The idea behind a federal anti-fraud task force is not inherently absurd. Independent estimates show billions of dollars are lost every year to fraud and abuse, and if officials have a credible idea about how to combat the problem, more power to them.

Seven months after the launch of the White House’s anti-fraud task force, however, the list of problems is not short.

From the outset, there was ample reason for skepticism. The effort, Donald Trump said, would be led by JD Vance, who was an unfortunate choice. Not only was the vice president unqualified for such a task, but the administration also made little effort to hide its partisan political motivations, which meant it was eager to target blue states.

What’s more, this is a delicate issue for the president, given his unfortunate record on committing fraud, benefiting from fraud and issuing pardons to those who have been convicted of fraud.

Making matters worse is the task force’s actual performance. Vance insists he and his team have uncovered more than $260 billion in fraud, but those claims have largely unraveled under scrutiny.

With this in mind, the White House is apparently trying a new tack: crowdsourcing.

Trump announces "fraud whistleblower incentive program" — "Americans will now be able to go to fraud dot gov and report cases of corruption and theft of taxpayer dollars in their communities … if you turn somebody in and you find $1 billion, we're giving a commission of 1%. That's a lot of money"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:18:02.278Z

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump and Vance announced a $25 million whistleblower program, to be administered by the Department of Justice, which is designed to offer cash rewards to those who uncover and report cases of fraud.

I suppose it’s possible that this will be an amazing success, and Americans will succeed in identifying the kind of systemic problems that the Republican administration has struggled to identify. (Trump specifically said at the Oval Office announcement, “People will make millions of dollars by turning others in.”)

But it’s probably best to keep expectations low.

First, the mechanism is a mess. People are supposed to submit tips to fraud.gov, with the promise of up to $30,000 to those who uncover cases that lead to criminal convictions or “significant federal enforcement” actions. What’s to stop scores of people from submitting baseless allegations, each of which investigators would be expected to review? Nothing. (I’ll be especially interested in seeing how many Americans report instances of alleged fraud involving Trump and his team.)

Second, the first recipient of a taxpayer-funded check is Nick Shirley, a right-wing YouTube influencer, who’s undeserving of such a reward, and whose payout reinforces concerns that this endeavor is little more than a political gambit.

Third, the White House staff doesn’t appear to have done its homework. The president said, under his plan, tipsters will be eligible for 1% of the cost of the disclosed fraud, prompting a reporter to remind him that under the False Claims Act, which has been on the books for more than 150 years, Americans are eligible to collect between 10% and 25%.

Fourth, given the way this administration has mistreated whistleblowers, it’s rather ironic to see the White House launch a whistleblower program like this one.

Finally, there’s Trump’s vision of his hands-on role in the program.

Trump lies his ass off about the economy: "We have more growth than this country has ever had. And we have more growth than any country in the world is having right now."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:40:15.035Z

“When you do these things, sometimes there’s a dispute about who turned them in, who didn’t turn them in and who is supposed to get what and when,” the president said. “So I am going to do something which I think people will like: I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions. In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving.”

In other words, the Justice Department is administering the program, but Trump expects to personally intervene, taking time from the day job he’s supposed to be doing, to adjudicate certain cases and approve payouts.

What could possibly go wrong?

The post White House’s new fraud whistleblower program suffers from some glaring flaws appeared first on MS NOW.

Sen. Roger Marshall’s re-election campaign is struggling for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest problems for the Kansas Republican is the recent reporting on how he treated patients who couldn’t afford their bills during his time in private practice.

That Donald Trump is trying to defend his loyal congressional ally is not surprising. What’s notable, however, is how the president is rallying to the senator’s defense.

At a campaign rally in Kansas, Trump acknowledged the controversy but said news organizations had been unfair to the senator, since Marshall was “mandated by law” to “go after those people.” That wasn’t even close to being true — there was no legal requirement for Marshall to garnish paychecks, seek arrest warrants or charge punitive interest rates — although the president didn’t stop there.

Trump says the press smeared Roger Marshall as "a shylock type guy"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T00:36:34.374Z

“They made it like, oh, he was some kind of a Shylock-type guy,” the president said.

As NBC News reported, the word is widely recognized as “an antisemitic slur.”

