The Fallout From Corruption: How Did a Florida Mayor Defraud Thousands With a COVID-19 Program?

There’s nothing that bothers me more than when a person is elected to a position of power, but then chooses to abuse that power instead of actually doing something good with it. And that’s the case with Kissimmee, Fla., Mayor Jackie Espinosa, who has reportedly defrauded a large number of people with, of all things, a COVID-19 scheme.

According to this report from ABC News, Espinosa was arrested earlier this week on charges of theft and fraud, with her and family members running some kind of COVID-19 business relief program – under her own administration.

Charges include grand theft, a second-degree felony, as well as an organized scheme to defraud, which is a first-degree felony.

This comes from a case where she reportedly utilized $50,000 in funds through the city’s Business Boost 2.0 program for her own personal use.

“This is the local government equivalent of insider congressional stock trading,” noted Blaise Ingoglia, who serves as Florida’s chief financial officer.

Espinosa has been charged, posting a $70,000 bond and pleading not guilty to the charges.

But the details get more disturbing. According to the report, the money, provided through grant funds in the program, went towards businesses including a dance studio, a diner, and a real estate company, all owned by Espinosa’s family.

“The evidence makes it very clear that there was intent to engage in this conflict of interest that ultimately abused her office to enrich herself,” said Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in a statement. “Mayor Espinosa demonstrated an intent to create, streamline and simplify, reduce oversight of, and more easily enable a process where by herself and immediate family could apply for and receive city funds to which she was not entitled.”

Keep reading

Visa-centre contracts that began at $29.8 million in 2018 now total $661 million

Six federal contracts for Canada’s overseas visa application centres, awarded in February 2018 with original values totalling $29.8 million, now carry a combined value of $661,123,689, and the amendments disclosed for April to June 2026 alone add up to $62.4 million.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) proactive disclosure lists amendments to all six contracts, numbered 20150140-1 to 20150140-6, each with a delivery date of October 31, 2027. Five are with VF Worldwide Holdings Limited, country of vendor United Arab Emirates, and one with TT Visa Services Ltd of the United Kingdom. The largest, 20150140-2, went from $8,881,211 to $224,689,518, with a $29,492,374.84 amendment disclosed this quarter; 20150140-1 went from $5,416,816 to $159,767,642. The records give no amendment dates and classify the procedure as competitive open bidding. The values are contract ceilings, not payments.

IRCC’s February 23, 2018 release said VF Worldwide Holdings Ltd. won the contract through “a fair, open and transparent process” and that “the initial value of this contract is estimated at $26 M.” VFS Global, headquartered in Dubai and Zurich, is the operating company; its Wikipedia entry puts Blackstone’s stake at about 75 per cent after a 2021 sale by EQT. A 2021 IRCC note for the Committee of the Whole said of TT Services: “They have subcontracted all VAC services to VFS Global.” VAC stands for visa application centre. Applicants pay the centres service fees; the disclosure does not explain how the contract values relate to those fees.

The Globe and Mail reported in 2021 that the Beijing centre was operated for VFS Global by a subcontractor owned through entities of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau. In May 2026, CBC News reported that internal IRCC records showed officials had flagged third-party fraud and security risks at some centres, that VF Worldwide had been awarded more than $725 million in contracts from 2012 to March 2026, and that both contracts expire in October 2027, with a one-year extension option, as a replacement procurement was under way.

The 2018 contracts were awarded under Ahmed Hussen, minister from January 2017 to November 2019. The minister now is Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship since May 13, 2025; a search for a political donation record in her name found none. The records name no approving official.

Contracts that began at $29.8 million are now worth $661 million, and the latest quarter added $62 million more.

Keep reading

Elon Musk Claims Ukraine Is a Money Laundering Scheme for US Politicians

Elon Musk Claims Ukraine Is a Money Laundering Scheme for US Politicians.

In early 2025, after President Trump took over, Ukraine’s Zelensky claimed that he was unable to locate $100 billion Ukraine received from the US.

UKRAINE: What if 58% of the U.S. taxpayer dollars sent to Zelensky never even reached Ukraine? Where did it go? Did the CIA skim a cut? Did Ukrainian officials and generals pocket their share? Did The Big Guy get his usual slice? If Zelensky’s claim is true—that he only received $75 billion of the $177+ billion Washington sent—what happens next? Do we shrug and move on, or do we finally demand answers and accountability?

This is no surprise.

