This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A SpaceX rocket on Elon Musk's Texas base erupted in a stunning fiery explosion, but officials confirmed there were no injuries and Musk himself called it "just a scratch."
The flash of bright white light followed by yellow flames and billowing clouds was caught on camera by several livestreams.
It happened about 11 p.m. Wednesday, a report at Fox Business explained.
SpaceX said, "The Starship preparing for the tenth flight test experienced a major anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase. … A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for.
"Our Starbase team is actively working to safe the test site and the immediate surrounding area in conjunction with local officials. There are no hazards to residents in surrounding communities, and we ask that individuals do not attempt to approach the area…"
"Cameron County Constable Precinct 1 shared a NASASpaceflight stream on his Facebook page.
'Whoa! Whoa! No,' a man can be heard saying once the explosion happened. 'Oh, my God,'" the report said.
"The caption at the bottom of the stream read: "SpaceX is expected to perform a static fire test of ship 36. The second in this series of testing for flight 10."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Not only did President Trump not host a White House celebration of Juneteenth this year – as his predecessor did – nor sign an official resolution marking the day, but his only recognition of the federal holiday didn't even mention it by name.
Posting on Truth Social, the president lamented how many "non-working holidays" there are in America, an apparent reference to the millions of federal workers at home Thursday for Juneteenth, the day meant to celebrate the end of slavery in the U.S.
Regarding the number of holidays, Trump declared, "It must change."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Department of State issued an alarming updated travel advisory for India, urging American citizens to "exercise increased caution" due to a sharp rise in terrorism, civil unrest and violent crime there.
Designated a Level 2 alert, the advisory specifically highlights violent crime and terrorism occurring in India and notes that rape is one of the fastest growing crimes in the country. And tourists are increasingly the target, especially in major cities and transit hubs, the advisory warning that terrorists attack with little or no warning, striking crowded areas such as tourist sites, transportation hubs, markets, shopping malls and government facilities.
The State Department has also placed strict warnings against travel to high-risk regions, including Jammu and Kashmir, the India-Pakistan border, central and eastern India where Maoist insurgents commonly operate, as well as the northeastern state of Manipur, which has seen a surge in ethnic violence.
A country too dangerous for Americans, but not for American investment
Despite growing security concerns flagged by the U.S. State Department, India continues to aggressively market itself as a premier global tourism and investment destination, actively promoting a broad range of investment opportunities across infrastructure, hospitality and real estate to overseas investors. During its May 2025 Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Annual Business Summit, India reaffirmed its strategic use of soft power, highlighting tourism as a key pillar of its global influence strategy.
Officials described tourism as an engine to boost economic growth, enhance India's international stature and generate domestic employment.
To support this vision, the Indian government has rolled out multi-billion-dollar programs aimed at overhauling its tourism infrastructure and amplifying foreign investor participation. Flagship schemes such as Swadesh Darshan 2.0 and PRASHAD focus on building religious and cultural tourism circuits, including Buddhist pilgrimage routes and Ramayana heritage trails. Meanwhile, the government's Heal in India initiative is positioning the country as a hub for affordable, high-quality medical treatment.
As Sameer Bhati, director of Star Imaging and Path Lab, notes, "Medical tourism in India can grow a lot because we offer quality healthcare at affordable prices. The Budget's focus on upgrading healthcare facilities will attract more patients."
State governments are reinforcing this national push. Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, for instance, are hosting international investor summits, implementing AI-powered hospitality platforms and targeting the Indian diaspora to channel capital into tourism-linked development. These efforts reflect a coordinated campaign to frame India as a one-stop destination for spiritual, medical and luxury travel. According to market research firm IMARC, India's medical tourism sector alone is expected to reach $68.5 billion by 2032, with a projected compound annual growth rate of 14.5% between 2024 and 2032.
Yet, beneath India's high-gloss tourism campaigns and billion-dollar investment showcases lies a far grittier and riskier reality.
For American citizens, the U.S. State Department's latest travel advisory should serve not only as a warning about personal safety, but also as a critical lens on the broader economic relationship being pushed by Indian interests. Despite New Delhi's messaging of openness and opportunity, the ground-level truth reveals a nation still plagued by terrorism, systemic violence, weak legal protections and state-enforced restrictions that directly affect foreign travelers.
