So-called "ghost students" are reportedly fueling a growing financial aid fraud crisis in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system and across the country.

These ghost students allegedly steal identities to enroll online and apply for taxpayer-funded financial aid.

'These fraudsters are very well organized and well financed.'

KSTP reported in October that the Minnesota State system, which consists of 33 colleges and universities, had flagged over 7,700 “fraudulent” or “potentially fraudulent” financial aid applications in the 2024-2025 academic year. In nearly 95% of those cases, the ghost students had applied to two-year community colleges. The fraud was identified before any money was distributed.

KSTP discovered two cases in which funds were distributed to fraudsters who had enrolled in a community college. The cases came to light after a man in Hutchinson, Kansas, reported that someone had used his name and Social Security number to collect $13,000. Another individual stated that his information was used to take out two student loans worth over $6,700.

A Minnesota State spokesperson told KSTP in October that at least three schools had paid between $9,500 and $63,500 back to the federal government after discovering ghost students.

Craig Munson, the chief information security officer for the Minnesota State system, addressed the ongoing fraud issues during a Thursday Minnesota House hearing.

“These fraudsters are very well organized and well financed,” Munson said. “Stealing money that was intended for real students in need of financial aid.”

RELATED: The insane little story that failed to warn America about the depth of Somali fraud

Photo by JHU Sheridan Libraries/Gado/Getty Images

When questioned about how much the fraud scheme has cost the Minnesota State system, Munson did not provide a dollar amount but noted that he believes “we are making very good progress” in addressing the issue.

Munson explained that the school system is still seeing a similar number of fraud cases, but that ghost students are now targeting more four-year colleges and universities.

RELATED: Tim Walz's nightmare continues as HHS shuts off $185M to Minnesota amid allegedly 'fake' Somali day care centers

Photo by: Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

“It used to be more of the two-year [colleges], we’re starting to see they’re looking at all colleges and universities,” he said. “It could be a couple of reasons — that they’ve learned the system to its extent, and they want to extend their stay in the system and transfer to a four-year possibly. We’re also seeing some positive reports that many of our two-year colleges are seeing a little bit of a reduction in these fraud attempts.”

During Thursday’s hearing, Munson presented a fraud report detailing the growing threat and recommendations to address it, including implementing an automated identity-proofing system that would cost $1 million to $1.5 million per year.

A spokesperson for the Minnesota State system told Blaze News that enrollment fraud is a problem for colleges and universities across the nation.

“The Minnesota State IT Services team has implemented a variety of safeguards to protect against this threat," the spokesperson stated. "Nationally, there has been a significant rise in this activity and we have been working to install additional safeguards and provide guidance to our 33 colleges and universities for the last two years. Our schools, in partnership with faculty, have been actively managing this problem, identifying ghost students early in each semester and removing them from our systems to ensure only real students can get the classes they need and financial aid is distributed to the students who need it to achieve their academic goals."

"In addition, this last fall a more formal Enrollment Fraud Working Group that includes experts in IT, Academic and Student Affairs, and Audit from the Minnesota State system office, as well as faculty, staff, and student representatives from throughout the system was formed. The goal of the group is to identify additional safeguards the colleges and universities of Minnesota State can put in place to keep ghost students out,” the spokesperson added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mere hours after the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Trump's tariffs under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, President Trump responded with a lengthy Truth Social post. Though the court ruled against him, Trump was not nearly as angry with the decision as might be expected.

On Friday afternoon, President Trump posted an unexpectedly optimistic message in the wake of SCOTUS' decision. Trump's layered response, which echoed very closely his live reaction in a press conference, spilled into two separate posts.

'Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged.'

Trump began by praising the "Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country" exhibited by dissenting Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh before attacking those in the majority:

"The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote 'NO' against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation. Others think they’re being 'politically correct,' which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and 'LAPDOGS' for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution."

RELATED: Trump finally gets his answer on legality of tariffs in new SCOTUS decision

Trump then suggested that the court "has been swayed by foreign interests" who are "dancing in the streets" as a result of the ruling.

However, Trump then said that the decision was largely a positive development because it clarified the president's authority under the IEEPA only, while leaving open several other avenues for imposing tariffs: "All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected."

He drew from Justice Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion to illustrate the "different direction" that he will pursue, "which is even stronger than our original choice." As Trump noted, Kavanaugh wrote,

Although I firmly disagree with the Court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case. ... Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).

Trump omitted Kavanaugh's mention of "a few procedural steps" that may be required with these other avenues for tariffs that the IEEPA does not require.

Nearing the end of his post, Trump argued that the Supreme Court had unintentionally made the president's "ability to both regulate TRADE, and impost TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less."

As a result, Trump issued several orders at the end of his post, indicating his intention to continue the tariffs, including a "10% GLOBAL TARIFF," under the existing statutory authorities cited earlier in the post:

"Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices," Trump wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A bizarre Instagrammable selfie opportunity on the Brooklyn Bridge involves disgusting trash, including tampons and condoms, being tied to a fence.

Other garbage items affixed to the fence include panties, dirty tissues, Band-Aids, and hairbands, according to the New York Post. Some of the residents are opposed to the accumulation of disgusting trash that has gotten worse in recent weeks.

'Welcome to the "Big Cesspool" that used to be an Apple.'

"I walk over the bridge almost every day. And one day I was just like, ‘I’ve had enough!'” said Ellen Baum of Brooklyn Heights, who has been documenting her cleanup efforts on social media.

"It’s just f**king disgusting," said Baum, who disagrees "completely" with people calling the condom wall a piece of art.

"The interactions and conversations that take place on the bridge are the art. The bridge itself is the art," she added. "We don’t need to put literal trash on it."

The Department of Transportation could not tell the Post how many people were cited for littering on the bridge and also refused to say how often it's cleaned up by the city.

"The iconic Brooklyn Bridge has been called ‘America’s Eiffel Tower,’ and cluttering it with debris detracts from the enjoyment of everyone who uses the bridge and burdens the hardworking crews who maintain this historic landmark," said a DOT spokesperson to the Post.

A Blaze News request for comment from the mayor's office was not immediately answered.

