Click Our Ad to Support Us!

Unmasking Government Waste: A “Common Sense” Approach

Tired of Congress wasting money?

Ever feel like your tax dollars vanish into thin air? A recent speech by President Trump promised a “common sense revolution” to tackle government waste and get our economy back on track. Let’s break down the key claims and see what’s really being proposed. President Trump started by addressing concerns about fairness, particularly in women’s sports.

He highlighted an example of a male athlete outperforming female competitors by a significant margin in a long-distance race. The message was clear: this situation is unfair, and America intends to “not put up with it any longer.” Now, is this just about sports, or does it signal a broader stance in America thought?

Fairness First

Are Trans Men in Women’s Sports Fair? Examining Participation, Biology, and Safety Concerns

The debate surrounding trans men competing in women’s sports is one of the most heated discussions in modern athletics. While issues of fairness, safety, and inclusion collide, the biological differences between male and female anatomies are too significant to ignore. Men, on average, have greater muscle mass, increased bone density, and higher oxygen-carrying capacity—all factors that offer notable advantages in competition.

When trans men enter women’s categories, these advantages raise concerns about equity and safety for female athletes. Boxing Reports of injuries sustained by women during such competitions further emphasize the risks, with many questioning whether these policies truly protect women. So, is this fair to women? The evidence suggests otherwise. Let’s explore deeper into the science, statistics, and real-world outcomes shaping this critical discussion.

Analyzing Athletic Outcomes and Fairness

When it comes to fairness in women’s sports, the answer is easy —backed by science. By diving deep into the biological realities and performance data, we uncover many of the reasons why the inclusion of trans men and other variations shakes the field. It’s essential to objectively evaluate the fairness and safety concerns involved. From physical advantages to how hormones factor into competition, let’s break it into digestible segments.

Performance Comparisons

If we compare the athletic performance of male transgender athletes to their female counterparts, patterns emerge. Studies consistently show that even after hormone therapy, trans men (biologically male) retain certain competitive advantages. When it comes to trans men competing in women’s categories, their pre-transition strengths (like higher muscle mass and bone density) can present an unfair advantage. This isn’t an opinion—it’s backed by science.

A 2023 study from Frontiers in Sports revealed that trans women (biologically female) exhibited performance levels that mirrored men in key metrics, leaving a significant gap between them and other women. Taking hormones is basically like any athlete taking performance enhancing drugs.
Research reported by BMJ found that even with testosterone-suppressing treatments, transgender men retain an edge in strength-based activities such as running and push-ups.

What does this mean? Essentially, muscle strength, oxygen capacity, and speed—factors critical in competitive sports—do not level the playing field even after hormonal adaptation. These retained advantages make for results that work against two key elements of sports: fairness and equity.

Biological Strengths and Weaknesses

Let’s talk biology, the nuts and bolts behind this heated debate. Men and women are built differently—it’s just a fact. Testosterone levels directly impact muscle mass, bone density, and overall physical endurance. Here’s how this shakes out in competition:

Muscle Mass and Strength: Male athletes typically have 30-60% greater muscle strength than female athletes. Hormone suppression can only reduce this advantage by an estimated 0-9%, a negligible change when you’re racing against the clock or competing for a championship.
Lung Capacity and VO2 Max: The oxygen-carrying capacity of males is higher due to larger lungs and a higher concentration of hemoglobin in their blood. This provides better endurance in activities like running or cycling.
Bone Structure: Men have stronger and denser bones, making them more resilient to fractures. Women, on the other hand, face higher risks of stress-related injuries. Studies highlight that in high-impact sports, like rugby or football, this difference can result in severe injuries when men compete in women’s categories. Learn more about these differences here.

Hormonal treatments do make a biological impact, but they cannot undo years—if not decades—of male physiological development. Puberty specifically plays a critical role in building foundational physical advantages.

In short, the biological features that differentiate men and women—including height, center of gravity, and handgrip strength—bridge an innate gap that’s nearly impossible to eliminate. A detailed analysis by the National Review drives home the point: a man suppressing testosterone doesn’t come close to erasing these advantages.