For example: Tourists carrying a satellite phone or an unlicensed GPS device can face up to $200,000 in fines and three years in prison. Consular support from the U.S. is limited outside of major cities, meaning if one finds himself or herself in trouble in a rural area or conflict zone, help may not arrive. And while India positions itself as a global destination for women-centric travel, the advisory makes clear that women – especially foreigners – face an elevated risk of sexual assault and violent crime, particularly at tourist locations and transit hubs.
But the warning goes far beyond travel plans. India's global tourism ambitions are tightly woven into its larger economic strategy, one that aggressively seeks to draw in Western capital, real estate partnerships and infrastructure development, often under the premise of mutually beneficial growth. What many Americans don't realize is that this same "hospitality empire" is already deeply embedded in their own country. As of 2023, Indian Americans control an estimated 60% of all hotels in the United States, and in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, Indian hoteliers own a staggering 90% of hotels.
That level of market capture raises important questions about reciprocity, regulation and the national interest, especially as India restricts foreign ownership and enforces heavy localization policies at home.
Investing in instability: American hotel chains are flooding India, but who's really driving the expansion?
While the U.S. State Department warns Americans to "exercise increased caution" when traveling to India due to terrorism, violent crime, sexual violence and civil unrest, major U.S.-born hotel brands are aggressively expanding into that very same high-risk market. According to a March 2025 Forbes article, Marriott, Hilton, Wyndham and Hyatt are all racing to build out their footprint in India, with Marriott planning 80 new properties, Hilton launching four new brands and Wyndham aiming to double its presence. On paper, this expansion is framed as a play for India's rising middle class and modernizing infrastructure. But that narrative conceals a deeper reality.
These moves are not simply about seizing opportunity, they're the result of entrenched ownership and influence by Indian-origin investors who now dominate the U.S. hospitality sector. The Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), founded in 1989 and now the largest hotel-owners group in the world, represents over 20,000 Indian-American hoteliers who control the nearly 60% of all hotels in the United States and two-thirds of so-called economy and midscale properties. That level of control gives Indian-origin stakeholders extraordinary leverage, not just over domestic hospitality policy, but in shaping how and where U.S. hotel brands expand abroad.
In this context, the expansion into India isn't simply about growth; it's about influence. As Indian-American ownership steers corporate strategy, the line between American business interests and India's national agenda begins to fade. Incoming AAHOA Chairman Kamalesh "KP" Patel openly stated, "No sector reflects our bilateral ties better than hospitality." More than symbolism, this reflects a coordinated push to embed Indian interests into U.S. policy on investment, infrastructure, workforce mobility and visas on both sides of the globe.
That strategy is already playing out. In 2024, Indian hotel giant OYO acquired the iconic American brands Motel 6 and Studio 6 in a $525 million all-cash deal, one of the largest cross-border hospitality takeovers in U.S. history. This wasn't just a business move, it was a declaration: Indian firms are no longer content participating in Western markets, they're actively reshaping them. They're exporting capital, management models and political influence directly into the U.S. economy.
Travel warnings are for citizens, but not corporations or foreign governments
At the same time, India is building new airports, relaxing visa rules and promoting high-gloss campaigns to lure Western tourists and investors. But these efforts are not just market-driven – they're diaspora-driven. The alignment of Indian-origin ownership in U.S. brands, India's tourism ambitions and the policy frameworks being shaped behind the scenes has created a self-reinforcing system of transnational control disguised as bilateral cooperation.
For Americans, the implications are serious. While Indian hospitality interests grow stronger in this nation's economy, American hotel chains are embedding themselves in a foreign market flagged by the U.S. government as dangerous for travel. And yet, U.S. brands continue to promote India as a safe, promising destination, while exposing American citizens to physical, financial and reputational risk.
The U.S. travel advisory should be seen not as a bureaucratic footnote, but as a warning. Americans should think twice before vacationing in India, investing in its tourism sector or buying into the idea that this alignment is harmless. They should register for the State Department's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), obtain evacuation-grade insurance and watch closely where their dollars and their country's interests are really going.
Because in this global hospitality "partnership," it's clear which side is winning. And it's not America.
An open door with no guardrails: How India's internal chaos is spilling into the United States
As U.S. hotel corporations aggressively expand into India, a nation flagged by the U.S. State Department, a far more concerning dynamic is unfolding at home. While American companies invest heavily in building out tourism infrastructure in India, the United States is simultaneously accepting a massive, poorly vetted influx of Indian nationals, both legally and illegally, with minimal safeguards for the American public.
