Author name: Jonathan Dillon

Sean Duffy Blocks Million in DOT Funds to California Over English-Language Rule Defiance
News

Sean Duffy Blocks $40 Million in DOT Funds to California Over English-Language Rule Defiance

/

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Thursday that California will lose more than $40 million in federal transportation funding after refusing to comply with the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) English language proficiency requirements for commercial truck drivers, as reported by the Western Journal.

According to a DOT news release, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will withhold $40,685,225 in Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) grants until the state enforces federal rules requiring commercial drivers to demonstrate English-language proficiency.

“I put states on notice this summer: enforce the Trump Administration’s English language requirements or the checks stop coming,” Duffy said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signs the fast food bill AB1228 in Los Angeles, on Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023. California’s fast food workers will have a minimum wage of $20 per hour next year under a new law.

“California is the only state in the nation that refuses to ensure big rig drivers can read our road signs and communicate with law enforcement. This is a fundamental safety issue that impacts you and your family on America’s roads.”

Duffy added that he regretted the funding loss for California law enforcement but said the decision was unavoidable.

“Let me be clear — this is valuable money that should be going to the great men and women in California law enforcement, who we support. Gov. Newsom’s insistence on obstructing federal law has tied my hands,” he said.

The withheld MCSAP grants fund activities such as roadside inspections, safety audits, traffic enforcement, and trucking safety education programs.

Under federal law, commercial drivers must be able to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”

California officials have maintained that the state’s commercial truck drivers have crash rates below the national average. However, the Department of Transportation said funding will not be restored until the state complies with the federal standards.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in April requiring all commercial drivers to demonstrate English proficiency before obtaining or renewing a commercial driver’s license.

The order drew attention when California truck driver Vivak Sharma told KGO-TV that he could not renew his license because he does not speak English, despite living in the U.S. for a decade.

Duffy addressed the case directly on X, writing, “Crocodile tears for a man who has spent a decade in our country but couldn’t be bothered to learn our language. Our new rules will keep you and your family SAFE on America’s roads!”

The DOT’s decision comes amid growing federal concern over the misuse of state-issued licenses by noncitizens. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently revealed that some illegal immigrants had obtained commercial driver’s licenses under false or incomplete names.

One case cited in a DHS release involved a man in New York who possessed a driver’s license under the name “No name given Anmol.” The suspect, an illegal immigrant, was detained by the Oklahoma Highway Patrol on Sept. 23 and later taken into federal custody.

“Allowing illegal aliens to obtain commercial driver’s licenses to operate 18-wheelers and transport hazardous materials on America’s roads is reckless and incredibly dangerous to public safety,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said.

“New York is not only failing to check if applicants applying to drive 18-wheelers are U.S. citizens but even failing to obtain the full legal names of individuals they are issuing commercial drivers’ licenses to.”

McLaughlin said DHS continues to coordinate with state and local agencies to identify and remove illegal alien truck drivers operating in violation of U.S. law.

Army Accelerates Next-Generation M1E3 Abrams Tank, First Soldier Test Expected by 2026
News

Army Accelerates Next-Generation M1E3 Abrams Tank, First Soldier Test Expected by 2026

/

The United States Army is poised to make a significant leap forward in its ground combat capabilities with the rapid development of the next-generation M1E3 Abrams tank.

In a major announcement at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C., industry leaders and Army officials outlined the latest timeline and innovations propelling this ambitious project forward.

According to Danny Deep, executive vice president for Global Operations at General Dynamics, the company expects to have a “pre-prototype” of the M1E3 tank in the hands of soldiers by the end of 2025.

This marks a substantial acceleration from traditional military procurement cycles, which often stretch over the course of a decade.

Deep emphasized the value of direct feedback from those who will ultimately operate the vehicle, stating, “We’re going to have it fielded in the next 12 months for soldiers to touch it, see what they like, see what they don’t like.”

This approach underscores a broader trend within the Army: prioritizing real-world user input and practical needs over endless design refinement.

Rather than waiting years for a perfect solution that may be obsolete by the time it arrives, Army leadership is focused on getting effective tools into the hands of troops much faster.

Deep reinforced this philosophy by explaining, “The 90% solution is a much better answer than an ideal 100% solution that is so long from now that it isn’t going to be relevant when you get it anyway.”

