A recent report by the watchdog group Open the Books revealed vast sums lavished on grants for migrants by the Biden-Harris government. These grants, managed by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, totaled over $10 billion in just one fiscal year. The Office’s responsibilities include managing unaccompanied migrant children at the southern border and resettling refugees entering the United States legally.
The watchdog’s analysis of fiscal years shows a marked increase, with $2.4 billion awarded to nonprofits in FY 2021 and $3.4 billion in FY 2022. This spiked to $10 billion during FY 2023 before decreasing to $4.2 billion in FY 2024. This surge occurred alongside an escalating migrant crisis from 2021 to 2024.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
The funds were reportedly utilized for various initiatives, including actively aiding migrants in saving for vehicles and homes while providing loans and legal assistance. Open the Books CEO John Hart criticized the spending, stating, “We’re hurting American taxpayers… How is it moral to ask them to pay the bill for someone who wants to come to this country illegally?”
This revelation comes as scrutiny of government spending intensifies, spearheaded by the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently retrieved $59 million initially allocated for migrant housing in New York City, terminating the employment of four Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staff involved in the transactions.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Despite corporate media claims, President Donald J. Trump’s tariff policies appear to be working as the White House has stated, increasing government tax revenue with minimal impact on domestic consumer prices.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, U.S. corporations, foreign producers, American consumers, conservatives, and critics of the administration’s tariff policies.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: Ongoing debate in 2025, with tariffs implemented in February and April.
🎯IMPACT: Tariffs have generated over $121 billion in revenue without increasing consumer prices, challenging critics’ negative predictions.
IN FULL
The corporate media is being forced to admit that President Donald J. Trump’s tariff policies are working, with the U.S. collecting over $121 billion in tariff revenue, little evidence that the trade duties are impacting domestic consumers, and inflation continuing to cool. For weeks leading up to the April 2 ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, so-called experts insisted that Trump’s imposition of import levies would reignite inflation. However, as The National Pulse has repeatedlypointed out, tariffs have traditionally had deflationary effects, and under Trump, inflation has continued to cool.
Contrary to establishment predictions, consumer prices have not risen, leaving opponents scrambling to explain the data. Some still forecast a belated economic disaster, while others acknowledge the potential for tariffs to help pay down the national debt over time. Misconceptions about tariffs persist, with many believing they are a tax on foreign producers.
In reality, tariffs are taxes on companies sourcing goods internationally from targeted nations. These companies face a choice: adapt by sourcing from the U.S. or non-targeted countries to keep costs low, or find alternative ways to absorb the expenses. Raising prices is often a last resort, as consumers can easily cut back on non-essential goods.
Critics, including some Democrats and conservatives, had predicted sharp price increases as corporations passed tariff costs onto consumers. However, inflationdata, such as the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), has remained relatively stable, contradicting these forecasts. Some attribute this to “front-loading” of imports before tariffs took effect, but that explanation fails to account for sustained stability months after implementation.
At the current pace, tariffs could generate approximately $300 billion in revenue by year-end and $1.2 trillion over four years. While this revenue won’t offset all debt spending, it provides an alternative to tax hikes on the public. If inflation concerns remain overstated, tariffs could become a long-term strategy for economic growth and debt reduction.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The United States Senate has passed the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after embarking on the longest amendment vote-a-rama in American history. Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast the tiebreaking vote, following two previous tiebreaking votes on amendments to the bill.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, Donald J. Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and the House of Representatives.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate version of the reconciliation bill was adopted on Tuesday, July 1, 2025.
🎯IMPACT: The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ now heads back to the House for final approval, though the version passed by the Senate could face headwinds among House Republicans.
IN FULL
The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ passed the United States Senate on Tuesday, July 1, after an over 24-hour period of amendments being offered on the legislation, called a ‘vote-a-rama’—the longest to occur in American history. Senate Republicans were able to adopt the budget reconciliation bill, which implements most of President Donald J. Trump’s domestic policy agenda, after Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast three tiebreaking votes, on the bill as a whole and two amendments to it. Notably, the budget reconciliation process circumvents the Senate filibuster, meaning only 51 votes were needed.
Three Senate Republicans—Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Susan Collins (R-ME)—voted against the bill. The three joined all 47 Senate Democrats in opposition.
Now that the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ has passed the Senate, it will head back to the House of Representatives, where lawmakers will need to consider the changes made to the legislation by the upper chamber. Already, some House conservatives are voicing concerns over changes made by the Senate, although House Republican leadership has expressed confidence that they will be able to secure a vote on final passage and have the bill on President Donald J. Trump’s desk for the July 4 holiday.
