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.
In an unexpected turn of events, President Donald Trump has found a rare point of agreement with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): the elimination of the federal debt limit. Both leaders, typically at odds, are rallying bipartisan support to avoid the potential economic disaster associated with the debt ceiling.
Despite their contentious history and political differences, Trump and Warren are pressing for decisive action to eradicate the debt ceiling, a move they believe could avert economic instability.
On May 30, Warren publicly advocated for the complete removal of the federal debt limit, labeling it a necessary step to prevent catastrophic economic outcomes. Criticizing proposals to increase the debt limit by $4 trillion, Warren argued that this could result in excessive benefits for wealthy individuals through tax breaks.
President Trump soon echoed Warren's sentiments about the debt ceiling on his favored platform, Truth Social. He emphasized the risks of leaving the debt limit in the hands of politicians who might misuse it, stressing its potentially disastrous impact not just on the United States but globally.
Trump acknowledged that while he supports Warren's suggestion for a $4 trillion increase, he favors implementing such a measure over a short period. This stance aligns with his broader strategy of shifting discussions toward actionable results between both parties.
Historically, Trump and Warren have shared a tumultuous relationship, with disagreements stemming from Trump's use of the nickname 'Pocahontas,' targeted at Warren's Native American ancestry claims. In 2018, Warren attempted to dispel controversy by releasing a DNA test indicating minimal Native American heritage.
Amid this newfound agreement, Trump is progressing with a spending package that successfully passed the House and is now heading to the Senate. The package controversially seeks to reduce funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an agency Warren helped establish, described by the White House as lacking accountability and being overly bureaucratic.
The proposal has stirred debates, as it's set to be deliberated upon by the Senate Finance Committee, which counts Warren among its members. This setting provides an opportunity for direct dialogue between advocates of different fiscal philosophies.
The proposed abolition of the debt ceiling has garnered mixed responses from other legislators. Among them, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has expressed skepticism, foreseeing long-term fiscal drawbacks and suggesting that raising the ceiling equates to deferral, not resolution, of debt challenges.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) voiced opposition to Warren’s approach during a recent Fox News interview. His arguments imply a resistance to removing financial caps without addressing prolific governmental expenditure.
These developments signal a complex interplay of interests within governmental operations, as leaders navigate the challenges of policy-making alongside the need to address mounting economic pressures.
Despite agreeing on the debt limit's removal, Trump and Warren remain divergent in broader fiscal policies. Their differing views on government spending and budget allocations imply continued debate amidst this collaboration.
The path forward requires negotiation and compromise across party lines, fostering an environment where bipartisan initiatives could address widespread societal implications of fiscal policy.
As these discussions advance, all eyes remain on the potential consolidation of bipartisan support and its impact on the broader economic landscape. The agreement between Trump and Warren signals the complexities of political alliances amidst pressing national concerns.
The Trump administration is ending a shadowy watchlist that was used to surveil travelers on domestic flights, citing evidence the program was abused to target critics of the Biden administration including Tulsi Gabbard.
Homeland Security Kristi Noem said the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Quiet Skies program was "weaponized" to harass political foes and reward friends like Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen (Nh.), who reportedly lobbied the Biden administration to take her husband off the list.
CBS News reported that Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee, removed her husband from the list, which flags travelers for random checks by federal Air Marshals.
William Shaheen, a Lebanese American attorney, had been flagged in 2023 for traveling with a "known or suspected terrorist." Senator Shaheen reached out to the former head of TSA, David Pekoske, about the incident, and two days later her husband was placed on a special "VIP" list exempting him from surveillance.
The DHS blasted Shaheen for allegedly seeking, and receiving, favored treatment.
"Despite William Shaheen traveling with a known or suspected terrorist three times, then TSA Administrator Pekoske gave explicit direction to exclude Shaheen from the Silent Partner Quiet Skies list," the DHS said in its press release.
"After Senator Shaheen directly lobbied then former Administrator Pekoske, on her husband’s behalf, Pekoske granted Billy Shaheen a blanket Quiet Skies exemption."
The government's travel watchlists have long been criticized as opaque and arbitrary, including by Gabbard - a former Democrat and longtime civil liberties advocate who now serves as Trump's top intelligence official. She was added to Quiet Skies list in 2024, reportedly by a computer algorithm, without explanation.
At the time, Gabbard decried the move as an attempt by the Biden "regime" to intimidate a critic.