The online reaction to the trash-bridge was not very supportive.

"When I was a kid it was locks on bridges and fences and sneakers on powerlines. WTF happened to the good times," responded one user on the X platform.

"It’s tragic to see a world-class landmark treated like a literal dumpster," said another detractor.

"NYC is disgusting. Used to have family in Queens, then he moved to NJ, then left entirely this past year. I've been there a half dozen times or so, no desire to ever go back. It's the dirtiest city I've ever seen, and everything is a hassle and overpriced," read another reply.

"The amount of DNA that’s there ... you can probably solve a few cold cases," joked another user.

RELATED: Mamdani reverses controversial policy after 19 NYC residents die outdoors

"Welcome to the 'Big Cesspool' that used to be an Apple," said one user.

"After my parents moved us to a home near the Jersey shore when I was 7, I would spend summers with my aunt who lived in Brooklyn Heights. We would walk her dog down to the Brooklyn bridge and I was awed by the beautiful bridge and its history. So sad!" recalled one commentator.

"What the f**k is wrong with you people?" replied one man simply.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed the firing of a trans-identifying "wolf" elementary school teacher who sparked several complaints from Fort Bragg families.

Military families began expressing concern about the trans-identifying wolf teacher, who worked as a substitute teacher and teacher's aide at the Mildred B. Poole Elementary School, for reportedly using several names like "Roxxanne Wildheart," "Kiera Blackheart," "Lilith Deathhowl," "Captain Roxxie," "Artemis Deathhowl," and "savagebeastqueen," according to CBN News.

'The "Wolf" was fired.'

The parents also cited the teacher's troubling interactions with their children, allegedly sharing with them "sexually inappropriate" details about his identity and dating preferences.

Families began speaking out in early 2025, criticizing administrators for not having taken action against the teacher's "disturbing behavior," which reportedly included wearing feminine clothing, a dog collar, an animal tail, and fetish tags.

RELATED: 'No more dudes in dresses': Hegseth gives multitudes of trans-identifying service members the boot

Photo by LEONARDO MUNOZ/AFP via Getty Images

He also allegedly divulged his sexual fetishes in front of children by telling his students that he turns into a "wolf" at night, howling like a wolf, and insisting he be addressed by his "wolf character names" and with inaccurate female pronouns.

Parents claimed their children felt "scared and anxious" about the teacher's behavior, with one child telling her mother, "Mommy, I'm scared he's going to come eat me."

Another child reportedly told her mother, "Mommy, Ms. Roxxie says he was born in a male's body, but he's actually a woman, but he likes boys!"

RELATED: Activist judges overruled: Trump judges greenlight Hegseth’s ban on military 'dudes in dresses'

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Hegseth took matters into his own hands, protecting the students from further perverted behavior.

"The 'Wolf' was fired 2 weeks ago," Hegseth posted to X Thursday in response to CBN.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Growing infighting among prominent Democrats signals deeper instability within the party — and BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere has the receipts to back it up.

“It seems like there is a little bit of trouble in paradise these days over on the Democratic side. You’ve seen some of these divides before,” Stu says, reading a Fox News headline: “John Fetterman slams anti-Israel ‘rot’ in Democratic Party, rejects AOC’s claims of Gaza ‘genocide.’”

Another recent headline from The Hill reads, “House Democrat: Mamdani’s proposed wealth taxes ‘not going to work.’”

“That is [Rep. Jared] Moskowitz. He’s fighting with Mamdani because Mamdani wants a wealth tax and Moskowitz says that’s not going to work. By the way, one reason it’s not going to work as a federal situation is because it’s completely unconstitutional,” Stu comments.

“Now, of course, Mamdani does not care whatsoever about those sorts of things,” he adds.

Even Bernie Sanders and Gavin Newsom have now become “adversaries” over the push to tax California billionaires.

“Of course, you know, Bernie Sanders, number one, is a socialist. Number two, doesn’t have to worry about actually funding the state and, you know, building new magical railroads across it. So he doesn’t care about whether all the billionaires leave or not. He’s going to get their money either way, right?” Stu explains.

“There’s a big divide inside that party. Now, that’s not to say, I will point out, that there’s none of this going on on the right. It is existing on the right as well. But on the left it’s really interesting,” he says, pointing out that when one party holds more power, the other party tends to put aside internal differences and unite.

“You saw some of that, I think, during 2024, where people looked at the Biden situation and were like, ‘Gosh, we don’t want any more of this.’ They united around Trump even though there was a lot of people who liked him and a lot of people who didn’t like him on the Republican side,” Stu says.

But the Democrats are not showing the same strength, and a new AP-NORC poll only solidifies Stu’s point.

The poll reflects that “many Democrats are still down on their party after 2024."

“You see, there was some uniting going on — a little bit, maybe, you could argue — in the early days of the Trump administration, where approval of the Democratic Party among Democrats rose north of 83%. Now it’s dropped to 70%. Interesting. Not a massive drop-off, but significant,” Stu says.

And positive views of the Democratic Party are down among Democrats, from 92% at the turn of the century to 80% today.

“We’ve never seen one as low as it is now, though,” Stu comments.

“That’s not good. That’s bad,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

"In the Name of ... Unlimited Immigration?"

U2, the band that rocketed to fame with songs like the Martin Luther King Jr. tribute “Pride (In the Name of Love),” just put out a surprise EP “Days of Ash.” The stealth release includes a tribute to the late anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement activist Renee Good. The Irish rockers probably saw Bruce Springsteen getting all that fawning press for his anti-ICE tirades and wanted in on the action.

Goldberg once asked Epstein if she could hitch a ride on his plane. Or she claims someone did so on her behalf.

Still, the legendary band’s choice of martyrs is a mite suspect at this late date. “American Obituary” is the song’s tortured title, and it’s a sad reminder of how the foursome famously toured the U.S. in the Reagan era, a trek captured in the 1988 concert film “U2: Rattle and Hum.”

That documentary and accompanying album saw the Irish rockers luxuriating in American culture. Now, lead singer, Bono, is calling out MAGA and ignoring all the actions that led to Good’s tragic death.