It is expected that the House Rules Committee will move to take up the budget reconciliation bill immediately, with House leaders indicating a final vote could be held as soon as Wednesday. However, with the vote for adoption having taken longer than anticipated in the Senate, this could push the House vote back to Thursday.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Synthetic dyes will be removed from all Hershey’s snacks by the end of 2027, amid a push by the Trump administration and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Hershey Co., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), state lawmakers in Texas and West Virginia.
📍WHEN & WHERE: United States, changes take effect between 2027 and 2028.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.” – Hershey spokesman
🎯IMPACT: The removal of synthetic dyes by majorfood companies reflects growing pressure from the Trump administration, state governments, and consumers.
IN FULL
Hershey Co. will remove synthetic dyes from its snack products by the end of 2027, citing growing legislative pressure at the state level. The company said it aims to preempt regulations and ensure customer trust by voluntarily shifting away from artificial colorants in its chocolate, candy, and popcorn brands.
“There is a patchwork of state regulations emerging that is creating confusion and will ultimately increase consumer costs,” a Hershey spokesman said. “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.”
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has prioritized the removal of “poisonous” artificial dyes from U.S. foods, with an initial focus on encouraging voluntary removal and supporting state-level action. This includes a West Virginia law that will ban the sale of dyed foods starting in 2028 and a Texas law signed by Governor Greg Abbott (R) requiring warning labels on synthetic dye products beginning in 2027.
Hershey joins other major food corporations, such as Nestlé SA, Conagra Brands Inc., Kraft Heinz Co., and General Mills Inc., which have committed to removing dyes from their American product lines.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a directive urging U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the denaturalization of foreign-born criminals to address crime and national security threats.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, and U.S. Attorneys.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The memo was issued in June 2025 and applies nationwide.
💬KEY QUOTE: “The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’” – Brett Shumate
🎯IMPACT: The directive aims to deport migrants who pose a threat to national security, combat financial fraud, and target those involved in crimes such as human trafficking and gang activity, even if they have acquired U.S. citizenship.
IN FULL
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a memo directing U.S. Attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to combat crime and protect national security. The memo, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, outlines categories of individuals who should be targeted for denaturalization, including those tied to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export of sensitive goods and technology.
Shumate emphasized the importance of these proceedings in a written statement, noting, “The benefits of civil denaturalization include the government’s ability to revoke the citizenship of individuals who engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses; to remove naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States; and to prevent convicted terrorists from returning to U.S. soil or traveling internationally on a U.S. passport.”
The memo also directs U.S. Attorneys to pursue cases against migrants who committed financial fraud against the United States, including Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan fraud and Medicare/Medicaid fraud, as well as those involved in violent crimes, human trafficking, and sex offenses. It further calls for action against migrants with criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels.
Two days after the memo was issued, the Justice Department announced it had successfully secured the denaturalization of a convicted distributor of child sexual abuse material.
Shumate has instructed the Civil Division of the Justice Department to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump criticized far-left New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) for refusing to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED:Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani, New York City residents.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job. I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route.” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Trump’s remarks highlight concerns about Mamdani’s political ideology and its implications for New York City.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump blasted New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) after the Queens assemblyman refused to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.” The phrase is often used to support violent Palestinian action against Israelis and Jews generally, including terrorism.
“Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job,” Trump told reporters Tuesday morning. “I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route. I think they’re crazy. We will have a communist in the for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it’s crazy.”
Mamdani, a Ugandan-born Muslim from the extreme “Twelver” sect of Shia Islam, won the Democratic Party’s primary for New York City mayor in June. During an interview on Sunday, Mamdani stated he didn’t want to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” because he didn’t want to “police language.”
“I think he’s terrible. He’s a communist,” Trump reiterated on Tuesday. The native New Yorker added that the “last thing we need is a communist. I said, there will never be socialism in the United States… I think it’s bad news.”
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans failed to restore a provision barring illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after it was thrown out by the Senate Parliamentarian.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and President Donald J. Trump.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The ‘vote-a-rama’ on amendments to the budget reconciliation bill began on June 30 and was ongoing on the morning of July 1.
🎯IMPACT: The removal of key provisions found in the House of the legislation could push lawmakers in the lower chamber to either outright oppose or demand amendments to the Senate bill once it is passed. This could jeopardize the chances of passage or delay adoption of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ beyond President Trump’s July 4 deadline.