Without acknowledging these innate biological factors, we deny the very essence of what makes women’s sports an equitable realm of competition.

Biological Differences Between Male and Female Anatomies

The conversation surrounding fairness in sports hinges strongly on the biological differences between the sexes. These differences, grounded in muscle density, hormonal levels, and physiological structures, play a significant role in athletic abilities. While inclusion is often prioritized, failing to acknowledge inherent physical disparities can undermine the intent of competitive fairness in women’s sports. Let’s break down these key biological differences.

Muscle Mass, Strength, and Endurance

Muscle mass is one of the most obvious disparities between men and women. Men naturally possess higher muscle density, which directly translates to greater strength and power. Research shows that men typically have more skeletal muscle mass, accounting for increases in both upper and lower body strength. According to a study published in Wiley Online Library, males demonstrate 157% higher upper body strength and 60% greater lower body strength relative to total body mass.

Key points about muscle-based differences:

Strength Improvements: Men achieve higher absolute strength gains than women, even though women may experience relative improvements proportional to their size.
Endurance Levels: Men generally outperform women in exercises requiring sustained effort, benefiting from superior oxygen-carrying capacity and VO2 max rates.
Body Composition: While women store more fat for reproductive needs, men’s bodies prioritize muscle tissue and lean mass development. This alone considerably enhances athletic performance in strength and speed-related sports.

Understanding these differences helps explain why allowing transgender athletes born male to compete in women’s sports raises significant challenges for fairness. Women’s natural physiology, while exceptional in its design, cannot match male muscle physiology in most competitive athletic environments. More details on this topic can be found in BMC Sports Science.

Hormonal Influences on Performance

Hormones are the “hidden controllers” of athletic performance. Testosterone, the primary male hormone, and estrogen, one of the main female hormones, significantly shape physical abilities. Men naturally have far higher levels of testosterone, leading to the development of more pronounced muscles and greater stamina.

Testosterone’s Impact: Testosterone affects muscle recovery, bone density, and energy levels. It allows for quicker recovery times and improved endurance, which are critical competitive advantages.
Estrogen in Women: Estrogen encourages fat storage and contributes to lower hemoglobin levels in the blood, which can reduce oxygen delivery during intense physical activity.
Hormonal Fluctuations: Women experience hormonal fluctuations monthly, which can alter performance during their menstrual cycles. These changes can cause bloating, fatigue, or reduced focus, further impacting performance variability.

Data gathered from ZRT Laboratory points out that testosterone’s supremacy in athletic performance cannot be completely mitigated by testosterone suppression treatments. Performance differences between male and female athletes persist despite hormone therapy efforts.

Implications of Transition Treatments

For transgender men undergoing hormone replacement therapy (HRT), the physiological impact of the treatments plays a crucial role. However, these treatments do not fully eliminate the physical advantages derived from male puberty.

Consider the outcomes of HRT in transgender athletes:

Muscle Adaptation: Testosterone suppression reduces strength by only a small fraction—tests suggest the decrement ranges from 5-10%. This means individuals born male can retain significant strength advantages despite suppression therapy.
Bone Density and Structure: Male bone density remains higher, even after years of hormonal treatment. Stronger and larger bones act as a shock absorber, giving individuals born male an edge in high-impact sports.
Aerobic Capacity: Though hormone therapy lowers hemoglobin levels, transgender men (biological males) often retain higher oxygen-carrying capacities compared to female athletes.

While HRT initiates a hormonal shift, it simply cannot erase the permanent physiological changes established in males post-puberty. Put simply, the clock doesn’t turn back on bone size, skeletal muscle growth, or other male puberty-driven markers.

If you’re interested in in-depth studies tackling these effects, the Endocrine Society offers insights into how biological differences persist even with medical interventions.

These elements demonstrate why blending biological males into women’s competitive sports categories is completely unfair to women. It’s not about how you feel—it’s about recognizing how biology shapes the rules of fair competition.

