Republican lawmakers are not seeing additional opposition to President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" even after Elon Musk's calls to kill it, the Washington Examiner reported. The former head of the Department of Government Efficiency attacked the bill and the president.
Musk and Trump were on fantastic terms until recently, when the Tesla billionaire began his exit. Then Musk sent out a barrage of social media posts opposing the legislation due to its hefty price tag.
"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Monday.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.
This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025
The posts Musk made were extremely pointed and at times unhinged as he attacked Trump and his signature legislation. However, Musk began by warning that the bill was expensive and would add to the national debt.
He quoted Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson in their previous social media posts, in which they opposed such deficit spending. However, Musk also took his personal attacks to the next level by insinuating Trump had ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" Musk posted in a since-deleted Tweet, the New York Post reported.
Trump said Musk must have "lost his mind" with these allegations, and the president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the past. In fact, Epstein was barred from Mar-a-Lago in 2007 after an incident involving the teenage daughter of one of the members.
"This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The president is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained.
Despite all that Musk has thrown at the bill, Republican lawmakers in the House have reported no change in what they're hearing from constituents. "We didn’t see an increase in calls at all," a senior aide told the Washington Examiner Friday.
GOP senators have also seen no noticeable change in calls to their offices about this issue. Even Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who is critical of the bill, says the "vast majority" of people demanding he vote against it weren't spurred on by Musk's remarks.
"My guess is that’s not coming from either my supporters or President Trump’s supporters. I take that seriously," Johnson said.
"But again, I’m going to do what I think is right for the American people, for our kids, and grandkids. That’s always been my position. It’s not easy. I said this is hard, and I hope people understand that," Johnson added.
Musk has always marched to the beat of his own drummer, but the world of politics seems to have brought out a new volatility in his personality. It's probably best that he parted ways with Trump, regardless of whether the legislation is right for the country or not.
FBI Director Kash Patel has revealed that phones belonging to Dr. Anthony Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic response have been recovered, Newsmax reported. Patel said this during Friday's broadcast of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast.
Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, played a crucial role in coordinating the nation's response to the virus during President Donald Trump's first term. Even five years later, questions about the origins of the virus and the decision-making process for the response persist.
Data from the phones, which were previously missing, could shed light on those issues. "It is of public importance to figure out: Did that guy lie? Did he intentionally mislead the world and cause countless deaths?" Patel told host Joe Rogan. The clip was shared to X, formerly Twitter on Friday.
FBI Director Kash Patel on Dr. Anthony Fauci: “It is of public importance to figure out: Did that guy lie? Did he intentionally mislead the world and cause countless deaths?” pic.twitter.com/QYMtfGOit5
— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) June 6, 2025
Patel was excited to share that the devices that could spill Fauci's secrets have been recovered. "We just had a great breakthrough this week on Fauci," Patel shared.
"They had always been looking for phones and devices he used while he was back in Trump one during COVID, and nobody had found it until two days ago," he added. Although this appears to be great news for transparency, Patel carefully managed expectations.
"Everybody listening to us shouldn't jump to the conclusion that everything's in there. Maybe it's deleted, maybe it's not," Patel continued.
"But at least we found it. And at least now we can tell people that we have been looking, because it is of public importance," the FBI director added. Many people, including Trump, believe that Fauci's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic were not entirely above board.
"We think that there was definite foul play, but my opinion is irrelevant. It only matters what I can show the American people and prove," Patel noted.
Republican lawmakers have sought accountability regarding Fauci's role in the pandemic response. Last year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said Fauci should go to jail as his support of gain-of-function research potentially caused "between 10 [million] and 20 million" deaths.
Fauci has denied this, of course, and said during a 2024 House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that there was no "lab leak" that caused the virus, nor was there a cover-up. Fauci has maintained that his COVID-19 response policies were lifesaving.