According to the U.S. Embassy in India, over one million nonimmigrant visas were issued to Indian nationals in 2024 alone, the second year in a row that record numbers were reached. More than two million Indians traveled to the U.S. in the first eleven months of the year and over five million now hold active visas. Thousands more are approved daily.
So, while Americans are being told to exercise "increased caution" when visiting India, Indian citizens are entering the U.S. at historic levels, with little transparency, oversight or public debate. This isn't just a policy inconsistency; it's a direct threat to America's national security, economic stability and public safety.
India is also one of the top three sources of illegal immigration into the United States. In 2023 alone, nearly 90,000 Indian nationals were apprehended attempting to enter the country illegally. Many others arrive on temporary visas and simply overstay. At the same time, U.S. authorities have prosecuted numerous Indian nationals involved in elder fraud, multimillion-dollar financial scams, human trafficking rings and violent plots including a foiled assassination attempt in New York linked to an Indian government employee.
These are not isolated cases. They are part of a broader pattern emerging from a system that prioritizes volume and foreign interest over security and American sovereignty. As Indian-origin lobbying groups and economic networks grow more influential, particularly through their control of the U.S. hospitality sector, they are shaping not only investment decisions, but immigration and labor policy as well.
The result is a one-sided relationship: American companies are investing in a country that's too dangerous for their own citizens to visit, while India is offloading its population, labor force and political footprint into the U.S. under the banner of "partnership."
That is not mutual growth; it is a strategic imbalance.
Until U.S. policymakers address the growing disconnect between corporate interests and public safety, the consequences will continue to multiply. America is not just sending money into unstable territory, it is importing the instability itself, with real consequences for American workers, communities and national security.
The time to act is now. America must reassert control over its borders, its business interests and its future before more is lost in the name of globalization disguised as goodwill.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Andy Jassy, the chief of Amazon, recently warned that technology, specifically artificial intelligence, will cost thousands of Americans their jobs in coming months and years.
Intel, the faltering legacy tech company, confirmed that.
It announced, in an email sent to employees, that it could lay off as many as one-fifth of its staff."These are difficult actions but essential to meet our affordability challenges and current financial position of the company," explained Naga Chandrasekaran, an executive at the Oregon-based company.
His comments were confirmed in a report at Oregon Live.
Chandrasekaran said the company is expecting cut up to 20% of its factory workers.
A report at the Daily Mail noted the company has about 109,000 workers globally, so the cuts could mean up to 21,800 being laid off.
"It is not clear how many work in US-based factories, and how many American jobs will go," the report said.
Microsoft had confirmed only days ago it was preparing to cut thousands of jobs, and Amazon also said it was making plans for "brutal" workforce cuts, all because of AI.
The Mail noted this was the second round of layoffs at Intel in just a year, after last winter's 15% cutback.
The report said the company troubles are because of upstart competitors, compounding financial losses, and a declining stock price.
Chipmakers IBM, AMD, TSMC and NVIDIA have gained ground by investing in AI, the report said.
Intel's stock price was $68 in 2021, but only about $21 now. It reported a loss of $821 million during the first quarter of the year, the report said.
It was Jassy who said, "As we roll out more Generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done. It's hard to know exactly where this nets out over time, but in the next few years, we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce."
In a significant policy shift, the Trump administration has rescinded a temporary pause on immigration enforcement that was previously granted to critical industries such as agriculture and hospitality, NBC San Diego reported.
The move reinstates enforcement actions, focusing on arresting non-citizen workers in these sectors despite their recognized importance.
Initially, enforcement activities against sectors like hotels, restaurants, and agriculture were paused to address the challenge of replacing foreign workers who hold positions deemed essential. This exemption was granted by President Trump, who acknowledged the difficulties employers face in finding replacements for their longstanding, experienced workers.
However, the pause was short-lived. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly reversed the exemption earlier this week, signaling a return to a strict enforcement policy. This decision emerged as a surprise to some, given President Trump's own remarks highlighting the valuable contributions of these workers.
Speaking to reporters, President Trump had praised these immigrant workers as being “necessary” and nearly “impossible” to replace. He acknowledged their contribution to farming communities, stating that many have been in these roles for twenty years or more, despite not being U.S. citizens.
The swift about-face drew internal comments, with California Governor Gavin Newsom noting on the social media platform X that Trump effectively had his decision overridden by his staff.
