[00:11] But as an American, I’m pissed the f*** off. We’ve got the most powerful person on the face of the planet facing multiple assassination attempts, and we’re acting like this is just another news cycle.

[00:23] I need all Americans, no matter where you stand politically, to ponder this simple yet extremely important question: If they can’t keep the President safe—the supposed most protected person on Earth—then how the h*ll are they keeping us safe?

[00:38] Someone isn’t doing their job. Let’s talk about why the Secret Service is failing us.

[00:49] Assassination attempts aren’t new. People plotted on Obama, Biden, and Bush. Reagan was shot and survived. Lincoln and JFK were assassinated. But after every single one of those tragedies, something changed.

[01:03] After JFK, the Secret Service stopped presidents from riding in convertibles, and they brought in the first bulletproof limousines. They learned, they adapted, because they realized it’s a disaster for the country to have our leader that vulnerable.

[01:17] But fast forward to 2026, and it’s almost like the Secret Service forgot everything we learned. Why is it that people keep getting close enough to actually fire shots? A lot of things have to go wrong for a gunman to get that close to the President. This is a level of incompetence I haven’t seen in my lifetime.

[01:34] So why does this keep happening? I think I know the culprit. Donald Trump has to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find personnel for this administration. Why? Because no one with decent qualifications wants to completely bow down and give 100% loyalty to him.

[01:49] In his second term, the running theme is loyalty. That’s all he cares about. And when you prioritize loyalty over competence, you get people like Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, and Kristi Noem in high-level positions.

[02:04] I can only imagine the kind of unqualified people he’s got in the Secret Service right now. I swear I saw when the shooting started from out in the lobby area, or whatever the security personnel was—I swear I saw two of them bump into each other coming down the stairs.

[02:41] Like, what kind of sh*t is that? This isn’t normal. You don’t put “yes-men” in charge of the agencies that are supposed to head off these plots before they even start. Normally, they know about these plans before the first shot is even fired.

[02:55] Now, several people are getting close to him with guns. Love him or hate him, that ain’t supposed to happen, and that’s not good.

[03:02] And here’s the thing, Donald: if people keep trying to kill you, maybe it’s time to reevaluate your life choices. You keep fanning the flames of hate and attacking people, and you don’t know who you’re inciting. It doesn’t make it right for them to attack you—nobody is saying that—but they’re doing it.

[03:20] Your words have weight as President of the United States. So stop doing the shit that’s pissing people off enough to do this. And the f***ed up thing is that he knows this. But he’s fine with it if the Democrats are the target. But if the Republicans are the target, then they’ve got a problem.

[03:40] It’s not a good look for the country to have all of these people gunning for the President and getting close to him. And as an American, it’s making me think about future presidents. Whether it’s Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, AOC, or J.B. Pritzker, or whoever else might be the Democratic nominee for president, they will get Secret Service. That’s how it works.

[03:59] When Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee for president, she got Secret Service. I don’t know if Joe Biden still had Secret Service protection in the 2020 election; he may have, I don’t know. So either his detail got bigger or he got protection as the Democratic presidential nominee.

[04:17] And then I noticed a change because, unlike some people, I actually followed Kamala Harris’s vice presidency and knew what she was doing. Since so many people have a hard time knowing what she was doing apparently, I followed her vice presidency, and I noticed a distinct change in her Secret Service detail.

[04:37] She went from riding around in—I think—those big Tahoe SUVs to having a full, almost presidential motorcade. I remember seeing that from the campaign. That’s how the system typically works.

[04:50] So if the agency is losing its touch because of unqualified loyalist hiring, how are they supposed to protect the next person? And if it’s full of a bunch of Trump loyalists, are they going to be willing to protect the next person?

[05:03] Like, my question is, is the Secret Service even up to the task anymore? That’s the question every American needs to be asking, regardless of what party you’re in. Because right now, the answer looks like a resounding “No.”

[05:16] Let me know in the comments: do you think it’s a lack of training, or is the “loyalty over talent” culture finally catching up to them? I want to hear y’all’s thoughts. See y’all next time.

[00:15] Trump sat down with Norah O’Donnell on 60 Minutes, where she read the gunman’s alleged manifesto. And Donald Trump does the most guilty man thing I have ever seen in my life. You know what it reminds me of? It’s like when a cop knocks on your door to ask you about a missing person in the area, and before they even open their mouth, you blurt out, “There’s nobody tied up in my basement!” To me, that’s basically what he did. He played himself. Let’s talk about it.

[00:46] [Intro Sequence: Pragmotiv News]

[00:54] KAMERON: So Norah O’Donnell is just doing her job, just like every person who interviews Donald Trump, they’re just doing their job. She was reading from the manifesto of the alleged gunman, Cole Thomas Allen. She reads this specific line:

[01:08] NORAH O’DONNELL (READING): “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

[01:15] KAMERON: Now look at the details here. The gunman did not mention Trump by name in that sentence. He said “administration officials” were targets. But Trump immediately starts attacking her and fires back: “I’m not a rapist, I didn’t rape anybody.” And her reaction says it all.