The bright side? The band isn’t force-feeding us their music this time ...

Taylor's version

If you mock the left, they will come.

And by “they,” we mean viewers. Paramount Plus’ “Landman” series, starring the mighty Billy Bob Thornton, wrapped its second season with its highest ratings yet.

The show generated 1.62 billion minutes of viewing time during the week of Jan. 19-25, second only to Netflix’s “Stranger Things” for an original streaming series.

This season of “Landman” featured several swipes at the left, including a conversation mocking ABC’s “The View” and an extended assault on pronouns. The latter featured ditzy Ainsley (Michelle Randolph) sparring with her college’s woke administrator and, later, her nonbinary roommate.

Most shows wouldn’t dare broach these subjects, let alone in a farcical fashion, but showrunner Taylor Sheridan isn’t your average TV scribe. The heartland-friendly creator isn’t afraid to ruffle progressive feathers, and he does so while uncorking some elegantly written stories.

That may explain why the industry doesn’t shower him with Emmys, but he’s too busy juggling a half dozen (or more) shows to care ...

RELATED: 'I wasn't his girlfriend': Whoopi Goldberg breaks silence on her presence in the Epstein files

Photo (left): Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Tribeca Festival; Photo (right): Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

Best Pixel

Imagine there’s no virtue signaling at awards shows. It’s easy if you try.

Oscar-winner Matthew McConaughey shared some thoughts on AI during a Variety/CNN town hall interview with fellow star Timothee Chalamet.

McConaughey earned his trophy for 2013’s “Dallas Buyers Club,” and he fears future red carpets may be crowded with computer-generated competition.

“Will we be, in five years, having ‘the best AI film’? ‘The best AI actor?'” he said. “Maybe. I think that might be the thing; it becomes another category. It’s going to be in front of us in ways that we don’t even see. It’s going to get so good we’re not going to know the difference.”

Another plus? AI actors can’t walk down red carpets wearing those insufferable “ICE Out” pins ...

Carpet cringe

By George, I think he’s got it.

Comic actor Jamie Kennedy of “Scream” fame added a dollop of common sense to Hollywood’s anti-ICE histrionics. Kennedy shared his views on celebrity activism tied to the illegal immigration enforcers, and he refused to read the preapproved talking points.

Instead, he pointed out the hypocrisy of stars safely sashaying down the red carpet while demonizing law enforcement on the “Trying Not to Die” podcast.

People are protesting ICE, and I understand the situation — but when you have actors from the red carpet of an award show, on there saying all of this stuff about "we’re under a fascist regime, we’re [under] authoritarianism ..." bro ... you’re literally guarded by the most top [security] — it’s insanity, you can’t say you’re under authoritarian rule when you’re literally being authoritarian.

Somewhere, Ricky Gervais is grinning ear to ear ...

Whoopi's whoopsie

“The View” is getting a crash course in Epstein files nuance.

The extreme-left show has pummeled President Donald Trump for being mentioned in the infamous files. But as everyone knows, a “mention” doesn’t mean much if there’s no “there-there.”

And to date, there isn’t, just a revelation that Trump cheered on police for investigating the ghoulish financier.

That hasn’t stopped the left or “The View” from connecting disparate dots. Until now. Turns out some “View” hosts, including Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, are in those files too.

Goldberg once asked Epstein if she could hitch a ride on his plane. Or she claims someone did so on her behalf.

Awkward!

Now, fellow listee Behar is lecturing viewers that she’s totally innocent, and everyone named in the files isn’t a monster. The other embarrassing part? Behar attended Trump’s 1993 wedding to Marla Maples:

"I was at Trump's wedding to Marla. Maybe Epstein was there too. Who knows? So that means I'm not guilty obviously, but these other ones, how are you going to decide who is really guilty and who is not? It’s very tricky!"

Tricky, you say? We say karma on steroids.

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is moving to denaturalize a former mayor in Florida for allegedly misrepresenting his identity and immigration history to become a U.S. citizen.

Philippe Bien-Aime was first elected mayor of North Miami in 2019, but resigned in 2022 to lead an unsuccessful bid for the Miami-Dade County Commission.

'The complaint alleges that this defendant built his citizenship on fraud — using false identities, false statements, and a sham marriage to evade a lawful removal order.'

The DOJ filed a denaturalization case against Bien-Aime on February 18.

Prosecutors state Bien-Aime “willfully misrepresented his identity and immigration history throughout the naturalization process,” WTVJ reported.

Department of Homeland Security records, including fingerprint comparisons, found that Bien-Aime was previously ordered removed from the U.S. under the name Philippe Janvier, court documents claimed.

An immigration judge found in 2000 that Janvier entered the U.S. by fraudulently using a photo-switched passport. The judge ordered his deportation to his country of birth, Haiti.

RELATED: Kentucky driver’s licensing scandal: 5 charged for allegedly illegally issuing licenses to immigrants in exchange for cash

Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images

“In 2001, Bien-Aime was placed in removal proceedings and ordered removed under the Janvier identity,” a DOJ press release read. “He appealed the removal order, but he withdrew the appeal, representing that he had returned to live in Haiti. In reality, Bien-Aime remained in the United States and, using the new name and date of birth, married a U.S. citizen to obtain permanent resident status."

The DOJ claimed the marriage was fraudulent and invalid because he was already married to a Haitian citizen.

"After making numerous false and fraudulent statements in adjustment and naturalization proceedings, he naturalized in 2006 under the Bien-Aime identity," the department stated.

RELATED: Stopping the steal: Sen. Lee, Republicans demand Election Day integrity ahead of SCOTUS fight over 'rolling' ballot counts

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

If the DOJ’s denaturalization case against Bien-Aime is successful, it could raise legal questions about his time in office, WTVJ reported.

Peterson St. Philippe, Bien-Aime’s attorney, told the Miami Herald, “We believe it is appropriate to address the allegations through the judicial process rather than through public commentary. We trust that any reporting will reflect that the matter remains unresolved and that no findings have been made.”

North Miami Mayor Alix Desulme told the news outlet that he and his administration were unaware of the claims against Bien-Aime.

