WND

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dodged answering if Democrats could have “done more” to cut wasteful government spending under the Biden-Harris administration Sunday on NBC News.

House Republicans took the first step Tuesday to advance President Donald Trump’s first-year legislative agenda with their budget bill, approving up to $4.5 trillion in deficit increases to push for Trump’s goal of cutting between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in spending. On “Meet the Press,” NBC host Kristen Welker pointed out the budget bill, mentioning Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson had talked about cutting wasteful spending and that Medicare and Medicaid made billions in spending errors in 2023.

“Let me ask you, Senator Democrats were in charge for four years. Should the Democratic Party have done more to address some of those issues with the insolvency of our entitlement programs?” Welker asked.

“And Trump was in power four years before that,” Sanders responded. “Look, if there is waste and fraud in the Defense Department, which is the largest single budget item that we fund, which has not been able to fulfill an independent audit in the last seven times, where there’s massive waste and fraud, we should go after waste, fraud and abuse in every agency of government. There’s no argument about that.”

WATCH:

In a report published on April 24, 2024, by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), both Medicare and Medicaid were found to be “susceptible to payment errors” in 2023, costing taxpayers over $100 billion in “improper payments.” The GAO’s report stated that, despite testifying before Congress and suggesting recommendations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, both agencies failed to take action — some of which could have saved Medicare billions, according to the GAO.

Sanders went on to claim that Republicans are attempting to make “massive cuts” to Medicaid through the budget bill, stating that the cuts would only benefit “the richest 1%.”

“But let us be very clear, what Republicans are trying to do right now is to make massive cuts in Medicaid, over $800 billion, cuts in nutrition programs which feed hungry children,” Sanders said. “Why are they doing that? Because they want to be able to use those savings to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the richest 1% for the Elon Musk’s and Zuckerberg’s and the Bezos’s of the world.”

“In my view, you don’t take food away from children, health care away from struggling people to give tax breaks to billionaires. Do we go after waste and fraud in every agency of government? Yes, we do,” Sanders concluded.

Despite Democrats’ cries over alleged cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, Republicans have refuted their claims, even before the budget moved forward, stating that the GOP budget proposal does not prescribe specific spending cuts.

Prior to the budget’s advancement on Tuesday, Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, held a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol, claiming the “budget represents the largest Medicaid cut in history.”

“The reckless Republican budget will hurt everyday Americans who rely on Medicaid, rely on nutritional assistance and rely on veterans’ assistance,” Jeffries said. “It’s not a reality show. This is not a joke. It’s not politics as usual. It’s a matter of life and death.”

Following the budget’s approval, Democrats continued to push their talking points on Medicaid and Medicare, with Jeffries telling Daily Caller News Foundation’s Andi Napier Thursday that the budget “authorizes up to $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid by directing the Energy and Commerce Committee to find those spending cuts.”

Since Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk announced on Feb. 3 that he and Trump agreed to overhaul the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Democrats have intensified their pushback against the Trump administration’s efforts to cut government spending. While reports have revealed that billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on various USAID programs — some of which aimed to advance a radical leftist agenda globally —Democratic lawmakers have protested Musk and DOGE’s involvement and filed dozens of lawsuits.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH:

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

(THE GATEWAY PUNDIT) — Tucker Carlson has issued a withering response to the disastrous Oval Office meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday.

The conservative commentator, who is known for his skepticism towards America’s support for Ukraine in their war in Russia, pointed to the fact that the notorious war hawk Lindsey Graham criticized Zelensky’s conduct in the wake of the meeting.

One of the most striking things about yesterday’s Zelensky press conference was Lindsey Graham’s reaction to it. The two are old friends, but Graham disavowed him within the hour. This was more than just transactional disloyalty. It was scapegoating. Lindsey Graham knows what’s…

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 1, 2025

“Most Americans witnessing what they saw today would not want Zelensky to be their business partner, including me, and I’ve been to Ukraine nine times since the war started,” Graham said following the meeting.