[01:33] [60 Minutes Playback Segment]

NORAH O’DONNELL: The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this, quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” And he also wrote this: “I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.” What’s your reaction to that?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you’re... you’re horrible people, horrible people. Yeah, he did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Oh, you think he was referring to you?

DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person. I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated. Your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with, let’s say, Epstein or other things. But I said to myself, you know, I’ll do this interview and they’ll probably... I read the manifesto, you know, he’s a sick person. But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Mr. President, these are the gunman’s words...

DONALD TRUMP: You shouldn’t be reading that on 60 Minutes. You’re a disgrace. But go ahead, let’s finish the interview.

[02:54] KAMERON: What an a**hole. I’m sorry, but he’s a b****h. You’re going to sit there and call that lady that to her face? And all she did was read from the d*mn paper! And it didn’t even mention you! But you see, this is what I’m talking about. Why are you pouncing on that if your name wasn’t in there?

[03:11] It speaks to exactly what I’ve always said about the Republicans. They don’t understand that if you answer to a name that wasn’t yours, you accept it. You accept whatever they’re saying about you; you accept whatever they’re calling you. But to answer something like that? Frankly, that’s just telling on yourself.

[03:31] And you know, that reminds me... it reminds me of the whole Druski and Erika Kirk look-alike situation. I covered it a few weeks ago. Here’s a snippet.

[03:41] [Video Playback: MAGA’s Selective Outrage]

KAMERON (Playback): The thing that is even funnier than the video itself is the fact that MAGA immediately started saying that he was trying to portray Erika Kirk. Me personally, before I watched the video, when I had only seen pictures, I thought it was Miss Bumpy-Lip-Levitt, but whatever. So, what the MAGA idiots don’t ever seem to understand is: never answer to jokes that don’t mention you directly by name. So for them to respond directly, that is a huge mistake and they don’t even realize it. Like, people, you put her name to it. So y’all must really think she look like that.

[04:29] KAMERON: And I see Trump doing the same exact thing right here. He’s attacking Norah, calling her a disgrace and a horrible person, just for reading the words. He’s getting all defensive because the shoe fits a little too well, in my honest opinion.

[04:40] And here’s the kicker—the part that’s actually hilarious if it wasn’t so dark. He goes off about being called a rapist first, but then he realizes he’s focusing on too specific of a part of it. Just one aspect of the sentence he was focused on. So then he had to backtrack and catch himself and add: “I’m not a pedophile either.”

[05:01] He didn’t deny the pedophile part at first! He just let that one hang there until his brain caught up with his mouth. Congratulations, Donald. You played yourself.

[05:09] And of course, he spends the rest of the interview blaming Democrats for violence. Look, let’s be real. Let’s be 1,000% real here. The political violence in this country is largely coming from one side of the aisle. I made a video about it months ago—talking about this same issue. It’s funny how videos become relevant again.

[05:27] They are fine with the violence until it affects them. But most of the time, it’s them with the violence. As far as I know, no left-leaning person mailed literal bombs to multiple Republican figures. As far as I know, that ain’t happened. But yet, they’ve done it. Republicans have done it.

[05:44] So Trump wants to act like a victim of a “liberal press” while he’s literally throwing a tantrum over crimes he wasn’t even being directly accused of in that moment. He’s mad at Norah for just reading something. But I think the reality is, he’s just mad because she held up a mirror and he didn’t like the reflection.

[06:03] He called her disgraceful for reading the gunman’s words. But he’s the one who made sure everybody knew exactly which labels he thought applied to him. Like I said, I’m going to keep saying it until I’m blue in the face: You don’t answer to something that doesn’t apply to you. But Donald answered loud and clear.

[06:21] Next video, we’re going to get into the other side of this. Because while Trump is busy showing his hand in interviews, we have a Secret Service that let a man with a gun—with a shotgun—get within 45 yards of the President. That’s the real disaster. Out of all this shit, that’s the real disaster right there.

[06:39] So let me know in the comments, y’all. Did he fuck up and admit to something? Or was it just Trump being Trump? I want to hear it. See y’all next time.

[06:46] [Outro Sequence: Pragmotiv News]

If prices aren’t going back down, then the next question is obvious: Where is the pressure really coming from?

Well, high grocery and gas prices are the easy-to-identify culprits of tighter budgets. These realities are in our faces daily as we go about our lives. But, they aren’t what’s really driving the cost-of-living crisis. Housing is.

And to understand why everything feels so damned expensive even as we are hit with a barrage of “inflation has slowed” – from news pundits, politicians, and the President – you have to start with housing.

The Expense That Dominates Everything Else

For most Americans, housing is the largest expense in their budget. Do you know anyone who has a monthly cost higher than the cost of their housing? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, housing accounts for roughly one-third of total consumer spending, making it the single biggest category in household budgets.

The scale of this matters:

A modest increase in food prices is noticeable.
An increase in rent or mortgage payments reshapes a person’s entire budget.

And that’s why cost-of-living pressure feels persistent—even when inflation slows.