In fairness, one might note that, in 2014, then-Vice Presiden Joe Biden used the same word, though the Delaware Democrat apologized shortly after.

Trump, in contrast, has publicly used the word more than once, and he has never apologized.

Making matters worse is the broader pattern, which makes it impossible to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Last year, for example, the Republican president declared that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish lawmaker in the history of the U.S. Congress, is “not Jewish anymore” because the New York Democrat opposed the White House’s foreign policy agenda.

The inherent antisemitism was unavoidable. It’s not up to Trump to declare himself the arbiter of who the “real” Jews are based on his personal whims or any officials’ willingness to go along with his policies.

A year earlier, as the 2024 race neared its end, Trump publicly suggested that he intended to blame Jews, at least in part, if he lost. A month earlier, after seeing Gov. Josh Shapiro’s remarks at the Democratic National Convention, the former president decided to take a rhetorical shot at his critic. The Pennsylvania Democrat, Trump wrote online, is a “highly overrated Jewish Governor.” In context, there was no reason for the Republican to reference Shapiro’s faith. Trump did it anyway.

Months earlier, he similarly invoked the familiar “dual loyalty” trope by claiming that Jewish voters who support Democrats hate Israel.

All of this was offensive but familiar. During his 2016 campaign, the future president spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition and said, “You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians.” He added, “I’m a negotiator — like you folks.”

Several months later, in the run-up to Election Day 2016, the Republican promoted antisemitic imagery on social media. In the closing days of the campaign, Trump again faced accusations of antisemitism, claiming Hillary Clinton met “in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers.”

During his first term, Trump continued to use highly provocative rhetoric about Jews and what he expected of their “loyalties.” In 2019, he spoke at the Israeli American Council’s national summit, where he suggested Jewish people are primarily focused on wealth, which is why he expected them to support his re-election campaign.

After his 2020 defeat, Trump kept this going, whining that Jewish voters “don’t love Israel enough,” dining with prominent antisemites at Mar-a-Lago, and arguing that Jews need to “get their act together” and “appreciate” Israel “before it is too late.”

In late 2022, he went so far as to declare that Jewish leaders “should be ashamed of themselves” over their “lack of loyalty.”

Trump occasionally expresses bewilderment over his lack of support among Jewish voters. Why he finds this confusing is a mystery.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest example of antisemitic rhetoric was hardly his first appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump’s first bailout for farmers came in 2018, at which point the president approved payments totaling $12 billion. A year later, the Republican administration kept going, announcing a bailout for farmers worth $16 billion.

Late last year, the president launched another $12 billion bailout for farmers, many of whom were harmed by the White House’s misguided and ill-fated trade tariffs policy, though the money proved insufficient. As my MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown summarized, the policy was little more than “duct tape on a broken pipe,” which did “little to fix the underlying problem.”

In June, Trump made it clear that he was eyeing a possible fourth bailout for the industry. And this week he followed through, announcing an $8 billion bailout during a campaign rally in Kansas, specifically aimed at helping farmers address higher diesel costs. The New York Times reported:

Under the plan, known as the Harvest Fuel Relief Program, the Agriculture Department will use a formula based on how many acres and which crops farmers planted to reimburse them for a “portion” of their losses. The money will come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a financing institution that the Agriculture Department uses to fund crop insurance and natural disaster payment programs.

Payment rates will be announced next month, and farmers will receive money at a later date.

There’s ample reason to believe the $8 billion will be insufficient. But just as notably, at no point during Trump’s event did he mention that farmers were struggling with higher diesel costs because of the war with Iran that the president launched eight months ago.

Indeed, the one thing that all four of the bailouts have in common is that they’re effectively admissions of guilt: Trump’s agenda continues to hurt his own country’s agriculture industry, which in turn has necessitated a series of payouts.

As for the timing of the president’s latest announcement, it comes just two weeks before Election Day, with early voting underway in many states. It’s a safe bet that the bailout was intended to address intensifying discontent among voters in farming communities, who have long backed Republicans but don’t appear to have much to show for it. As MS NOW reported this week:

After two decades of defeats in rural America, Democrats are suddenly putting up a fight in farm country. The party is running competitive Senate races in Iowa, Kansas and other farm states, as well as House races in heavily rural districts that could help it regain control of Congress in January.