“The complaint alleges that this defendant built his citizenship on fraud — using false identities, false statements, and a sham marriage to evade a lawful removal order,” said U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones for the Southern District of Florida. “The fact that he later served as an elected mayor makes the alleged deception even more serious, because public office carries a duty of candor and respect for the rule of law.”

“This administration will not permit fraudsters and tricksters who cheat their way to the gift of U.S. citizenship,” stated Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division. “The passage of time does not diminish blatant immigration fraud.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In a world where millions claim to be Christians while living lives indistinguishable from anyone else, it’s critical to understand the importance of authentic faith. It’s a bit more than “all you have to do is believe” (explained here), which is an unsupportable position according to scripture and Jesus’ own words.

But a companion misunderstanding is that you should never question your own faith. Some even say it’s a sin to do so.

As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.

But again — that’s not what the Bible says.

The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, told them to test themselves to see if they were in the faith — “examine yourselves!” he exclaimed (2 Corinthians 13:5). It’s never wrong to thoughtfully examine our own hearts to ensure we’re on the right track.

So having established that it’s not wrong — and in fact, it's desirable to examine ourselves — let’s answer the million-dollar question: How do we know we are saved?

1. Understand what happens at salvation

Obviously, you won’t know if you’re saved if you don’t know what being saved means. It means that God has freely given you:

• Eyes to see the truth of the gospel. You sincerely believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again to pay for your sins.
• A heart to repent. You recognize your sin separates you from a holy God, and you want to pivot to a life in relationship with your creator. You want to align with His plans for your life, not your own.

In that moment when those things happen, God does a miracle:

• He brings a dead person to life.
• He wipes your slate clean (even the sins you’ll still commit) because they were all nailed to the cross, so you are now justified — you are officially “righteous” because you are cleansed.
• You are saved from eternal separation from God (hell).
• God Himself, the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell in you, and the process of your sanctification (becoming more like Christ) begins. (It will take your whole life!) The Holy Spirit also seals you in Him, which means you will never lose this salvation.
• You are promised that one day you will be glorified, which means when you die, you will be free of all worldly cares and sins and will be in the very presence of Jesus.

So in light of the mind-boggling gifts you, the new believer, have just been granted — how else do you know you’re saved?

2. Learn to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul says:

In Him, you also, after listening to the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit indwells us at the moment of salvation. It is not something that comes later, as some mistakenly teach. His presence in us is indeed proof of our salvation:

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Romans 8:9)

And later in that same chapter:

For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. ... The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:14, 16)

So — the Holy Spirit in us helps us know that we belong to God. How, exactly?

Well, are you different than you were before you believed? Or more accurately, do you desire to be different, to love and serve the God who saved you? (Because it’s always about the heart’s desire, not some perfect behavior.)

If you want to change your life to align with God, that prompting is coming from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s assurance works in tandem with something else though.

3. Use scripture as a mirror

Are you reading and studying the Bible? Again — more precisely — do you have the desire to do so, even if you struggle to find a place for that in your busy schedule? Because the Holy Spirit will convict you of your need to be in the Word. If you’re feeling that prodding, that is itself an assurance of salvation. The Holy Spirit is in you, working.

And when you obey that prompting, He will illuminate the Bible for you to help you begin to become more like Jesus. As you examine your thoughts and attitudes and actions in the clear light of scriptural teaching, the Spirit will show you things to work on — guaranteed.

If you are wanting to be in the Word and wanting to obey the Spirit’s leading to change as you learn — that is a powerful assurance of your salvation.

RELATED: The laws freaked-out AI founders want won't save us from tech slavery if we reject Christ's message

Photo by Bloomberg/Getty Images

4. Seek out other believers

Are you in relationships with other believers? Are you going to or at least looking for a church? This life can’t be lived sitting on the sofa watching screen church — it requires real human interaction due to (among other things) the commandment Jesus gave us to love one another, which is impossible from your comfy couch.

Again, it comes down to obedience. The Spirit will prompt you to seek out other believers, because God designed us to be in those relationships, serving and loving each other, and being served and loved.

If you’re obeying Him in this, that is also a powerful assurance that you are saved, because stepping into an entirely new group of people we’ve never met before —which is how most of us start finding a church — does not come particularly easy to anyone.

5. Check your life for 'fruit of the Spirit'

The Bible brims with teaching about fruit — we’re supposed to produce good fruit as followers of Jesus. More on this here, but for now, let’s look at what the Bible explicitly calls out as the “fruit of the Spirit” living in us (Galatians 5:22-23):

• Love
• Joy
• Peace
• Patience
• Kindness
• Goodness
• Faithfulness
• Gentleness
• Self-control

John MacArthur calls this “attitude fruit” — the attitudes we should begin to exhibit once we are saved. So that’s the fruit of the Spirit — attitudes the Spirit helps us develop.

But in that same chapter of Galatians, Paul also lists some opposites. “Deeds of the flesh” he calls them, which include:

• Sexual immorality
• Impurity
• Sensuality
• Idolatry
• Sorcery
• Enmities
• Strife
• Jealousy
• Outbursts of anger
• Selfish ambition
• Factions
• Envying dissensions
• Drunkenness
• Carousing
• “and things like these”

So are you more characterized by deeds of the flesh or the Spirit?

Or again let’s ask the right question — which do you desire to be more characteristic in your life? If it’s the good stuff, that is a desire implanted by the Holy Spirit within you — again, an assurance of salvation. And He will help you transform that desire more and more into reality, which will strengthen your assurance as well.

6. See how others have tackled this question

Q: What are some of the signs of genuine saving faith?
A: From the excellent website gotquestions.org

Q: What kind of things do and do not prove the genuineness of saving faith?
A: From Grace to You, John MacArthur’s website

7. Take heart from the words of Jesus

As I’ve written before, the question isn’t “will you believe in Jesus?” The question is “will you follow Jesus?”

If you repented and believed (described above), and now your desire is to follow Him and become more like Him — that desire is from the Holy Spirit within you, and you are assuredly saved. As Jesus said:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish — ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10:27-30)

A version of this essay previously appeared on She Speaks Truth.

BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey recently revisited a question the late Charlie Kirk often asked her in interviews — one that is often the topic of heated debate among Christians.

“For some reason, every time I did an interview with Charlie Kirk, he loved to ask this question because he knew what I was going to say, but he loved for me — I guess as a Christian woman — to answer it,” Stuckey recalls.

The question, Stuckey says, is “Can women be pastors?”

“The short answer is no. No,” she says, citing 1 Timothy 2:12-14.

“He is speaking within the context of talking about the orderliness of the local church. ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor,” the verse reads.

“He goes all the way back to creation. And whenever we see anyone in scripture in the New Testament go back to creation, that tells us that this is grounded in something that is unchanging,” Stuckey comments.

“For example, in Genesis 9, when God commands the death penalty for a murder, he goes all the way back to the creation reality that man was made in God’s image. That is still true today, which is why I believe we should still give the death penalty for murder,” she explains.

“The simple fact that he goes back to Adam and Eve tells us something really important. So the question is, ‘What can women do biblically?’ Women are encouraged to teach other women and to teach children,” she continues.

And while Stuckey herself notes that she speaks out publicly, she says that “capability does not equal calling.”

“Obviously, I can talk. Obviously, I can explain things. I like to communicate. I love the word of God. I love breaking things down. But I am not called to be a pastor in a local church. I am not called to preach in a pulpit in a local church,” she explains.

“That is not my role. That is not any woman’s role,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Carter Camacho, who was arrested after he allegedly charged the United States Capitol with a loaded shotgun on Tuesday, told Capitol Police he "was just there to talk."

Camacho, 18, was detained by Capitol Police after he exited his vehicle and allegedly ran toward the Capitol carrying a loaded 12-gauge shotgun and dressed in a "tactical-style vest" and "camouflage-style clothing." Officers also reportedly recovered additional rounds of ammunition in Camacho's possession.

'Please avoid the area.'

The Georgia teenager was later charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm within the United States Capitol grounds.

Once officers placed Camacho in handcuffs, the teenager told Capitol Police that he was "just there to talk to a member of Congress," according to a DOJ press release.

RELATED: Suspected gunman arrested outside Congress

Today, Carter Camacho, 18, was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm within the United States Capitol Grounds on February 17, 2026.

According to charging documents, Camacho exited his vehicle and ran toward the United States Capitol carrying a firearm and… pic.twitter.com/uCl9HFMqyI
— U.S. Attorney DC (@USAO_DC) February 18, 2026

Police also located a "fixed-blade knife" about 40 feet from the suspect's vehicle but noted that the case is still being investigated. Camacho made his first court appearance Wednesday and is expected to return to court on March 2. He will remain in custody until then, WTOP reported.

Capitol Police initially announced the incident on social media on Tuesday, saying officers had arrested an individual with "what appears to be a gun" outside the Capitol.

RELATED: FBI forced to release damning docs revealing chilling new details on Trump's would-be assassin

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

"Our officers just arrested a person with what appears to be a gun near the West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building," the statement reads. "Please avoid the area. We will provide more information when new information is confirmed."

Capitol Police also temporarily closed Maryland Avenue between First and Third Streets Southwest before concluding there was no further threat.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In a major blow to the Trump administration, the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump's use of tariffs, a major part of his economic strategy in his second term.

On Friday morning, the Supreme Court published its decision in the case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

The Supreme Court split 6-3, with the majority ruling that President Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the IEEPA.

The case, which was argued in November, challenged the legality of Trump's imposition of tariffs through the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Supreme Court split 6-3, with the majority ruling that Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the IEEPA, despite the pretext of declaring a twofold national emergency to address the drug influx from Canada, Mexico, and China and to address the trade deficit, which the administration argued had hollowed out America's manufacturing base.

RELATED: Trump threatens Republican lawmakers after 6 defy him in House vote on Canada tariffs

Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, except for a few sections. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the concurrence on only a few of the sections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Thomas wrote a separate dissenting opinion, though he noted that he joined Kavanaugh's opinion in full. Thomas wrote separately "to explain why the statute at issue here is consistent with the separation of powers as an original matter," citing the nondelegation doctrine.

President Trump announced a broad array of tariffs on April 2, which he declared "Liberation Day," with the signing of Executive Order 14257.

Last month, Trump warned the American people of the economic dangers that could be coming to the United States if the Supreme Court ruled against his tariffs.

"The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn’t include the amount of 'payback' that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs. When these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars!" Trump wrote on Truth Social on January 12.

In the same post, Trump stressed the dire straits the country would be in in the event of a negative decision: "It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay. Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly. In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A 27-year-old male allegedly stole a car in Chicago with a boy in the back seat after the child's father stepped away from it — then soon bailed out of the vehicle while it was still moving.

Authorities said the scary incident took place around 9:20 p.m. last Friday night in the 800 block of North Milwaukee Avenue, CWB Chicago reported.

Investigators recovered surveillance video that allegedly linked Miller to the incident, the outlet reported.

Prosecutors said a 34-year-old man stepped out of his 2014 Hyundai Elantra, leaving his 12-year-old son in the back seat, the outlet reported.

Just moments later, the suspect — identified as Jordan Miller of East Chicago, Indiana — allegedly got behind the wheel and drove away southbound on Milwaukee with the boy still inside the vehicle, the outlet said.

It's not clear from the outlet if the dad left the car unlocked with keys inside it or not.

The boy asked Miller where his father was, but Miller responded by pushing the boy back into his seat and tossing the child's phone out of the car, the outlet said, citing police.

Prosecutors said Miller soon bailed out of the car without putting it in park, after which it rolled out of control with the child inside, the outlet said.

The Elantra crashed into another car in the 900 block of West Fry Street, the outlet said. The location is less than a half mile from the spot where the vehicle was stolen.

Emergency responders took the 12-year-old to Lurie Children’s Hospital for treatment of pain in his head, back, and eye, the outlet said.

Officers found Miller in the 1000 block of West Chicago Avenue, the outlet said, adding that he matched a description the boy and witnesses provided.