Housing is a Totally Different Animal

Housing doesn’t respond to economic shifts the way other goods do.

The production of consumer goods can be increased quickly. But increasing the housing supply is a slow and constrained process.

• Construction takes years

• Land is limited in high-demand areas

• Local regulations restrict development

The result is a structural imbalance.

According to Freddie Mac, the U.S. housing market is estimated to have a shortage of several million homes. The shortage has built up over a period of more than ten years. When the available supply of an in-demand product is constrained in this way, rising demand leads to sustained price increases.

The Policy Constraint

Market forces are not the only factor affecting housing – it is heavily affected by policy. Zoning laws, permitting rules, and density restrictions determine how much housing can be built and where.

Research from institutions like the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that restrictive zoning in high-demand areas significantly limits supply and leads to price increases.

In many cases, these policies have had a simple but direct effect:

• Fewer homes built

• Higher prices

• Reduced affordability

Why It Doesn’t Get Fixed

So, you may ask, if the problem is so clear, why does it persist? It persists because of misaligned incentives.

· Rising home values benefit existing homeowners

· New development often faces local opposition

· Elected officials respond to those pressures.

This creates a system where the status quo—limited supply and higher prices—is easier to maintain than to change.

Interest Rates Made It Worse

Recent interest rate increases have added another layer.

Higher rates have:

· Increased mortgage costs

· Reduced affordability for buyers

· Discouraged current homeowners from selling

Many homeowners are locked into low mortgage rates from previous years and are unwilling to move, which further limits supply.

The result is a tighter market with fewer available homes and continued upward price pressure.

Even if other prices stabilize, housing keeps overall costs elevated. This is why many of us feel that affordability hasn’t improved, even as inflation data shows moderation. But people don’t live in “data”. They live in reality: with real dollars, trying to pay real mortgages, rents, and household bills.

When housing expense rises, it defines the experience of the economy.

The Reality

If prices aren’t going back down, housing is the clearest example of why.

It is constrained.
It is policy driven.
And it is resistant to short-term change.

Which also means:

If there is any place where the cost of living can meaningfully improve, this is it.

Not quickly.
Not easily.
But structurally.

Because while many prices are shaped globally, housing is shaped locally—and that makes it one of the few areas where change is actually possible.

My last article argued that prices aren’t going back to where they were. Not for groceries, not for gas, not for most of what we buy every day. People are really hurting and struggling to make ends meet.

This reality raises a more important question: If prices aren’t falling, how do people get ahead?

In theory, the answer to that question is simple — incomes must rise. But in, practice, this is where things get a bit more complicated.

It’s easy to say wages should go up. It’s much more difficult to make that happen.

Unlike prices, which can rise quickly during periods of inflation, incomes tend to move more slowly. Income is tied to hiring decisions, business conditions, productivity, and negotiation power.

The politician’s mantra is “put more money in the American people’s pockets” or “we’re going to raise wages”. But there’s no switch to flip to increase wages across the board for people.

What elected officials can do is influence the conditions that make higher incomes possible. But those conditions take time to develop—and they come with tradeoffs.

When Workers Have Leverage, Wages Rise

The most reliable driver of wage growth is simple: leverage.

When employers need workers more than workers need employers, pay goes up. We saw this play out in the years following the COVID pandemic, when labor shortages pushed wages higher in many industries, especially in lower-paying job sectors.

But maintaining that kind of environment is difficult. A labor market that is too tight can fuel inflation. One that is too weak puts downward pressure on wages. Policymakers are constantly trying to balance between those two outcomes—and they don’t always get it right.

Government has tools at its disposal, but they affect wages indirectly; they are not precise:

· Stimulus and public spending can boost demand for labor

· Immigration policy affects the size of the workforce

· Interest rates influences business hiring activities

The Role of Productivity

There’s a deeper force behind income growth that gets less attention: productivity.

Over time, wages rise when workers produce more value per hour. Better tools, systems, and technology are what allow businesses to pay more without raising the prices of their goods and services. If workers can generate more value per hour, then higher wages become sustainable.

This is the slow path, but it’s the durable one.

Governments can support increases in productivity through:

• Investments in infrastructure

• Funding research and development

• Incentivizing business investment

• Education and workforce training

But this is the long game, not an immediate fix. Productivity gains take years to show up in your paycheck, and this is why quick promises are the politician’s go to.

Policy Can Help—But Only at the Margins

There are ways government can push incomes higher more directly.

Minimum wage increases, labor protections, and tax credits can boost take-home income, especially for lower-wage workers. Programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit effectively raise income without requiring employers to pay more.

But these tools have limits.

Raise wages too aggressively, and businesses may hire less or raise prices further. Expand tax credits, and the cost shifts elsewhere in the system.

One other strategy is policies aimed at strengthening industries like manufacturing, energy, and technology that can help create more high-paying jobs. We’ve seen this recently in efforts to bring back semiconductor production to the U.S. The idea is straightforward: if there are more higher paying job sectors, average incomes will rise. The problem is, these things take time, and not everyone benefits equally.

