Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling

 

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.

The decision from the high court expands the president's power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause.

In a 1935 decision in a case known as Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which involved removal protections for the FTC, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president's ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will. But the ruling from the high court's conservative majority in the case Trump v. Slaughter overturns that 90-year-old decision and marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of the New Deal-era precedent.

The court's ruling

The ruling was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by the other conservative justices. The three liberals dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence that signals strong disagreement with a decision. Roberts wrote that limits on the president's ability to fire those who wield executive power on his behalf infringe on his constitutional authority.

The FTC of today, the court's majority found, "unquestionably" exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president's control. "Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work," Roberts wrote. "Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."

The decision is likely to have ramifications beyond the FTC. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies led by officials who can be removed by the president only for cause, which typically means instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Among those agencies likely to be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that while those agencies remain, they now take on a new form that differs from what Congress intended when they were created. "Put simply, today the majority reshapes our government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands," she wrote.

President Trump cheered the decision as the "Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!"

The Slaughter case

Mr. Trump has sought to test the bounds of his executive power since returning to the White House for his second term in January 2025, including by firing a slew of officials appointed by Democratic presidents at multi-member boards and commissions without cause. Among those was Rebecca Slaughter, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the FTC during his first term. She was reappointed to the trade commission by President Joe Biden.

Slaughter was informed in March 2025 that her service on the FTC was "inconsistent" with the Trump administration's priorities and was fired from her post without cause. That clashed with the law that established the FTC in 1914, when Congress said commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.

Slaughter filed a lawsuit challenging her removal and argued Mr. Trump broke the law when he fired her. A federal district court ruled in her favor and ordered Slaughter to be reinstated to her post. The U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., eventually agreed that she could continue in her job at the trade commission, but last September, the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Trump to fire her while it considered the legality of removal protections for FTC members.

Before agreeing to decide Slaughter's case, the Supreme Court had also cleared the way for Mr. Trump to oust members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the high court has so far spared two other officials from removal while litigation continues: Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, and Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights.

The justices heard arguments in January over whether to allow Mr. Trump to fire Cook from the Fed Board. The Supreme Court has indicated before that it views the Fed differently than other independent agencies, calling it a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks."

In an opinion also authored by Roberts, the high court rejected Mr. Trump's attempt to fire Cook while the challenge to her removal moved forward. The Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling involving the FTC that it does not implicate the constitutionality of the Fed's removal restrictions. It also stressed that the decision does not address tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court or the Court of Federal Claims, with Roberts writing that the justices are leaving "those questions for another day."

"All we do today is recognize what has been clear for a century — that those who fall within the President's 'general administrative control' must be removable by the President at will," he wrote.

The high court's decision in Slaughter's case is the latest in a line of recent decisions that chipped away at Humphrey's Executor and expanded the president's power over independent agencies. The Supreme Court invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021.

-Melissa Quinn, NewsBreak

Humphrey's Executor: Humphrey's Executor v. United States | 295 U.S. 602 (1935) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

"Whatever Trump is doing is a failure and whatever he says is a bald-faced lie"

No amount of media sane washing can convince Americans that Donald Trump is rationally prosecuting the Iran war or accurately relating the terms of a (sort of) deal. No matter how many times Trump repeats his outlandish lies on matters big or small — e.g., vandals at the reflecting pool! She begged me for a photo! — or tosses out bacchanalian distractions, or seeks refuge in hapless propaganda (none creepier than Vice President JD Vance’s pro-Nixon spin), he cannot arrest a growing national consensus: whatever Trump is doing is a failure and whatever he says is a bald-faced lie.

Trump’s inability to snow over the public with his blizzard of deceit bodes well for Democrats’ chances to trounce Republicans in the midterms. Candid after his primary defeat, Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn let on: “The jury’s still out whether this MAGA populist movement can survive the midterms.” But widespread agreement that Trump is an inveterate liar offers the opportunity for something beyond a midterm victory, which would be nothing less than a reality reset.

In the late stages of any authoritarian crack, the degenerating despot’s spin, lies, and excuses eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. Each additional fabrication only reinforces exasperation with his galling mendacity. That, in turn, may whet the public’s appetite for some unvarnished truth-telling and public accountability.