Therefore, the Army and its industry partners are now convinced that speed is not only a factor in combat, but also in how modern military technology is developed and fielded.

Col. Ryan Howell, acting deputy program executive officer for Ground Combat Systems, highlighted the practical steps being taken to bring the M1E3 to the field efficiently.

One notable example is the decision to adopt diesel Caterpillar engines, which are readily available in the commercial market.

He pointed out the dramatic cost savings and logistical advantages of this choice, saying, “I can go from an engine that costs upwards of $1 million per [unit] right now, today, with limited availability, a few parts worldwide, to something that is now commercially available – that a chief warrant officer in the division can grab a bunch of broken ones, go to the nearest Cat dealership in your country and go get it fixed for less than ten grand. I don’t need bespoke manufacturing.”

This focus on off-the-shelf components does not mean that the new tank will compromise on the core characteristics that have made the Abrams line a battlefield legend.

The M1E3 will retain the widely respected 120mm smoothbore main gun, while also introducing improvements in modularity, open architecture, and digital engineering.

These modern design principles not only make the tank more adaptable to future upgrades, but also help streamline maintenance and logistics, further reducing costs and enhancing battlefield readiness.

General Dynamics and Army officials both stressed that these advancements are not simply theoretical.

The accelerated development schedule is being made possible because of lessons learned in previous procurement programs and a new mindset that prioritizes results over bureaucracy.

Modularity, for example, allows different systems and technologies to be swapped in and out more easily, ensuring that the tank can stay current with emerging threats and operational requirements.

Furthermore, digital engineering methods enable designers and engineers to rapidly test and refine new ideas in virtual environments before any physical prototype is built.

This means that potential issues can be identified and corrected early, saving time and resources throughout the development process.

At the same time, there remains a strong commitment to the soldiers who will eventually operate the M1E3 on the battlefield.

By bringing the pre-prototype to a small unit for testing and evaluation, the Army hopes to gather meaningful feedback about everything from ergonomics to battlefield performance.

Deep explained that the identity and location of the initial test unit has not yet been determined, but stressed the importance of letting soldiers “kick the tires” and help shape the final design.

In summary, the Army’s strategy for the M1E3 Abrams is clear: move quickly, leverage proven commercial technologies, and place the needs of soldiers front and center.

By doing so, the Army intends not only to maintain its edge in ground warfare, but also to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively.

If these efforts succeed, American soldiers will soon have access to one of the most advanced and adaptable fighting vehicles in the world—delivered years ahead of the traditional schedule.

Pentagon Press Corps Turn in Credentials En Masse After Hegseth Tightens Security
News

Pentagon Press Corps Turn in Credentials En Masse After Hegseth Tightens Security

/

Many Pentagon beat reporters returned press credentials on Wednesday after declining to agree to new “external engagements” policies set by the Department of War (DOW), according to media organizations and the Pentagon Press Association (PPA).

The action follows a memo issued last month by Secretary Pete Hegseth outlining revised procedures for press relations and setting a deadline for newsrooms to acknowledge the rules.

Hegseth’s memo said past participation in interviews, press briefings, and news conferences “tended to canalize toward certain types of institutions.”

The document detailed updated terms of engagement and required outlets to accept or acknowledge the rules by 5 p.m. yesterday.

Under the policy, non-compliant reporters were given 24 hours to turn in credentials and clear assigned office space inside the building.

Hegseth also addressed the standards for interactions between reporters and government personnel in a post on X, stating that “credentialed press no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts.”

The guidance, as described by the department, targets situations in which a reporter encourages a source to violate the law by leaking confidential information.

According to the department, the DOW began a review of media relations activities over the summer and reworked access and coordination procedures.

Officials said the aim is to broaden participation and recalibrate how the Pentagon engages with outlets while protecting national security information.

Representatives of the Pentagon press corps raised concerns over elements of the plan and sought changes prior to the deadline.

In recent weeks, CBS reported that the press corps’ “negotiations with the Defense Department over easing proposed restrictions on their reporting have reached an impasse, according to the Pentagon Press Association (PPA) — though the Pentagon says it has negotiated in good faith.”

Under the revised policy, beat reporters must acknowledge or adhere to the updated rules to retain credentials.