RELATED: Florida man steals car from gas station with 1-year-old in back seat — then soon returns car, apologizes to mother: Cops

Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune

Investigators recovered surveillance video that allegedly linked Miller to the incident, the outlet reported.

Miller was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where he was treated and released for cuts on his left hand, the outlet said, citing a police report.

Miller was charged with robbery, aggravated kidnapping of a child younger than 13, and possessing a stolen motor vehicle, the outlet said.

Cook County Jail records indicate Miller was booked Sunday on no bond; his next hearing is scheduled for March 13.

Judge Anthony Calabrese during a detention hearing ordered Miller held pending trial, the outlet said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

American fans have been waiting for an athlete to come out in full support of the red, white, and blue during the Olympics.

After a string of athletes have denigrated U.S. law enforcement, criticized the current administration, and even switched teams to compete for China, viewers have been looking for a hero to celebrate at the 2026 Winter Olympics.

'Happy to represent it here with these guys.'

Enter Quinn Hughes, a 26-year-old Florida native who plays for the NHL's Minnesota Wild. Hughes scored an overtime goal to beat Sweden 2-1 on Wednesday, advancing Team USA to the semifinals.

After the game, NBC News sports editor Greg Rosenstein posted an interview with Hughes following his heroic performance. In the video, a reporter asks Hughes about the mass of American flags in the audience during the game and how it felt hearing the crowd chant "U-S-A!"

"What's that atmosphere like?" the journalist asked.

"It's special," Hughes replied. "I love the U.S., and it's the greatest country in the world. So [I'm] happy to represent it here with these guys."

The defenseman added, "It's really special."

RELATED: NBC apologizes for calling female skier 'she'

The Olympics has been, unfortunately, shrouded in vitriolic political statements, which have included American figure skater Amber Glenn saying her "human rights" were at risk because of President Trump.

Half-American, half-British athlete Gus Kenworthy brazenly posted a photo in early February in which it appeared he had urinated in snow to spell out "F**k ICE," referring to immigration enforcement officers.

Politics even hit Olympic venues when a boutique hotel in Milan, set to host American athletes, changed its name from Ice House to Winter House. The name was allegedly changed to ensure that it remained "a private space free of distractions."

RELATED: Skier Hunter Hess changes tune after saying he has 'mixed emotions' about representing USA: 'I love my country'

Photo by Stefano Guidi/Getty Images

Hughes' goal came on the eve of the USA women's hockey team winning an overtime game of their own. On Thursday, the ladies beat Canada 2-1 in what could end up being the first of two Canada vs. USA finals.

The American men play Slovakia on Friday at 3:10 p.m. ET. If they beat the Slovaks and Canada beats Finland (also on Friday), the USA and Canada would meet for a gold medal showdown, which airs Sunday, February 22, at 8:10 a.m. ET.

Canada's last gold in men's ice hockey was in 2014, the country's third in four Olympics. Two of those wins came over the United States.

The U.S. has not won gold since the notable 1980 "Miracle" team in Lake Placid.

The United States has the third-most gold medals in men's hockey, tied with Sweden with two. The Soviet Union/Russia and Canada both have nine.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the latest development for UFO enthusiasts, President Donald Trump has made an enormous promise after a recent back-and-forth about comments from former President Barack Obama.

On Thursday, President Trump signaled his support for beginning the process of disclosure surrounding UFOs, aliens, and more.

'Begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life.'

"Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters. GOD BLESS AMERICA!" Trump wrote on Truth Social.

RELATED: 'He made a big mistake': Trump accuses Obama of revealing classified information on aliens

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This evening announcement came shortly after Trump fielded questions about some comments former President Obama made during a "speed round" interview in which he suggested that aliens are "real." Obama later walked those remarks back a bit on social media.

When asked by Fox News' Peter Doocy about Obama's comments, Trump suggested that Obama "gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that.”

"So aliens are real?" Doocy asked.

"I don’t know if they’re real or not," Trump responded. "I can tell you he gave classified information. He’s not supposed to be doing that. He made a big mistake. He took it out of classified information."

"I may get him out of trouble by declassifying," Trump joked.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Donald Trump has made abundantly clear that he is willing to attack Iran. Recent polling suggests, however, that Americans are not particularly keen on getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern conflict.

The tightrope

Trump has long been critical of his predecessors' costly foreign entanglements, indicating both that he would end "the era of endless wars" and that it was not the job of American forces to "solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have not even heard of."

'Bad things will happen.'

The "peace president," who has in recent years brokered numerous peaceful resolutions between warring parties, has been walking a tightrope with regard to Iran.

The Trump administration's National Security Strategy noted, "We want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the 'forever wars' that bogged us down in that region at great cost."

Despite skepticism from friends and foe alike, the administration pulled off its clinical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22 without wavering on the tightrope.

That successful balancing act is, however, now threatened by the apparent lack of progress in America's indirect negotiations with Iran regarding the Shia nation's nuclear program.

The situation

Trump stated at his Board of Peace's first meeting on Thursday that Iran "cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region."

The president said that "bad things will happen" if Tehran doesn't make a deal to limit its nuclear program — something Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran's foreign minister, suggested was possible ahead of the so-far unsuccessful indirect talks this week.

RELATED: Iran strike looms as Trump hosts Board of Peace

The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group entering the Arabian Sea on Feb. 6. Photo: U.S. Central Command

"We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we are going to make a deal. You are going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days," added Trump.

Although a decision to attack has not yet been made, Trump has clearly taken steps to ensure that it's a viable option, assembling the greatest U.S. military air presence in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that this air power would enable America to wage a weeks-long air war against Iran.

Trump has reportedly received several briefings on military options, including decapitation strikes on Iran's political and military leaders with the goal of regime change and/or strikes on nuclear and ballistic-missile facilities.

In the meantime, Iran has reportedly been fortifying its nuclear facilities, repairing missile production sites damaged by Israel's June surprise attack, and participating in military exercises, including naval drills with Russian forces.

The polls

A Gallup poll found two weeks ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that 59% of Americans favored and 37% opposed the proposed military intervention.

After the media dutifully banged the drums of war and Bush played up the threat of weapons of mass destruction, support for war climbed to 71% by March 19, 2003, according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News.