Wall-to-wall lies

Trump’s horrific polling results are not simply a measure of widespread discontent with his performance. Increasingly, they serve to gauge public recognition that he is pathologically dishonest. Voters overwhelmingly express not just disapproval of what Trump is doing, but in the face of Trump’s determination to lie to their faces — on Iran, the economy, his health, the Epstein files, etc. — reveal a rise in understanding that he has been engaged in a massive, nonstop campaign of disinformation. 

The Quinnipiac poll, which found that “60 percent of voters think the U.S. military action against Iran was not worth it,” amounts to an emphatic statement that the majority of voters realize that Trump’s blather about a great victory is just blather. Voters see through the constant flim-flam and bravado, and the consistent drumbeat of phony triumphal accomplishments (the Strait is open! It’s always been open!).

Likewise, the 59 percent of the public know Trump is covering up damaging facts about his health or the Epstein-pedophile files. Likewise, Americans’ disapproval of Trump’s performance on the economy repudiates the lies he has been peddling. Prices are not going down. Voters’ day-to-day challenges tell them Trump has made their lives harder.

If the goal of strongmen is to control the information environment and persuade voters not to believe their own lived experience, and thereby inoculate themselves from accountability, then widespread rejection of state propaganda and willingness to declare “the emperor has no clothes” are sure signs the autocratic regime is unraveling.

Democrats would be wise to make Trump’s duplicity a key feature of their midterm campaign message. That would not only reaffirm voters’ own convictions that the economy is awful, but would help pre-bunk future lies, cut off excuses (it’s all Biden’s fault!), and prepare the public for the array of election shenanigans that Trump has launched to undermine the legitimacy of his loss. It would also lay the foundation for the great post-election reckoning.

Preparing for an accountability bonanza

If Democrats win the majority in one or both houses, the most extensive oversight and anti-corruption probe in history will get underway. Never have we seen any presidency so rife with financial corruption, self-dealing, self-enrichment, cronyism, and misuse of public funds for private purposes. “Following the money” will require Congress to track billions in crypto “investments,” corporate donations to Trump family pet projects, and foreign “gifts” used to gain influence. It will no doubt necessitate the most massive insider trading and market manipulation probe in history.

How much money are we talking about? Who gave it, and who got it? What government decisions were influenced? And most importantly, how can the public be made whole and the damage be undone? It may take years, but the undertaking is essential if we are ever to return to a semblance of clean, democratic government that punishes those who abused the public trust.

However, it would be a mistake to think of accountability purely in favor of the misuse and abuse of public funds. There is not a department or disgraced operation of government (including ICE street violence and murders of detainees and bystanders; weaponization of the Justice Department against presidential enemies; the Pentagon’s participation in extrajudicial killings, gross incompetence in war planning, discriminatory promotion decisions; and the full-scale assault on our public health and scientific research systems) that should escape scrutiny.

Only when we quantify the damage in lives and dollars lost, in institutional reputation and in lost human capital, can we begin to address the hundreds — if not thousands — of flawed decisions and ameliorate the impact of malicious, incompetent MAGA rule. Once we do that, we can begin to reset the expectation for all administrations going forward: Regardless of ideology and policy preference, every presidency must be held accountable for competent, transparent, fact-based decision-making; and every administration must operate within the nonpartisan civil service’s rules. Any oversight or accountability project must emphatically reject the Project 2025 mentality that instilled a nihilist bent on destroying expertise and undermining commitment to follow the law and uphold the Constitution.

MAGA’s war on truth, namely its obsessive reliance on lies and conspiracies — no matter how outlandish — to maintain its grip on power, is breathing its last gasps. The Trump regime’s credibility is in tatters, as voters thoroughly reject its policies and the artifice of lies it has relied upon. If Democrats do their job, the MAGA movement will be swept under in a blue midterm wave sufficient to dislodge it from power. With a decisive electoral win and a national commitment to oversight, we could ensure that we never again cede power to those who see government as a vehicle for personal revenge, pecuniary gain, or full-scale assault on pluralistic democracy.

In that regard, the midterms must not only be about cleaning the decks of MAGA scoundrels, criminals, and bullies, but restoration of faith in competent, good-faith self-government, where public interest must predominate.

-Jennifer Rubin

Join The Contrarian community to support bold journalism and help fund critical lawsuits to stop Trump’s corruption — Subscribe now.

(Photo Credit: Mike Maguire, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

"Trump plans to sabotage the midterms, so we're going to need a plan to stop him"

As soon as he took office again, Trump started signaling that he intends to interfere with the midterms. There are too many examples to cover everything, so here are some of the lowlights from just the last year:             

March 2025: An executive order trying to unilaterally overhaul election administration.