One early provision required reporters to acknowledge they would not disclose classified or controlled unclassified information that is not formally authorized for publication.

After discussions with the PPA, the department adjusted the language.

In the latest iteration of the policy, the DOW states: “Members of the news media are not required to submit their writings” before publication.

Reporters will not be required to obtain DOW approval prior to publishing stories that contain information not officially approved for release.

Physical access rules are also changing.

The department plans to reorganize newsroom space within the Pentagon, restrict access to certain offices and corridors, and require escorts in some areas.

Officials described those measures as consistent with procedures used at military installations and other secure facilities.

The department maintains that the Pentagon’s role in national security necessitates limits on unrestricted movement by non-employees inside the building.

The PPA issued a statement objecting to the restrictions and the credentialing deadline, saying they would impair routine newsgathering and limit independent reporting from the Pentagon.

The association argued that the press corps’ longstanding access framework allowed for timely coverage while honoring security protocols, and it urged further revisions to the policy.

DOW officials say they engaged in negotiations with the PPA and implemented changes — including removal of any pre-publication review requirement — in response to concerns.

They also emphasized that the policy does not alter existing laws governing the handling of classified information and that employees remain bound by federal statutes and nondisclosure obligations.

With the acknowledgment deadline passed, multiple news organizations with Pentagon-assigned reporters had not signed on to the policy.

Those outlets began returning credentials and vacating assigned workspaces in the press area, according to people familiar with the process.

Next steps will include the assignment of available workspace under the new configuration and continued enforcement of access rules.

The department said day-to-day press operations — including scheduled briefings, pool coverage, and responses to media inquiries — will continue, with credentialed reporters able to attend via the established procedures.

The PPA said it remains open to additional discussions aimed at restoring access and addressing outstanding concerns about the scope and application of the new rules.

The department has not announced further changes beyond those communicated in Hegseth’s memo and subsequent updates relayed to media organizations.

Letitia James Rallies with Zohran Mamdani After Indictment, Vows to Keep Fighting President Trump
News

Letitia James Rallies with Zohran Mamdani After Indictment, Vows to Keep Fighting President Trump

/

New York Attorney General Letitia James made her first public appearance Monday night since being indicted on federal fraud charges, joining New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani at a campaign rally in Washington Heights, as reported by Fox News.

Speaking before an estimated 3,000 attendees, James defiantly declared that she “will not bow” and vowed to continue opposing President Donald Trump’s “aggressive policies.”

Zohran Kwame Mamdani is a New York State Assemblymember and democratic socialist running for Mayor. New York, US – 04 July 2025

The event, titled “Our Time Has Come,” featured several New York Democrats, including Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Adriana Espaillat, and New York City Councilmember Chi Ossé.

The rally took place three weeks before the November 4 mayoral election, in which Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, faces Independent candidate Andrew Cuomo and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa.

“Thank you to New York’s attorney general, Tish James,” Mamdani said from the stage. “For years, you have fought the good fight for New Yorkers, and now it’s our time to fight for you.”

James was indicted last week by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan announced that the attorney general faces charges of bank fraud and making false statements to financial institutions.

The charges stem from allegations involving falsified mortgage documentation tied to a Virginia property.

During her remarks Monday night, James rejected the charges as politically motivated. “I know what it feels like to be attacked for just doing your job,” she said.

New York Attorney General Letitia James talks about the ongoing investigation into the death of Daniel Prude during a press conference held at the Aenon Missionary Baptist Church on Genesee Street in Rochester Sunday, Sept. 20, 2020.
Sd 092020 Attorney General E Metro

“I also know what it feels like to overcome adversity, and so I stand on solid rock, and I will not bow. I will not break. I will not bend. I will not capitulate. I will not give in. I will not give up.”

James also accused President Trump of using the justice system for political purposes.

“This indictment is nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system,” she said. “I will keep fighting for justice. I will keep fighting for New Yorkers. I will keep fighting the aggressive policies of Washington, D.C. And I will not stop.”

The attorney general has been a vocal opponent of President Trump since bringing a civil fraud case against him and The Trump Organization in New York.

WASHINGTON – February 22, 2025: President Donald Trump arrives at the White House South Lawn on Marine One after his visit to CPAC.