When FTX’s CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) was arrested after the cryptocurrency trading vehicle FTX went bankrupt, we reported that FTX was used as a money laundering vehicle in Ukraine.  Next thing that happened the DOJ threw SBF in jail and ignored any relationship between FTX and money laundering.

Keep reading

Disarming The Pencil Pushers? Administrative Agencies Begin To Cut Spending On Guns, Ammo

One would expect federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection and Drug Enforcement Administration to have guns to carry out their daily responsibilities.

But what about the administrative agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Small Business Administration?

These and dozens more pencil-pushing federal agencies have spent millions on guns, ammunition and other military-style equipment. Open the Books has documented those staggering figures spent on weapons arsenals over the years, most recently updating them in 2023.

Since then, combined spending at all non-DOD federal agencies did increase again. But hidden behind an understandable growth in spending at the Department of Homeland Security are signs of a drawdown at many non-military agencies.

Topline Figures

Open the Books looked at almost 70 federal offices that bought such equipment between FY 2024 and FY 2026, and found $1.4 billion spent.

Trump’s first fiscal year, FY 2026, saw $531 million in spending on guns, ammunition and other military-style equipment.

NOTE: While a fiscal year is Oct. 1 – Sept. 30, reported spending for FY 2026 is currently only available through August 2026. End of year use-it-or-lose-it spending in September, the final month of the fiscal year, makes up a large portion of some agencies’ spending. To compare dollars-to-dollars in the previous fiscal years of 2024 and 2025, we used a comparable time period of Oct. 1 through Aug. 31.

In the comparable time period in FY 2024, Biden’s final full year, agencies spent $228 million on guns, ammunition and other military-style equipment.

In the comparable time period in FY 2025, which includes the end of Biden’s term and beginning of Trump’s second term, agencies spent $278 million.

Homeland Security Drives Spending Increase

While the totals show increased spending under the Trump administration, much of it was at the Department of Homeland Security – home to increased enforcement at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

At DHS, spending on guns and ammo increased almost 236% between FY25 and FY26 – from $60.8 million to $204.4 million.

Keep reading

Ottawa’s Counter-Tariffs On US Costing Canadians $100 Million Weekly, Economist Says

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports are costing consumers an estimated $100 million a week and raising prices by about 0.25 percent, an economist told MPs.

University of Calgary economics professor Trevor Tombe testified before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee on Oct. 21 about the counter-tariffs that Ottawa imposed on $28 billion of American imports on Sept. 8, in a tit-for-tat response to American tariffs that took effect Aug. 22.

The retaliatory tariffs ranged from 15 percent on U.S. farm equipment and appliances to 25 percent on construction supplies and 50 percent on smartphones, furniture, aluminum, and steel.

Tombe told MPs that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs cut half a percentage point from the disposable income of Canadians making under $30,000 a year and increased consumer prices “across the board” by roughly 0.25 percent, as first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Just for consumers, not even for businesses, it’s about $100 million per week of additional costs,” he said.

“Those costs might be worth paying if one is making an argument that there are non-economic objectives that these tariffs achieve,” he added. “I don’t know what those might be. … So, I’d say the economic case for retaliation is thin.”

The federal government has said it is applying counter-tariffs on the United States to shield domestic producers amid U.S. tariffs, and to also apply pressure on the White House to remove its tariffs.

“We’re also targeting products that will target states in the U.S.,” Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said in August.

“We’re being wise and strategic to put political pressure, and that’s why we think it’s the right thing to do right now.”

Tombe said a better way to understand the U.S. tariffs is that they are really an “American domestic policy rather than a bilateral dispute with Canada.” Furthermore, he said Ottawa’s retaliation only adds costs for Canadian consumers, while its effect on American policy “appears to be quite limited.”

He called the U.S. tariff increases “the largest trade policy change” in the country’s 250-year history.

He said the average U.S. tariff globally was 2 percent in 2024, then it jumped to 30 percent in 2025 before falling to an average of 11 percent. He put the average U.S. tariff on Canadian goods at 8 percent, lower than rates faced by 93 other countries.

“So this may be less of a trade war with Canada than a fundamental change in how the United States runs its economy,” Tombe said. He said a tariff essentially equals a domestic consumption tax plus a production subsidy of the same rate.

Tombe said Canada’s 2025 retaliatory tariffs generated $4 billion in federal revenue over six months.