“The TSA placed me on the Quiet Skies domestic terror watchlist in what I can only describe as the ultimate betrayal,” she said in a post on X in September. “The Harris-Biden regime has now labeled me a domestic terror threat. Why? They see me as a threat to their power.”
Senator Shaheen claims she was not aware her husband was on a watchlist when she contacted TSA about his "degrading" treatment.
"Senator Shaheen sought to understand the nature and cause of these searches," the senator said. "Any suggestion that the Senator’s husband was supposedly included on a Quiet Skies list is news to her and had never been raised before this week. Nor was she aware of any action taken following her call to remove him from such a list."
In a press release, the DHS called the Quiet Skies program a political tool and a waste of taxpayer money that did not prevent terrorism attacks.
“It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration—weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends. I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of US national security,” Noem said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The lawyer representing the family of Boulder terrorism suspect Mohamed Soliman, working to prevent their deportations, has had trouble staying within the lines of the legal profession, according to a new report.
The Federalist has documented how Susanna Dvortsin, "has an integrity problem."
Dvortsin is working with the family of Soliman, who is in custody on charges he used Molotov cocktails and a homemade flamethrower to try to burn Jewish marchers at an event in Boulder.
"In 2019, Dvortsin was suspended from practicing law for 'misconduct concerning an immigration matter,'" the report said. "The suspension, lasting 115 days, was requested by the Supreme Court of South Dakota and approved by the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review."
She was suspended from practice before the Department of Homeland Security, the Board of Immigration Appeals, immigration courts, and the state of South Dakota.
The report also noted that earlier, in 2008, she was in court fighting a DHS decision to dismiss her from a job she held for a time at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Her appeal was denied, and in the order announcing that decision, it was revealed she lied on a 2006 form required for national security positions, the SF-86.
She took a job in 2006 as an asylum officer in Los Angeles, then days before a probationary period ended she was dismissed for having failed to provide information on that form.
"According to the order, Dvortsin failed to disclose that her daughter's father was an illegal alien. She also failed to disclose that she had been prescribed psychiatric medication over the previous seven years. The form was also missing credit information, and she failed to list foreign trips she had made," the report said.
Soliman's family members apparently all are Egyptian citizens.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Somehow, in America, the month of June has been turned into a celebration of a lifestyle chosen by a minority of residents.
It's promoted as "Pride month" for the small percentage who have adopted LGTB ideologies.
Except in one bar, it's not "Pride month;" it's "Heterosexual Awesomeness Month."
"After all,' the promoters at Old State Saloon in Idaho say, "if it weren't for heterosexuals, none of us would be here!"
The bar managers explained, "OFFICIAL: Heterosexual Awesomeness Month begins Sunday. Join us all of June to celebrate God, country, family, freedom and HETEROSEXUALITY."
Promoted are "Beer for Breeders Monday," where, "All heterosexual males dressed like heterosexual males receive one free draft," and Duo Deal Wednesdays," with "15% off entire food and beverage bill for heterosexual couples."
A report at Not the Bee cites the "glorious replacement" for Pride events.
There's a testimonial: “The Trans Deception” With Luke Healy is now up on our Oldstate Salooncast Rumble channel.
And there's a note the "Pride" agenda is fading in many places.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has announced a travel ban on people coming from a dozen nations, since the United States simply does not have the ability to properly vet them.
There are new limits on travel from another seven nations because of their unacceptable rates of visa overstays.
Nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are barred, while there are limits on those coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
"As president, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety," Trump said.
"Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations. I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation."
Trump had taken a similar action during his first term, prompting leftists to claim it was a "Muslim ban," which it wasn't. The Supreme Court at that time affirmed his strategy.
A commentary at RedState noted that chorus already was in full voice again.
"The move came just days after an Islamic terrorist seeking to 'free Palestine' set several elderly Jewish women on fire in Colorado with Molotov cocktails. Mohamad Soliman had overstayed a tourist visa during the Biden years but was given work authorization in 2023, which ran out weeks before his attack."
It continued, "As you'd expect, the meltdown on the left began immediately. Accusations of racism and xenophobia are already flowing like milk and honey. Ah, yes, America's founders were big on the ideal of importing people from violent Islamic countries on visas. I'm not sure how this hurts our 'global leadership' either. Is the argument that Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya won't respect us anymore? Because I've got some news for Democrats if that's the case."