Credit (or blame, depending on your party) for this reversal of fortune lies with President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his war with Iran, which have battered farmers and pushed the rural economy into crisis. The Department of Agriculture’s analysts expect farmers’ net incomes to decline by 5.5% this year, as costs rise and receipts fall. The National Agricultural Law Center’s tally of farm bankruptcies jumped 45% last year, and is on pace to rise another 11% in 2026.

Will Trump’s latest bailout affect voters’ attitudes, enough to stem the tide? We’ll find out in two weeks.

The post White House approves yet another bailout for farmers hurt by Trump’s agenda appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In Ohio’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist Poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted, 48% to 44%, which is roughly in line with most of other recent surveys in the state.

That said, there is a socialist candidate in the race named Greg Levy, who doesn’t have a realistic chance of success but who’s suddenly picking up Republican support as part of an apparent effort to divide the left and undermine support for Brown’s candidacy.

For example, a super PAC tied to a Republican firm recently started sending out mailers on behalf of the socialist candidate; and this week, Politico reported that the same GOP-aligned super PAC, called Enough Promises Ohio, has “more than tripled its investment” in support of Levy’s candidacy.

The Politico report added, “Levy himself has distanced himself from the PAC, calling its boosting of him an ‘attempted deception of voters’ that’s ‘a form of digital blackface.’ Levy is Black. His spokesperson, Charlie Koenigsmark, also told Politico that he and the campaign ‘completely condemn this attempt to manipulate voters.’”

* While Georgia’s U.S. Senate race has received a lot of attention (for good reason), the state’s gubernatorial race is proving to be an even more competitive contest: The latest Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll found Republican Rick Jackson leading Keisha Lance Bottoms, Atlanta’s former Democratic mayor, by the narrowest of margins, 46% to 45%.

* Speaking of interesting gubernatorial races, the latest Alaska Survey Research poll found Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins ahead of Republican Bernadette Wilson, 54% to 46%. Alaska’s incumbent governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, is term-limited and cannot seek a third term.

* In Oklahoma’s gubernatorial race, which is also proving to be unexpectedly competitive, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new investment in support of state Rep. Cyndi Munson’s candidacy, who’s running against former Republican state Sen. Mike Mazzei in this open-seat contest.

* In Texas’ closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest University of Houston poll showed Democratic state Rep. James Talarico narrowly leading Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 48% to 46%, which is roughly in line with other recent statewide surveys.

* And in Massachusetts’ gubernatorial race, the latest WCVB/University of Massachusetts Amherst poll found incumbent Democratic Gov. Maura Healey with a massive advantage over Republican Mike Minogue, 57% to 32%.

The post Tuesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.20.26: Socialist candidate in Ohio receives GOP support appeared first on MS NOW.

In hindsight, it seems like Donald Trump might not have fully thought through the consequences of his bizarre $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, which continues to move forward in ways the presidential plaintiff doesn’t seem to like.

Attorneys for the British broadcaster, for example, recently subpoenaed former special counsel Jack Smith to testify.

“It is difficult to imagine a more authoritative source on these issues than Mr. Smith, who spent years gathering evidence on those topics with the force of the Justice Department and the power of the grand jury behind him,” the BBC said in a court filing.

The president and his lawyers apparently don’t see it that way. The New Republic reported:

President Trump doesn’t want former special counsel Jack Smith to testify in a deposition as part of Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company.

The BBC has subpoenaed Smith to defend itself from Trump’s accusations that the network defamed him with deceptive editing in a 2024 documentary about the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. In a court filing Friday, Trump’s lawyers tried to fight the subpoena by claiming that “Smith lacks any personal knowledge regarding the issues in this matter.”

In response, the BBC’s attorneys wrote, “No one forced Plaintiff to file this lawsuit and to dispute that his speech on January 6 incited the violence that followed at the Capitol. But as long as he chooses to maintain the case, he cannot commit the fundamental injustice of preventing the BBC from obtaining the evidence it needs to robustly defend itself on every element of his claim, including Plaintiff’s burden to prove falsity.”