That case accused the company of inflating asset values and net worth to obtain favorable financial terms. A New York judge previously ruled Trump and his company liable for fraud.

At the rally, Mamdani and other Democratic leaders voiced support for James and condemned the indictment.

“We speak with a voice that recognizes that we are standing in front of the same courthouse where Attorney General Tish James did her job, upholding the law and holding Donald Trump accountable,” Mamdani said.

James endorsed Mamdani for mayor earlier this year and said she stands with him because he “knows what it’s like to be attacked, to be called names, to be threatened, to be harassed.” She said Mamdani’s campaign reflects a shared determination to “build a better New York.”

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

VA Dem Candidate Spanberger Delivers a Word Salad That Would Make Kamala Jealous
News

VA Dem Candidate Spanberger Delivers a Word Salad That Would Make Kamala Jealous

/

Former Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia, faced heavy scrutiny following last week’s debate against Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears after failing to give clear answers on several major issues, including her support for another Democrat under fire and questions about gender policies in public schools.

The debate, held ahead of the 2025 gubernatorial election, featured tense exchanges between the two candidates as they discussed education, public safety, and leadership.

During one portion, Spanberger was asked whether she still endorsed Democratic Attorney General candidate Jay Jones after he made controversial remarks referencing “two bullets” for House Speaker Todd Gilbert and comments about wishing death on Gilbert’s children.

Spanberger did not provide a direct response to the question.

Earle-Sears criticized her opponent’s silence, arguing that voters deserve clarity about where she stands on a candidate accused of making violent statements.

The exchange quickly drew attention from both parties, with Republicans accusing Spanberger of avoiding a straightforward answer on a matter of public concern.

The former congresswoman also faced a difficult moment when asked about Virginia’s policy on gender and school facilities.

She declined to say whether she would rescind Governor Glenn Youngkin’s executive order requiring students to use restrooms consistent with their biological sex.

In a follow-up interview with WSHV 3, Spanberger was again pressed on her position.

When asked, “What do you think of Earle-Sears’ claim that you’re fine with putting men in women’s locker rooms?”

Spanberger responded with an extended two-and-a-half-minute statement that did not include a direct yes-or-no answer.

Her response referenced federal education law, Title IX, and the role of federal versus local authorities.

“The reality is that the federal government has the ability to change the letter of the law. Through Congress, through the Senate, bills go to the president’s desk. Right now, what we are seeing is there are differences between what is the law of the land under Title IX, and what are executive orders put out by the White House,” Spanberger said.

She continued, “In circumstances where there are conflicting evidence or conflicting interpretations, the reality is the federal government has to be clear in what is the real guidance available to our schools as it relates to use of locker rooms. The reality is that we have multiple jurisdictions who believe they are following the letter of the law and have their lawyers conveying why. And, at the end of the day, we have a President of the United States who is taking away and threatening federal funding.”

Spanberger went on to criticize the President’s approach to federal funding, saying, “What I think is so egregious is that this is a tool that, that, unfortunately, this President continues to use, the threat of federal funding. Congress passed funding. It is not the president’s ability. This is a basic Article I. If you believe in the Constitution, the president doesn’t have the ability to just pull back funding.”

Her remarks continued at length, citing examples of programs affected by funding disputes and emphasizing the role of local communities in school decisions.

Political commentators quickly reacted to her lengthy remarks.

Conservative communicator Steve Guest said Democrats are “confused” about Title IX, while others highlighted the lack of a direct answer.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) posted on X, “Wow, I think even Kamala listened to that and said ‘that’s an absolute word salad!’”

Spanberger’s performance in the debate and subsequent interview drew renewed attention to the Virginia race, which polls show has tightened in recent weeks. Earle-Sears has significantly narrowed the gap, and recent surveys indicate the contest is now statistically even.

As the election approaches, Spanberger’s handling of controversial questions and her reluctance to take firm positions on divisive issues are expected to remain key points of discussion among voters and campaign strategists across the state.

VA Dem Candidate Spanberger Delivers a Word Salad That Would Make Kamala Jealous
News

Virginia Dem Gov Candidate’s ‘Soulless’ Debate Performance Now a Devastating Ad

/

Virginia congresswoman and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger faced renewed criticism Thursday after refusing to withdraw her endorsement of fellow Democrat Jay Jones, whose campaign for attorney general has been rocked by the release of text messages showing him wishing death upon Republican lawmakers and their families.

