Trump admin freezing Medicaid funds from MN after fraud scandal, Don Lemon sued for emotional distress after Anti-ICE protest, and more | 2.26.26 - Rising Recap

Podcast: Rising

Published: 2026-02-26

Duration: 50 min

Summary

The episode discusses the Trump administration's decision to freeze Medicaid funds to Minnesota in response to a fraud scandal, as well as the backlash against Olympic athletes meeting with Trump. The hosts also touch on the political implications of athletes' public engagements.

What Happened

The episode kicks off with the hosts discussing their morning routines and how they prefer in-person interactions over texting. They transition into the main stories of the day, highlighting Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about alleged misconduct within the FBI and the significant decision by Vice President J.D. Vance and Dr. Oz to withhold nearly $260 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota due to a fraud scandal. The decision reflects broader themes of accountability and governance within the healthcare system.

The hosts delve into the controversy surrounding the U.S. Olympic hockey team's recent victory and their meeting with former President Trump, which sparked criticism from some media outlets. Robbie passionately argues against the notion that the athletes' actions normalize Trump's presidency, suggesting that the majority of Americans support him. He emphasizes that athletes should have the autonomy to choose whether to engage with political figures without facing backlash. Lindsay agrees, stating that visiting the White House should not automatically equate to a political endorsement, and they critique the media's response to the athletes' actions, particularly highlighting the irony of celebrating an athlete who chose to compete for China while denigrating those who interacted with Trump.

Key Insights

Key Questions Answered

What led to the Medicaid funding freeze in Minnesota?

The Trump administration, represented by Vice President J.D. Vance and Dr. Oz, announced they were withholding almost $260 million in Medicaid funding to Minnesota due to a fraud scandal. This decision is indicative of a broader aim to hold states accountable for financial misconduct in their healthcare programs, reflecting the administration's commitment to oversight and integrity in Medicaid operations.

How did the media react to the U.S. Olympic hockey team's meeting with Trump?

The media, particularly a New York Times columnist, criticized the Olympic hockey team for their meeting with Trump, suggesting it 'normalizes' his presidency. The criticism stemmed from the belief that such actions could diminish the serious political implications of his behavior. Robbie countered this perspective by arguing that the majority of Americans support Trump and that athletes should have the freedom to engage with political figures without being held to a higher standard than the general public.

What argument did the hosts make regarding athletes and political engagement?

The hosts argued that athletes should not be criticized for meeting with political figures like Trump, stating that such visits do not necessarily imply political endorsement. They emphasized the importance of athletes having the autonomy to make personal choices regarding public engagements, asserting that attending the White House is a unique opportunity that should not be politicized.

What was the significance of the whistleblower claims discussed by Senator Durbin?

Senator Durbin highlighted that a whistleblower has come forward regarding FBI Director Kash Patel's decisions, which allegedly negatively impacted high-profile investigations. This revelation points to ongoing concerns about accountability and transparency within law enforcement agencies, emphasizing the importance of whistleblowing as a mechanism for exposing misconduct.

What were the implications of the athletes' actions in the broader cultural context?

The discussion around the Olympic hockey team's meeting with Trump reflects deeper cultural divides regarding sports and politics. The hosts noted that while some celebrate the athletes' victory, others express outrage over their association with a controversial figure. This dichotomy illustrates the challenges athletes face in navigating public expectations and the political ramifications of their actions.