To recap briefly, Trump sued the British broadcaster for $10 billion late last year over a news program that focused on the Jan. 6 attack. Defending the litigation, Trump told reporters that the network “literally put words in my mouth,” adding, “I guess they used AI. … They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say.”

That wasn’t quite right. For one thing, the BBC didn’t use artificial intelligence. For another, the network did air a program that edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, connecting two clips delivered roughly 50 minutes apart; but the news outlet didn’t manufacture words or phrases out of whole cloth.

The editing nevertheless sparked a controversy that led to an internal investigation, and the BBC ultimately fired some senior officials and issued a written apology.

Trump, however, apparently didn’t want to settle for an apology. He wants $10 billion.

The case, however, has proven rather inconvenient for the Republican who filed it. BBC lawyers want to depose the president as part of the proceedings, but Trump has already backed out of a scheduled deposition and appears reluctant to answer questions about his own case.

As The New Republic report added, “His attorneys are also fighting attempts to … subpoena his children to testify and to dive into his finances.”

Now those same lawyers want to prevent the former special counsel, who has plenty to say about Trump’s Jan. 6 efforts, from answering related questions, further delaying the case that the president ostensibly wants to proceed.

The judge has scheduled a hearing for later this week to consider questions about the Smith deposition and discovery related to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago revenue, which would help shed light on whether the president has suffered damages as the result of the alleged defamation. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Why the BBC wants to talk to Jack Smith, and why Team Trump wants to block his testimony appeared first on MS NOW.

The E15 policy is probably unfamiliar to many Americans, but in parts of the Midwest, especially Kansas, it’s a very big deal. Its importance is what made Donald Trump’s latest rhetoric so extraordinary.

To oversimplify matters a bit, the E15 policy refers to a biofuel blend made with 15% ethanol, which is sold to consumers as part of an effort to reduce prices at the pump. Under existing federal laws, E15 sales are limited to the summer driving season, though Kansans, especially in rural areas, would much prefer year-round E15 sales.

With this in mind, ahead of the president’s campaign rally in Kansas on Monday night, the White House boasted in a press statement, “President Trump approved year-round E15 sales, expanding markets for Kansas corn growers and giving drivers more affordable options at the pump.”

Hours later, Trump delivered remarks at his campaign event, which touched on the E15 policy — in an unexpected way.

Trump: "With Roger Marshall in the Senate, we will make year-round E15 permanent. But if Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not going it. That's it. I'm only doing it for him. That's a big deal for Kansas."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T01:17:16.134Z

“I also gave Kansas a waiver to sell E15 all year round, and with [incumbent Republican Sen.] Roger Marshall in the Senate, we will make year-round E15 permanent,” the president said. “But if [the Rep. Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee] is in, I’m not doing it. That’s it. I’m only doing it for him. That’s a big deal for Kansas, actually.”

I’m mindful that Trump’s transactional approach to campaign politics has become quite brazen of late. Over the weekend, for example, the president told a Kentucky audience that the administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred Senate candidate won.

Earlier this month, Trump similarly told an Ohio audience that he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they don’t elect a Republican governor.

At practically every rally, Trump similarly vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — at a cost of roughly $1.3 trillion — but only if the election results make him happy.

But his E15 comments in Kansas are arguably the most outrageous to date. There’s nothing about a Democratic-led Congress that would prevent Trump from extending his earlier waiver, but the president made the policy commitment conditional anyway, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

Trump effectively told Kansans he’s prepared to hurt their state on purpose if they vote in a way that displeases him. If there’s a defense or a precedent for such a presidential message, I can’t think of it.

The post Trump takes transactional politics to a new level at latest campaign rally appeared first on MS NOW.

The good news for Donald Trump is that he’s profiting to a breathtaking degree from the presidency. The bad news for the Republican is that Americans have noticed.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, for example, found that 66% of the public believes the president is using his office to enrich himself, up from 56% a year ago. A week earlier, The Associated Press released the results of its latest national poll, which similarly found that most Americans believe that Trump “is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than helping people like them.”

Somehow, JD Vance has failed to notice what the American mainstream already understands.