Injuries and Safety Concerns in Women’s Sports

Physical injuries are an unfortunate reality in sports, but their occurrence becomes a graver concern when competitiveness is jeopardized by significant physical mismatches. When trans men (biological males) compete against women in athletic events, the potential for injury escalates due to biological disparities like bone density, muscle strength, and physical size. Women aren’t just competing at a disadvantage—they’re sometimes risking their health. Let’s explore some of the recorded cases and examine the severity of the injuries sustained by female athletes.

Recorded Cases of Injuries

The debate over fairness isn’t just theoretical—it’s grounded in real accounts of female athletes being physically harmed during competitions with transgender biologically male opponents. These incidents underline the dangers of ignoring biological differences in sports.

Payton McNabb: In a high school volleyball game, Payton McNabb was struck by a ball spiked by a transgender opponent. She sustained a concussion and head/neck injuries, which left her with impaired vision and coordination issues. Payton later spoke out, criticizing policies that allow such matchups, calling them unsafe for female athletes. Read more about her story.
Massachusetts Field Hockey Incident: During a field hockey game, a trans-identified male player caused serious injuries to several girls through aggressive play. These injuries were severe enough to force the team to forfeit due to a lack of playable athletes. Details are documented here.
Mixed Martial Arts: In one controversial MMA event, a transgender competitor fractured the skull of a female opponent. While contact sports naturally involve risks, the physical mismatch accentuated these injuries to an alarming degree. You can explore findings about transgender competition in combat sports in this PubMed study.

These incidents highlight repeated patterns where physical mismatches in size and strength result not only in compromised integrity but also severe safety risks for female participants.

Analysis of Injury Severity

The long-term effects of injuries sustained in these scenarios can be devastating, both physically and psychologically. Female athletes have reported injuries that range from concussions to bone fractures—damages that could alter the trajectory of their careers, or worse, their everyday lives.

Concussions and Head Trauma: When examining sports like volleyball or field hockey, where balls are spiked or hit at high speeds, the difference in muscle power becomes evident. Payton McNabb’s concussion, for example, caused lasting neurological impairments. Concussions can also lead to chronic headaches, memory issues, and mood disorders over time, as noted by research on sex-based differences in injury risks.
Bone Injuries: Male physiology results in denser bones, which means in high-contact scenarios, female athletes are more prone to fractures or stress injuries. This discrepancy is emphasized in combat sports, where punches or kicks from male-born athletes exert overwhelming force. Bone injuries, especially in the skull and ribs, are not just debilitating but have the potential to be life-threatening. A study in BJSM found that these differences significantly elevate risks for women during matched competitions.
Muscular and Joint Damage: ACL injuries and joint dislocations are disproportionately common in female athletes due to pelvis structure and ligament fragility. When competing against stronger, heavier opponents, the rate and severity of such injuries escalate. For instance, combat sports often showcase mismatches that push female joints beyond safe limits during grapples or takedowns. Learn more about this topic from ScienceDirect’s detailed analysis.
Psychological Impact: The mental toll of repeated injuries or being sidelined from sports cannot be ignored. Athletes dedicate years to their craft; sustaining injuries that could’ve been avoided with better policy-making leaves scars beyond the physical. The risk of PTSD from traumatic sports injuries, especially when accompanied by public debates, can’t be understated.

When policymakers dismiss these risks as mere “accidents,” they trivialize the very real dangers faced by women. Injury prevention strategies must account for inherent physiological differences to ensure the safety of female athletes in competitive sports. Gender-informed injury prevention was also recently highlighted during the Olympics, emphasizing the care needed to protect women’s health in modern competitions. Explore this Olympic initiative further.

The combination of immediate harm and long-term health effects underlines why the debate over trans men in women’s sports goes beyond fairness—it’s about safeguarding competitors from unnecessary and potentially disastrous risks.

Is Allowing Transgender Participation Fair to Women?

The topic of transgender athletes, particularly trans men and trans women participating in women’s sports, has triggered debates on fairness. It’s not just about who wins or loses, but about striking a balance between inclusivity and protecting the integrity of competition. Let’s examine the ethical, public, and policy-driven angles of this contentious issue.