The DHS reinforced its stance by emphasizing that there will be no protected zones for industries that undermine Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts. This assertion underscores the department's commitment to resuming its rigorous enforcement activities, including targeting immigrant workers at farms, hotels, and eateries.
Brigette Browning, a labor leader, shared her concerns regarding the persistent danger facing immigrant workers. She expressed skepticism about protective measures, highlighting ongoing fears within communities: “I think if workers are still in jeopardy when they go to their kids' school or when they go to houses of worship or stores, that there is no safety.”
Browning's comments paint a picture of unease, noting that individuals are advised to limit outings, even for critical errands like purchasing supplies at local home improvement stores. Such sentiments underscore the environment of fear engendered by the renewed enforcement.
The Trump administration’s mixed signals have sparked broader discussions on the contributions of immigrants to the nation's workforce. Browning pointedly remarked that America’s economic wealth has long been supported by immigrant labor, a perspective often echoed in debates about immigration reform.
Notably, President Trump had recently posted on Truth Social about plans for upcoming changes, reacting to the outcry over potentially losing "good, long-time workers" who are critical to the functioning of these industries. Yet, the subsequent reinstatement of ICE actions contradicted these public assurances.
Despite President Trump's stated recognition of the need to protect valuable workers, DHS’s aggressive posture marks a return to the administration's broader hardline immigration strategy. The move appears incongruent against the backdrop of Trump's acknowledgment of the irreplaceable roles played by non-citizen workers.
As the policy shift generates discourse across political and social lines, it highlights ongoing tensions within the administration regarding immigration policy. Governor Newsom’s observation about internal disconnect underscores the complexity of reconciling enforcement with economic and labor sustainability.
Looking ahead, the direction of the Trump administration’s immigration policies remains under scrutiny. The latest development could foreshadow future conflicts between economic realities and stringent policy enforcement. For now, affected industries may face renewed uncertainties as they navigate the landscape of labor and legal challenges.
Just days after he paused immigration enforcement at worksites in farming and hospitality, President Trump is resuming Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) raids in those industries.
Trump's latest move clarifies that there are no "safe spaces" where illegal aliens can find shelter from the law, the Trump administration explained.
“There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE’s efforts,” Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for DHS, told the Washington Post.
“Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability," she added.
The president's initial decision to exempt farmers and hospitality workers from ICE raids came as a disappointment to many Trump supporters, who saw the move as detrimental to his mass deportation pledge.
Within the administration, immigration hawk Stephen Miller, one of the architects of Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, voiced objections to making carveouts, as business executives and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins raised concerns to Trump about labor shortages.
In a Truth Social post, Trump had initially signaled "changes are coming" to "help out farmers."
Hours later, ICE agents were directed by the Department of Homeland Security to "hold on all worksite enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels.”
By Sunday, Trump was hardening his stance again as he ordered ICE to expand operations in "Democratic power centers" with large illegal populations, like Los Angeles, where anti-ICE riots exploded earlier this month.
On Sunday, word began to spread among ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) supervisors that the White House did not support the exemption, the Washington Post reported.
The news was confirmed in a nationwide call Monday with 30 field offices, which were told to "continue conducting immigration raids at agricultural businesses, hotels and restaurants," according to two people familiar with the call.
Immigration advocates have long argued that the illegal labor force performs undesirable work that Americans will not do themselves, but supporters of Trump's mass deportations say a reduction in cheap, foreign labor will force employers to raise wages, making the jobs that "Americans won't do" more attractive to citizens.
As a logistical matter, Trump likely cannot meet his ambitious deportation goals without raiding the locations where illegal aliens tend to work, including farms and hotels.
By once again targeting those places, Trump is getting back on track and making it clear that illegal aliens face removal from the U.S., wherever they happen to work.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood is running fewer brick-and-mortar abortion businesses these days. But it is actually increasing the abortions it performs.
Because it has taken the abortion industry online.
That's according to a new report from STOPP, the American Life League's program to monitor Planned Parenthood and comment on its activities.
"America's largest abortion provider is deliberately skirting legislated protections for expectant mothers and their preborn children while continuing to receive nearly $800 million in taxpayer funding," explained the organization.
It is the new "2025 Planned Parenthood Facilities Report" that documents the trends.
It shows while the number of the abortion chain's physical locations dropped "to its lowest level since 2006," it performed a record number of abortions, 402,230, in 2022-2023.
This was done through "online appointments, virtual health centers, and abortion pill mobile apps."