None of these policies are silver bullets. They help—but they don’t fundamentally change how income growth works.

Another Way to Think About It

There’s a different way to approach the problem; an angle that often gets overlooked.

If incomes are slow to rise, then improving living standards can also come from reducing major costs—especially the ones that dominate household budgets.

Here’s where government can implement policy reforms that can matter a lot, like:

· Zoning reform to increase the housing supply

· Healthcare cost reforms

· Childcare subsidies and support

Housing, healthcare, and childcare matter more than marginal changes in everyday prices. Lowering those costs can effectively increase real income, even if wages themselves don’t move much.

This may be the most realistic path to improving the standard of living in the short term

But, even when incomes do rise, they rarely rise fast enough to keep up with sudden increases in prices.

That gap is what people feel.

Prices jump quickly. Paychecks adjust slowly. And in between, households are forced to stretch, cut back, and rethink how they spend.

By the time wages begin to catch up, the damage—financial and psychological—has already been done.

The Reality

Instead of promising cheaper prices or magically higher wages, politicians could have a franker conversation with their constituents, and it would sound something like this:

· We are now in a higher cost economy

· Raising incomes will take time

· We have policies that can help, but none are quick fixes

· I will work to get reforms passed that will increase your real income

This may not be quippy or catchy, or the most inspiring campaign message, but it’s closer to reality.

Prices aren’t going back.
Incomes can rise—but not overnight.

And until they do, the pressure people feel at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and in their monthly bills isn’t going anywhere.

Politicians across the country are campaigning on a familiar promise: lowering the cost of living. It’s an easy message to understand and an even easier one to support. After all, who wouldn’t want cheaper groceries, lower rent, and more breathing room at the end of the month? I know I do!!

But here’s a question I think we all should be asking, one that should follow the lower-the-cost-of-living campaign promise: Can prices actually go back down?

From what I know, as someone who has studied business and economics, the answer is no. Not in any meaningful or lasting way.

The Reality at the Checkout Line

Lately, a trip to the grocery store feels less like routine and more like a math exercise. I find myself adding up items as I go, quietly calculating whether what’s in my basket will match the tight food budget I’ve had to put myself on.

This isn’t unusual anymore—it’s the norm. Prices have not just spiked temporarily; they are now reset to a higher level.

And that’s the key point many political conversations gloss over: inflation isn’t just about prices rising. It’s about prices staying high once they get there.

Why Prices Rarely Go Backward

I am almost one-hundred percent sure that most people believe if inflation “comes down,” prices will follow. But that’s not how the system works. Inflation “coming down” just means the rate prices are rising has slowed—not that they’re falling. For prices to return to where they were before tariffs, before supply chain shocks, before global conflict, we would need widespread deflation. Deflation sounds great in theory. The collective sigh of relief from everyone would be heard around the world.

But imagine this: if you knew the big screen television you saw at Costco or the car you’ve been eyeing on those YouTube car videos would be cheaper next month, you might wait. And if everyone starts thinking that way, spending slows down.

When spending slows, businesses feel it. And when businesses feel it, they don’t lower prices—they start cutting their costs. One of the biggest expenses for most businesses is salaries expense, and that’s what businesses often target when they tighten their budgets, which translates into hiring fewer people and lowering pay for advertised jobs. Lower prices may sound appealing, but widespread deflation can actually make people worse off, not better.

Politicians always say the things they think voters need to hear to motivate them to vote for them as a candidate, but the reality is the system is designed to prevent prices from falling significantly.

The “system” I am speaking of is made up of central banks (like the Federal Reserve), government fiscal policy, and the broader structure of the economy that influences spending, wages, and investment. Together, these forces are designed to keep demand steady and avoid falling prices, even during economic slowdowns.

The Federal Reserve doesn’t aim for zero inflation—it targets steady price increases, typically around 2 percent. And when the economy weakens, policymakers respond by lowering interest rates, increasing the money supply, or boosting government spending to keep demand from collapsing. The goal isn’t to bring prices back down—it’s to keep them from falling at all, because falling prices can trigger a broader economic slowdown.

Structural Changes, Not Temporary Spikes

What we’ve experienced over the past several years isn’t just a blip—it’s a structural shift.

• Tariffs raised the baseline cost of imported goods. Once companies adjust pricing upward, they rarely reverse course.

• Supply chain disruptions forced businesses to rethink sourcing and logistics, often at higher cost.

• Energy and geopolitical tensions, including conflict in the Middle East, have added long-term uncertainty and expense.

• Labor costs have increased, and while that’s good for workers, it also feeds into higher prices across industries.

These are not temporary pressures. They reshape the floor of the economy.

The Political Incentive to Promise the Impossible

There’s a reason candidates lean into “lowering costs” instead of talking about wage growth or structural reform—it’s more emotionally resonant.

Telling voters, “we’ll make things cheaper” is simpler than saying, “high prices are the new normal, and we need to help you earn more.”

Even when governments intervene—through subsidies, tax credits, or price controls—the effects are usually limited, temporary, or come with tradeoffs elsewhere.