Public Perception and Backlash

Public opinion on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports is deeply divided. Advocacy for inclusivity has grown significantly, but so has backlash from female athletes, coaches, and even casual sports fans. Many argue that the inclusion policies favor personal opinion over athletic fairness, leaving female athletes at a disadvantage.

Key trends in public perception include:

Social Media Debates: Platforms like X and Reddit have become battlegrounds where advocates for trans inclusion clash with those emphasizing fairness. Hashtags like #SaveWomensSports highlight concerns among female athletes and their supporters.
High-Profile Cases: When instances of unfairness occur, they go viral quickly. For example, the case of Payton McNabb, who suffered a severe injury during a volleyball game against a transgender opponent, sparked outrage and demands for stricter policies (read her story).
Growing Advocacy: Organizations that position themselves as protectors of women’s rights in sports have gained prominence. They argue that the increasing participation of transgender athletes in women’s categories disregards the years of progress made since Title IX established fairness and opportunities for women in athletics.

The flames of controversy are largely fueled by a lack of consensus. For some, this creates frustration; for others, it signals a need for broader education about science and policy. Interestingly, scientific studies don’t always resolve the debate, as opinions extend beyond biological advantages into the realms of ethics and cultural values. Check this out for more insight.

The inclusion of trans men in women’s sports raises critical concerns about fairness, safety, and the inherent differences between male and female anatomies. Biological factors such as muscle density, bone structure, and oxygen capacity give male-born athletes significant advantages that hormone therapy cannot fully erase. These physical disparities not only challenge the integrity of competition but also put female athletes at higher risk of severe injuries, as seen in cases of concussions, fractures, and long-term career impacts.

Women’s sports were designed to foster equitable competition and protect female athletes from these physical mismatches. Ignoring these realities undermines years of progress in gender equity. Policies need to uphold fairness while prioritizing the safety of women to ensure sports remain a platform where hard work, not biological advantage, defines success. What steps will we take to truly protect the integrity of women’s sports? The conversation can no longer be ignored.

Economic Rescue: Fact or Fiction?

Next up was the economy. Promises were made by President Trump to “rescue our economy” and deliver “dramatic and immediate relief to working families.” The previous administration was blamed for an “economic catastrophe” and an “inflation nightmare.” High energy prices and grocery costs were cited as key problems. But is this a fair assessment? Did the previous administration truly create an economic disaster?

What Did Biden’s Spending Priorities Cost the American People? A Hard Look at Foreign Aid, Immigration, and Rising Costs

The money spent by President Joe Biden on foreign aid and services for non-citizens has left many Americans asking hard questions. Billions have gone overseas, reportedly supporting global causes, while back home, families struggle to keep up with rising costs of everyday essentials. Homelessness continues to climb, and countless U.S. citizens fight hunger daily—yet resources often seem to flow more freely to non-citizens. Meanwhile, the sharp increase in groceries, housing, and healthcare costs has only stretched the average American’s paycheck thinner. Could this spending have been used to better support American taxpayers instead? The numbers reveal a striking imbalance that has sparked deep debate over priorities and fairness.

Foreign Aid Allocated Under the Biden Administration

The Biden administration’s foreign aid efforts have sparked a flurry of debate, with billions of dollars pledged toward international initiatives. While some of these funds have been directed at humanitarian causes, others raise questions about how they align with U.S. taxpayers’ interests. Let’s break down where this money has gone and address some of the controversies surrounding it.

Budget Allocations: Who Got What and Why

When it comes to foreign aid, numbers matter. In the fiscal year 2023 alone, the U.S. government allocated over $71.9 billion toward foreign assistance programs, according to Pew Research. This accounted for roughly 1.2% of the federal budget, a figure that doesn’t seem enormous at first glance but becomes significant when scrutinized more closely.

Here are some major recipients of foreign aid under Biden’s tenure:

Ukraine: With the ongoing conflict, Ukraine remains one of the largest beneficiaries, receiving billions for military and humanitarian support. A 2024 funding package alone allocated aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, as detailed by Defense.gov.
Latin America and the Caribbean: The administration requested around $2.2 billion for these regions in FY2025, focusing on initiatives such as economic development and migration-related issues, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Taiwan: Besides Ukraine, this nation has seen increased aid for security and geopolitical reasons.

