The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump was unfortunate and has forced many -- who never thought it could happen -- to take sides as the two men battled it out for several days.
According to Newsmax, Vice President J.D. Vance finally weighed in on the ongoing situation. Vance, typically a voice of reason and the calm one in the room, held nothing back when he stated that Musk made a "huge mistake" in going so hard after President Trump.
In an interview that was released Friday, after Trump and Musk both dropped several shocking bombs, Vance seemingly downplayed Musk's attacks, calling him an "emotional guy."
Vance is also one of the many Republican voices hoping that Trump and Musk can find a way to mend fences, as the two were a powerhouse team just weeks ago.
In the interview, Vance expressed his wish that Trump and Musk can find a way to work together again and make things right, adding the caveat that it may not be possible given how far Musk went.
"I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that’s not possible now because he’s gone so nuclear," the vice president said.
Musk's frustrations with Trump were reportedly over his "big, beautiful bill," which Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), claims was still filled with government pork.
However, many also believe that Musk isn't happy that the bill slashes EV credits -- credits that have a real impact on Tesla's profits and other future implications.
Many say Musk went too far in his attacks on Trump over a several-day period.
Newsmax noted:
Musk, who runs electric vehicle maker Tesla, internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX, lambasted Trump's centerpiece tax cuts and spending bill but also suggested Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the president's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
"Look, it happens to everybody," Vance said in the interview. "I’ve flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours."
Vance told interview host Theo Von that he thinks the feud could come to an end if Musk would just "chill out" a little.
"I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine," Vance said.
Trump's supporters now have a sour taste in their mouths over Musk's comments, and it'll be interesting to see if and when Musk tries to win back their support, or if he simply moves on.
Elon Musk's work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was widely celebrated by most in the Republican Party and, more importantly, by millions of Republican voters.
However, according to Axios, there are some Republicans who are worried that DOGE cuts could have a negative effect on an upcoming important election -- an election in Virginia that was described as an "early test" of President Trump's policy moves.
The state in question in Virginia, and some Virginia Republicans are worried that DOGE's cuts to federal employee workforces there could have a disastrous effect on the upcoming gubernatorial election.
Internal polling conducted by Republicans is already reportedly showing damage done by federal workforce cuts.
The state of Virginia has one of the highest concentrations of federal workers -- up to and over 5% of the state's workforce, going by some estimations.
That means thousands of those employees, a portion of whom are presumably Republican, have lost their jobs or have been enticed to leave it under the Trump administration, and might not be happy about the situation.
Some institutions and groups, such as the University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center, estimated that roughly 32,000 government jobs could be lost in Virginia this year.
With the gubernatorial race expected to be close, some of the affected Republican-leaning federal employees who no longer have jobs could take out their frustrations at the ballot box by voting for the other side or not showing up at all.
Axios quoted:
Northern Virginia is filled with people who suffered the consequences of the DOGE cuts, and it's hard to see them being sympathetic to a Republican candidate who supports the DOGE cuts," said Whit Ayers, a veteran Republican pollster.
Another quote stated:
"I suspect this will be an albatross around the neck of every Republican candidate this year," said Virginia Republican Bill Bolling, a former lieutenant governor.
So far, in Virginia, DOGE doesn't seem to be as popular as it is in other parts of the country.
One poll showed that only 39% of voters there had a favorable view of DOGE.
As far as candidates suffering, the leading Republican candidate for governor is now trailing his Democratic counterpart by single digits outside of the margin of error -- enough to be a concern.
Only time will tell if affected Virginia Republicans will take out their frustrations in the upcoming race.
President Donald Trump has experienced a string of victories at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court at the same time federal judges across the nation seem to be working overtime to hamstring his policies at every turn.
According to USA Today, the three liberal justices on the high court are concerned that Trump is getting preferential treatment by the conservative majority of justices, especially Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson warned that she believes the high court is sending a "troubling message" by siding with the president as much as it has in recent months.
She also believes the conservative justices are "undercutting" federal judges across the nation by overruling the decisions -- the decisions that just happen to overwhelmingly go against the president and his administration.
In a recent statement, Brown Jackson explained why she believes the high court is doing damage to itself with its favorable decisions for the Trump administration.
“It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues’ well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,” she wrote.
The statement came in a dissent from a recent case involving former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk.
USA Today noted:
Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority’s decision to give Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in the dissent with Brown Jackson, writing, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them."
Brown Jackson also wrote a similar complaint after a May decision that sided with the Trump administration.
That decision came down on May 30, which said that "the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States."