The controversy erupted earlier this month when messages allegedly sent by Jones surfaced, revealing disturbing language targeting members of Virginia’s GOP-led legislature.

In one message, Jones reportedly expressed hope that the children of then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert would die of gunshot wounds to force a change in gun control policy.

The revelation has caused widespread backlash across the state, including from within Jones’s own party.

Spanberger, who is running for governor against Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, was asked about Jones’s comments during a televised debate on Thursday.

Instead of directly answering whether she would continue to endorse him, Spanberger avoided the question, offering only general remarks condemning political violence.

“Thank you, I didn’t hear an answer there on the endorsement issue so I just want to make sure, will you continue to endorse Jay Jones to be the next attorney general of Virginia and were you aware of these text messages before their release?” the debate moderator asked.

“In fact, it appears that it was the, uh, those who released the text messages and held them for years so the public was unaware who had knowledge of these text messages…” Spanberger said, reiterating that she denounced Jones’s violent comments once they became public.

“And importantly, um, at this point as we move forward, the voters now have this information, information that was withheld for them, presumably for political reasons. But the voters now have the information and it is up to voters to make an individual choice based on this information.”

The moderator followed up, pressing Spanberger to clarify her position.

“Whether voters continue to support Jones is a separate issue,” the moderator said.

“Do you continue to endorse him?”

Spanberger again declined to give a direct answer.

“We are all running our individual races. I believe my opponent has said that about her lieutenant governor nominee,” she replied.

“It’s up to every person to make their own decision. I am running my race to serve Virginia, and that is what I intend to do.”

Her refusal to clearly disavow Jones drew immediate criticism from political observers and from her opponent.

During the same debate, Winsome Earle-Sears accused Spanberger of failing to show leadership by refusing to condemn her party’s nominee outright.

Sears later released a campaign ad highlighting Spanberger’s vague response and questioning her judgment.

The incident adds to a growing list of challenges for Spanberger, whose campaign has struggled to navigate divisive cultural and political issues in recent weeks.

Earlier in the campaign, Spanberger faced backlash over her unclear stance on gender policies involving locker rooms and bathrooms.

Republican officials have accused her of avoiding straightforward answers on issues of public concern, while Democratic strategists have reportedly expressed frustration over her handling of controversial topics.

The fallout from the Jones controversy has further complicated Spanberger’s campaign, as both candidates face scrutiny over their handling of questions about political violence.

Jones, who remains in the race, has not denied sending the messages but has apologized for his remarks, calling them “regrettable.”

While the Democratic Party of Virginia has not officially rescinded its support for Jones, several lawmakers have distanced themselves from him publicly.

Republican officials have called for Spanberger to clearly revoke her endorsement, saying that continued silence from top Democrats signals a tolerance of violent rhetoric in politics.

What You Didn’t Expect: America’s Covert Role in Monitoring the Gaza Ceasefire
News

What You Didn’t Expect: America’s Covert Role in Monitoring the Gaza Ceasefire

/

The United States is quietly stepping into a vital — and risky — role in the new Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement.

Roughly 200 American troops will be deployed to Israel not to fight, but to support and monitor the fragile truce.

The mission is delicate, and its success—or failure—may rest on the competence of those on the ground and the resolve of political leadership back home.

According to U.S. officials, these troops will help staff a “civil-military coordination center” in Israel, tasked with facilitating humanitarian aid into Gaza, oversight of logistics and security support, and ensuring the ceasefire’s terms are upheld.

In short, the center will be the linchpin in making sure promises translate into action.

Crucially, these American forces will not cross into Gaza itself. “No American troops will be sent into Gaza,” one official emphasized.

This deployment underscores how deeply tied the Trump administration is to the ceasefire framework. After all, this agreement is considered the first phase of a U.S.-led diplomatic push to halt the conflict.

Yet many questions remain unanswered: how will Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza proceed? Will Hamas truly disarm? Who will govern Gaza once fighting stops?

One of the officials involved in planning explained the mission more bluntly: the team’s role is to “monitor implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the transition to a civilian government in Gaza.”