If that's true, it's a wonder why former President Joe Biden would bother to grant Fauci a preemptive pardon on his way out of office. According to the Associated Press, Biden granted Fauci a "full and unconditional" pardon all the way back to Jan. 1, 2014.
"These are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances," Biden wrote in the pardon.
There is likely more to the story about the origins of COVID-19 and Fauci's role in it, and his phone records may reveal that. In the meantime, it's enough to know that the issue has not been swept under the rug.
Elon Musk's row with President Donald Trump turned ugly after Musk resorted to leftist smear tactics to attack Trump using “a guilt by association” smear.
Musk falsely claimed on Thursday that the Department of Justice has not released the Jeffrey Epstein files because President Trump is named in them. While Trump's connection with the late billionaire financier has been established, Musk's claims of Trump being a client are completely unfounded.
Trump, like the entirety of America's rich and powerful, has either met Epstein or conducted some kind of business with him.
Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking young girls for the rich and powerful, made it a point to connect with anyone with influence and power. However, Trump has never been named by any of Epstein's victims, and there is nothing indicating that Trump participated in Epstein's sordid business.
This much is obvious, as anything connecting Trump to Epstein's sex trafficking would have come out years ago. This didn't stop Musk from making absurd claims against Trump in a tantrum that has been humiliating for all involved.
Musk's sudden decision to go ballistic on Trump has been humiliating for Musk's supporters in the Republican Party, as Democrats, who have treated Musk like the second coming of Hitler, are eagerly jumping on this bizarre spat.
In a post to X, Musk stated, "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"
No citations or new information were provided in this post, and the post felt like a retread of a very tired attack against Trump. Trump's innocence in the Epstein saga has long been established, as Trump was one of the first major figures to distance himself from Epstein.
All the way back in 2004, Trump distanced himself from Epstein months ahead of a criminal investigation into Epstein. At the time, Epstein was a massive power player in New York and Democrat social circles.
Furthermore, the reason the Epstein files are being slowwalked is because of the massive operation that the Department of Justice is taking to protect victims and filter out criminal material.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a statement saying that the DOJ was busy handling "tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn." Bondi confirmed there were “hundreds of victims,” and explained that “no one victim will ever get released."
Many suspect that this spat between Trump and Musk will likely not be permanent, as Trump has exercised significant restraint in not attacking Musk. Furthermore, many of Musk's threats have remained just threats.
Many Republicans suspect that Musk will be back in the fold quickly, as the GOP is the only place where his political views will be welcomed. Musk has been demonized by Democrats who have accused him of being a Nazi and an oligarch determined to overthrow the nation.
However, Musk has done permenant damage to his reputation with this tantrum as many Conservatives have watched him go ballistic over a political disagreement and resort to slinging mud at someone who has been a close ally.
A recent court ruling has resulted in a directive for the Trump administration regarding AmeriCorps following a lawsuit involving 24 states and the District of Columbia.
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman's decision mandates the reinstatement of funding and employment opportunities, highlighting that the Trump administration likely circumvented federal procedures by not issuing the proper notifications prior to executing significant budget reductions and staff terminations at AmeriCorps, as Fox News reports.
The legal dispute originated from actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the Trump administration, which included placing a large portion of AmeriCorps staff on leave and announcing substantial funding cuts. AmeriCorps, valued for its service-driven mission, was set to lose approximately $400 million in grants, drastically impacting its operations.
In response to these cuts, the states and D.C. filed a lawsuit arguing that the rapid reduction in funds and personnel was not only detrimental but also lacked legal authority. Their position was bolstered by claims that the cuts could inflict irreparable harm on communities reliant on AmeriCorps's service programs.
Judge Boardman's preliminary injunction does not ensure that the jobs will remain indefinitely. However, it does require that any future reductions must comply with appropriate procedures, namely, providing adequate notice to those affected.
This ruling applies exclusively to the states that participated in the lawsuit, reflecting the specific legal standing and grievances put forward in the case.