July 2025: Ordered Texas to gerrymander five new Republican House seats.

August 2025: An executive order to "get rid of" mail-in ballots ahead of the midterms.

January 2026: Told the House GOP "they should cancel the election.” He regretted not seizing the voting machines after 2020, and then later that month he sent goons to raid Fulton County's election hub.

February 2026: Said Republicans should "nationalize" elections. The next day Steve Bannon said, "You're damn right we're gonna have ICE surround the polls come November," and urged Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act.

March 2026: Issues an executive order to create state-by-state citizen lists and orders USPS to deliver mail ballots only to federally approved names. Installed election denier Dan Bishop to run DOJ's "election-integrity" efforts.

April 2026: Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act, paving the way for racial gerrymanders in former Confederate states. Trump team threatens to force blue states to redraw their own maps.

June 2026: Raided the Cleveland offices of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a voter-registration nonprofit.

Even as he meets resistance from the courts and some blue states, he's clearly not backing down. So what's our plan?

We need to get into election protection formation -- let’s talk about how. For the last 75 weeks or so, Leah and I have hosted What's the Plan, our live Q&A with the Indivisible movement. It’s a unique space: thousands of people from across the country and the world, together every week, working through the strategy and tactics of organizing against fascism. When we’re at our best, we’re cutting through the noise, demystifying some process or institution, and focusing on what we all can actually do.

If Indivisibles are going to plan together for how we organize in defense of the midterms, the place to have that conversation is What’s the Plan. We don’t want to shortchange the big topic, so this week we’re trying something a bit different. This Thursday at 3pm ET, we'll be joined by Corey Dukes from Protect Democracy, an ally in this fight.

We're asking you to do a few minutes of pre-reading so the discussion is as fruitful as possible.

We're inviting you to submit a question ahead of time here. I’ll go through all these Wednesday night to help us steer the conversation before turning it over to live Q&A.

If we pull this off, you'll come away with a better understanding of how this sabotage threat actually works, and the steps you and your local group can take to blunt it. 

As a movement, we have to learn, grow, and act together, so I hope you can join us Thursday (or catch the podcast Friday!). But whatever your schedule, there are plenty of ways this week to organize your community in defense of democracy -- read on!

In solidarity,
Ezra Levin
Co-Executive Director, Indivisible

 

Birthright Citizenship

 

When the Supreme Court issues its decision in the birthright citizenship case, likely this week, the odds are that it will be a loss for the Trump administration. The Court heard argument in U.S. v. Barbara on April 1, 2026. The issue is whether Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” can end birthright citizenship.

Trump’s effort to rewrite the Constitution is blatantly illegal. Doing that takes a constitutional amendment, not a presidential whim. 

And while there may be a vote or two for the administration’s theory that the birthright citizenship provision and accompanying laws don’t mean what they plainly say, it seems more likely, following oral argument, that there are at least six votes for the noncontroversial legal view that the 14th Amendment means what it has been understood to say for over one hundred years—people born in the United States are entitled to U.S. citizenship, with rare exceptions for situations like the children of diplomats.

If you want a refresher on the issues in this case, find it here.

So don’t be surprised and pleased when the Court rules against Trump on this one. It won’t be remarkable. It won’t be a signal that the Court is finally getting tough with the executive branch. This is, put simply, a case that would not have happened in any other administration, because no other president would have attempted such a boldly illegal approach to changing the Constitution. Rejecting Trump’s effort to circumvent the law is a low bar for the Supreme Court to clear.

We saw a better example of this Court’s view of executive branch power last week when it agreed to let the administration end temporary protected status (TPS) for approximately 336,000 people who are legally present in this country because of natural disasters in their home countries—Haitians who came here following earthquakes and hurricanes, or Syrians who came due to armed conflict in their country. The Trump administration suddenly terminated their permission to remain in the country in mid-2025.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, with a majority that included Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has two adopted children from Haiti, the Court held that the courts can’t review a president’s decisions about TPS. In other words, Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, and the courts can’t stay his hand.