The servicemembers assigned bring specialized skills — in transportation, logistics, planning, security, and engineering — that are meant to strengthen the fragile truce.

There is more. The troops are drawn from both U.S. Central Command and other units worldwide, and many have already begun arriving in Israel. Over the coming weekend, more will travel to the region to begin groundwork for the coordination center.

Meanwhile, the Americans are expected to embed closely with partner nation forces, including those from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

This is no accidental initiative. The presence of U.S. troops on the ground is a signal: the Trump administration intends to see this plan through, not merely broker it.

At the White House, President Trump singled out Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, during a Cabinet meeting, saying “Cooper — I hear he’s been fantastic.” ([AP News][1]) Cooper joined U.S. negotiators in Egypt and even helped assure Arab nations that the U.S. commitment would be rock solid — assurances that later informed Hamas’s acquiescence.

Critics might question whether 200 troops are sufficient to hold the line, especially with no boots in Gaza itself.

But consider how this approach protects U.S. servicemembers while preserving influence. It allows American forces to remain behind the scenes as orchestrators, not occupiers.

Still, the success of this mission depends heavily on cooperation. Israel must adhere to its withdrawal commitments, Hamas must accept constraints on arms, and the new civilian authority in Gaza must be trustworthy. If any actor reneges, the entire scheme could unravel.

At the same time, the choice to keep U.S. forces out of Gaza proper gives plausible deniability — and buffer — against escalation. Critics will no doubt raise alarms about mission creep or entanglement.

Yet the Trump administration, through this deployment, is staking its credibility on making this ceasefire work.

In many ways, these 200 troops are the most important American footprint in the Middle East right now. Their mission is more diplomacy in uniform than conventional warfare.

Whether they are successful will depend on iron discipline, clear rules of engagement, steadfast political will, and the ability to hold all parties to their promises.

If this works, it could change how the U.S. engages in conflict resolution. If it fails, the burden of consequences will rest squarely on those who backed it publicly.

From Blue to Red: Californians Rush to Florida for Safety and Sanity
News

From Blue to Red: Californians Rush to Florida for Safety and Sanity

/

Florida’s luxury real estate market continues to attract a growing number of buyers from California, as residents of the high-tax, heavily regulated state relocate to the Sunshine State in record numbers.

While both California and Florida share similarities such as warm climates, large populations, and diverse cultures, economic and policy differences are driving the migration trend.

Screenshot – National Taxpayers Union Foundation

Developers and analysts say the combination of Florida’s zero state income tax, business-friendly environment, and high quality of life has turned the state into a magnet for new residents, particularly from the West Coast.

“Miami represents a new start, a refreshing reset,” said Camilo Miguel, Jr., CEO of Mast Capital, in an interview with Fox News Digital.

“I think that it’s a place where policies, economics and lifestyle align together very well. It’s definitely good for their wallets and helps them have a little bit more buying power. The advantages here outweigh the drawbacks there.”

Mast Capital is developing two high-profile projects — Cipriani Residences Miami and The Perigon Miami Beach — both of which have seen strong demand from California buyers.

According to Miguel, 40% of buyers at the under-construction Cipriani project this summer came from the West Coast.

Web traffic to the development’s site has increased 14% over the past six months, trailing only New York in domestic visits.

At The Perigon, roughly 10% of its buyers are from California.

Units in both properties start in the low millions and reach up to $12.5 million, with completion scheduled between 2027 and 2028.

National migration data supports the trend. According to PODS, nearly 240,000 residents left California between 2023 and 2024, the largest outflow of any U.S. state.

Of that total, more than 39,000 relocated to Florida during the same period.

Screenshot – National Taxpayers Union Foundation

Miguel said the reasons go beyond real estate. “I think it starts with the convergence of lifestyle and business — zero state income tax, business-friendly policies, year-round outdoor living,” he explained.

“It’s also a great transition for a California resident to be moving here to Florida because you still get to enjoy and embrace the outdoors … We’re a great coastal city, and we have access to do pretty much anything you can within 15 minutes of where you live.”

He added that Florida’s appeal has drawn attention from across the financial sector.