He added that it’s difficult for a small country’s tariffs to meaningfully affect the target country’s economic costs, especially one as big as the United States.

“There’s no evidence that the retaliation we’ve enacted has changed U.S. behavior,” he told MPs.

Tombe said that “Canada faces something of a trilemma,” since it wants to retaliate by targeting goods from politically important states, goods where Canadian companies are major buyers, and goods where Canada can easily substitute for other things.

“And doing all three is quite difficult,” he said, noting that a tariff package meeting all those objectives would be roughly one-tenth the size of a full dollar-for-dollar retaliation.

Tombe also said Ottawa’s counter-tariff package didn’t actually follow through on dollar-for-dollar retaliation; instead, it was about 60 cents for every dollar.

Keep reading

A Withdrawn Immigration Application, Corrected Tax Returns, And ‘Military Officer’ Father: Ilhan Omar Evidence Piles Up

The New York Post has published additional reporting (assembled from previous reporting – see below) on the disputed allegations surrounding Omar’s marriage to Ahmed Elmi, highlighting a British marriage certificate alongside previously reported financial records and witness claims.

Omar denies wrongdoing, and the material presented does not establish that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage was fraudulent. The Post’s cited evidence and allegations include:

  • Family records and names: A 1997 British marriage certificate obtained by the Post identifies the father of Leila Nur Said, whom the paper describes as believed to be Omar’s sister, as Nur Said Elmi. Sources told the paper this was another name used by Omar’s father. The Post also cites the federal filing identifying Omar as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.” His profession is listed as “military officer.”
  • A shared address: Omar and Elmi listed the same Columbia Heights, Minnesota, address on their 2009 marriage application. Ahmed Hirsi, the father of Omar’s children, also used that address for a business license, according to the Post.
  • Overlapping relationships and tax filings: Omar had her third child with Hirsi in 2012 while legally married to Elmi. The Post also cites joint tax returns Omar filed with Hirsi for 2014 and 2015, before her divorce from Elmi was finalized in 2017. Those returns were subsequently corrected.
  • A withdrawn immigration application: Citing the Washington Post, the paper reports that Elmi withdrew a marriage-based green-card application in 2019 after immigration authorities requested additional evidence concerning the marriage.
  • A disputed witness account: The Post revisits a Somali blogger’s 2020 claim to the Daily Mail that Omar had introduced Elmi as her brother and said he needed immigration “papers.” This remains a witness allegation, rather than documentary proof of kinship or fraud.

Omar’s late father, Nur Omar Mohamed, served as a colonel in Somalia’s army under dictator Siad Barre. A 2020 Sahan Journal obituary, citing a fellow former officer, reported that he commanded a regiment during the 1977–78 Somali–Ethiopian War and remained in the military until the regime collapsed in 1991. The New York Post has since quoted historian Mohamed Haji Ingiriis accusing him of helping sustain Barre’s dictatorship and misrepresenting his background when seeking refugee status in the United States. Barre’s forces committed well-documented atrocities against Isaaq civilians, including bombardments of Hargeisa and attacks on fleeing civilians. However, those atrocities and Nur’s military rank do not establish his individual culpability: the reporting cited does not demonstrate that he personally ordered or participated in a specific atrocity.

Keep reading

Tribunal Watch: Quebec tribunal upholds federally funded job ad that excluded white applicants, calls complainant’s position “ideological”

A Quebec Human Rights Tribunal judge has dismissed a complaint against a bird conservation group whose federally funded job posting was open only to applicants aged 30 or under who identify as Indigenous, black or a person of colour.

Judge Magali Lewis ruled that the posting was discriminatory on its face, but that it was not discriminatory under Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because it came from a government “ameliorative” program. She also ruled that the complainant, Stéphanie Salagan, never really intended to apply and had no standing to sue. The decision, 2026 QCTDP 7, was issued March 12, 2026.

In October 2021, Regroupement QuébecOiseaux advertised a 20-week, part-time project officer job promoting Nature Canada’s “Bird Friendly City” certification. The job paid $17.50 an hour for 28 hours a week. The ad said that, because the funding program aimed to promote diversity, the position was open only to people 30 and under who identify as Indigenous, black or people of colour.

(Quotes from the decision are translated from French.)

According to the decision, QuébecOiseaux had 12 employees at the time: 11 white women and one biologist of South American origin.