Creator: Lynne Sladky | Credit: AP

The only exception, according to the Court, is for constitutional claims. There was a claim here that the decisions were impermissibly race-based: TPS was terminated for Haitians, Syrians, Venezuelans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans. The majority’s willingness to ignore evidence that the administration’s decision was based on race was so transparently in contravention of the facts that it suggests the exception for constitutional claims exists on paper, but this Supreme Court will never give it any weight. Justice Alito held that so long as a race-neutral explanation for the government’s action exists, no matter how much evidence of racial animus is otherwise involved, a plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on constitutional claims.

The part of the TPS case that’s most worth reading is Justice Kagan’s dissent. She started out by noting that the countries the administration says it’s safe for people to be forced to return to “continue to be unsafe.” Justice Kagan wrote, “Secretaries [of State] have repeatedly examined the conditions in the two countries and have repeatedly determined that they remain too dangerous to permit safe return.” 

But Kristi Noem suddenly decided they were safe. When the case was brought, lower courts ruled in favor of the TPS holders, finding that Noem likely violated the law when she made her decision “without first consulting with other agencies about current country conditions.” Kagan writes, later in her dissent, that “Haiti and Syria are countries that the State Department continues to list as too dangerous for travel; they may be yet more perilous for a former inhabitant.”

But it was the argument about race and the Haitian plaintiffs that revealed the conservative majority’s willingness to tolerate the unacceptable. Justice Kagan was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in calling it “plain to see” that race was involved in the decision to terminate the TPS designation for Haiti. Kagan wrote that “the evidence is there, plain to see, in the President’s statements, which the majority (and for that matter, his own lawyers) cannot even bear to repeat.” Ouch.

The legal standard for what the plaintiffs have to prove is taken from a 1977 case, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. They must show that “a racially ‘discriminatory purpose’ was ‘a motivating factor’ in the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation.” That means “One factor among many is enough when the factor is racial to presumptively establish an equal protection violation.” That means the administration’s decision to terminate TPS should be evaluated in light of “‘circumstantial and direct evidence of intent’ that is available,” as well as “‘[t]he historical background of the decision’; the ‘sequence of events leading up’ to it; and, most relevant here, ‘contemporary statements’ by decisionmakers.” That is the well-established legal standard that the majority purported to apply.

Justice Kagan takes the majority to task, writing that: “The evidence they [the Haitian TPS holders] have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print. (Indeed, one measure of the President’s way of speaking about Haitians is to compare it with the majority’s, which is unfailingly respectful.)” She then recites the comments the majority declined to include:

“Haitians are ‘eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].’”

“Haitians in the United States ‘probably have AIDS.’”

“Haiti is a ‘shithole country,’ which is ‘filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.’”

“Haitian immigration is ‘like a death wish for our country.’”

“Haitians, along with some others, are ‘poisoning the blood’ of our country.”

She concludes with an example of Trump saying, “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?”

Kagan assesses the majority’s view of Trump’s comments like this: “The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not ‘overtly racial,’ … but it is hard to know what that means.” Then, she reaches the only conclusion possible on these facts: “Haitians are Black. (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.) The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.” It’s not a pretty bottom line, but it’s honest.

It’s hard to refute Kagan’s challenge to the majority: “The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.” But six conservative Justices chose to ignore them in order to give still more power to a president who has shown a willingness to abuse it and a carelessness about how his decisions affect not only immigrants, but American citizens.

This isn’t just a case about laws and legal standards. It’s a case about people, about individuals and their futures. Kagan makes this clear as well, writing about one of the plaintiffs that “Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot is a Haitian national who has held TPS for fifteen years. He lives in California where he works in a laboratory researching Alzheimer’s, a job he can hold only because of his TPS work authorization. Miot suffers from Type 1 diabetes, which is easily treated in the United States. But in Haiti, the same disease can be a death sentence, given that country’s collapsed health-care infrastructure.”

Kagan concludes that the plaintiffs “deserve better than today’s decision.” When the Court rules that Trump can’t rewrite the rules for birthright citizenship, do not clap. Remember Mr. Miot, and what he will face. Remember others with TPS, who are all here legally, with permission, performing important work in our economy. 

Shortly after the administration ended TPS, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote that “This mass de-legalization has left various segments of the American workforce, from health care to construction to hospitality, without the workers they depend on. Notably, the termination of TPS for Haiti — scheduled for February 3, 2026 — threatens to seriously disrupt the health care, senior care, and disability care workforce.”