PALM BEACH, Florida – F-16 fighter jets scrambled Saturday near President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home after multiple aircraft violated restricted airspace in a short time span, sparking an investigation by the U.S. Secret Service.

“NORAD F-16s intercepted 3 civilian aircraft violating airspace restrictions over Palm Beach, FL today,” the North American Aerospace Defense Command said on X.

“Flares were deployed during two intercepts. All aircraft were safely escorted out of the area. Reminder: Always check FAA NOTAMs!”

A “NOTAM” is a notice to airmen.

The violations occurred within a short period of time, with the3 first at 11:05 a.m., the second at 12:10 p.m., and the third at 12:50 p.m.

Can someone explain how this happens THREE TIMES in less than 2 hours? pic.twitter.com/WdwgZa5q50

— Miss DisMal Information (@bitchfork) March 1, 2025

Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command, stated: “NORAD and the FAA work closely together to keep the skies over America safe, with close attention paid to areas with Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR).

“Adherence to TFR procedures is essential to ensure flights safety, national security, and the security of the president.

“The procedures are not optional, and the excessive number of recent TFR violations indicates civil aviators are not reading Notice to Airmen, or NOTAMs, before each flight as required by the FAA, and has resulted in numerous responses by NORAD fighter aircraft to guide offending aircraft out of the TFR.”

https://t.co/wErYbNKM9W pic.twitter.com/stYb3otk69

— North American Aerospace Defense Command (@NORADCommand) March 2, 2025

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

Some online reaction includes:

“I think FAA ignored the restriction, hoping for an innocent civilian flight to be shot down to try to hurt Trump’s numbers. One is an oops. Twice is coincidence. Three and over is purposeful.”

“Take away their licenses and charge the pilots the costs of the intercepts. I am sure the all up hourly costs of an F-16 is not cheap.”

“USSS and FAA, please look very carefully at the pilot(s). ALL pilots know to check TFRs. One pilot, ok; 2 pilots, maybe; 3 pilots, suspicious.”

“‘Inadvertently’??? Three times???? Please, stop the insanity. I have no confidence in this SS ‘spokesman’! Three times is NOT a mistake!!!!”

“One I can see being accidental, two maybe just an idiot but three is intentional. The third guy is lucky he didn’t get blown out of the sky.”

“By all rights, he should have been shot down! 3 times in a short span of time? That’s deliberate and a threat to the POTUS and his family.”

Just last month, another three violations of airspace took place while President Trump was staying at the so-called “Winter White House” at Mar-a-Lago.

The Palm Beach Post reported: “A spokesperson for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, confirmed Wednesday that there were three airspace violations of the imposed presidential protected space during Trump’s six-day visit to Mar-a-Lago, his mansion in Palm Beach. Two occurred on Feb. 15 and one on Presidents Day, Feb. 17.”

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

(JNS) — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday signed a declaration to expedite $4 billion in military assistance to Israel.

The Trump administration has approved nearly $12 billion in military sales to Israel since taking office on Jan. 20, said Rubio in a statement.

“The Trump Administration will continue to use all available tools to fulfill America’s long-standing commitment to Israel’s security, including means to counter security threats,” the statement continued.

(JNS) — The Israeli government announced on Sunday morning that it has suspended all humanitarian aid to Gaza after the Hamas terrorist organization rejected the ceasefire extension proposed by U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that no goods or supplies would enter Gaza until further notice, reaffirming that Jerusalem will not agree to a ceasefire without the release of its hostages.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the start of the Government meeting:

“Last night I held a security discussion with the participation of the Defense Minister, the faction heads, senior security establishment officials and the negotiating team.https://t.co/elr2T9QXok pic.twitter.com/GvHzD2ITI8

— Prime Minister of Israel (@IsraeliPM) March 2, 2025

Since the ceasefire began on Jan. 19, 25,200 aid trucks carrying food, water and medicine have entered Gaza, alongside more than half a million tents and 2,100 fuel tankers. Israeli officials estimate that Hamas has stockpiled supplies sufficient for four to six months.