If prices aren’t going back, then the real conversation needs to shift. Instead of asking how to bring prices down, we should be asking:

• How do we help incomes rise to meet this new reality?

• How do we increase productivity and opportunity?

• How do give help to and ensure growth reaches those people who are being squeezed the hardest?

There’s also a psychological adjustment that needs to happen as much as an economic one.

For decades, Americans were used to relatively stable prices. Sure, there were occasional dips, but relatively stable nonetheless. That state of existence is now behind us. What we’re seeing now is a recalibration—one where higher prices become the rule, not the exception.

That doesn’t mean we should just accept that things will be hard economically, it just means we need to be clear-eyed about what’s possible.

The Hard Truth

The hard truth is this: the cost-of-living problem is increasingly an income problem. Prices are unlikely to return to pre-tariff, pre-inflation, pre-conflict levels. Not because policymakers don’t care—but because the economic system doesn’t work that way.

The sooner we accept that reality, the sooner we can focus on solutions that actually work: raising incomes, expanding opportunity, and building resilience in a higher-cost world.

Until then, we’ll keep doing what many of us are already doing—adding things up in the grocery aisle, hoping it all fits.

There’s a definite pattern and it’s becoming harder to ignore.

Across multiple fronts, the Trump-era political ecosystem—and the network of advisers and operatives around it—appears consistently intertwined with money. Not just the usual cavalcade of campaign fundraising or lecture-circuit speaking fees, but something much more pervasive: access-monetization, influence-peddling, and self-enrichment via proximity to power.

From branded merchandise to high-dollar donor access, the line between governance and revenue generation is now unrecognizable under this administration. And now, new reporting suggests this dynamic may have extended directly into federal contracting.

Corey Lewandowski—an aide to former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—is alleged to have demanded payments from companies seeking DHS contracts. According to multiple reports, these payments were framed as contingent on securing or expanding government business. The reporting raises concerns about a potential pay-to-play structure embedded within the agency’s contracting process.

If true, this is more than just another controversy involving the Trump Administration and it’s affiliates, it’s illustrative of how influence can be converted into currency within the workings of a government.

So What Are The Allegations?

The reporting, first reported by NBC News and then echoed across multiple outlets, paints a consistent picture:

Contractors working with the Department of Homeland Security—including major players like private prison operator GEO Group—told officials they were asked to make payments tied to the value of their contracts. The company’s founder, George Zoley, reportedly had a tense exchange with Corey Lewandowski in the lead-up to Trump’s January 2025 inauguration. According to industry sources and DHS officials familiar with the matter, Lewandowski told Zoley he wanted to be paid a fee in exchange for protecting and growing the company’s federal contracts with DHS.

GEO Group’s CEO Zoley, allegedly declined Lewandowski’s request for payment, saying he would “have no part of it”. Zoley reportedly offered to put Lewandowski on retainer, but Lewandowski demanded to be compensated based on the company’s new or renewed contracts. So, in effect, Lewandowski was saying a retainer fee wasn’t enough. He wanted a percentage of the value of the contracts awarded, it seems.

After Zoley refused to pay Lewandowski, the length of some of its contracts was reduced, and several of GEO group’s properties that could house detainees sit idle even as the agency actively seeks to purchase properties to house detained immigrants. A spokesperson for Lewandowski denies the allegations and in December 2025, GEO Group did receive a new contract from the agency for services regarding immigrant location.

According to a White House official, there have been more than a dozen complaints by at least four other companies about the nature of Lewandowski’s involvement in the contracting process. Although the allegations have been vehemently denied by Lewandowski, the scope of the claims and the number of companies complaining has been enough to trigger a formal investigation. Sens. Adam Schiff, Peter Welch, and Richard Blumenthal have sent letters to GEO Group and other contractors asking them to retain all records and communications involving Lewandowski, his representatives and any consulting firms connected to him.

Investigators are examining whether individuals connected to Lewandowski had outsized influence over contract awards and spending decisions, sometimes in roles not typically granted that authority.

At the same time, watchdogs are reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in DHS contracts, including controversial no-bid deals and politically connected firms receiving government work.

A Network, Not an Outlier

Lewandowski’s role inside DHS was never typical.

Officially a “special government employee,” he reportedly operated with broad, informal authority, reviewing contracts and influencing personnel decisions across the agency.

Multiple investigations now suggest that influence extended beyond him:

• A contractor closely aligned with Lewandowski is under scrutiny for playing an unusual role in FEMA contracting decisions

• Congressional inquiries have raised concerns about centralized control over contracts within DHS leadership circles

• Allegations include efforts to steer contracts toward allies and preferred firms

Even beyond contracting, Kristi Noem herself faced separate accusations of self-dealing tied to large taxpayer-funded programs, further reinforcing concerns about how money and influence intersected within the department.

This isn’t just about one person potentially enriching themselves, but about a systemic monetization of influence and the breakdown of the boundary between public authority and private gain.

The Pattern

If you step back and take a birds eye view, the picture becomes very clear:

• Government announces large-scale spending

• Contractors compete for access

• Influence becomes valuable

• Intermediaries emerge

• Money begins to follow proximity

This is the anatomy of a pay-to-play system.

