Elon Musk is back to attacking President Trump's agenda, but Trump isn't taking the bait.
Trump shrugged off Musk's latest mood swing after the Tesla CEO started ripping into the Senate version of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill."
Musk had previously apologized to Trump for hurling bitter insults during a dramatic rift that opened up in early June. The Tesla CEO had called for Republicans to kill Trump's legislation, calling it an "abomination" and later tying Trump to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes without evidence.
The president was magnanimous in an interview Sunday with Fox News, calling his former campaign benefactor a "wonderful" guy despite his latest criticism.
However, Trump kept his distance, noting he hasn't spoken to Musk very much since he went haywire the first time.
"I think he's a wonderful guy. I haven't spoken to him much, but I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he's going to do well always," Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo.
"He's a smart guy. And he actually went and campaigned with me and this and that. But he got a little bit upset, and that wasn't appropriate."
Weeks after his initial meltdown, Musk is once again sounding off at a critical juncture as Republicans scramble to finalize the Big, Beautiful bill before Trump's July 4th deadline.
"The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive," Musk wrote.
In another post Monday, Musk called for a new political party in a direct shot at Trump and his sway over the GOP.
"It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!! Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," Musk wrote.
While Musk insists that his main issue is with federal spending, Trump says Musk is upset that the bill does not advance his electric car agenda.
"Why did he get upset? He just wasn't getting what he wanted?" Bartiromo asked Trump.
"Look, the electric vehicle mandate, the EV mandate, is a tough thing for him. I would, you know, I don't want everybody to have to have an electric car," Trump said.
For now, it seems Trump wants to avoid drawing attention to Musk's latest criticism, but we'll have to see if Trump's approach changes in the coming days.
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't often make public comments on the state of the high court, but he did recently at a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he made his thoughts clear on those who have criticized the court's decisions.
According to The Hill, Chief Justice Roberts said that some of the criticism leveled at the high court is "not terribly helpful," adding that he believes much of it can be chalked up to "venting" by the side that loses.
While he wasn't speaking about any particular case, the comments came shortly after the high court handed the Trump administration a significant victory regarding the federal judiciary's ability to rule against the president's orders.
Federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions was significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court this week, and it was a stunning victory for the Trump administration.
At the conference, Roberts spoke with Albert Diaz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s chief judge, and made his thoughts clear.
"It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judge’s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this," Roberts said.
"And it may be an incorrect interpretation," he added. "But if that’s their criticism, then, of course, they can explain that, and maybe the court of appeals will take a different view."
Roberts went on to imply that some of the criticism can be classifed as "venting" when a decision doesn't go the way a group or person wanted it to go.
"But if it’s just venting because you lost, then that’s not terribly helpful," he said.
WATCH: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts sounds the alarm on heated rhetoric aimed at judges from politicians on "both sides." pic.twitter.com/Aqt3NZg8Af
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 29, 2025
Users across social media had their own idea as to why the rhetoric involving the federal judiciary is heated these days.
"I think the rhetoric is mainly caused by judges overstepping their authority... as clearly pointed out by SCOTUS," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Roberts is responsible for some rhetoric of his own."
Roberts has made several statements defending the judiciary in recent months, especially as the heated rhetoric continues.
The U.S. Supreme Court has proven to be a new source of drama given how the conservative majority decides on certain issues, and especially when conservative justices break away from the pack and side with the liberal justices.
According to Newsweek, Justice Neil Gorsuch shocked his colleagues and Republicans across Washington D.C. this week after he joined liberal justices in a dissent regarding an opinion on one of the latest immigration cases.
President Donald Trump's immigration policies have been wrapped up in the judicial system since Day One of his second term in office. Many of those cases are filtering up to the Supreme Court, and those decisions have been coming down mostly in Trump's favor as of late.
It was on Thursday, when the high court made a ruling on Riley v. Bondi that Justice Gorsuch broke away from his conservative colleagues on a ruling that favored the Trump administration.
Newsweek recapped what the case involved and how the Trump administration had to fight to make it happen.
The outlet noted:
The case centers around Pierre Riley, a man from Jamaica facing deportation from the United States who had been convicted on drug charges in 2008. After his release in 2021, immigration authorities took him into custody and sought his removal under a final administrative removal order (FARO).
Notably, Riley didn't contest his deportation from the United States, except he argued that he should not be returned to Jamaica, invoking the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
He claimed that he could be killed by a drug kingpin should he be returned to his home country.