New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed her support for the judgment, emphasizing the critical contributions of AmeriCorps members in community welfare. "Over 200,000 AmeriCorps staff and volunteers work hard every day to care for our communities," she stated, recognizing the importance of their ongoing efforts.
AmeriCorps, originally established during the Clinton era, plays a crucial role in various community support activities, including responding to natural disasters and aiding vulnerable populations such as seniors and veterans. The program's budget, which was cut from about $1 billion, supports a wide array of community service initiatives.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro also voiced approval of the decision, noting it would assist significantly in community service areas such as disaster response and environmental maintenance.
With this judicial order, many of those who were previously placed on leave are expected to return to their roles, ensuring continuity of service in the affected states. The implications of Judge Boardman's ruling are substantial, underscoring the judiciary's role in balancing governmental efficiency objectives with statutory compliance and community welfare.
Judge Boardman remarked that any potential harm to the defendants was minor compared to the damages inflicted on the states and AmeriCorps programs. This statement highlights the perceived mismatch in the scale of impact on government operations versus community services.
Despite the temporary nature of the injunction, the ruling stands as a notable example of the judiciary's intervention in federal administrative actions, particularly those with immediate detrimental impacts on public programs.
This case emphasizes the necessity for federal administrations to adhere to established procedures before enacting significant policy changes, especially those with widespread social and economic consequences. Future administrations may be more cautious about how they implement cuts to federally supported programs.
In light of the recent ruling, the conversation around administrative transparency, procedural due diligence, and states' rights within federal governance is expected to gain further traction. This legal development represents a pivotal moment not only for AmeriCorps but also for the broader discourse on federal administration policies.
As communities across the states that joined the lawsuit anticipate a reinstatement of services, the broader implications of this courtroom victory continue to unfold, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with a Catholic charity that was denied a tax exemption after the state of Wisconsin arbitrarily decided the group is "secular in nature" and therefore not eligible.
The ruling is a significant victory for Catholic Charities Bureau, which has spent years waging a legal battle to vindicate its religious rights.
Wisconsin allows groups that operate "primarily for a religious purpose" to obtain an exemption from state unemployment taxes. The Catholic Charities Bureau, which is the charitable arm of the local Catholic diocese in Superior, Wisconsin, sought the benefit in 2016 but was denied.
The Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling declared Wisconsin's denial of tax-exempt status "textbook denominational discrimination" that violates the First Amendment's requirement of religious neutrality.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously ruled that Catholic Charities is not a religious group because it does not try to convert people and does not limit its services to Catholics only.
As the court put it, Catholic Charities makes no "attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith nor supply any religious materials to program participants or employees.”
The Catholic Church distinguishes between forcible conversion or proselytism, which it discourages, and evangelization - that is, attracting people to the faith through acts of love.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Catholic Charities, argued that "showing Christ's love" for the poor and hungry is an innately religious activity.
By ruling the group "secular in nature," the Wisconsin Supreme Court improperly discriminated on the basis of theology, the Supreme Court held unanimously. The ruling was an easy one for the justices to make, Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
“There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,” Sotomayor wrote for the court.
“When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,” she continued.
Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty, celebrated the Supreme Court for rejecting the "ludicrous" claim that a Catholic charity is not religious in nature.
"This was a ludicrous claim, and the Court has rightly reversed. The Court has unanimously affirmed that the government cannot discriminate against our ministries simply because they do not conform to the government’s narrow idea of religion. I am grateful the Court has recognized that basic principle here," he said.
Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion...The Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (Ky.) subpoenaed President Biden's longtime doctor this week, as a delayed reckoning with the cover-up of the former president's cognitive decline continues.
The subpoena comes after lawyers for physician Kevin O'Connor refused a request to sit for a transcribed interview about "the circumstances surrounding your assessment in February 2024 that former President Biden was ‘a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency."
The doctor has had a cozy relationship with the Biden family and was even involved with one of their business ventures, raising doubts about his credibility.