There is presently nowhere near that level of support for another military attack against Iran.

An SSRS/University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this month posed the question, "Do you favor or oppose the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances?"

Altogether, 21% of respondents said they favored an attack, 49% signaled opposition, and 30% said they didn't know.

When broken down by party affiliation, 40% of Republicans, 6% of Democrats, and 21% of independents said they favored an attack. Twenty-five percent of Republicans, 74% of Democrats, and 51% of independents said they opposed an attack.

In a follow-up, pollsters asked, "Whose interests do you think would be most advanced by a war between the U.S. and Iran?"

Only 34% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 29% of independents said American interests would be most advanced.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2 similarly found that a military adventure in Iran was an unpopular prospect.

The poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran. Respondents who voted for Trump in 2024 were, however, majoritively (57%) supportive of an attack, with only 26% signaling opposition.

When asked about the U.S. using military force to overthrow the Iranian regime, 33% of respondents signaled support and 42% of respondents signaled opposition. Trump supporters were split 58% to 24% on the matter.

A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of American voters revealed last month that the "Israeli-Hamas-Iran conflict" was a top concern for only 1% of respondents. Though it was apparently not regarded as a priority, 59% of respondents still said they think that the U.S. should support regime change in Iran.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Texas Democrats Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico have found themselves running against each other in the race for the Texas Senate seat — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be more entertained.

“There is a cage match a brewin’ between, I’ve got to say, two of the most libtarded people that may have ever existed,” Gonzales jokes.

“In the blue corner, you have Jasmine Crockett, the fake ghetto hood rat herself. And then in the other blue ... corner, you have Texas state Representative James Talarico,” she continues, pointing out that Talarico has become the center of recent controversy after Stephen Colbert claimed an interview with the Texas politician wasn’t allowed to air on CBS.

“That’s actually not true, because CBS has already said that they did not pull Stephen Colbert’s James Talarico interview."

“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Representative James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled,” a statement from CBS read.

“It was 'The Late Show' itself that decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options,” the statement concluded.

“There was a lie. It’s just been, actually I think, a ploy to try and prop up this lame soy-boy candidate because the Democrats know that if their candidate is Jasmine Crockett, they’re f**ked,” Gonzales comments.

“Now, I would also argue they’re screwed either way because James Talarico is not winning U.S. Senate in the state of Texas. Like, that’s not happening. But he is less of a train wreck and he is, I guess, less embarrassing," she continues, before showing clips of Crockett calling out Talarico for his claims.

“I think she should just accuse Stephen Colbert of being racist,” Gonzales jokes.

“'He didn’t want to have a black woman on to talk about her Senate race,'” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas is making accusations of blackmail in the aftermath of an alleged affair he had with a staffer who later committed suicide by lighting herself on fire.

Gonzales' former staffer Regina Santos-Aviles reportedly sent a text to her co-worker in April 2025 claiming to have had an "affair" with their "boss." Just months later, in September, Santos-Aviles took her own life.

Gonzales, who is married with children, is now accusing a lawyer representing Santos-Aviles' husband, Adrian Aviles, of blackmail.

'You are guilty and should resign.'

"I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED," the Trump-endorsed congressman said in a post on X Thursday. "Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death."

"The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report," Gonzales added. "I will keep fighting for #TX23."

RELATED: Texas Republican's staffer fatally set herself on fire last year — text now seems to confirm their alleged affair

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Gonzales also posted an apparent screenshot of a message from Aviles' lawyer, Robert J. Barrera, offering a settlement and nondisclosure agreement. Barrera confirmed to Blaze News that the communication was from his firm on behalf of Aviles as part of a "confidential settlement negotiation" that was sent to Gonzales' lawyers on February 10.

"What Tony printed is not the entire email, clearly," Barrera told Blaze News. "... He cut out the significant reason of why we were attempting to settle and the evidence we had."

Barrera noted that the discreet nature of the communication goes against the claim that he intended to blackmail the congressman as Gonzales had claimed.

"What I guess Tony, in his anger and rage, doesn't read is that letter clearly states we had no intention of wrecking his political career," Barrera told Blaze News. "Had we intended that, we would have not engaged in settlement communications. We would have just filed and gotten all the publicity we could in suing him for sexual assault and retaliation and office harassment, which is all covered under the Congressional Accountability Act."

"In his desperate rage, Tony Gonzales went public with our attempts to settle the case under a confidentiality agreement, which is beyond common in these situations."

Gonzales' office did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

RELATED: 'Loser mentality!' Sparks fly as Texas Republicans spar to succeed Ken Paxton in debate moderated by Allie Beth Stuckey

Photo by Scott Stephen Ball for the Washington Post via Getty Images

Notably, Aviles replied to Gonzales' post, denying the blackmail accusation and issuing a scathing rebuke of the congressman for what he called a "consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect [his] image."

"You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face," Aviles said in the post. "We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it."

"Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper," Aviles added. "Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent—people who deserve the truth, not more deception."

Gonzales' primary opponent Brandon Herrera, a gun YouTuber who nearly unseated the Texas Republican in 2024, also sounded off on social media in a post on X.

"You are guilty and should resign."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Most guys buy their clothes too small.

It’s something I’ve noticed consistently over years spent working with guys to help them dial in their fits and refine their closets. A certain amount of my work often involves helping a guy realize that he is, simply, no longer a medium.

One of the most common shirt-tucking errors I see is what I call the mannequin look.

It’s not his fault, it’s not because he got fat, it’s just he grew as we all grow, and he didn’t update his sizing to reflect the fact that he is 31 now, not 21. Sometimes he has an inkling that this is the case, and it’s my job to help confirm his suspicions.

Stay loose

Some of it is also that we are in the long process of coming out of the decade-long slim-fit era. Guys are essentially having to retool their understanding of what proper fit means, and it means bigger than what they previously thought.

So do you have an inkling that you might be buying your clothes too small? If you have that suspicion, you already know the answer.

You are.

Embrace it. Looser shirts are better than tighter shirts anyway.

Why?