The recent United Nations Security Council vote on Russia and Ukraine has once again thrust U.S. grand strategy into the spotlight. Predictably, Washington’s foreign policy establishment responded with familiar alarmism. Compounding the noise, President Donald Trump and his team have issued new pronouncements on America’s strategic posture, doubling down on their calls for greater burden-sharing among allies, skepticism toward endless wars, and a reassessment of long-standing alliances like NATO. Critics, as expected, wasted no time labeling these positions reckless and isolationist. But much of this criticism is less about the substance of Trump’s views and more about a moral panic rooted in Trump himself. His unorthodox style and rhetoric provoke knee-jerk reactions that cloud the deeper strategic logic at play. Although I am not an across-the-board supporter of Trump—I have strong reservations about much of his domestic agenda and political style—I am a passionate advocate for a grand strategy of restraint. Not because Trump champions it, but because restraint is the only approach consistent with the post-unipolar, multipolar world we now inhabit.

Restraint should never be mistaken for isolationism. The critics’ lazy conflation of the two is a disservice to strategic debate. Restraint does not mean withdrawing from the world or abandoning allies. Rather, it requires strategic discipline – prioritizing vital interests, especially in the Western Hemisphere and key regions of Eurasia, while avoiding costly, unnecessary interventions. The Western Hemisphere, in particular, deserves renewed focus as the bedrock of U.S. security. Strengthening regional ties, stabilizing fragile states, and preventing external interference in the Americas would ensure a secure backyard from which the U.S. can project power when essential. Yet, this hemispheric emphasis does not mean ignoring revisionist powers in other regions. Balancing and blunting threats elsewhere remains crucial when regional hegemony would jeopardize core U.S. interests. As multipolarity replaces the fleeting moment of unipolarity, the reality is clear: the United States cannot – and should not – attempt to sustain a unipolar moment that has long since passed.

The critique from primacists – those who insist the United States must pursue global dominance to preserve an American-centric international order – is not merely flawed; it is soaked in anti-Trump hysteria. This hysteria renders their argument more hyper-partisan political grandstanding than practical geopolitical theory or implementable strategic vision. Trump’s foreign policy instincts, while sometimes inelegantly expressed, reflect key elements of the restraint vision: not trying to police an increasingly ghostly rules-based international order; questioning reckless military interventions intended to uphold that order, expecting more from allies, focusing on hemispheric stability, and recognizing China as the principal long-term competitor. These positions merit thoughtful engagement, regardless of one’s opinion of Trump or his MAGA team. The primacist establishment dismisses them reflexively, conflating sound strategic arguments with the political figurehead delivering them. This reflexive dismissal misses the broader strategic significance. As a proponent of restraint, I am sympathetic to Trump’s strategic instincts not because they are his but because they align with today’s geopolitical realities.

Much of the misunderstanding arises from the enduring fiction of a “rules-based international order.” Primacists cling to this concept, asserting it demands unending U.S. leadership. In truth, this so-called order has always been selectively applied – more aspirational than real. More critically, it is now in terminal decline. The rise of regional powers and a diffuse distribution of global power ensure that no single state can impose its will without incurring unacceptable costs. Restrainers understand this reality. Washington must adjust, focusing on blunting revisionist ambitions where it truly matters. In East Asia, this means balancing China’s rise alongside regional partners. In Europe, capable allies must assume greater responsibility for deterring Russia, with the U.S. playing a supportive, not leading, role. Meanwhile, safeguarding hemispheric security remains a central pillar. Latin America and the Caribbean’s stability directly influences U.S. economic prosperity and domestic security.