"Among other subjects, the Committee expressed its interest in whether your financial relationship with the Biden family affected your assessment of former President Biden’s physical and mental fitness to fulfill his duties as President," Comer wrote.
The subpoena requires O'Connor to appear before the House Oversight Committee on June 27.
"In lieu of full compliance, your counsel suggest a set of written interrogatories that would afford them as well as an unnamed medical ethics expert the ability to 'closely evaluate' your answers. This is not acceptable and will not satisfy the Committee’s legitimate oversight and legislative needs," Comer wrote.
Comer rebutted O'Connor's excuses for not appearing before Congress, which included "physician-patient privilege" and a section of law that O'Connor quoted "selectively."
"The plain language of this Section is clear: it only limits a physician’s ability to disclose confidential patient information in ‘Federal courts in the District of Columbia and District of Columbia courts,'” the letter explained. “The D.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed this interpretation, stating that the law creates ‘an evidentiary privilege only, and extends no further than the courtroom door.’ Congress is not a court; this Section therefore in no way precludes you from appearing and testifying your role as Physician to former President Biden.”
O'Connor has been Biden's doctor since 2009, when the former president was, compared to today, cognitively sharp. The doctor's failure to notice a decline in Biden's condition is suspicious, to say the least.
As recently as February 2024, O'Connor certified that Biden was fit for duty, despite never giving him a cognitive test. Months later, as Biden faced pressure to step aside following a disastrous debate, O'Connor downplayed multiple visits that Biden received from a Parkinson's specialist.
“Seeing patients at the White House is something that Dr. Cannard has been doing for a dozen years,” O’Connor wrote in a letter at the time. “Dr. Cannard was chosen for this responsibility not because he is a movement disorder specialist, but because he is a highly trained and highly regarded neurologist here at Walter Reed and across the Military Health System, with a very wide expertise which makes him flexible to see a variety of patients and problems.”
After Biden's re-election campaign imploded last summer, O'Connor told a New York Post reporter that Biden's condition was "excellent" and insisted that a cognitive test was not necessary because Biden showed up to work "every day."
O'Connor is just one member of Biden's circle who is facing scrutiny for the scandalous cover-up, with former first lady Jill Biden facing accusations of "elder abuse."
A source told the New York Post that Congress is also seeking testimony from former press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who repeatedly vouched for Biden's cognitive fitness and stonewalled questions about his treatment.
As a dramatic rift widens between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, one pundit is urging Trump to "fire, investigate, and prosecute" Musk's DOGE team.
CNN commentator Van Jones said Trump should go after what's left of DOGE "if he's smart," suggesting Trump needs to purge his administration of Musk's loyalists.
"Those DOGE employees are very dangerous. If Donald Trump is smart, the first thing he’s going to do is fire, investigate and prosecute all of Elon’s people who are all throughout government with their laptops downloading data right now," Jones said.
Jones explained, "Listen, I don’t think that what they’re doing is legal... A lot of them don’t have the proper clearances. And I think that if you investigate, you’ll find they’ve uploaded data into servers that are that are the wrong, the wrong thing to do. So I think there should definitely be an investigation there."
The blowup between Trump and his former campaign benefactor has led to speculation about a potential divide emerging within the GOP.
Some have questioned whether Musk could use his fortune against Trump and his Republican allies in the midterms next year, although Musk's political influence has come into question after he bungled a Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this year.
In the meantime, Jones suggested that DOGE's continued presence in the White House gives Musk leverage over Trump.
"If Donald Trump is smart, the leverage that Elon has is he left, his kids didn’t. They’re still in there. So this fight, if it’s going to be a fight that Donald Trump prevails on in the short term, go after DOGE. Long term, he’s got to steal the Republican Party to deal with an Elon Musk that’s promising to spend money now in a decade from now,” Jones opined.
The drama erupted Tuesday when Musk, just days after departing the White House, called Trump's sweeping legislative agenda a "disgusting abomination" and urged Republicans to scuttle it.