Brown Jackson held nothing back in her dissent, claiming the high court "plainly botched" the decision.
Clearly, Brown Jackson and Sotomayor are not happy with being unable to join their federal counterparts in stopping Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump is enjoying the fruits of his three Supreme Court picks.
Democrat-led jurisdictions have faced little in the way of fallout for their historical refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but now that the Trump administration is in charge, things are beginning to change.
As Fox Business reports, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced over the weekend that its regional office in Los Angeles will be relocated out of the city due to local authorities' unwillingness to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Trump agenda.
The SBA's decision was precipitated by a statement issued by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in response to a surge in federal immigration enforcement efforts in the city she leads.
Bass posted her take on X, writing, “This morning, we received reports of federal immigration enforcement actions in multiple locations in Los Angeles.”
She continued, “As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place.”
Bass went on, “These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations.”
The mayor concluded her statement in a defiant tone, asserting, “We will not stand for this.”
It was not long before SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler responded to the Los Angeles mayor's declaration, taking to X herself to announce her agency's plans to depart the city.
“Los Angeles is openly refusing to cooperate with ICE -- siding with illegal aliens over American citizens and small businesses,” she wrote.
Loeffler's statement went on, “Therefore, effective immediately, @SBAgov will begin relocating its Regional Office out of L.A.”
Underscoring her rationale for the decision, Loeffler added, “If a city won't protect its people, we won't stay.”
As protests against ICE operations flared in Los Angeles on Saturday and saw projectiles thrown at law enforcement vehicles and a car set on fire, concerns of further escalation prompted action from the White House.
President Donald Trump signed a memo deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to the impacted area, as ABC 7 noted, with the commander in chief also noting that masks will no longer be tolerated among protestors.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth weighed in as well, decrying the “violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law enforcement” and stating that if National Guard troops are insufficient to quell the unrest in Los Angeles, “active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized,” underscoring what officials appear to assess as the extreme volatility of the situation at present.
Though their unexpectedly close friendship was once the talk of the political world, President Donald Trump and Elon Musk engaged in a very public falling out last week, during which all sorts of incendiary accusations and threats were made.
However, it seems that Musk is backtracking a bit from one of his most jarring salvos, now stating that he will not decommission his company's Dragon spacecraft -- used by NASA to transport astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station -- after all, as Breitbart reports.
The feud between Trump and Musk reached a boiling point on Thursday, with the two former allies trading barbs the likes of which few expected.
Musk's discontent appeared to be piqued by the Trump-backed “Big Beautiful Bill” that the tech entrepreneur believes is an irresponsible expansion of America's debt.
The mudslinging ramped up from there, with Musk declaring that Trump's alleged presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files is the reason they have not been released and aligning himself with a social media suggestion that the president deserves impeachment.
Trump responded by flexing his own leverage against Musk, posting on his Truth Social platform, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”
That remark prompted Musk to write on X, “Go ahead, make my day,” later adding that he would commence the process of decommissioning Dragon -- the only U.S. company currently capable of bringing crews to and from the International Space Station -- as a result.
Whether Musk was serious about his threat regarding Dragon remains unclear, but just hours after the original threat, he indicated in a response to another X post that he would not proceed with the stated plan.
Replying to a commenter who suggested that the powerful men should take a step back and expressed hope that cooler heads might prevail in the worsening rift, Musk said, “Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.”
That was not the only sign that Musk may be rethinking his scorched earth approach to the president, with ABC News reporting that he appeared to have deleted some of his most startling posts, including the one that included the aforementioned Epstein allegation.
Additional reporting amid the rift hinted that a phone conversation between Trump and Musk might have been on the cards for Friday, but the White House tamped down such speculation and revealed that no such discussion was planned.
Though Trump did engage in Thursday's social media war of words with Musk and later suggested that the billionaire would face “serious consequences” if he funds Democratic Party challengers to Republicans who support the aforementioned bill, he soon downshifted to a tone of indifference about the former first buddy.
Implying that their once strong association was likely over, Trump said he has little interest in reconciliation with Musk, noting, “I'm really interested in the country and solving problems.”
In a remark that arguably had a note of pity to it, particularly in light of his earlier observation that Musk had “a problem” which some commentators have interpreted as related to drug addiction, Trump added, “I'm not thinking about Elon. I just wish him well.”
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dealt a massive blow to efforts to protect Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, marking a massive victory for Justice Clarence Thomas.
The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services knocked down DEI initiatives, pointing out that group discrimination is both "anything but academic" and fundamentally unconstitutional.