The commentary pointed out, "It objectively makes America safer not to offer visas to countries that breed terrorists. That's just common sense. To be clear, there's nothing racist about this ban. For one, Muslim is not a race, and not all the countries listed are predominantly Muslim. Two, the countries on the list are home to several different races. Three, I don't think I'm going to take my cues on what is un-American from a Democrat congresswoman who is more concerned about nations on the other side of the globe than her own."
The proclamation noted several of the nations regularly decline to accept the return of their own citizens, indicating a "blatant disregard for United States immigration laws."
Trump noted his restrictions during his first term "successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld."
He targeted aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" and said the U.S. "must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States."
The announcement cited influence of the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist group," the Taliban, in Afghanistan and the fact the nation "does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. For Burma, it historically refused to cooperate with the U.S. to take back "removable nationals."
Like problems were cited for the rest of the nations, including Somalia.
"Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia's territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States. The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists' freedom of movement. Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has called out many of America's "prestigious employers" for discrimination against the "majority."
The comments came in a unanimous decision that concluded Marlean Ames was the victim of unconstitutional discrimination because she is part of the majority, heterosexuals, but was denied a promotion and then demoted while two gays were given those positions.
She sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, following the ruling, her case will return to the lower courts for a resolution.
The precedent, oddly, had been that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals were required to take an additional step in discrimination cases and document a "background" supporting the claim.
Thomas pointed out how ridiculous that was.
"The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups," he charged.
Then he identified the discriminatory agenda being used.
"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," he said.
He blasted the lower court ruling that tossed Ames' case because of that "background" requirement.
"Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The 'background circumstances' rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon."
He said requirement forced "a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This additional requirement is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text."
He noted that nothing in Title VII actually creates such a requirement.
The ruling is considered a huge precedent for reverse-discrimination cases.
A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's administration from deporting suspected firebomber Mohamed Soliman's wife and five children, the Daily Wire reported. The 45-year-old and his family overstayed their visas by months prior to the alleged terrorist attack.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, Soliman allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at pro-Israel demonstrators at a protest on Sunday. He was allegedly heard shouting "free Palestine" and "end Zionism" while doing so.
Soliman is accused of maiming a dozen of the protesters, including an 88-year-old holocaust survivor. Soliman's family is being held at a Texas immigration detention center as authorities are "investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack," the DHS said.
The man's wife, Hayem El Gamal, and five minor children arrived in the U.S. from Egypt in 2022. They were on a tourist visa, which expired in March after being extended by the Biden administration.
Despite the seriousness of the alleged crime and expired visas, Gallagher granted the request to halt deportation. "Defendants are temporarily restrained and enjoined from removing Hayem El Gamal and her five minor children from the State of Colorado or the United States," the decision states.
BREAKING: Colorado federal judge Gordon Gallagher, a Biden appointee, has issued an order blocking the Trump administration from deporting the wife and five children of Boulder terror suspect Mohamed Soliman. pic.twitter.com/Lo8R1Yp19E
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 4, 2025
Federal immigration officials are barred from deporting Soliman's family pending action from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Gallagher said the situation's "urgency and an ongoing jury trial resulting in the unavailability" of the judge warrants such swift action.
The restraining order will remain in effect until the next hearing scheduled to take place on June 13. Before the attack, Soliman applied for asylum on behalf of his family, which adds another layer of protection from immigration action, the defense's attorney Eric Lee claimed.
"It’s a basic principle of any democracy that individual responsibility is required for punishment or detention. Only in a police-state dictatorship are measures of collective punishment used against the population, especially against asylum seekers, and especially against asylum seekers as young as 4 years old," Lee said, according to the Denver Post.
While the courts make overtures to the downtrodden with this case, the fact remains that Soliman is accused of a truly heinous crime. According to the Associated Press, authorities are investigating whether Soliman plotted and executed Sunday's attack in Boulder, Colorado, with his family's help.
He has been charged under federal hate crime statutes and state attempted murder counts, while his family was also detained for immigration violations. Soliman allegedly confessed to the crime that left victims badly burned and witnesses shaken.
Rachelle Halpern, who was at the demonstration when the attack occurred, recalled seeing Soliman walking around with what looked like a pesticide spray canister just prior to the attack. Halpern realized the danger only when she heard the crashes and people crying out.
"A woman stood one foot behind me, engulfed in flames from head to toe, lying on the ground with her husband. People immediately, three or four men, immediately rushed to her to smother the flames," Halpern said.
The judge does not seem concerned that these are not ordinary asylum seekers by any measure. If Soliman was indeed the person who carried out this attack, his wife and children should receive extra scrutiny, and certainly not special treatment.
