millionaires shrinking. Some estimates also tie about $3 billion in lost yearly revenue to wealthy residents relocating to lower-tax states such as Florida and Texas.

During the hearing, State Sen. Monica Martinez, a Democrat from Suffolk County, pressed Mamdani on the issue. She called his brush-off of flight concerns “a little disingenuous,” given recent trends. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans, including Thomas O’Mara, said higher taxes could scare off the taxpayers and employers the state depends on.

Cable news and major outlets have repeated those warnings. Fox News aired a segment where New York Post columnist Miranda Devine criticized the plan and pointed to the “potential exodus” of wealthy residents.

The New York Post also argued the tax hike would worsen out-migration. At the same time, POLITICO reported that Gov. Kathy Hochul’s long-standing resistance to new taxes on the rich has gained support, partly because the city’s finances look better than expected, even if risks remain.

Mamdani has rejected the idea that a tax increase will empty the city. In earlier interviews, he said these same warnings appear every time progressives propose higher taxes on top earners.

Supporters also say the scale of millionaire migration gets overstated. They point out that many wealthy residents have deep ties to New York through jobs, families, and social networks. One forecast said the change could still raise close to $4 billion, even if some high earners move.

What This Fight Means for New York’s Next Chapter

This tax battle taps into bigger tensions in post-pandemic New York. Remote work, empty office buildings, and high living costs have already pushed many middle-class families to look elsewhere. Mamdani says his plan takes pressure off working people. In other words, he wants to fund affordability programs instead of filling the gap with service cuts.

Still, skeptics say the city is taking a gamble. New York already ranks high in many lists of combined corporate tax rates. Because of that, critics argue that raising rates even more could cool investment and slow hiring. Groups such as the Citizens Budget Commission and the Empire Center for Public Policy have also warned that higher taxes could weaken the city’s economic base.

For now, the proposal faces a tough path. Hochul has repeatedly opposed higher taxes on high earners and corporations. On top of that, any change to New York City’s income tax requires state approval. Mamdani’s hard push has also created tension with moderates in his own party. Some City Council members say a “tax-the-rich agenda” is taking over budget talks.

As the state budget talks move forward, this plan has become an early test of Mamdani’s administration. Supporters see it as a fair way to stabilize city finances and pay for new public programs. Opponents see it as a move that could drive away the very taxpayers the city relies on.

Trending News:

Major Lawsuit Questions Eric Swalwell’s California Governor Eligibility