And it doesn’t require formal corruption to take hold.

It only requires:

• enough money

• enough discretion

• and enough opacity

What This Means

Because procurement is the backbone of government, the implications extend far beyond DHS, if the allegations are true. Procurement is how policy becomes reality.

Laws and budgets don’t execute themselves—they’re carried out through contracts that determine who gets paid, who builds infrastructure, and who delivers needed supplies and services. Control over procurement means control over how public money flows, which directly shapes outcomes, priorities, and power.

When the government ceases to be a neutral allocator of resources it becomes a marketplace for access and influence:

What happens structurally

• Contracts go to the connected, not the competent
  Decisions are driven by relationships rather than merit.

• Costs rise, quality falls
  You pay more (through taxes), but get worse outcomes—because efficiency is no longer the priority.

• Resources get misallocated
  Money flows to projects that benefit insiders, not necessarily what the public actually needs.

• Corruption risk compounds
  Once access has value, more actors compete to buy it, reinforcing the cycle.

How it affects the average citizen

• Higher everyday costs:
  Wasteful contracts and inflated pricing ultimately show up as higher taxes, fees, or inflation.

• Worse public services:
  Infrastructure, healthcare systems, disaster response, and enforcement become less reliable and slower.

• Reduced access:
  Services may become harder to obtain unless you’re connected, wealthy, or in the “right” network.

• Erosion of fairness:
  People begin to feel—and often correctly—that the system is rigged.

• Lower trust in institutions:
  Once neutrality disappears, legitimacy follows. Citizens disengage or become cynical.

Here’s the bottom line:

When neutrality breaks down, government doesn’t just become inefficient—it becomes extractive. And for most people, that means you pay more, wait longer, and get less—while others profit from the difference.

Read more

THE MEDIA POWER GRAB: How Consolidation Is Reshaping What America Sees—and Believes

Most of the time, there’s a moment—right before something fundamentally changes—where everything still feels normal.

That’s where we are right now.

Because while we’ve been scrolling, streaming, and half-watching the news…

People with money, access, and agendas have been buying the entire system.

They have made it a point to do it quietly... But decisively and with precision.

Paramount is massive. Now Imagine It Bigger.

Let’s start with what Paramount Global already controls:

Broadcast & News

• CBS

• CBS News

• CBS Sports

• Local CBS Television Stations in select markets across the country

Cable Networks

• MTV

• VH1

• BET

• Comedy Central

• Nickelodeon (Nick Jr., TeenNick, Nicktoons)

• Paramount Network

• TV Land

• CMT

• Smithsonian Channel

Streaming

• Paramount+

• Pluto TV

• Showtime (recently integrated into Paramount+)

Film & Production

• Paramount Pictures

• Paramount Television Studios

• CBS Studios

This isn’t just a company.

It’s a pipeline of culture, information, and influence—from children’s programming to primetime news.

For a ’90s kid like me, the cultural impact of shows like All That, Kenan & Kel, Drake & Josh, Ned’s Declassified, and iCarly isn’t just nostalgia—it’s proof of how deeply media shapes societal norms. And today, that same kind of influence is being consolidated under fewer and fewer corporations, controlled by a shrinking number of connected people... Now, just a handful of companies—and an even smaller group of decision-makers—control a dominant share of what Americans watch across cable, streaming, and social media.

Now ask the obvious question:

What happens when control of that magnitude shifts?

Well... The Shift Is Already Happening

You don’t need to speculate.

You can watch it— in real time.

CBS News has begun to change after its merger with Skydance last year:

• More ‘both sides’ framing—even in situations where that balance doesn’t really exist

• Softer treatment of conservative narratives

• A shift that feels less like neutrality—and more like something intentional

This is how influence works now.

Not through censorship.

Through subtle editorial control.

The Real Power Move: Warner Bros. Discovery

Now scale that influence dramatically.

Because Paramount isn’t just consolidating—it’s pursuing Warner Bros. Discovery.

If that deal closes, the combined entity would control:

• CBS + CNN (two of the most influential news brands in the world)

• HBO (arguably the most prestigious storytelling platform in television)

• Warner Bros. Studios

• Discovery Channel

• HGTV

• Food Network

• TLC

• Cartoon Network / Adult Swim

• TBS / TNT

That’s an unprecedented level of influence across:

• News

• Entertainment

• Lifestyle

• Kids content

• Streaming infrastructure

And if CBS is already swinging hard to the right…

What do you think will happen to CNN?

Now, we got to talk about TikTok...

Now comes the part most people are underestimating. The power of the feed.

Because controlling media isn’t just about making content anymore.

It’s about controlling distribution.

TikTok—one of the most powerful content engines in the world—has now been restructured into a U.S.-controlled entity, following a deal that places its American operations under an investor group led by Larry Ellison, the father of David Ellison… who now controls Paramount following the Skydance merger—placing legacy media and a major distribution platform within the same family’s control.