"Planned Parenthood is leveraging the Internet to skirt state abortion laws," said Katie Brown Xavios, national director of American Life League. "Even in states where abortion pills are restricted, women can book virtual appointments and receive abortion drugs in the mail. This is not only unethical, it's illegal."
The report explains that from 2022 to last month, the nation's leading player in the abortion industry "shut down 66 brick-and-mortar locations, dropping 22 from its total facility count in the first five months of 2025. Yet in its 2023-2024 annual report, we see that the abortion conglomerate took credit for performing a record high number of abortions – 402,230 – in 2022-2023."
"Planned Parenthood is adapting to find new ways of delivering abortion in the face of state attempts to shield women and children from harm," explained Xavios. "As legislators seek ways to defund the abortion vendor and Planned Parenthood is closing doors, the organization is infiltrating the virtual healthcare sphere, moving online to entice its clients to end the lives of their preborn children through convenient, impersonal telehealth services. In the face of declining facilities for on-site abortions, Planned Parenthood has cunningly leveraged the telehealth platform to prescribe abortion pills to women, even in states where the pills are illegal, furthering its largest moneymaking 'service.'"
The report also notes that travel to states where the abortion industry essentially is unregulated, or nominally regulated, has increased, including to Illinois, North Carolina, Kansas and New Mexico.
Planned Parenthood boasted in 2023 along it "helped" more than 33,000 women travel out of state to get an abortion.
The report said even as the world suffered from COVID-19, "the Biden administration temporarily lifted regulations on mailing abortion pills through the postal service so that women could have abortions without in-person appointments. Then in 2023, the FDA permanently removed regulations on mailing abortion pills throughout the United States, making it easier for both the abortionist to distribute the pills and for mothers to obtain them. Additionally, shield laws in seven states allow abortionists to legally provide abortion pills via telehealth to women who live in states with more restrictions."
At Planned Parenthood, it turned its work toward telehealth options for women, virtual health centers and a social media app to push abortions.
"As Planned Parenthood increases its virtual footprint, one has to wonder if this is an attempt to counter the steep decline in brick-and-mortar facilities," Xavios suggested. "Another possibility is that Planned Parenthood is desperate to regain market share from rogue abortion pill drug cartel traffickers that are snagging the abortion giant's customers and profits via shadowy virtual operations. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle, but one thing is certain: Planned Parenthood is panicking, and it's changing its game."
Katherine Van Dyke, American Life League's lead researcher for the STOPP report, summed up the findings saying, "Every time we learn that a Planned Parenthood facility has closed its doors for good, we can rejoice in knowing that lives and souls will be saved without an abortion vendor in the neighborhood. However, Planned Parenthood is now utilizing the Internet to continue to earn big bucks off of its most profitable revenue stream—aborting preborn babies. And they've illegally played a part in trafficking more than 33,000 women across state lines to get those abortions."
American Life League president Judie Brown said Planned Parenthood now promotes abortion by mail, letting women "kill their babies in the privacy of their home. If this is not demonic, then what is? We must end Planned Parenthood's reign of death."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats were on the warpath on Wednesday against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was supposed to be asked about the department's budget requests.
Instead, he was asked about whether he'd given an order to kill (use lethal force on) Americans.
The senator pursuing that line was told the "be careful" about believing what she reads in books. "Except for the Bible."
When another member of the Senate complained about whether it was "appropriate" for a social media influencer to "influence personnel decisions, Hegseth informed the senator her time was up.
She erupted in anger.
Hegseth told another he rejected the premise of what clearly was an outlandish question, which he said was just intended to "SMEAR" President Trump.
And he delivered his opinion that entry level judges in the federal court system are not given the responsibility of determining national security policy.
At one point, MSNBC's commentator spoke over Hegseth, drowning out his explanation of the success the Trump administration has had in securing the southern border.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
After President Trump responded negatively to assertions by his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, recent media reports claim the former Democrat DNI is on thin ice with her boss.
In March, Gabbard made remarks before Congress, saying that although Iran's enriched uranium levels were at an all-time high, experts believed that Tehran was not currently seeking to develop a nuclear bomb.
Trump was asked about the remarks Tuesday and responded: "I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having a weapon."
Another bone of contention reportedly is a video Gabbard posted on X June 10 in response to a trip she took to Hiroshima, Japan, the location of the first nuclear attack in history. She warned that "political elite and warmongers" are "carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers," placing the world "on the brink of nuclear annihilation."
