Michael Jordan is now dominating a new sport, and has started off 2026 by breaking records.

Jordan’s 23XI racing team settled an antitrust lawsuit with NASCAR in December, after alleging the racing organization is a monopoly that uses unfair practices to decide which teams are guaranteed participation.

Now that Jordan’s team has acquired that guaranteed (chartered) status, they have hit the ground running and immediately set an all-time record in 2026.

‘It’s time for change.’

In the 77 years of NASCAR racing, no team has ever won the first three races of a season until Jordan’s 23XI team. Astoundingly, driver Tyler Reddick has won the Daytona 500, EchoPark Speedway, and the Circuit of the Americas to start the 2026 season, despite having zero first-place finishes in all of 2025.

“It’s time for change,” Jordan told Fox NASCAR reporter Jamie Little after the race. “Time for change, and the guys feel the same thing. Tyler came in with the most pressure, I guess. Everybody expected him — or he had a chance — to win three in a row, and that’s the hardest one to win. He kept to his strategy, and man, the guys put together a great car.”

Jordan gave all the credit to his team and drivers, saying, “I just put up the money. I’m just a competitor.”

“That’s what it’s about — winning.”

RELATED: Michael Jordan sues NASCAR but is dealt major legal blow just 2 days before his driver competes in Cup Series championship

Just under Reddick at the top of the standings is another one of Jordan’s drivers, Bubba Wallace. Wallace drives car No. 23, representing the number Jordan made famous during his time in the NBA with the Chicago Bulls.

Reddick drives car No. 45, a number Jordan briefly wore when he came out of retirement in 1995, before switching back to 23 in the playoffs that year.

“It’s one race, but it was so important, so fitting that we were able to get three in a row and make history,” Reddick said after the race, per NBC Sports. “Just trying to remember everything that I knew was going to be important there at the end and just tried to minimize the mistakes.”

RELATED: It’s personal: Michael Jordan is more charitable than the media tells you

Photo by Logan Riely/Getty Images

Jordan’s lawsuit, which included team Front Row Motorsports, challenged NASCAR’s charter program that consists of 36 charter teams who are guaranteed to compete in the field of 40 for each race.

The remaining four spots are decided by a rather complex system that differs depending on the race. In general, non-chartered teams typically compete in a qualifying race or win a spot based on their qualifying time.

As Fearless reported in 2024, Jordan’s side argued that the unpredictability of being an non-chartered team meant the possible loss of drivers and sponsors from week to week, while binding the teams to the specific series (NASCAR), its tracks, and suppliers.

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

​Fearless, Racing, Michael jordan, Nascar, 2026, Stock car, Daytona 500, Sports 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Sunday revealed that the joint U.S.-Israeli regime-change strikes are unpopular with most Americans.

While Republicans are apparently more supportive of the military campaign than their counterparts, the new poll found that such support is largely conditional and far less than for the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

The new polling is consistent with surveys conducted last month, which indicated that Americans were not particularly keen on the prospect of a new series of U.S. military strikes against Iran.

For instance, an SSRS/University of Maryland poll, conducted from Feb. 5 to Feb. 9, found that 21% of respondents favored an attack, 49% were opposed, and 30% were unsure. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran.

Despite strong public headwinds, the U.S. joined Israel in hammering the Shiite nation anyway, destroying numerous military assets and assassinating top Iranian officials over the weekend while sustaining numerous casualties.

According to the new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 27% of respondents said that they approved of the strikes, 43% signaled disapproval, and 29% said they weren’t sure.

‘We expect casualties.’

Broken down by party affiliation:

55% of Republicans approved of the strikes, 32% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 13% said they disapproved;7% of Democrats said they approved, 19% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 74% said they disapproved; and19% of individuals in the “other” camp said they approved, 38% said they were unsure or skipped the question, and 44% said they disapproved.

The support for the present conflict pales in comparison to American support for the Iraq war prior to and following the March 20, 2003, invasion.

A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News just prior to the invasion of Iraq found that 71% of Americans supported going to war. An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted in the two days leading up to the invasion found that roughly nine in 10 Republicans and half of Democrats supported going to war.

The Pew Research Center revealed days later that “support for the decision to go to war has remained steady at about seven-in-ten since the fighting began.”

A total of 56% of respondents said that Trump “is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests.” Nearly a quarter of Republicans — 23% — agreed with this statement.

RELATED: Columbia University distances itself from ‘death to America’ student group

US Central Command

The poll found that 42% of Republicans would be less likely to support the military campaign against Iran if it leads to “U.S. troops in the Middle East being killed or injured.”

U.S. Central command indicated that as of Monday morning, four American service members had been killed in action.

Six more service members were nearly killed on Sunday in an apparent friendly-fire incident in which three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down over Kuwait. CENTCOM noted that all six aircrew personnel “ejected safely, have been recovered, and are in stable condition.”

In an interview on Sunday with the New York Times, President Donald Trump discussed the casualties sustained so far in the conflict and suggested that there will likely be more.

“Three is three too many as far as I’m concerned,” Trump said. “If you look at projections — they do projections — it, you know, it could be quite a bit higher than that.”

“We expect casualties,” Trump added.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found that 45% of respondents, including 34% of Republicans and 44% of independents, would be less likely to support the campaign if domestic gas or oil prices spiked.