On Saturday, CBS News aired a town hall event in Michigan where the vice president told host Tony Dokoupil, “I’ve not once seen evidence that Donald Trump has enriched himself.”

JD Vance: "I've not seen a single shred of evidence that Donald Trump participates or sanctions in that corruption … I've not once seen evidence that Donald Trump has enriched himself"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-18T00:43:28.833Z

Two days later, the Ohio Republican sat down with Mark Halperin, who interviewed the vice president for a media outlet called 2WAY, and Vance continued to toe the line.

“I think the president’s allowed to earn a living and allowed to live his life, and I don’t see, again, the question is, is he profiting off of his office,” Vance said. “I just don’t see any evidence that’s true.”

This suggests that the vice president is either remarkably unobservant or deliberately unobservant.

This doesn’t have to be complicated. In the first year of Trump’s second term, the president pulled in at least $2.2 billion, including more than $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income, according to his latest annual financial disclosure.

No other president in American history has ever seen such financial gains while in office, and as a recent analysis from The New York Times explained, “Mr. Trump’s profits are a haul once unimaginable for any leader of a liberal democracy, particularly a sitting American president. No modern Western leader has ever publicly disclosed such big windfalls while in office. The Trump family’s earnings, experts said, have moved him into an echelon of enrichment more associated with strongmen in Russia and Turkey.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut posted a related, seven-part response to Vance via Bluesky, highlighting a variety of other ways Trump has profited off his office, including lucrative stock trades.

“Listen man, we get it,” the senator concluded in a message directed at the vice president. “If you work for Trump, you agree to lie and let your boss steal from taxpayers. But NO ONE believes you.”

The post As Trump profits off the presidency, JD Vance is surprisingly unobservant appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump has probably been briefed by his political team on the ongoing gender gap in American politics. In the latest Pew Research Center poll, for example, the president’s approval rating among men was 33%, but among women it was down to 26%. The same survey found that in the midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans were tied among men, but women plan to vote Democratic — by a 14-point margin.

With just two weeks remaining in the midterm election cycle, the White House took a modest step toward addressing this problem, though the move was not without flaw.

On Monday morning, the president signed an executive order creating a Women’s Health Division at the National Institutes of Health, which will apparently work alongside a new White House Women’s Health Task Force. According to Trump, the idea was pushed by his wife, first lady Melania Trump, who delivered rare public remarks to the kickoff event.

“Beginning today, we will change the reality of women’s health,” she said. “Previous generations fought for women’s rights. Our generation will fight to discover the cures that will ensure a woman can live her life in health and to the fullest.”

On the surface, the initiative seems entirely worthwhile, but a closer look reveals some notable points of concern.

The leadership: The White House’s task force will be co-chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is wildly unqualified for such a role, and whose disengagement from governing reinforces impressions that this initiative is largely for show.

The resources: While the objective behind the initiative has merit, what’s needed are real investments in scientific research, and Trump’s executive order neither allocated any funds nor included any funding goals.

The redundancy: The idea of creating an office at the NIH specifically focused on women’s health sounds great, but Team Trump didn’t come up with the idea: The NIH has had an Office of Research on Women’s Health for 36 years.

A Washington Post report added, “Trump’s initiative resembles past administrations’ activities. Then-first lady Jill Biden pursued similar efforts to jump-start women’s health research, and Biden officials in November 2023 launched their own White House effort intended to coordinate a cross-government response to boost women’s health.”

The record: It’s good to see the Republican administration take women’s health research seriously, but this appears to be a relatively new priority. As The New York Times reported, it was just last year when Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Kennedy’s leadership, tried to “slash funding for the Women’s Health Initiative, a long-running, taxpayer-funded study of a broad range of women’s health issues that began in the 1990s.”

The rollout: While the president had a seemingly straightforward objective when announcing the initiative, he predictably strayed from his prepared text and started talking about, among other things, how impressed he was with his renovation decisions, the replacement of the White House Rose Garden, the cushions he had “specially made” for White House patio seats and his concerns related to damage to women’s shoes.

Under the circumstances, it’s probably best to keep expectations low as the White House’s efforts on this issue get underway.

The post The problem(s) with the White House’s new women’s health initiative appeared first on MS NOW.