IN FULL
Senate Republicans failed to re-add a measure preventing illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ during the longest ‘vote-a-rama’ in American political history. The measure was rejected with 56 Senators in favor and 44 opposed. Typically, the amendment would have needed only 51 votes to be adopted. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provision violated the Byrd Rule, which raises the vote threshold to 60 votes to break a filibuster.
The removal of the measure has angered conservatives who saw the provision as a key component of the budget reconciliation legislation. Notably, a number of policies that were adopted in the House version of the bill have been stripped in the Senate by the Parliamentarian.
While the core of the legislation remains intact, including the implementation of President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign promises of no tax on tips, no tax on social security income, no tax on overtime income, and making permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts—other provisions that prevented Medicaid funds from being used for the gender transition of minors and the clawback of funding for Planned Parenthood were stripped by the Parliamenarian. Consequently, the more watered-down Senate legislation could be seen as unpalatable in the House.
Some “moderate” House Republicans are already balking at the Senate bill’s larger direct cuts to Medicaid. If they’re joined in opposition by conservative House Republicans, it may be difficult to find a path to bring both sides back to supporting the legislation, jeopardizing its final passage.
President Trump has said he wants to sign the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ into law on July 4, though as of the time of publication, the reconciliation legislation is still stuck in the Senate, so lawmakers on Capitol Hill are running quickly out of time.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk publicly claimed that Stephen K. Bannon is returning to prison “for a long time.”
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Elon Musk and Stephen K. Bannon.
📍WHEN & WHERE: July 1, 2025, on Musk’s official X (Twitter) account.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” – Elon Musk
🎯IMPACT: The tweet reignited tensions between America First allies and Musk, with supporters accusing him of cheerleading political persecution.
IN FULL
Elon Musk took to his X account Monday morning with a terse statement: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” The post, viewed over 90,000 times within an hour, marks one of Musk’s most politically loaded comments to date, immediately following a very public humiliation by President Donald J. Trump on Monday night.
The statement was unprompted and offered no legal citations or context, leading many to speculate whether Musk had inside knowledge or was merely amplifying baseless rumors. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and WarRoom host, previously served months at FCI Danbury following the unconstitutional, partisan committee investigation into January 6, 2021.
Supporters of Bannon and the broader MAGA movement quickly fired back at Musk online, accusing him of weaponizing his platform to mock political prisoners.
Expect the only crime he's ever committed was offending the Deep State…and I guess you're now offending too.
While Musk has often aligned himself with anti-establishment rhetoric, his post signals a growing rift between him and prominent America First figures. The timing also raises questions, given Musk’s recent interactions with federal agencies over Tesla and SpaceX operations.
Join Pulse+ to comment below and receive exclusive email analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Trump slammed Elon Musk over electric vehicle subsidies in a Truth Social post.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk.
📍WHEN & WHERE: July 2025, on Trump’s Truth Social account.
💬KEY QUOTE: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: The post revives Trump’s criticism of EV mandates and questions Musk’s business sustainability without federal support.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump posted a fiery message on Truth Social targeting tech mogul Elon Musk and the Biden government’s electric vehicle mandates. Trump emphasized that opposition to the EV push has been a longstanding component of his political platform, describing the federal mandate as “ridiculous.”
“Electric cars are fine,” Trump said, “but not everyone should be forced to own one.” He accused Musk of benefiting from what may be the largest subsidies ever awarded to a private individual and suggested the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s ventures would collapse without government handouts.
The former president even said Musk might have to “close up shop and head back home to South Africa” in the absence of subsidies, calling into question the viability of Musk’s business empire without taxpayer backing.
Trump sarcastically proposed, “Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard look at this?”—a reference that likely alludes to either the Department of Government Efficiency, set up under Musk, which delivered almost no savings in comparison to Musk’s original promise of $2 trillion.
In reality, DOGE likely saved around two days of taxpayer spending a year, with some estimates claiming the department and its actions have actually cost the taxpayer due to severances involved with termination packages.
Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump even went so far as to say “we’ll have to look at” deporting the South African billionaire, adding, “DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?”
🔥🔥 Reporter: Are you going to deport Elon Musk?
Trump: We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is, the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon, wouldn't that be terrible. He gets a lot of subsidies. pic.twitter.com/CwIHLykUab
The backhander from Trump came less than a day after Musk appeared to endorse a critic of Trump ally and potential next UK Prime Minister, Nigel Farage.