So, where exactly does this money go? A large portion is funneled into categories like:

Humanitarian Aid: Handling crises such as natural disasters and refugee assistance.
Health Initiatives: Programs tackling global health issues like HIV/AIDS remain a priority.
Peace & Security: Investments aligned with U.S. strategic interests abroad.

While many argue these initiatives support global stability, skeptics wonder—at what cost to Americans?

Criticisms and Potential Misusage

Not all expenditures have been met with applause. Significant criticisms center around whether the money is being utilized effectively or simply propping up initiatives detached from U.S. citizens’ well-being.

For starters, there’s the allegation of wasteful spending. Did you know that $50 million went toward funding condom distribution in Gaza and $70,000 supported the creation of a workplace diversity musical in Ireland? These surprising revelations, highlighted by KUTV, have fueled frustration about allocation priorities.

Other criticisms include:

Lack of Transparency: Skeptics argue that allocation priorities aren’t clearly communicated to taxpayers, fostering distrust.
Aid Mismanagement: Programs under platforms like ForeignAssistance.gov have been scrutinized for inefficiencies and delays in fund distribution.
Controversial Recipients: Some entities funded indirectly raise ethical questions, causing public concern over whether these align with American values.

The question becomes: How do these expenditures benefit average Americans? Critics argue that instead of alleviating domestic challenges like homelessness, hunger, and inflation, these funds support initiatives far removed from everyday struggles in the U.S.

What do you think? Should a chunk of these billions have been redirected to address rising food, housing, and healthcare costs plaguing citizens? Or does America have a moral obligation to support allies and humanitarian causes worldwide? The fine line between altruism and neglect of local needs remains at the center of this debate.

Opportunity Cost: What Could That Money Have Done for Americans?

When we talk about opportunity cost, we’re asking a direct question: What did we give up by allocating billions in taxpayer dollars to causes that primarily benefit other countries or non-citizens? For every dollar that left U.S. borders or was spent on programs for illegal immigrants, there’s a direct trade-off. That money could’ve done something tangible—whether feeding hungry families, making health care more affordable, or addressing other urgent domestic needs. Let’s put this into perspective.

Combating Hunger and Poverty in the US

Hunger is a problem you might not associate with the wealthiest country in the world, but it’s real. In 2023, 13.5% of U.S. households, or about 18 million families, were food insecure, according to USDA data. That means they didn’t have steady access to enough affordable, nutritious food.

Would reallocating billions of dollars in foreign aid have made a difference? Absolutely. Here’s how:

Bolster Food Assistance Programs: Organizations like Feeding America are already doing the heavy lifting, but they rely on limited funding. With increased resources, more families could access emergency food supplies or long-term support resources.
Address Root Causes of Poverty: Programs designed to lift families out of poverty—like increasing the Child Tax Credit, funding job training programs, and improving access to affordable housing—have proven effective in creating stability. A fraction of foreign aid dollars could strengthen these initiatives.

Did you know that close to 50 million Americans relied on some type of food assistance in 2023 alone? Imagine how these funds could’ve amplified that support. Instead of sending aid abroad, what if we had used it to drastically reduce food insecurity here at home?

Healthcare Affordability for American Citizens

For most American families, health care isn’t just expensive—it’s downright unaffordable. In 2025, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored insurance reached $8,435 for single coverage and a whopping $24,011 for family plans, as reported by PwC. And let’s not forget the deductibles, which can easily climb into thousands of dollars before insurance even kicks in.

Compare that to the benefits extended to illegal immigrants, many of whom qualify for free health services through state and federal programs. These resources are well-intentioned but come at a steep cost to the American taxpayer. So, what could we have done differently with those billions?

Consider this:

Subsidize Existing Healthcare Plans: Allocating even a fraction of foreign aid budgets toward subsidies could dramatically lower both premiums and deductibles for middle-class families.
Expand Medicaid: Instead of closing the coverage gap that leaves millions uninsured, additional domestic funds could expand Medicaid eligibility across all 50 states.
Address Prescription Costs: With the average out-of-pocket yearly spending on prescriptions hovering around $1,300 per person, targeted subsidies or cost controls could bring financial relief to millions of families.