Things escalated on Thursday as Musk, in a span of hours, called for Trump to be impeached, took credit for his re-election victory and all but called him a pedophile, claiming without any evidence that Trump is "in the Epstein files."
For his part, Trump has handled the situation with restraint, although he was beginning to show signs of impatience as Musk spiraled on Thursday.
After admitting he was "disappointed" in Musk for trashing his "Big, Beautiful Bill," Trump threatened to terminate the tech billionaire's government contracts and confirmed that he asked Musk to leave the White House because he was "wearing thin."
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
While Musk appeared to calm down by the end of the day on Thursday, his erratic behavior has clearly impacted Trump's view of him, and not for the better.
"You mean the man who has lost his mind?" Trump told ABC News on Friday, adding dismissively that he is "not particularly interested" in talking to him.
A new poll shows that Sen. John Cornyn is losing ground in his reelection campaign, The Hill reported. The Texas Republican is trailing behind the state's Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Republican Senate primary by 22 points.
Republican pollster Robert Blizzard conducted the poll for the Educational Freedom Institute. It showed that Paxton is leading incumbent Cornyn by double digits in the primary that will be held in February 2026.
Most tellingly, those who consider themselves "MAGA" and older voters are choosing Paxton over Cornyn. While the incumbent has dismissed these results as part of the "silly season" for political polling, the fact is that voters are trending toward Paxton.
A GOP strategist said this means Cornyn will have to be more aggressive. "I think those numbers today are going to force Cornyn to go up on air and take a chunk out of Ken Paxton pretty damn soon. The question is, can he?" the strategist said.
Despite the troubling poll numbers, Cornyn's allies are hopeful that the long lead time until the primaries will give him time to turn the tide. "The primary is in nine months," Matt Mackowiak, a senior adviser to Cornyn’s campaign, pointed out.
"This is going to be a very close race, and Sen. Cornyn is fully committed to winning it," Mackowiak added. Others are burying their heads in the sand, hoping that the early polling is an anomaly as their only strategy.
"Cornyn’s folks are right, it is silly season for polling. But he definitely has an uphill battle," acknowledged Paxton supporter and Republican donor Dan Eberhart.
If Cornyn hopes to disrupt Paxton's momentum, his campaign will have to define the candidate and his opposition. "I think they’re going to have to spend a lot of money early to try and make their case given where we are in the polling right out of the gate," said Brenan Steinhauser, Cornyn's former campaign manager.
That's exactly what the senator's campaign attempted to do last week when it debuted ads charging Paxton with "funding the left." However, Cornyn will also have to contend with voters' very real and accurate impression that he is a RINO candidate.
The problem for Cornyn isn't just that Paxton is gaining ground. In fact, the reason he has made such headway is in part because of Cornyn's record of betraying staunchly conservative GOP voters and those who support Trump, considering he didn't support his reelection bid in 2024.
In 2022, Cornyn signed on to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in the wake of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. It was the kind of legislation that is hastily thrown together in the wake of a tragedy to strip law-abiding citizens of gun rights.
According to Fox News, the law imposed waiting periods and allowed for weapons to be confiscated under so-called red flag laws. Gun rights groups, including the Gun Owners of America, believe that Cornyn betrayed Second Amendment enthusiasts.
"Every time gun control gains steam in Congress, Senator John Cornyn is right there working with Democrats on a 'compromise.' That isn't conservative leadership, it's capitulation," GOA Federal Affairs Director Aidan Johnston charged.
Cornyn made the mistake of opposing Trump and going along with the Democrats' gun grab. While it's too early to tell how the primary election will shake out, there's no doubt Cornyn will eventually pay the price for it.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed this week that she is no longer on board with President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," Fox News reported. The Georgia Republican has been one of Trump's most loyal allies, but is part of a movement of others who are distancing themselves from the legislation they voted for two weeks ago.