The decision marks an ideological victory for Justice Thomas, who has been leading the charge against leftist ideas that utilize oppression olympics to raise up minority groups over qualified individuals in hiring.
In fact, it was the court's most liberal member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who sounded like a student of Thoma, saying the "law’s focus on individuals rather than groups [is] anything but academic. By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone."
The Supreme Court has been laying waste to decades of leftist work in academia, pushing repulsive DEI initiatives that discriminate based on group membership.
Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion alongside the court, adding that the "background circumstances" rule at question in the case was "plainly at odds with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection."
Furthermore, Justice Thomas made it clear that the Ames decision is directly aimed at DEI programs, striking a fatal blow to leftist hopes of playing games and preserving DEI programs with minor legalistic changes.
Justice Thomas wrote that, "American employers have long been ‘obsessed’ with ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives and affirmative action plans. Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority."
This decision ends decades of leftist work to create systems that discriminate against the majority, or in other words, to discriminate against White people.
It's poetic that years of critical race theory are being burned down by one of the most accomplished Black Americans in history. Justice Thomas is an intellectual heavyweight who is often pointed to as the gold standard of constitutional thinking.
Justice Thomas has, in many ways, taken up the mantle left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. His hard-hitting judicial insights have been powerful enough even to sway the leftists who sit on the Supreme Court.
The future of DEI in America is looking especially grim as the Supreme Court continues to issue decisions that chop down the core legal principles that have long enabled the racist idea of judging individuals as members of social groups instead of simply as individuals.
Furthermore, the Ames decision is one of the first major decisions that singles out the issue of "reverse discrimination" against White Americans, who have been demonized by leftist thinking and policymaking.
As long as the Supreme Court has a majority panel that is inclined to uphold the core principles of the Constitution, there is no room for radical leftist theories that are modern reinterprations of racist ideas.
A recent appellate court decision sanctioned President Donald Trump's authority to exclude the Associated Press from accessing the Oval Office, reversing a lower court's decision granting equal access to AP as other media organizations, according to The Washington Times.
The judgment simultaneously restricts the White House from limiting AP's access to other areas, like the East Room.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a 2-1 verdict allowing this presidential discretion concerning Oval Office access.
Historically, the Oval Office has been a bastion of monumental decisions and crucial meetings, sometimes with media present upon the president's invitation.
The court's majority emphasized that this significant space is distinct from other public forums, giving the president control over its access.
Judge Naomi Rao articulated that although newsgathering enjoys some First Amendment protection, it does not qualify as a communicative act.
This case arose from the White House excluding AP for not using the "Gulf of America" terminology, subsequently relegating their press access.
AP reporters, however, maintain equitable chances to participate in Oval Office events alongside other major outlets.
Judge Cornelia Pillard disagreed with the majority ruling, suggesting that exclusion based on a private entity’s views outside the forum is unprecedented.
Additionally, the ruling highlighted that reporting—referred to as newsgathering—has stringent limitations under the First Amendment.
Aaron Terr, a critic, expressed concern over this decision, viewing it as viewpoint discrimination against disliked media.
Terr further remarked that the conclusion treating newsgathering as a non-communicative activity is perplexing to many.
Despite this decision, the White House cannot impede AP's access to other areas such as the East Room.
This suggests a nuanced distinction by the court, segregating spaces by their level of presidential control. The decision outlines a specific privilege spectrum regarding media access within the White House.
The feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump reached an alarming peak this week as both men went for the kill shot in a series of statements and social media posts.
According to Breitbart, as Elon Musk takes flak from the massive MAGA base for going against Trump like he did, even the SpaceX billionaire's own father admitted that he believes the president will "prevail" in the public feud.
During a recent interview on Al Arabiya English’s "Global News Today," Musk's father, Errol Musk, made the bombshell admission that he believes Trump will ultimately win in his fight with Elon Musk.
Errol Musk admitted that he asked his son to do his best to make sure that the fight with President Trump "fizzles out" sooner than later.
Errol Musk, who isn't often mentioned in the headlines, made his stance on the situation crystal clear, even calling the feud between his son and President Trump "silly."
"Do you think this is a bump in the road, or do you think this is the end of the road for the relationship between your son and Mr. Trump?" Host Tom Burges Watson asked Errol Musk.
The father replied, "Just a bump in the road. It will fizzle out in a few days," adding, "I haven’t spoken to him, but I did send him a message, you know, telling him to make sure this fizzles out."