The trade-off isn’t just financial. It’s about lives. Medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S., and unmanageable health care costs are forcing some families to delay critical treatments.

While Americans are trying to figure out how to juggle premiums, deductibles, and groceries all at once, large portions of federal funds continue to prioritize programs overseas. Is it any wonder people are frustrated?

How Biden’s Policies Addressed Illegal Immigration vs. Struggles of Americans

The question of how resources are distributed between helping illegal immigrants and providing relief to struggling Americans has always sparked heated discussions. Under the Biden administration, policies and programs addressing these issues have created a divide in perception. While some argue these measures are humanitarian-focused, others see them as neglecting the very citizens financing such efforts with their tax dollars. Let’s examine the disparities across food programs, housing, healthcare, and financial support.

Free Food Programs: Immigrants vs. Starving Citizens

Hunger consistently ranks as one of the most pressing issues in the U.S., with 13.5% of households experiencing food insecurity in 2023, according to USDA data. Programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were created to provide essential support to American families facing tough times. However, SNAP’s eligibility rules allow mixed-status households to claim benefits, potentially diverting resources meant for citizens.

While undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for federal programs like SNAP, they can access benefits indirectly through citizen children or household members, a phenomenon explained in this Migration Policy Institute report. On the other hand, millions of American citizens without children fall through the cracks, including veterans and seniors who struggle with inconsistent food aid.

In schools, programs subsidize free breakfasts and lunches for children of undocumented immigrants under federal law, as confirmed by a Center for Immigration Studies report. Meanwhile, food pantries across rural and urban America are stretched thin. Could a reallocation of resources better address the 40% of food-insecure households without children? Americans are left wondering.

Shelter and Housing Support

Homelessness is at a record high, with over 771,480 people identified as homeless in 2024, as reported by the Econofact insights. Many of them include families with children and older adults, reflecting a widening gap in social safety nets. On the flip side, illegal immigrants have access to shelters and temporary housing programs, funded either by NGOs or through emergency federal allocations in sanctuary cities, as seen in cases extensively discussed by USICH.gov.

For example, large metro areas like New York and Los Angeles have reported spending tens of millions to house migrant families in temporary structures or hotels, creating tension among locals who face years-long waiting lists for low-income housing. Age breakdowns reveal that older adults represent about 50% of homeless individuals—a worrying trend exacerbated by skyrocketing rents and limited housing supply.

Healthcare Benefits for Illegal Immigrants and American Citizens

For working American families, healthcare feels like an insurmountable expense. According to KFF, an employer-sponsored family health plan averages a staggering $24,011 annually. On top of that, deductibles frequently run into the thousands. Contrast this with states like California that provide full Medicaid coverage to low-income undocumented immigrants regardless of status—an expenditure hitting approximately $2.4 billion annually.

The patchwork system of healthcare in America means illegal immigrants often access free emergency services due to legal requirements for hospitals but lack long-term care options unless provided by state budgets. Meanwhile, middle-class Americans often skip doctor visits or struggle under medical debt, despite being the ones funding these programs. This disparity worsens frustrations, especially when scant attention is paid toward making insurance or care affordable for taxpaying citizens.

Direct Financial Support: Immigrant Allowances vs. American Salaries

While U.S. citizens grapple with stagnating wages and the rising cost of living, financial supports targeting undocumented immigrants remain contentious. Reports highlight programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which illegally working or undocumented individuals claim under dependent children with Social Security Numbers, resulting in $3.8 billion in estimated annual cash distributions, as shown in an analysis by Epic for America.

Let’s put this into context: the median American salary was $60,000 in 2024, with workers losing nearly 30-40% of that to taxes, Social Security contributions, and rising living costs like groceries and transportation. Despite paying into the federal system, many citizens see no direct return on investment, while billions flow directly to immigrant programs. The question looms: at what point does “supporting others” overshadow “taking care of our own”?