“It’s really been a magnet for financial giants as well from all over the country … Crime is certainly a part of the discussion. I think the political climate does come up, but in general, overall quality of life takes the lead in those conversations.”

Recognizing the influx of serious buyers, Miguel said his company has increased its outreach in California.

“It goes back to the quality of life story, quality of product, quality of environment,” he said.

“The people buying here from California that we are selling to have an intention to move here and live here … The intention here is to make this a full relocation and make this their permanent home.”

Although New York remains Mast Capital’s top source of buyers, California’s market now delivers nearly equal value.

A May 2025 report from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation supports that finding, showing that California lost approximately $4.5 billion in adjusted gross income last year, while Florida gained about $4.1 billion.

“I don’t think that California will surpass New York,” Miguel said.

“Miami has always been a place that New Yorkers have visited and vacationed and held second homes, although they’re becoming primary residents. But I do think that California will continue to be a close second to New York going forward.”

Miguel also noted that the migration extends beyond California and New York.

“If you look at it domestically — Chicago, Texas, Washington, D.C., Boston — those are all places where we’re seeing buyers buying in Miami in our projects,” he said.

“It’s quite interesting to see that dynamic evolve and improve and grow. Florida in general is really just kind of outperforming the country.”

Inside the Navy’s Battle for Spare Parts: How Bureaucracy and Vendor Control Are Putting Our Military Readiness to the Test
News

Inside the Navy’s Battle for Spare Parts: How Bureaucracy and Vendor Control Are Putting Our Military Readiness to the Test

/

The strength of the United States military has always rested not just on cutting-edge technology and highly trained personnel, but on a robust system that keeps every jet, ship, and vehicle mission ready.

Yet, a new government watchdog report reveals that the U.S. Navy is facing an alarming reality: to keep essential weapon systems running, maintainers have had to cannibalize grounded equipment for spare parts.

This problem, born from a tangle of vendor-controlled data rights and government red tape, is not just an issue of supply but a matter of national security and military readiness.

The report, released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shines a light on a critical issue that has been festering beneath the surface of the Department of Defense.

Because the DOD lacks the necessary data rights and intellectual property from contractors, Navy maintainers are frequently forced to rely on vendors for replacement parts.

As a result, delays in repairs can stretch on for months, pushing our sailors and airmen into a position where they must repurpose parts from other grounded aircraft and submarines just to meet operational requirements.

The roots of this problem stretch back to the way contracts are written and the types of data the DOD secures when acquiring new weapon systems.

Statutes allow the DOD to access operational, maintenance, installation, and training data, but they stop short of granting rights to detailed manufacturing information.

Therefore, when a crucial component fails, only the original vendor can supply the part, often on their own timeline and at their price. This leaves the military at the mercy of contractors, who are not always incentivized to act quickly.

The GAO found that across several high-profile programs—including the F/A-18 and F-35 fighter aircraft, the Littoral Combat Ship, the Stryker Combat Vehicle, and the Virginia-class submarine—Navy and DOD personnel lacked the essential data rights to perform depot-level sustainment.

This kind of maintenance is highly specialized, and the inability to perform it without vendor involvement means the military faces vendor lock, with the government paying more for longer waits.

For example, maintainers working on the F/A-18 shared with the GAO that, after years of unsuccessfully attempting to secure the data rights for frequency cables, they were “cannibalizing grounded aircraft for the part.”

The only available replacement came from the original vendor, who controls the production and distribution timeline.

This workaround might keep some jets in the air, but it comes at a significant price. According to the report, “ripping parts from grounded aircraft to plug holes in others can lead to an uptick in maintenance costs, workload, and aircraft availability.”

The story was similar for those responsible for the Virginia-class submarine. Maintainers were again forced to cannibalize parts from other submarines, all because of contractor ownership of technical data for key components.

This is not just a logistical headache; it directly undermines military readiness at a time when geopolitical tensions call for a robust and fully functional fleet.

The consequences of this system go beyond just spare parts.

When the DOD fails to obtain full data rights or mismanages the intellectual property it does receive, the result is miscommunication and misunderstanding about what the government can and cannot do to keep its systems operational.

The GAO report makes it clear that this disconnect hampers the military’s ability to plan for the long term, as DOD offices cannot always anticipate exactly which data rights they’ll need down the road.