Some critics point to Trump’s so-called softness on Russia as proof of dangerous isolationism. This, too, misses the mark. As The Wall Street Journal recently noted, Trump’s approach to Russia is hardly unprecedented. Previous administrations, including Obama’s, sought pragmatic engagement with Moscow when U.S. interests aligned. Restraint here does not mean appeasement; it means realism. Recognizing that antagonizing Russia on its doorstep risks unnecessary confrontation is strategic wisdom, not weakness. Europe is economically and technologically equipped to handle its own security. Overcommitting U.S. resources in Europe, especially when strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific and hemispheric challenges loom large, is shortsighted.

Trump’s approach, particularly toward Russia, reveals a continuity in U.S. foreign policy that many refuse to acknowledge. Critics frame his policies as dangerous departures, yet they fit squarely within a pragmatic tradition prioritizing American interests over ideological crusades. Emphasizing the Western Hemisphere reinforces this tradition by securing regions most consequential to U.S. security. The critics’ reactionary dismissal says more about their discomfort with a changing geopolitical landscape than about the soundness of restraint.

Restraint rejects the outdated fantasy of global hegemony desperately clung to by far too many in the US foreign policy establishment. The misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan stand as stark reminders of the perils of overreach – trillions of dollars squandered, countless lives lost, and U.S. credibility severely undermined. Primacists argue that America must lead everywhere to prevent chaos. History proves otherwise. It is American overextension, not strategic discipline, that has often fueled global instability. Multipolarity is an inescapable reality. No level of American resolve can restore a unipolar world. Restraint embraces this truth, offering a sustainable path forward – one that secures America’s strategic backyard while ensuring flexibility to confront genuine threats abroad.

Although Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements lack polish – and here I’m being charitable – his instincts nevertheless reflect the new geopolitical realities. Where his critics see chaos, restrainers see a long-overdue course adjustment. If institutionalized and refined, these instincts could form the backbone of a coherent grand strategy – one that balances threats, blunts revisionist ambitions when and where essential, and concentrates U.S. power where it matters most. As scholars at Defense Priorities and the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy consistently argue, such a pragmatic approach offers the best chance of securing U.S. interests in a multipolar era.

In the end, critiques of restraint are stale and unconvincing. They stem more from fear – of Trump, of change, of multipolarity – than from rational strategic analysis. Restraint does not represent a diminished vision of America’s role in the world. On the contrary, it is a practical, sustainable, and strategically agile response to today’s shifting geopolitical terrain. Washington’s path forward should embrace restraint – not as a reluctant fallback, but as the most effective course for navigating an increasingly complex world, where hemispheric security forms the indispensable foundation for broader strategic success.

---

Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.

The ongoing negotiations between Canada and the European Union (EU) on a security and defence partnership represent a pivotal moment in transatlantic relations. While these talks hold the promise of future benefits, there is a pressing need to acknowledge a critical concern: a deeper Canada-EU security relationship could inadvertently distract Canada from its primary security interests in the Arctic. As the negotiations progress, Ottawa must strike a delicate balance between expanding cooperation with Europe and safeguarding its strategic priorities in the High North. Failure to do so risks undermining Canada’s most vital national security imperatives.

The EU’s ambition to expand its global security footprint is undeniable. Recent pacts with Japan and South Korea underscore Brussels’ intent to safeguard maritime domains, protect underwater infrastructure, and secure critical sea lanes. Such initiatives reflect a broader push by the EU to enhance its role as a credible strategic actor. Canada’s interest in joining this effort is understandable, as it offers avenues to influence European defence policies, enhance interoperability, and access advanced military technologies. Yet, there is a fundamental tension that cannot be ignored. Canada’s security reality is rooted not in distant seas, but in the Arctic—a region where sovereignty, resource competition, and great power rivalry are converging with unprecedented intensity.

Canada’s identity as a North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic power demands unwavering focus. The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier but a geopolitical arena where climate change opens new shipping routes and intensifies competition for resources. Russia’s militarization of its Arctic territories, coupled with China’s increasing interest in the region, underscores the strategic significance of the High North. If Canada becomes overly entangled in European security affairs, it risks diluting its capacity to respond effectively to these emerging threats. The allure of participating in joint naval exercises or contributing to EU-led maritime initiatives must not come at the expense of securing Canada’s northern flank.