The stark contrast in assistance programs highlights an uncomfortable truth—Americans are increasingly frustrated by what feels like a system tilted away from their needs. Whether it’s school lunches, housing, healthcare, or direct payments, the numbers reveal uncomfortable disparities that must be addressed for the sake of fairness.

Economic Strain on Average Americans Under Biden

The rising cost of living has placed American families in increasingly precarious positions during Joe Biden’s presidency. With inflation sticking to stubbornly high levels, every trip to the grocery store, commute to work, or pursuit of homeownership feels more out of reach than ever. But it’s not just about numbers—it’s real-life issues that keep people awake at night. From unprecedented grocery spikes to staggering housing costs, let’s dive into the financial toll this has taken on working Americans.

Spiking Grocery Costs

Food prices during Biden’s presidency have proven to be one of the biggest strain points for households across the country. Imagine heading to the store anticipating a minor increase—and finding your bill up by 20% or more compared to a couple of years ago. That’s the reality for many families today.

Americans are now paying about 22% more for groceries than when Biden took office, according to CNN reports.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food increased by 0.6% just between December 2024 and January 2025, according to the USDA’s Food Price Outlook.
Certain staples like eggs saw a jaw-dropping 53% increase year-over-year in January 2025, spurred by factors like the avian flu.

So, why are we seeing these spikes? A mix of supply chain bottlenecks, increasing transportation and labor costs, and global conflicts—like the war in Ukraine—are driving inflation. For families already operating on narrow margins, this means making tough choices: quality nutrition or keeping the lights on next month.

Rising Housing Prices and Real Estate Market Challenges

Owning a home has long been part of the American Dream—but under the Biden administration, it started feeling more like a pipe dream. Housing markets across the country have been hit with a one-two punch of rising home prices and skyrocketing mortgage rates.

From 2020 to 2024, median home values increased by over 114% according to The Heritage Foundation.
Mortgage rates remain elevated, fluctuating around 7% in 2025, reflecting the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hikes (source: PBS Housing Predictions 2025).
Renters aren’t faring any better, with record-high rental costs locking millions out of affordability.

There’s also a critical shortfall of 5 million homes nationwide. Despite promises of relief, the administration’s efforts to increase housing production have done little to ease the crisis. For Americans, especially millennials looking to break into the real estate market, it feels like the goalposts just keep moving further out of reach.

Transportation Cost Increases

Getting from point A to point B is not just pricier—it’s more complicated—and for commuters and families, that spells trouble. Fuel prices have ebbed and flowed over the past few years, but overall transportation costs rose substantially during Biden’s presidency.

Federal initiatives have funneled billions into public transit projects, but much of this investment has yet to ease the burden on everyday commuters (Federal Transit Projects, USDOT).
Inflation continues to squeeze budgets; everything from tires to car maintenance has jumped in price.
The shift in transportation policy under the Biden administration brought mixed feelings—projects focused on infrastructure improvement may have yielded long-term benefits, but immediate costs left Americans to tighten their belts yet again (White House Briefing).

For a working family dependent on personal vehicles, or even public transit, these increased costs eat into an already stretched paycheck. And the ripple effect on other spending—like groceries or home utilities—is now inescapable.

The bottom line? Inflation over the past several years under Biden felt like a pressure cooker for the average American. These tangible challenges around food, housing, and transportation need no introduction—they were a daily reality. It is time to recalibrate priorities to put hardworking families first!

Biden’s presidency raised critical questions about balancing national and global priorities. Billions of dollars flowed to international aid and programs for illegal immigrants while American families faced skyrocketing costs, from groceries to housing. Workers seen wages lag behind inflation, and the cost of health care burdened even those with steady jobs—leaving many to wonder where their tax dollars were truly going.

Rising homelessness, food insecurity, unmanageable health insurance premiums, and stagnant wages paint a clear picture: Americans felt left behind. While global stability and humanitarian efforts are essential, so is ensuring that U.S. taxpayers reap the benefits of their hard work and sacrifice.

What’s the solution? A balanced approach. Supporting global causes shouldn’t come at the expense of addressing urgent domestic needs. It’s time policymakers prioritize the struggles of American citizens. The voices of hardworking families shouldn’t have to compete for attention—they should lead the conversation. Are we focusing on the right priorities? It’s a question worth asking.