The money came through a chain of federal programs. Employment and Social Development Canada runs the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy. Under it, Parks Canada signed a contribution agreement with Nature Canada in June 2021. Nature Canada then launched a wage subsidy program called Work to Grow and encouraged QuébecOiseaux to apply.

The approval email from Nature Canada dictated the sentence restricting the job by race. The tribunal found that the age limit came from the Parks Canada agreement.

Nature Canada executive director Emily McMillan testified that the decision rested partly on her own observation over 30 years that audiences at environmental conferences are often entirely white, and partly on a study Nature Canada sponsored.

The program hired 351 young people, according to Nature Canada’s final report. Of those, 81 were Indigenous and 214 were black or people of colour, which leaves 56 who were neither.

McMillan testified that Nature Canada sometimes waived the eligibility criteria when employers told it they weren’t getting applications from youth facing barriers. Nature Canada removed the race requirement from the program in June 2023. McMillan testified that the change was a response to Salagan’s complaint, made to avoid similar lawsuits.

Salagan filed her complaint with Quebec’s human rights commission in October 2021, alleging discrimination based on age, race, colour and ethnic origin. The commission sided with her.

It found the ad violated the Charter and proposed that QuébecOiseaux pay her $4,000. It then declined to take the case to the tribunal itself, saying it did not raise public interest concerns, and authorized Salagan to sue on her own. She represented herself and sought $7,500.

Most of the decision deals with whether Salagan really wanted the job.

To answer that, the tribunal examined her university transcript, internship agreement, invoices, T4 slip and student financial aid application. It found that in fall 2021 she was a full-time law student at UQAM with a one-day-a-week internship, and that she was president of an animal rights committee. She was also teaching green-wall construction at a Laval horticulture centre at $80 an hour, which the tribunal noted is more than four and a half times what QuébecOiseaux was offering.

It concluded that “all of these elements make it implausible that she really wanted to apply.”

Keep reading

Why will Ottawa pay up to $801,521 for three chargers at an Alberta casino?

Natural Resources Canada has agreed to pay up to $801,521 for three electric vehicle chargers at Bear Hills Casino, the Louis Bull Tribe’s casino on the Queen Elizabeth II Highway at Maskwacis, south of Edmonton. On the record’s own numbers that is $267,174 a charger.

The agreement, running from July 24, 2026 to December 31, 2027, appears in the federal grants and contributions dataset under the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP). Its description says the money supports “the installation of 3 electric vehicle chargers in Alberta.” The record gives no charger size and no breakdown of costs.

The program’s published guide caps the federal share. For the largest fast chargers, 200 kilowatts and up, the maximum is $100,000 per charger, or $150,000 for Indigenous businesses and communities, which may receive 75 per cent of project costs instead of 50. Three chargers at the top Indigenous rate would be $450,000. The record does not say what the other $351,521 covers.

It is one of ten ZEVIP agreements with July 2026 start dates, worth $12,178,881 together. The two largest, $5,000,000 to Hydro-Québec for 80 remote-site chargers and $2,000,000 to Propulsion Québec for truck charging sites, are utility and corridor projects. The rest are smaller. Greater Vancouver Zoo Ltd, a privately run zoo in Aldergrove, B.C., gets $250,000 for 22 chargers. Dixie Motors LP gets $99,999 for two chargers at 401 Dixie Hyundai in Mississauga. A numbered company, 1792318 Ontario Inc. of Milton, gets $725,754 for three chargers. PowerON of Toronto gets $1,000,000 for one heavy-duty charger. In November 2025 the department announced more than $9 million for 1,230 chargers, about $7,300 each, most of them Level 2.

No federal news release naming the casino, zoo or dealership agreements was found. Prime Minister Mark Carney paused the federal EV Availability Standard in September 2025 and ended it in February 2026, replacing it with emissions standards and a $2.3 billion rebate program. Asked in February whether ZEVIP would continue past March 2027, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said, “We’ll spend the money and in 2027 we’ll see where we are.”

The record names no official who approved the agreement. Hodgson, the minister responsible, was appointed on May 13, 2025, is the MP for Markham-Thornhill and was chief executive of Goldman Sachs Canada until 2010.

The mandate is gone. The casino chargers are still on the taxpayer’s tab.

Keep reading

Taxpayers Federation heads to Supreme Court to fight limits on taxman’s power to demand your emails and texts

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is intervening in a Supreme Court of Canada case that it says will decide how far government agencies, including the Canada Revenue Agency, can go in demanding Canadians’ private records.