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

​Polling, Poll, Iran, Iran strikes, War, Donald trump, Iranian, Tehran, Khamenei, Republican, Midterms, Foreign entanglements, Intervention, Regime change, Regime change war, Politics 

The last month has brought renewed attention to crime lords allegedly stealing $3.5 billion from California’s hospice system. Congress and the Trump administration are investigating, and rightly so. The dying deserve dignity, not to have their safety net looted.

But hospice is not the only target — and not every thief wears a ski mask.

The federal government does not have to accept California’s bookkeeping tricks.

Across California, politicians and their allies exploit Medicaid — a federal program meant to help the poor — to paper over budget holes they created. They do it through a bureaucratic “shell game” that shifts billions while patients and taxpayers pick up the tab.

The mechanism is called an intergovernmental transfer. Local public providers or government agencies spend Medicaid funds. The state then counts that spending as its own and uses it to draw matching federal dollars. When that money arrives, the state sends it back to the same providers as higher reimbursements. Those providers end up receiving more than they originally spent, even though the state did not put up additional state funds.

This scheme has driven ambulance reimbursements into the stratosphere.

Between 2022 and 2024, the cost of publicly funded ambulances in California soared from $339 to $1,168 per trip. The state now asks for 2026 reimbursements to rise to more than $1,600. That increase means more than $1,200 per ambulance ride that does not go to patient care. It pads the state’s books and props up obligations like California’s failing pension system.

This is not a straightforward street scam. It is worse: legalized looting with official letterhead.

Families pay the price. Patients pay the price. Honest providers pay the price.

Imagine what that extra $1,200 per ride could do if it went where Medicaid dollars are supposed to go: patient care, staffing, equipment, response times. Now imagine what happens when ambulance companies that are not connected to the right politicians cannot compete and start shutting down. When that happens, the people harmed will not be the insiders who designed the system. It will be the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable.

I know what it means to depend on a functioning safety net.

My brother has level 3 autism spectrum disorder — the most severe diagnosis. He is nonverbal. He cannot feed himself, dress himself, or use the bathroom without help. My parents cannot leave him home alone because he can wander into danger. Keeping him safe requires 24-hour supervision.

My parents knew what that meant. They also knew they wanted him at home, not in an institution.

Medicaid and In-Home Supportive Services, which helps cover the cost of at-home care, made that possible. Those programs kept our family together. They gave my parents a way to provide love and stability that no facility can replicate.

It has still been hard. The work never ends.

RELATED: Dr. Oz exposes alleged fraud in Los Angeles — so Gavin Newsom calls for investigation into his ‘racially charged’ claims

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

My brother’s diagnosis hit my parents like a crisis. They answered with courage. They had more lucrative opportunities elsewhere, but they stayed with the Army because it was the only employer that could guarantee my brother’s access to health care.

We are a military family. We understand service and sacrifice. We also understand the moral bargain behind safety-net programs: Taxpayers step up so that families in crisis do not collapse.

That bargain fails when politicians treat Medicaid as a slush fund.

These financial shell games cost taxpayers billions and create nightmares for families like mine who follow the rules. This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is robbing Peter and leaving Paul on the street.

Americans should be sickened by the heartlessness of anyone who steals from programs designed to serve the vulnerable — whether the thieves are organized crime syndicates or the well-connected insiders who know how to work California’s bureaucracy. Hospice exists so that people can die with dignity. Ambulances exist to get patients to care quickly. Neither exists to generate money for the state and its chosen beneficiaries.

Here is the good news: Congress and the Trump administration have started digging into hospice abuse. The bad news is that those investigations and policy changes can take years.

Ending Medicaid ambulance intergovernmental transfer abuse could be done in a matter of days.

The federal government does not have to accept California’s bookkeeping tricks. President Trump can direct federal agencies to stop approving these inflated reimbursement schemes and demand reforms that put patients first. One signature could force California to stop gaming Medicaid and start serving the people the program was built to help.

​Opinion & analysis, California, Gavin newsom, Fraud, Medicaid, Ambulance, Reimbursements, Red tape, Shell game, Autism, In-home support services, Accounting, Hospice, Waste fraud and abuse 

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Sunday that the U.K. will allow the U.S. to use British military bases for limited defensive strikes targeting Iranian missile sites, reversing an earlier refusal amid escalating U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran.

In a prerecorded video statement released through official channels, Starmer said the decision was made to prevent Iran from launching missiles across the region that could kill civilians, endanger British nationals, and strike uninvolved countries.

‘Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil.’

“The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose,” Starmer said. “We have taken the decision to accept this request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk, and hitting countries that have not been involved.”

RELATED: Israeli officials say Khamenei is dead. Update: Trump confirms.

Photo by Jonathan Brady-WPA Pool/Getty Images

Starmer emphasized in a previous announcement that the U.K. is not participating directly in offensive strikes, which began in late February targeting Iranian military facilities, nuclear sites, and senior leadership. Instead Britain has focused on defensive actions, including intercepting Iranian missiles aimed at allies in the Gulf.

Starmer also acknowledged the danger the Iranian regime poses: “Even in the United Kingdom, the Iranian regime poses a direct threat to dissidents and to the Jewish community.” He continued, “Over the last year alone, they have backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on U.K. soil.”

RELATED: ‘Painful days’: Iran kills US troops as Trump threatens decapitated Iranian regime

(Photo by Jonathan Brady-WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Starmer described Iran’s actions as increasingly reckless and dangerous and said the decision is consistent with international law under the doctrine of collective self-defense. The government published a summary of its legal advice supporting that position.

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

​International politics, War, Iran, Uk, Starmer, Uk prime minister, Military, Politics