Energy Independence and Inflation

The strategy to combat inflation focuses heavily on energy. President Trump criticized the previous administration for cutting oil and gas leases, slowing pipeline construction, and closing power plants. The solution? Open up power plants, ramp up domestic energy production with a “drill baby drill” approach, and build a massive natural gas pipeline in Alaska. What do you think about this approach? Will more drilling really solve our problems?

The Department of Government Efficiency

Here’s where things get interesting. A brand new Department of Government Efficiency is being launched, headed by none other than Elon Musk. The goal? To end the “flagrancy of congress wasting money“.

Now, let’s dive into some specific examples of wasteful spending President Trump highlighted.

$22 billion for free housing and cars for illegal aliens – Is this an effective use of taxpayer money?
$45 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion scholarships in Burma – Are these scholarships really benefiting Americans?
$40 million to improve the social and economic inclusion of sedentary migrants – What exactly does this entail?
$8 million to promote LGBTQI+ in Lesotho – Should American tax dollars be used for this purpose in a foreign country nobody has ever heard of?
$60 million for indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombian empowerment in Central America – Is this the best way to spend our money?
$8 million for making mice transgender – Really?
$32 million for a left-wing propaganda operation in Moldova – Is this true?
$10 million for male circumcision in Mozambique – How does this help America?
$20 million for the Arab Sesame Street – Is this program even effective?
$1.9 billion to recently created decarbonization of Homes committee – What is this committee doing?
$3.5 million consulting contract for lavish fish monitoring – Is this necessary?
$1.5 million for voter confidence in Liberia – Should we be funding elections in other countries?
$14 million for social cohesion in Mali – What does this entail?
$59 million for illegal alien hotel rooms in New York City – Is this the best solution?
$250,000 to increase vegan local climate action innovation in Zambia – What impact does this have?
$42 million for social and behavior change in Uganda – How is this being spent?
$14 million for improving public procurement in Serbia – What is this improving?
$47 million for improving learning outcomes in Asia – Shouldn’t we focus on our own schools first?
$101 million for DEI contracts at the Department of Education – Is this the most effective way to improve education?

These examples raise serious questions about how Congress operates and is congress wasting money? Are these programs truly benefiting Americans, or are they examples of congress wasting money?

Uncovering Fraud: A Herculean Task

President Trump claimed that a team, led by someone named Ilana, has uncovered “hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud” and has already begun reducing the national debt. President Trump also referenced the Government Accountability Office’s estimate of over $500 billion in annual fraud. Now, that’s a lot of money. But how much of this is actually recoverable?

Social Security Shenanigans

Then came the bombshell about the Social Security program. President Trump presented some startling statistics:

4.7 million Social Security members listed as being between 100 and 109 years old.
3.6 million listed between 110 and 119.
And so on, with even some people listed as being over 200 years old!

If these numbers are accurate, it certainly suggests potential fraud or, at the very least, serious errors in the system. However, it is also possible that these records are just old and nobody has taken the time to update them.

The “Gold Card”: A Ticket to Citizenship

To boost the economy, a new “gold card” is being proposed. This $5 million card would offer a path to US citizenship for successful job creators from around the globe. They’d be required to pay taxes in the US and create jobs. Plus, it aims to keep talented graduates from top schools in our country, instead of letting them leave and build businesses elsewhere.

Immigration: Who Gets In?

The “gold card” proposal stands in stark contrast to President Trump’s criticism of current immigration policies. Concerns were raised about “criminals, killers, traffickers, and child predators” supposedly entering the country due to “open border” policies. The “gold card” is presented as a way to bring in “hard-working, job-creating people” instead. It may be worth exploring.

Final Thoughts

President Trump’s speech paints a picture of our country riddled with waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The proposed solutions range from boosting domestic energy production to attracting wealthy immigrants. It’s up to each of us to decide whether these proposals are truly “common sense” and whether they will actually deliver the promised results. Are we being offered real solutions, or just empty promises? Are we ready to embrace this “common sense revolution?”

Return to homepage.