Musk, who once called for Farage to be deposed as head of the Reform UK party, backed a new movement by British Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, another anti-Farage figure who tried to have the Brexit champion removed as party leader. Musk and Lowe’s efforts inevitably failed.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: Nearly half of likely voters support President Trump’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Rasmussen Reports, and 1,134 likely U.S. voters surveyed nationwide.
📍WHEN & WHERE: June 22–24, 2025; United States (nationwide survey).
💬KEY QUOTE: “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” – Donald Trump
🎯IMPACT: Public opinion remains deeply divided, with support for a special prosecutor tracking along party, gender, age, and income lines.
IN FULL
President Donald J. Trump’s demand for a special prosecutor to probe the 2020 election fraud claims is receiving strong public backing. Rasmussen Reports found that 48 percent of likely U.S. voters favor such an investigation, including 32 percent who “strongly support” the idea. Meanwhile, 47 percent remain opposed—36 percent “strongly.”
The former president posted to Truth Social on June 20, declaring, “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” Forty-three percent of voters agreed with Trump’s statement, while 51 percent disagreed. Among the supporters of Trump’s fraud claim, support for appointing a special prosecutor jumped to 86 percent.
As always, the partisan divide is stark. Two-thirds of Republicans agree the 2020 contest was fraudulent, while 67 percent of Democrats reject that characterization. Among unaffiliated voters, 34 percent agree and 61 percent disagree. Support for appointing a special prosecutor includes 71 percent of Republicans, 35 percent of Democrats, and 38 percent of independents.
The survey, conducted June 22–24 with 1,134 likely voters, carries a 3-point margin of error and a 95 percent confidence level. The poll also found that 48 percent believe cheating likely influenced the outcome of the 2020 election, with 32 percent saying it is “very likely.” Forty-four percent say cheating was unlikely, including 33 percent who say it was “not at all likely.”
Demographic breakdowns showed notable trends: men are more supportive of an investigation than women; younger voters lean in favor of a special prosecutor, while those over 50 strongly disagree with Trump’s fraud accusation. Hispanics show the strongest support among minorities, and mid-income earners ($50K–$100K) are most skeptical of the election results.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.
❓WHAT HAPPENED: New York Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has proposed socialist grocery stores, claiming they can be funded by redirecting city subsidies from private grocery stores.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s Economic Development Corporation, and private grocery stores participating in the FRESH program.
Newsletter
Need to Know.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
Thank You!
You are now subscribed to our newsletter.
📍WHEN & WHERE: New York City, during Mamdani’s mayoral campaign.
💬KEY QUOTE: “We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price-gouging.” – Zohran Mamdani
🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s proposal is based on a misunderstanding of city subsidies, which would lead to mass fiscal mismanagement if implemented.
IN FULL
Zohran Mamdani, the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, has defended his proposal for socialist grocery stores by stating that they could be funded by cutting city subsidies to private grocery stores. However, his claim is based on a misinterpretation of the city’s current grocery subsidy program, as first revealed by reporter Tim Carney.
Mamdani has repeatedly cited a figure of $140 million, claiming it represents the amount the city spends on subsidizing private grocery stores under the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) program. He has proposed redirecting half of this amount to fund his socialist grocery store initiative, which he estimates would cost $60 million.
The FRESH program, however, does not involve direct city spending of $140 million. Instead, it provides tax breaks and regulatory relief to grocery stores that invest in underserved areas, known as “food deserts.” Over the last six years, the program has cost the city approximately $20 million in waived tax revenue, rather than expenditure, averaging just $3.3 million per year. Furthermore, the $140 million figure cited by Mamdani refers to private investments made by grocery stores participating in the program, not government spending.
In a video, Mamdani argued, “We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price-gouging.” However, his misunderstanding of the FRESH program’s structure raises humiliating questions about the plan. Carney explains, “So, this program would take 42 years to cost the city the $140 million that Mamdani says “the city is set to spend” on it.”
This misrepresentation underscores a broader concern with Mamdani’s proposal: it appears to rely on a socialist framework that assumes private investment can be treated as public funds. Critics argue that such an approach would lead to fiscal mismanagement and actually undermine the city’s efforts to address food accessibility through public-private partnerships. This scenario would not just see government grocery stores with empty shelves, like North Korea, but also skew the market against private companies no longer incentivized to supply groceries to certain areas, leaving entire communities in new food deserts.
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