He added, "I think there’s a bit of tiredness here. But, I would say that, in some ways, you know, it’s good that the older person sees that even at the highest levels, people struggle. You know, it’s not just in your home with your own family, but at all levels, people struggle to find common ground with each other. And, I think that’s all we’re seeing now.
"Trump, of course, will prevail because he has been voted in by the majority of the people in America. I’ve just spent three weeks in America. The people on, I would like to say 80%, but actually 100% behind Trump."
Errol Musk made similar statements to other reporters, essentially echoing that he believes the situation will die down sooner than later.
Many across social media commented on Errol Musk making excuses for his son.
"Ah yes, the ol’ 'he’s just tired' excuse… classic. We’ve all said wild stuff after a rough nap, right? Glad Dad stepped in with the PR patch-up. But hey, even papa Musk knows what time it is: Trump’s not just coming out on top, he lives there," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Elon certainly underestimated how hard this was going to be. But both him and Trump lost their cool though. Elon shouldn't have posted that, and Trump should be working better with DOGE. But this will work itself out. Trump and Elon will be friends again. Good job Errol."
Hopefully, the two men can find a way to mend fences.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has openly proved that he's willing to defy President Donald Trump and his administration at every turn, and is apparently willing to put his struggling state in jeopardy as a result.
According to Breitbart, President Trump is now reportedly exploring different pathways to pulling more federal funding from the state of California, despite the state's great need for the federal cash flow.
Newsom's California is in a massive budget deficit and is already borrowing money to keep its Medicaid program afloat.
The anti-Trump governor has also requested a staggering $40 billion from the federal government for fire disaster relief funds.
Newsom has filed a number of legal actions against the Trump administration, hoping in many cases to seek nationwide injunctions that would hamstring Trump's policies across the nation.
The state of California is defying Trump and the White House at nearly every turn on most hot-topic issues, and it looks like it's about to backfire in a big way.
CNN reported that a number of major federal funding cuts could soon be hitting the state.
The outlet noted:
The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort that could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.
Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. Sources said the administration is specifically considering a full termination of federal grant funding for the University of California and California State University systems.
White House spokesman Kush Desai slammed the governor and the state for the stances its taken since Trump entered the White House earlier this year.
"No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country," Desai said in a statement. "No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation."
Dems have openly argued that federal funds should not be withheld from the state simply because it disagrees with Trump's policies on most issues.
They argue that the state is still entitled to the funds given that it contributes so much to the federal government.
Trump has proven that he's not willing to play ball with those who defy him, especially those who continue to attack him.
It'll be fun to watch Newsom buckle when the money dries up. It'll happen sooner than later.
Democrats rushed to defend Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien deported by President Donald Trump’s administration after he was accused of being an MS-13 gang member, human smuggler, and domestic abuser.
According to Breitbart, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was one of those Democrats, however, he's now seemingly changing his tune and reportedly distancing himself from the accused MS-13 gang member.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently announced serious charges against Garcia, and his fanbase in the liberal media and the Democratic Party ranks are suddenly pretty quiet about him.
Garcia will be extradited back to the United States to face charges.
Bondi's Department of Justice released a bombshell, 10-page indictment detailing the serious charges Garcia faces, most of which are disgusting patterns of sick behavior, including abuse and human smuggling.
Breitbart noted:
In Bondi’s announcement on Friday, she detailed the charges against Abrego Garcia — accusing him of being part of a massive human smuggling network that runs from Mexico well into the interior of the United States.
“This is especially disturbing … Garcia, is also alleged with transporting minor children. The defendant traded the innocence of minor children for profit. There are even more disturbing facts that the grand jury uncovered,” the statement read.
The indictment papers got even worse, detailing Garcia's various illegal activities.
"The defendant abused undocumented alien females, according to co-conspirators who were under his control while transporting them throughout our country. This defendant trafficked firearms and narcotics throughout our country on multiple occasions," it read.
Van Hollen might try to downplay his involvement, but he was deeply involved in attempting to return Garcia back to the United States.
Van Hollen released a statement on social media after the charges saying it's not "about the man," rather it's about the "constitution."
After months of ignoring our Constitution, it seems the Trump Admin has relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
This has never been about the man—it’s about his constitutional rights & the rights of all.
Full statement: pic.twitter.com/q28RLNEj2S
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) June 6, 2025
Social media users also slammed Van Hollen.
"Great job Chris! Now your party will be defending in the midterms your choice to advocate tirelessly for the return of a soon to be convicted human trafficking, wife beater to the United States. Best of luck!" one X user wrote.