Wiggle room

Well, they are more comfortable, of course. They also look better. Lastly, they give you wiggle room for fluctuations in weight. Yes, the guy who lives in the gym hopes that his weight only fluctuates exactly how we want it to fluctuate. That would be good for all of us. However, down here on earth, things aren’t always the way we want. We can’t all live in the gym. We all have weight fluctuations.

It happens sometimes over months, sometimes over years. It’s just how it goes. If your clothes are so tight that they can’t accommodate just a few pounds of fluctuation, they are not sustainable. It's no wonder why people have to buy new clothes all the time.

This is one of the reasons shirts were looser in the old days. People didn’t have unlimited money. Money was tight so shirts were not. A shirt needed to last as long as possible. That practicality became an aesthetic.

Comfort, flexibility, durability. That’s what you get with a looser shirt.

There is a method to the madness.

RELATED: My first sign of spring? A peach-colored OCBD

The tuck stops here

And consider this: A looser shirt is also easier to tuck.

Is it hard to tuck in your shirt?

No, not really. It isn’t rocket science or any great and difficult task. But you can do it “wrong." And the funny thing is it's usually the result of trying too hard.

One of the most common shirt-tucking errors I see is what I call the mannequin look. You know what I am talking about, right? It’s where the shirt is pulled really tight against the abdomen and all stuffed down the back of the pants, often cinched with a clip in the back. That’s how they style mannequins.

It looks pretty cool on an inanimate object that stands under warm lights all day, but it looks a lot less cool on a living and breathing human male moving about his day.

Watch an old movie, make note of how the guys’ shirts are tucked in when they take their jackets off. Basically their shirts will be equally tucked all the way around their bodies. They won’t be pulled back so their shirt is flush against their abdomens. Their shirts will be equally loose around their trunks, and there will basically be an equal billowing on all sides.

The proper, classic way to tuck your shirt in is to tuck equally on all sides and then pull some of the shirt up and out so you have a nice little balanced billow all around your waist. It feels better, and it looks much stronger as well. The mannequin tries to hide the billow, but the mannequin isn’t a man. Man enjoys his billow, and he enjoys it nice and good.

Editor's note: This article is adapted from material previously published on the Fitting Room Substack.

Vice President JD Vance took a shot at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) of New York after an embarrassing episode from her interview at the Munich Security Conference.

The 36-year-old firebrand socialist Democrat was trying to explain her position on whether the U.S. should defend Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion when she stumbled through about 20 seconds of silence and rambling.

'Does anybody really believe that AOC has very thoughtful ideas about the global world order or about what the United States should do with our policy?'

"Um, you know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that this is, this is of course a very long-standing policy of the United States," she said.

Vance mocked and ridiculed her during his own speech at the meeting of President Donald Trump's "Board of Peace" on Thursday.

"I knew exactly what I wanted to say, but then after the president said that I was so smart and that I didn't want to repeat our congresswoman who froze for 20 seconds over in Munich," he said.

"Now I'm tempted sir, just to freeze for 20 seconds and just stare at the cameras. and maybe they'll say nice things about me like they do about Congresswoman Cortez," he added.

Ocasio-Cortez was likely trying to grow her name recognition in order to seek higher offices, but that effort was badly damaged by her bumbling performance.

She responded on social media to Vance's jab to try to regain some semblance of dignity.

RELATED: 'Right out of the Marxist playbook': Bishop Barron dismantles Ocasio-Cortez's criticism of Western culture

"The only thing longer than my pause to think was their silence to his joke," she wrote, adding a skull emoji.

Vance reiterated his criticism in an appearance on Fox News.

"I have seen this way too much in Washington with politicians, where they are given lines, and when you ask them to go outside the lines they were given, they completely fall apart," he said, "because, look, does AOC — does anybody really believe that AOC has very thoughtful ideas about the global world order or about what the United States should do with our policy in Asia or our policy in Europe?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Amid escalating tensions over Iran's nuclear program and a massive U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, rumors are swirling that President Trump is on the verge of authorizing military strikes against Iran in the near term, potentially leading to prolonged conflict.

But what does this mean for the United States and the Middle East?

To get some clarity, Glenn Beck is joined by his chief researcher and former Department of Defense intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, who explains what we need to be looking for in the coming days.

"Axios is reporting: ‘Trump moving closer to a major war with Iran.’ What does that mean, Jason?” Glenn asks.

“A broader regional war is what we're looking at here. I think it'll be primarily an air war, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Gulf War,” says Jason, noting that “every 12 hours or so, we're doubling” our “military hardware” in the Middle East.

But a war with Iran will likely be “very dirty,” he warns.

For one, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies agree that Iran is a major problem in the Middle East, meaning they are likely to be “drawn into” the conflict.

However, they face a tough “conundrum,” says Jason: Right now, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries “don't have to compete” with Iranian oil because “Iran's portion … is sanctioned” and “not a lot of it comes out,” allowing Saudi Arabia and allies to dominate the oil market and prices. If war breaks out, however, “suddenly a scenario that's very real” emerges where the Saudis “have to compete with Iran” on “oil prices, gas prices — everything.”

“If we are correct that the war is about to happen soon, Iran is about to go into regime survival mode, which everything that they have planned since 1979 to maintain control and power — they are now going to put those into effect,” Jason explains.

“What does that mean?” he asks.

It means Iran will likely “shut down the Strait of Hormuz” and possibly activate “sleeper cells” for attacks or sabotage.

“You better believe that the Iranians will look at all those options once this happens,” he predicts.

For the U.S., says Jason, such a war would be a “massive air campaign to take out the ability for Iran to shoot long-range missiles, to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and to do whatever else they want.”

Even though Trump has made repeated vows to avoid prolonged U.S. military entanglements abroad, Jason says if this war happens, it’s not going to be a Venezuela situation.

“This will take a while,” he confesses.

But Glenn is conflicted. “Here's the thing I know about Trump, though. He doesn't do long, drawn-out war. … He knows if he gets into a long, drawn-out war, it's going to be horrible for him — horrible. So what do you think his advisers are saying?” he asks.

To hear Jason’s in-depth response, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.