“The government already takes enough of your money. It shouldn’t get a blank cheque to go snooping through your private emails, text messages and personal information too,” CTF general counsel Devin Drover told Rebel News.

The case is Ontario Securities Commission v. Binance Holdings Limited. In 2023, the OSC ordered the cryptocurrency exchange to turn over every communication about Ontario or Canada sent by any of its directors, officers, employees, contractors or consultants since January 1, 2021, with no limit on subject matter.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario struck down the demand in November 2025, calling it “staggering in its breadth.” The court ruled the order violated section 8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, because the regulator had no reasonable foundation to believe the documents were relevant to its investigation.

The OSC is now asking the Supreme Court to replace that test with a looser one, under which an agency could demand any records “rationally connected” to its inquiry. According to the CTF, the OSC’s own filings say the ruling will affect the CRA’s power to demand records under the Income Tax Act.

The CTF argues that in a tax audit, almost any record a person holds can be tied to their income, so a lower standard would hand auditors near-unlimited reach.

“Just because some government bureaucrat wants to dig through your private life doesn’t mean they should have the power to do it,” Drover said.

He pointed out that Binance, a multinational company, spent more than two years before three different bodies before any court ruled on its Charter argument.

“Most Canadians don’t have an army of lawyers or deep pockets to fight back when government agencies overstep their authority. That’s why we’re taking this fight to the Supreme Court,” Drover said. “The government needs to be reminded that Canadians have constitutional rights, and those rights don’t disappear just because the taxman comes knocking.”

The case lands as Ottawa moves to toughen the CRA’s hand. According to the CTF, the Carney government’s budget bill, C-31, now before a House of Commons committee, would let the CRA fine taxpayers $50 a day, to a maximum of $25,000, for failing to fully answer an information request.

“If the Supreme Court lowers the bar in this case, it lowers it for the taxman too,” Drover said in a statement. “A tax auditor could demand years of a small business owner’s emails and texts on a hunch, and Ottawa wants to fine people $50 a day until they comply.”

The Supreme Court has not yet set a hearing date.

Keep reading

Supreme Court rules American taxpayers MUST FUND sex changes for ‘trans’ prisoners

The Supreme Court on Wednesday kept in place a block on the Trump administration enforcing new restrictions that prevented the use of taxpayer funds on medical treatments and “social accommodations” for trans-identified prisoners. The Court stated that the federal government, funded by US taxpayers, must continue to pay for sex changes for allegedly trans-identified inmates in federal prisons.

In a brief, unsigned order, the court stated, “the application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the application for stay.” As of February 2025, there were 2,198 trans-identified inmates being held in federal prisons, the BOP said.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted a policy in February that stated it will not provide sex change drugs to inmates or provide “social accommodations,” such as make-up, ladies lingerie, or other items. It said that inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have never taken hormones before will not be able to start them while in prison, and those who came to prison taking them would be placed on a tapering plan.

The bureau said that inmates receiving social accommodations would no longer get them from the prison, and no new social accommodations would be provided. Social accommodations are items that are used to “alter the person’s appearance to align with the person’s ‘gender identity,’” the policy states. Such items include buttock padding, breast padding, binders, undergarments, makeup, and wigs.

The bureau said it would not be providing sex change surgeries to its inmates either, and for those who have already received such surgeries, the bureau said it would provide medical care for complications that arise, such as pelvic infections and urethral stricture.

The policy was adopted just over a year after Trump signed a day-one executive order directing the attorney general to “ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” The BOP said that the 2026 policy was adopted “independently of” the executive order.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court by three trans-identified inmates over the order from the BOP. Senior U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a ruling on August 26 blocking the BOP from implementing the policy, and the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the order.

The Trump administration asked the court on September 28 to pause the lower court’s order, with US Solicitor General D John Sauer telling the Supreme Court that the district court had “substitut[ed] its own policy judgment for that of the” BOP, “rel[ied] on evidence outside the administrative record, and fault[ed] the agency for following presidential directions,” per SCOTUSblog.

The inmates said the administration was asking the justices to “to overturn a three decades-long status quo,” and said that the BOP had not provided a “reasoned explanation” for its decision. The inmates said that they would be permanently harmed if the lower court’s order was paused. The Bureau of Prisons does not provide elective cosmetic surgery unless the inmate claims to be transgender.

The Supreme Court’s Wednesday ruling keeps the lower court’s pause on the order in place while legal proceedings continue.

Keep reading