The public tension has arisen in part from a feud developing between Trump and Elon Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Fellow Trump ally Rep. Scott Perry confirmed Musk's "right to call out House Leadership" over the bill.
"I wish I had a nickel for every time the @freedomcaucus sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way we were right all along. We expect MASSIVE improvements from the Senate before it gets back to the House," Perry said.
The Pennsylvania Republican is another staunchly pro-MAGA Republican who is breaking with Trump over this legislation. Perry believes the legislation needs to be revised to better align with the movement.
Musk has taken much of the flak for his opposition to this bill. However, it seems he may have had the nerve to say the quiet part out loud, though it's true he did so on his way out of his official government position.
The Tesla billionaire made his parting shot on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday. "I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore," Musk posted.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk added.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.
This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025
Most conservatives agree that the problem with the bill is related to the massive spending increase and costly tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill slashes taxes by $3.7 trillion and raises the national debt by $2.4 trillion over 10 years. The latest figures show that the deficit is already at $36,215,207,426,690.65 as of Wednesday and will likely continue to balloon.
While many oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of the bill, Greene is focused on a provision that prohibits states from regulating artificial intelligence for a full 10 years. Greene voted in favor of the bill just two weeks ago, but now claims she was unaware of this key provision.
"Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this, and it is a violation of state rights, and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there," she claimed on X.
"We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years, and giving it free rein and tying states' hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate," Greene continued.
"When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it," Greene said of the legislation. This marks a significant shift in stance, just as opposition to Trump's bill begins to gain momentum in the GOP.
Although in-fighting brings out the worst in some people, it's not necessarily a bad thing that Trump faces opposition from his loyalists. The president is more likely to be responsive to friends rather than foes, and passing legislation that is good for the country is the ultimate goal.
Former First Lady, bestselling author and media developer Michelle Obama explained this week that she was okay with her daughter Malia dropping the Obama name from her film credits as a signal that she is making her own way in the industry.
The 23-year-old presented her short film "The Heart" at the Sundance Festival in 2024 under the name Malia Ann, replacing her last name with her middle name in an attempt to be more anonymous.
Obama told Kate and Oliver Hudson on their podcast Sibling Revelry, “Our daughters [Malia and Sasha] are 25 and 23. They are young adult women, but they definitely went through a period in their teen years where it was the push away … [where] you’re trying to distinguish yourself.”
“I mean, it is very important for my kids to feel like they’ve earned what they are getting in the world, and they don’t want people to assume that they don’t work hard, that they’re just naturally, just handed things,” she said. “They’re very sensitive to that — they want to be their own people “Malia, who started in film, I mean, her first project — she took off her last name, and we were like, they’re still going to know it’s you, Malia. But we respected the fact that she’s trying to make her way.”
Of course, the former first lady is right that the attempt at anonymity largely failed. Her film got a lot of attention and the media stories about it clearly said that she was the daughter of a former president (and his also very famous wife).
The reviews of her movie were mixed, with some calling it terrible and others (like the New York Times) praising it.
She was also called a nepo baby by some outlets because of her famous parents.
And let's face it--the odds of an unknown working with Donald Glover while still in college and then getting him to produce an 18-minute film are fractional at best.
She probably would not have had the opportunity to intern with both the CBS sci-fi series Extant and HBO hit Girls, either.
Like one social media commenter featured in Newsweek said, she should just "own" her name and connections, which might have included greats Kate Capshaw and Steven Spielberg, according to the mentions in her movie's credits.
Malia would have to try a lot harder to get enough distance from her famous parents to make the playing field level, but as long as she can claim she's trying to make her own way, she can claim plausible deniability, right?
Like parents, like daughter, in any case.
The streaming outlets were falling all over themselves to give the Obamas millions and millions of dollars to produce content for them, even though neither one of them had ever done it before.
The world is at Sasha and Malia's feet, and there's really nothing they can do about it other than refuse the spoils or accept them. To pretend things are any different is just ridiculous.