Who wins here? Perhaps it’s Stephen Miller, who will gain an estimated 1.3 million people he can tack on as statistics to support the success of his mass deportation master plan. It’s hard to see who else these benefits. These people are not violent criminals, who the administration promised us it would deport. These are hardworking people who are making important contributions that benefit Americans, people who have broken no laws, who only ask to be permitted to remain in this country so they can raise their claims in court and have them heard.

Some decisions are wrong from the start. Like Dred Scott, which denied former slaves' citizenship, or Korematsu, which allowed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This case will join them in a Supreme Court walk of shame.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse. Your support makes it possible for me to do deep dives into cases like this, so we understand what’s really happening at the Supreme Court, not just how the headlines read. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, click on the subscribe button below and join our community.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

Healthcare Fraud

 

Federal prosecutors charged 455 people, including 90 doctors and other licensed medical professionals, in a nationwide crackdown on schemes that allegedly billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs for more than $6.5 billion in false claims. 

The 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown stretched across dozens of federal districts and targeted a range of fraud types, from amniotic wound allograft billing to pill-mill operations and sham mental-health services. The sheer scale of the alleged losses, and the direct involvement of credentialed providers, raises hard questions about how deeply fraud networks have penetrated the health care system.

Why $6.5 billion in alleged fraud demands attention right now: The dollar figures in this takedown are not spread thin across hundreds of small cases. They are concentrated in a handful of districts where prosecutors allege that specific procedure types, particularly amniotic wound allografts, drove enormous billing volumes. 

In Arizona alone, charges involved over $1.2 billion in false or fraudulent claims, with allegations of kickbacks, bribes, and sham invoicing designed to inflate reimbursements for products applied to elderly and hospice patients. In the Southern District of Texas, nine defendants faced charges tied to an alleged $906 million allograft scheme in which a nurse practitioner and clinic managers allegedly created fake patient records to justify billing.

That pattern suggests a clear enforcement signal. The districts that filed the largest individual loss amounts also show the highest concentration of allograft-related charges. Arizona and Southern Texas together account for more than $2 billion of the $6.5 billion total, and both center on allograft fraud. If procedure type is functioning as a leading indicator for enforcement targeting, providers billing heavily for wound allografts in other states should expect increased scrutiny from federal investigators and CMS program-integrity teams in the months ahead.

Licensed professionals at the center of the alleged schemes: The Justice Department announced that 90 of the 455 defendants held medical licenses, a figure that includes doctors, nurse practitioners, and other credentialed professionals. 

Their alleged roles went beyond passive participation. In Texas, prosecutors described clinic managers and a nurse practitioner who allegedly generated fabricated records to support Medicaid mental-health billing and pill-mill prescriptions alongside the allograft scheme. Separate charging documents in the Southern District of Texas outlined how defendants allegedly used shell entities and falsified documentation to conceal the scope of their billing activity.

The single largest case by alleged loss amount landed in the Eastern District of New York. Dubbed “Operation Gold Rush,” the indictment charged 11 defendants in a multi-billion-dollar fraud and money laundering scheme affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. Prosecutors called it the largest case by loss amount ever charged by the Department of Justice. The case included an international dimension, with apprehensions reported in Estonia, illustrating how fraud networks can operate across borders while exploiting American health programs.

The fraud was not limited to massive schemes. In Minnesota, 15 defendants faced charges for over $90 million in alleged Medicaid provider fraud. Across the Southern District of Florida, prosecutors highlighted transnational activity and laundering tied to durable medical equipment, home health services, and telemedicine orders. Smaller districts reported cases involving allegedly unnecessary genetic tests, forged prior authorizations, and billing for counseling sessions that never occurred. Taken together, the filings show how both large and mid-sized operations can drain public health programs when internal controls and external oversight fail.

What the takedown reveals about enforcement priorities: The 2026 operation underscores several enforcement priorities that health care organizations should not ignore. 

First, investigators are clearly focused on high-reimbursement niche products such as amniotic wound allografts, where complex coding rules and limited clinical familiarity can mask abusive billing. 

Second, prosecutors are increasingly framing cases around alleged kickback and referral arrangements, not just false claims, signaling a broader view of corrupt financial relationships as a gateway to fraud.

Third, the prominence of licensed professionals in the charging documents shows that credentials are no shield. When physicians or nurse practitioners allegedly lend their names to sham clinics, sign off on medically unnecessary procedures, or delegate prescribing authority to non-qualified staff, they become central to the government’s narrative of intentional fraud. That emphasis is likely to reverberate through state licensing boards, malpractice insurers, and hospital credentialing committees, which may respond with tighter oversight of practice patterns and ownership interests.