TikTok’s original owner, ByteDance, remains involved at a reduced level.

But operational control—data oversight, governance, and platform direction—now sits with Larry Ellison’s group of American investors tied to the same financial ecosystem influencing traditional media.

That changes the equation.

Because now we’re looking at overlapping influence across:

• What gets produced (the studios)

• What gets aired (the networks)

• And what gets amplified (TikTok’s algorithm)

That’s not just consolidation.

That’s narrative control. That’s control over deciding what people should care about and when! That’s a lot of power for a handful of people, especially from one family...

Public Media Is Being Weakened at the Same Time

And this is where the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.

Because while private media is being consolidated…

Public media is being decimated.

In July 2025, Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress passed and signed a rescissions bill that cut roughly $1.1 billion in federal funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—the entity that supports PBS and NPR. The move came alongside a broader legislative push, branded by Republicans as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ aimed at reshaping federal spending and public institutions.

That funding supports more than 1,500 local stations, many of them serving rural and underserved communities.

And it didn’t stop there.

Earlier in 2025, the administration also directed federal agencies to eliminate funding for public broadcasters entirely, framing them as ‘politically biased’.

So, at the exact moment corporate media power is being consolidated into the hands of a select few billionaires close to the President…

public, non-corporate media is being weakened by his administration.

Out with old... in the new...

At the same time, another shift is happening:

• Funding and visibility for PragerU, a digital-first ideological media operation, continues to grow

• Younger audiences are being targeted directly through platforms like YouTube

• One of my first episodes of Pragmotiv News highlighted how PragerU portrayed Frederick Douglass saying “Slavery was a compromise to achieve something great”.

Taken together, the strategy becomes clear:

• Consolidate traditional media

• Weaken public alternatives

• Build new ideological pipelines

That’s not by mistake...

That’s a system designed to create bias, something they claim to be trying to combat.

The Blueprint: Project 2025

If this all feels coordinated, there’s a reason.

The Heritage Foundation—the conservative think tank behind Project 2025—has been explicit about its goals:

• Reshape federal institutions

• Challenge perceived media bias

• Reassert influence over cultural and educational systems

And since January 2025, we’ve seen clear alignment between those priorities and actions taken by Donald Trump and his administration.

Because this isn’t about governing …It never was.

They not only want to control the institutions; they want to control the culture.

The Comcast Spin-Off

While one side is consolidating power, Comcast took a different approach.

It spun off MSNBC, CNBC and several NBCUniversal cable assets into a new company: Versant.

That sounds like decentralization.

But the reality is way more complicated.

Those networks were already facing:

• Declining cable audiences

• Advertising pressure

• A shrinking traditional TV model

Now they’re operating independently—without the financial backing of major conglomerate Comcast.

And now they will most likely have to compete against a consolidated Paramount-Warner giant.

So the real question is:

Can they even survive?

Or do they become a weakened competitor, a target for acquisition, or worse—a casualty of a rapidly consolidating industry?

Versant isn’t stability.

It’s a stress test.

This Is Bigger Than Politics

It’s easy to frame this as left vs. right.

That misses the point.

This is about concentration of power.

Because when fewer entities control the news, entertainment, distribution, and algorithms…

They don’t just influence opinion.

They shape reality itself.

What gets covered.

What gets ignored.

What feels normal.

Why Independent Media Matters NOW More Than Ever

There used to be space between power centers.

That space is shrinking.

And when it disappears, independent media stops being optional.

It becomes essential.

Not because it’s perfect.

But because it’s not centralized.

Because it answers to its audience—not a boardroom.

Because it can still say what others won’t.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t just another wave of mergers.

This is the construction of a system where:

• Fewer voices control more narratives

• Fewer companies shape more perception

• And fewer incentives exist to challenge power

And once that system is fully built…

You won’t notice what’s missing.

Because you’ll only see what they want you to see.

Support What Isn’t Owned

If you care about: A press that isn’t consolidated, narratives that aren’t coordinated and systems that still allow real dissent...

Then now is the moment to support independent media.

Because freedom doesn’t exist on it’s own…

It exists because people choose it, support it, and fight for it.

Pragmotiv News exists outside that system.

And in the media landscape that has emerged…

That might be the most important thing about us.

Subscribe now

Reports about the current situation in the Strait of Hormuz have been dominating the news cycle for the past weeks since tensions in the Middle East have continued to escalate. Historically, any time there is conflict in the region, this waterway becomes the focus of attention because of its strategic, commercial, and operational value.

Usually, the coverage goes something like this:

• Oil tankers

• Military buildup

• Gas prices

Those things do matter, but oil and gas prices are not the only things affected when shipping is halted on the waterway.

Closure of the channel triggers a global domino effect that ripples through supply chains, manufacturing systems, and everyday essentials in ways most people never think about, until they see prices rising or goods disappearing from store shelves.

The Waterway That Supplies the World

The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow shipping channel located off the coast of Iran. Roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply moves through this narrow stretch of water. In addition to oil, about one-third of the world’s supply of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) also passes through the waterway—particularly from Gulf countries such as Qatar.