Sometimes they ask for too little, creating problems later. Other times, if they overreach, contractors are scared off or costs balloon.

The GAO’s solution is clear: Congress should step in and clarify exactly how manufacturing data must be handled in contracts between the DOD and vendors.

The watchdog further recommends that the Pentagon provide additional intellectual property planning for systems already in sustainment and reexamine how they evaluate the delivery of technical data.

From a broader perspective, this is the kind of government mismanagement that true leaders seek to address. When America’s military is forced to borrow parts from one system just to keep another running, it is a sign that the bureaucracy has overtaken common sense.

What our servicemen and women need is not more red tape or more vendor control, but leaders willing to take decisive action—leaders who put American security and military superiority first.

In the current administration, there is a growing call for strong, principled leadership at the top of the Department of Defense, and voices like Secretary Pete Hegseth have signaled a shift toward accountability, innovation, and putting the warfighter first.

By embracing a results-driven approach, Washington can ensure that the Navy and all branches of the military are never again left scrambling for spare parts. Our readiness and our national security depend on it.

Virginia Dem Senator Donated K to AG Candidate Who Wished Death on His Opponent’s Kids
News

Virginia Dem Senator Donated $25K to AG Candidate Who Wished Death on His Opponent’s Kids

/

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner’s campaign contributed $25,000 to the attorney general campaign of Jay Jones, who is now facing bipartisan backlash following reports of violent remarks he allegedly made about a Republican lawmaker.

According to campaign finance disclosures, the donation was made in August through Warner’s campaign committee, Mark Warner for U.S. Senate.

In addition, a joint fundraising page for Warner and Jones remains active on the Democratic Party’s fundraising platform, ActBlue.

The controversy surrounding Jones intensified after reports surfaced revealing that he compared former Virginia House Speaker Todd Gilbert, a Republican, to Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

In the same comments, Jones allegedly said that if given two bullets, he would “use both” to shoot Gilbert in the head.

He also reportedly stated that Gilbert and his wife should have to watch their “fascist” children die.

Jones later apologized for the comments but has refused to drop out of the race for attorney general.

Sen. Warner called the remarks “appalling” and “inconsistent with the person I’ve known,” according to Virginia Mercury.

However, Warner has not yet commented on whether he plans to ask for the return of his campaign donation or if he believes Jones should withdraw from the race.

On Monday, a second report surfaced accusing Jones of privately suggesting that “if more police officers were killed, they would shoot fewer people.”

Jones has denied making that statement.

Republicans across the country, including President Donald Trump, have urged Jones to withdraw from the race, calling his comments “violent” and “unacceptable.”

Despite the growing backlash, no major Democratic officials have rescinded their endorsements.

Warner, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has long positioned himself as a critic of political violence.

He has repeatedly condemned acts of extremism, including the January 6 Capitol riot and the 2017 Charlottesville protests.

In a statement issued last month with fellow Virginia Democrats Sen. Tim Kaine and Rep. Eugene Vindman, Warner said, “The rise in political violence—which has inflicted tragedy upon the families of Republican activist Charlie Kirk and Minnesota’s House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, and her husband Mark, and many other Americans on both sides of the aisle—is disturbing and unacceptable. We are unified in our condemnation of these attacks. It is critical to the safety of all Americans and the health of our democracy that we are able to approach our political differences with respect and without resorting to violence.”

While Warner criticized Jones’s comments, he has stopped short of calling for Jones to step aside.

Kaine has stated that Jones should remain in the race and “let voters decide.”

Vindman also reaffirmed his support for Jones over the weekend in a post on X.

Republican officials have accused Warner and other Democrats of hypocrisy for maintaining their support.

“Mark Warner has endorsed, donated to, and fundraised with Jay Jones, but won’t say whether he still supports him to be Virginia’s Attorney General after Jones called for the murder of a political opponent and his children,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee Regional Press Secretary Samantha Cantrell in a statement.

“As Americans continue to grapple with Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the answer should be easy. Jay Jones is not fit for office and Mark Warner should rescind his support and call for him to step aside immediately.”

The controversy adds to a growing list of challenges for Democrats in the state, as Republicans seek to capitalize on the fallout from the remarks in the final weeks before the election.


Scroll to Top