Implications for health systems and policymakers

For hospitals, group practices, and ancillary providers, the takedown is a warning to reassess internal compliance programs. High-volume billing in specialized product lines, especially where third-party marketing companies or distributors are involved, will attract attention. Robust pre-billing review, independent medical-necessity audits, and clear documentation standards are now essential risk controls rather than optional best practices.

For policymakers, the cases highlight structural vulnerabilities in federal and state health programs. Complex reimbursement formulas, fragmented data systems, and uneven state-level enforcement create openings that sophisticated actors can exploit. Strengthening real-time claims analytics, harmonizing state and federal data sharing, and investing in specialized fraud units focused on emerging therapies and devices may be necessary to keep pace with evolving schemes.

The 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown is not just a snapshot of alleged wrongdoing; it is a roadmap of where enforcement is headed. Providers whose business models rely on aggressive use of high-margin products, loosely supervised telehealth arrangements, or volume-based mental-health billing should assume their claims data will be scrutinized. As these cases move through the courts, they are likely to shape future regulations, compliance expectations, and, ultimately, how trust is rebuilt between health care professionals, patients, and the public programs that fund so much of American care.

The post How did 455 people allegedly drain $6.5 billion from Medicare and Medicaid? Federal prosecutors say doctors and nurses were in on the schemes appeared first on The Financial Wire.

 

Trump Quips He’s ‘Very Disappointed’ He Wasn’t Mentioned in Declaration of Independence Alongside God!

 

“The very first settlers who set foot upon this new world at Jamestown got off their ship, raised up a cross, and bowed down to the Lord in prayer. It was faith that strengthened the Minutemen who stood up at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge and Philadelphia. 250 years ago next week, our founders invoked the Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence. Four times. I wasn’t mentioned once. I’m very upset. Not once!

“Faith pushed the pioneers to journey west. Faith led Americans to abolish slavery, and faith built this country into the most exceptional nation in the history of the world. It was going very badly a couple of years ago, very badly, but it’s back really strong, but we have to be very careful because bad things are happening. I watch what’s happening and we’re gonna be discussing that in just a minute.

“Americans have always deeply believed in the promise of Christ’s words and the gospel of Matthew. 'With God, all things are possible,' right? All things. That’s why as we prepare to enter the 250th year, last month, tens of thousands of patriots came together on our National Mall, and we officially rededicated America as 'One Nation Under God,' and we’re not changing.” -DJ Trump

-Kathryn Wilkens, NewsBreak

An Australian's Response to a Trump Rant

 

Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight. A country where 40% of adults can't cover a $400 emergency without borrowing money. A country where insulin costs more than a car payment and people are rationing it to survive. A country where medical debt is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy. A country where women are dying in hospital car parks because doctors are too scared of abortion laws to treat a miscarriage.

You lock up more of your own citizens than any nation on earth. More than China. More than Russia. More than North Korea. The land of the free has 2 million people in cages, and a quarter of them haven't even been convicted of anything. They're just too poor to make bail.

Your life expectancy is going backwards. You're the only developed nation where that's happening. Your infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba's. Your kids do active shooter drills between math and English while you sell the gunmaker's stock to your mates.

Your minimum wage hasn't moved in 15 years. You've got teachers working 2 jobs and veterans sleeping under bridges and you just spent a trillion dollars flattening a country that didn't attack you. And you’ve got a convicted felon, adjudicating raping, pedophile protecting, porn star shagging insurrectionist running the biggest dumpster fire war campaign since the Taliban thanked you very much for losing again.

And you're calling Greenland poorly run? Greenland has universal healthcare. Free education. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. Nobody goes bankrupt there because they got sick. Nobody dies in a waiting room because their insurance said no.

'NATO wasn't there when we needed them." When exactly was that champ? September 11? Because NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in history FOR YOU. Soldiers from dozens of countries deployed, fought, bled, and died in Afghanistan FOR YOU. Australia wasn't even in NATO and we still showed up. For 20 years.

And you pulled out at 2am without telling anyone and left them to deal with the mess. So maybe before you start calling other countries poorly run, have a look at your own backyard, you spray-tanned aluminum siding salesman. The only thing poorly run in this picture is your f------ mouth.

-Bob Ferguson