Steve Bannon has sparked controversy by suggesting that Sen. Lindsey Graham should be detained due to Graham's advocacy and regular visits to Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia, according to DailyFetched.
Bannon accused Graham of escalating tensions and undermining former President Donald Trump’s peace initiatives.
Steve Bannon used his platform, "War Room," to criticize Sen. Lindsey Graham for his actions relating to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. His statements came after Graham applauded Ukraine's recent military actions against Russian targets.
On "War Room," Bannon made the bold suggestion that Graham should be arrested if he continues his trips supporting Ukraine. Bannon demanded that the White House condemn Graham's activities to discourage more involvement.
"The White House has to condemn this immediately," Bannon stated, expressing his belief that Graham's actions were not in line with U.S. interests. Bannon argued that Graham's ongoing support might intensify the tensions between the involved countries.
The focal point of Bannon's critique was Graham’s praise for Ukraine's drone strike on Russian aircraft. This strike is said to have caused significant damage by destroying 40 Russian military planes. Bannon warned against what he sees as a potential escalation of the conflict.
Lindsey Graham, a senator known for his hawkish foreign policy views, has been actively engaged with the Ukrainian government and supports their defense initiatives.
Graham has made multiple trips to Ukraine, and he openly commends their efforts to counter Russian aggression, as evidenced by a social media post highlighting Ukraine's tactics.
On the platform X, formerly Twitter, Graham noted that Ukraine's drone assault was a creative move against Russian military assets. He used this to underscore the severity of Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
Bannon accused Graham of undermining efforts by Donald Trump to broker peace. He suggested that Graham's actions detract from the diplomatic moves intended to resolve the situation peacefully.
In his show, Bannon emphasized his view that supporting military engagements in Ukraine counters Trump's approach to handling international disputes.
The disagreement between Bannon and Graham points to broader tensions within U.S. politics about how the country should engage with the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Bannon's call for Graham to be arrested highlights a division in American political circles on foreign policy approaches, especially regarding conflicts overseas.
Graham remains steadfast in his support, advocating for international actions against Russia and its allies. He argues that such actions will hold accountable those trading with Russia and indirectly fueling its military ventures.
In his media appearances, Graham has painted a picture of urgent moral responsibility. He argues for decisive action to isolate Russia on the world stage economically and diplomatically.
Elon Musk is lashing out at President Trump's “Big, Beautiful" bill in anger after getting "fired," commentator Bill Kristol speculated.
In his most forceful criticism to date of Trump's policies, Musk labeled the sprawling bill, which encompasses Trump's major legislative priorities, a "disgusting abomination."
While Musk has cited concerns with the bill's impact on the federal deficit, some see a personal side to his sudden change in tone since leaving his White House role last week.
During his time as the leader of DOGE, Musk largely avoided blasting Trump directly, even as he voiced strong opposition to Trump's tariff plans.
Kristol, a longtime Trump critic, said Musk's sudden attack on the Big, Beautiful Bill looks like an indirect shot at Trump.
Kristol said he doubts Musk has read the sprawling legislation, given the aggressive, sweeping approach DOGE deployed to downsize the government.
"The attack on the bill is entirely an attack on Trump," he told MSNBC's The Beat.
"Elon Musk has not studied the, you know, 1,000-page House bill, how it changes in the Senate. He didn’t study any of the agencies he’s ruined, USAID and others, but he’s done a lot of damage to the country. He didn’t even bother to study for that. He’s not studying some 1,000-page bill with complicated Medicaid cuts, tax provisions, and so forth. It’s his way of attacking Trump.”
Musk's resignation from his role as a "special government employee" was presented by Musk and the White House as a scheduled departure, but there have been some reports that Musk expected to stay on longer.
The Tesla CEO is also reportedly upset that the bill does not have an electric vehicle tax credit that he lobbied for, Axios reported.
"Don’t you think his reaction suggests Trump fired him? This talk about you mentioned a breakup. True enough, he was going to go back to his business. He’d only 120 days and all that nonsense. He wanted to stay. He loved it there. I think Trump just said at some point, no, sorry, goodbye. Because I just think the ferocity," Kristol said.
Trump has refrained, so far, from reacting to Musk's criticism even as Musk doubles down on attacking the president's agenda.
"KILL THE BILL," Musk wrote in a post on Wednesday.
“The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said a day earlier. "It doesn’t change the president’s opinion."