Most of us, when we hear the words oil and natural gas, we think of fuel, but these products are also inputs that are used in manufacturing other important goods for various industries:

• Pharmaceuticals

• Agriculture

• Manufacturing

• Technology

So, when flow through the Strait slows—or stops—it’s not just energy that is affected. It’s everything derived from oil and gas and adjacent to oil and gas.

Medicine: How Conflict in the Middle East Can Affect Your Access

Most of the drugs we consume are generic drugs. That is because they are the cheaper alternative and most health insurers either will only pay for generics and/or will charge hefty copayments for brand name medications.

1. India as a supplier of medicines and vaccines

India is the largest supplier of generic drugs globally. They provide about 1 in 5 generic medicines worldwide, including a significant portion of those consumed here in the U.S.

India also produces about sixty percent of vaccines globally. They are often referred to as the “pharmacy of the world”. Their dominance is the result of a mix of policy focus, technical capability, and economics:

§ Their government supports pharma through policy and manufacturing incentives

§ They produce many Chemists, Pharmacists and Engineers

§ They have very low production costs in terms of labor, supply chain and factory scale

§ Their patent laws do not favor product patents

§ They have the largest number of FDA compliant manufacturing facilities outside the U.S.

In short, India designed a system that made low-cost, high-volume manufacturing a priority and focused on global export, making them an indispensable supplier to global healthcare.

Spikes in oil prices and/or supply disruption:

• Manufacturing costs rise

• Transportation costs increase

• Export prices follow

These higher costs trickle down to consumers like pharmacies and hospitals and then it trickles down to the everyday consumer.

Also, when we think of oil production, we mostly think in terms of gas prices, but petrochemicals are used in the manufacture of drugs:

Oil is used to produce:

• solvents

• plastics for packaging

• chemical intermediates in drug synthesis

This is how conflict half-way around the world can affect the price of and your access to medicine. Next, I’ll explain how oil industry disruption affects the food on your table.

Fertilizer: The Cost of Food Starts Here

Fertilizer is another essential good that is one of the most oil- and gas-dependent products in the world.

One of the key ingredients in ammonia-based fertilizers is natural gas. Ammonia-based fertilizers are essential for large-scale agriculture. Big Agriculture gets it

When the supply of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is disrupted:

• Fertilizer production slows

• Prices spike globally

Which directly impacts:

• crop yields

• food supply

• grocery prices

Qatar is one of the world’s largest LNG exporters and they export through the Strait of Hormuz. This is how a shipping disruption thousands of miles away causes higher prices for eggs, vegetables, and meat at your local store. And that’s not all, there is a third product that will most likely see disruption because of the situation in the Middle East caused by the Trump and Netanyahu’s War.

Helium: The Shortage No One Sees Coming

Now here’s where it gets unexpectedly specific.

Helium—yes, helium—is a byproduct of natural gas production.

And one of the world’s largest suppliers is Qatar, which exports helium derived from LNG processing.

When LNG exports are disrupted, helium production slows and global supply contracts.

Helium is not just what you put in mylar balloons, it is a critical input for:

• MRI machines

• semiconductor manufacturing

• scientific research

A shortage can delay:

• medical imaging

• tech production

• hospital operations

Again, this directly impacts human lives and could mean life or death. Another example is plastics.

Plastics, Packaging, and Everyday Goods

From shampoo bottles to food containers, plastics become more expensive to produce when the supply of oil is disrupted. Oil derivatives are embedded in nearly everything you buy.

When supply chains tighten, you see increases in packaging costs, electronics, and consumer goods; and companies will respond the same way they always do: they will raise prices, cut corners, and reduce production.

And now, let’s bring it back to what is usually at the forefront of everyone’s minds when there is trouble in the Middle East: gas prices.

Even if a product isn’t directly tied to oil, it still has to be transported from point A to B.

When fuel costs rise:

• shipping becomes more expensive

• delivery timelines slow

• logistics systems strain

This affects:

• online shopping

• grocery restocking

• medical supply distribution

Transportation doesn’t just add cost—it amplifies it at every stage.

What This Means for Everyday Americans

This is where the domino effect becomes personal. What looks like a distant geopolitical issue rarely stays distant for long. It shows up quietly—when you go to pick up your medicines at the pharmacy, on your receipt from the store, when you can’t find that item you’re looking to buy. Not as a single shock, but as a steady disruption of and burden in daily life.

These aren’t isolated problems. They’re symptoms of a system built for efficiency, not resilience—where a single disruption can ripple across supply chains and into your home.

And that’s the real risk: not just higher prices, but reduced access, longer waits, and growing uncertainty.

So, the question isn’t just how high gas prices will go.
It’s how deeply those hidden connections are already reshaping what you can afford, what you can find, and how you live.

Share

No NATO.
No Japan.
No South Korea.
No Canada.
No allies at all.

Just the United States… by itself.

In this video, we break down a real scenario: North Korea launches a nuclear ICBM at the United States. How would America detect it? Track it? Try to stop it? And what happens next if…

Read more