The video reportedly angered the president, as it was seen as correcting the administration's policy on Iran.
Politico reported comments from anonymous sources familiar with the relationship between the two.
"I don't think [Trump] dislikes Tulsi as a person," the source said. "But certainly the video made him not super hot on her … and he doesn't like it when people are off message."
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has defended Gabbard.
"Tulsi is a veteran, a patriot, a loyal supporter of Pres Trump and a critical part of the coalition he built in 2024," Vance said in a statement obtained by NewsNation. "She's an essential member of our nat sec team, & we're grateful for her tireless work to keep America safe from foreign threats."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Billionaire Elon Musk, the former head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, took a shot Tuesday at the credibility of the Wall Street Journal, saying the newspaper "sucks" at journalism.
Musk posted a meme on X mocking the @WSJ handle of the publication, suggesting it stands for "We Suck at Journalism."
While Musk himself did not pinpoint what may have triggered his sentiment, his Grok artificial intelligence device explained, "Elon Musk's dislike for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) stems from a series of critical articles they've published about him, which he and his supporters perceive as inaccurate, misleading, or agenda-driven. Here are the key reasons based on available information:
Critical Reporting on Personal and Professional Life: The WSJ has published several articles that Musk believes misrepresent him. For instance, a January 2024 report alleged pervasive drug use by Musk, raising concerns among his companies' directors, which he denied and labeled as "trash." Another April 2025 article claimed Musk was secretly trying to create a "legion" of offspring, citing controversial personal details, which Musk dismissed, comparing WSJ unfavorably to TMZ.
Tesla Succession Claims: In May 2025, the WSJ reported that Tesla's board was seeking a successor for Musk as CEO due to his focus on government roles and Tesla's declining stock price. Musk and Tesla's board called this "absolutely false," accusing the WSJ of unethical journalism for not including their denial. Musk publicly stated this was a "deliberately false article" and a "discredit to journalism."
DOGE and Government Role Criticism: The WSJ has scrutinized Musk's role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), including a February 2025 report about a team member's resignation after racist tweets surfaced, which Musk may have seen as unfairly targeting his leadership. Additionally, a December 2024 editorial criticized Musk and Trump over a "budget fiasco," suggesting Musk's influence led to governance issues, which likely fueled his frustration.
Perceived Bias and Sensationalism: Musk has repeatedly called out the WSJ for what he sees as biased or sensationalist reporting. In posts on X, he's described the WSJ as "the worst newspaper in the world," unfit even for "parrot droppings," and accused it of lying with "sheer audacity." His mother, Maye Musk, also criticized a WSJ article as "dishonest" in May 2025, reflecting a family sentiment against the outlet.
Broader Media Distrust: Musk's criticism aligns with his broader skepticism of mainstream media, particularly outlets like the WSJ, which he views as part of an establishment pushing narratives against him. He's suggested the WSJ's reporting is driven by motives to undermine his influence, especially given his high-profile role in Trump's administration and his ownership of X.
On the other hand, the WSJ has defended its reporting, stating in response to Tesla's denial that it stood by its claims and that Tesla was given a chance to comment before publication. Some argue Musk's reactions are strategic, redirecting attention from negative stories or rallying his base against perceived media bias. His public feuds, like challenging the WSJ to drug tests, amplify this narrative.
Musk's dislike seems rooted in a pattern of WSJ articles that he believes unfairly target his personal life, business decisions, and political influence, coupled with his distrust of traditional media. However, the WSJ's perspective suggests they're holding a powerful figure accountable, highlighting a tension between investigative journalism and Musk's public persona."
Just last week on June 10, the Journal posted a story titled, "U.S. Agencies Tracked Foreigners Traveling to See Musk."
The paper reported: "Several U.S. government agencies in 2022 and 2023 tracked foreign nationals coming and going to Elon Musk's properties, according to people familiar with the matter.
"The investigation included the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. It focused on people visiting the tech billionaire, from countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who might have been trying to influence him."
There is plenty of reaction to Musk's assertion about the Journal sucking, including:
"Perfect!"
"There is no coming back from that name."
"Don't remember the last time I VISITED any legacy corporate media websites like WSJ… Let alone read an article from them. X is where it's at."
"I had to get a subscription when in college- it was the biggest waste of paper I've ever seen! It was so far left even new college liberals were unimpressed!"
"I've been calling them this for years. I'm glad to see that a lot of people are starting to see it now."
"Every mainstream media does. It's what they do the best."