However, the pursuit of a Canada-EU security partnership need not be a zero-sum game. The challenge lies in crafting a framework that enhances transatlantic cooperation without diverting Canada’s attention from the Arctic. One promising avenue is for Canada to align its European engagement with the interests of EU Arctic powers such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. These states share Canada’s strategic concerns in the High North and possess valuable expertise in Arctic operations. Collaborative efforts focused on Arctic security—such as joint naval patrols, infrastructure resilience projects, and intelligence-sharing mechanisms—could provide a dual benefit: strengthening transatlantic ties while reinforcing Canada’s Arctic presence.

Defence procurement and intelligence sharing will undoubtedly feature prominently in any eventual agreement. Yet even in these areas, caution is warranted. Defence procurement cooperation with the EU could offer access to cutting-edge technologies and streamline acquisition processes. However, Canada must ensure that such initiatives support, rather than undermine, its Arctic priorities. Investments in capabilities designed for European theatres of operation should not come at the cost of assets essential for Arctic defence, such as icebreakers, surveillance systems, and Arctic-capable submarines. Procurement strategies must reflect the unique demands of Canada’s northern environment, where harsh conditions and vast distances require specialized equipment and operational expertise.

Intelligence sharing presents another double-edged sword. Enhanced information exchange with European partners could bolster Canada’s ability to address hybrid threats, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns. Nevertheless, intelligence priorities must remain anchored in the Arctic context. Real-time intelligence on activities in the High North is indispensable for effective situational awareness and response. Canada should leverage its partnership with the EU to develop Arctic-focused intelligence capabilities, ensuring that European cooperation complements, rather than distracts from, its core security mission.

The EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy adds yet another layer of complexity. Brussels’ desire to act independently in security matters could present opportunities for Canada to influence European defence policies. However, Canada must approach this opportunity with a clear-eyed understanding of its implications. Alignment with the EU’s strategic autonomy agenda should not come at the cost of undermining NATO’s role or diminishing Canada’s Arctic focus. Ottawa’s engagement with the EU must be framed by a realist assessment of its national interests, with the Arctic at the forefront.

A deeper Canada-EU security relationship also carries broader implications for transatlantic relations. As the United States recalibrates its global commitments, Canada’s role in ensuring North American and Arctic security becomes ever more critical. A meaningful transatlantic partnership must recognize this reality. The Arctic is a cornerstone of North American defence, and any Canadian contribution to European security must be weighed against the imperative of maintaining a robust northern defence posture. European partners must understand that Canada’s security engagement cannot be divorced from its responsibilities in the High North.

While the allure of a comprehensive security partnership with the EU is strong, Canada must proceed with bold clarity of purpose. The Arctic represents the future of Canadian security—its gateway to emerging geopolitical challenges and opportunities. Any partnership that threatens to divert attention from this reality must be approached with caution. The potential for a balanced approach exists, but only if Canada is willing to assert its interests decisively.

One way forward is for Canada to champion an Arctic-focused dimension within the broader Canada-EU security framework. By prioritizing cooperation with EU Arctic powers, Ottawa can ensure that European engagement strengthens rather than undermines its northern strategy. Such an approach would allow Canada to contribute meaningfully to transatlantic security while reinforcing its leadership role in the Arctic. Joint initiatives focused on Arctic infrastructure, climate resilience, and maritime domain awareness could serve as cornerstone projects that align Canadian and European interests.

Ultimately, the success of these negotiations will hinge on Canada’s ability to navigate the fine line between ambition and realism. The allure of deeper ties with the EU must not overshadow the imperatives of Arctic security. Canada’s future as a credible security actor depends on its capacity to focus on what matters most—defending its northern frontier and asserting its role in the High North. A bold, balanced, and strategically grounded approach to these negotiations will determine whether Canada can achieve both objectives without compromise.

---

Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with DefensePriorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.