Newsweek added:
An immigration judge sent his case to a "withholding-only proceeding," which decided whether he could be removed to his home country. During that proceeding, a judge granted deferral of his removal to Jamaica over those concerns.
Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), "which opted to enforce the earlier removal order," the outlet noted.
Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump, joined three liberal justices in dissenting from the case.
"The question is when Riley should have petitioned for judicial review of the Board's order," the dissent reads.
"Was his petition due 30 days after the Government first notified him he would be deported, well over a year before the Board issued the order Riley sought to challenge? Or was it instead due 30 days after the order denying his claim for deferral of removal? The answer is clear: One should not be required to appeal an order before it exists."
It'll be interesting to see what the final decision the case will be.
The Trump administration confirmed that it will deport accused MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia after he faces trial for smuggling.
During a hearing Thursday, a Justice Department lawyer said he would be removed to a "third country" that is not his native El Salvador. Now, Abrego Garcia wants to stay in jail in the United States to avoid deportation.
It's the latest development in a legal saga that has featured prominently in the battle between Trump administration and Democrats over immigration.
The federal case against Abrego Garcia accuses him of trafficking illegal aliens from Texas to the U.S. interior. In 2022, Abrego Garcia was suspected of smuggling during a traffic stop in Tennessee but was not charged at the time.
The administration has also been prosecuting a case in the court of public opinion, citing evidence of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 ties and accusing Democrats who have defended him of having a soft spot for criminals.
The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. this month to face criminal charges, following weeks of pressure from courts to reverse his "mistaken" deportation to his native land. The illegal alien had been living in Maryland for years when he was removed to his country of origin, sparking a furious backlash from Democrats who accused Trump of ignoring due process.
The judge in Abrego Garcia's criminal case in Tennessee, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, was prepared to release him from jail, finding that he wasn't a flight risk or a danger to the community. But the judge reversed course after the Trump administration told a different judge in Maryland that he is facing removal to a country other than El Salvador.
“We do plan to comply with the orders we’ve received from this court and other courts,” Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis. “But there’s no timeline for these specific proceedings.”
The move would conceivably allow the government to skirt a 2019 "withholding of removal" barring Abrego Garcia's deportation to his native country.
A Supreme Court ruling this week permitted Trump to deport aliens to third countries that are not their nations of origin.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia have asked the judge in Tennessee to delay his release from jail, saying the government's intentions are unclear. The Justice Department initially gave no timeline, which led Abrego Garcia's attorneys to claim he is facing deportation "immediately," but the DOJ clarified that he would face trial first.
The Trump administration said that there is nothing shocking about his potential deportation, since Abrego Garcia was never granted asylum. He instead won a limited form of relief blocking his deportation to El Salvador specifically.
Abrego Garcia could be deported to any other country that is willing to receive him.
"Given that the Defendant was first deemed deportable back in 2019 -- and a copy of that order was made an exhibit to the detention hearing by the Defendant’s previous counsel -- this should not be a surprise to the defense and is certainly not a surprise to this Court,” prosecutors wrote.
Andrew Cuomo is dropping out of New York's mayoral election, a move that could help consolidate the moderate vote in the general election and derail socialist extremist Zohran Mamdani.
While some speculate that Cuomo might run in the fall as an independent, his team sees no viable path forward after his stunning loss to Mamdani in Tuesday's primary, the New York Post reported.
Cuomo insists that he is still weighing his options, but "several insiders close to the Cuomo camp" say the ex-governor sees the writing on the wall.
“The understanding is he’s not running, every indication is that he doesn’t want to do it and the money wouldn’t be there even if he did want to do it,” said one union leader.
The former governor's decision is encouraging news to those who want to see Mamdani fail in November, even if it means re-electing incumbent mayor Eric Adams, a conservative Democrat who is running as an independent.
The primary received nationwide attention, pitting a tarnished idol of the Democratic establishment against a 33-year-old far-left progressive newcomer.
Cuomo came with a scandalous past - he resigned as governor of New York in 2021 over sexual harassment claims and was accused of covering up nursing home deaths during COVID - that cast a cloud over his comeback effort, and his campaign was widely seen as an ineffective response to Mamdani's youthful challenge.
The previously obscure Queens assemblyman, who was born in Uganda and was only naturalized in 2018, triumphed with lavish promises of free stuff and vacuous, Obama-like optimism.
With Mamdani on the verge of governing the nation's largest city, moderates and conservatives are clinging to hope that it's not too late to stop him and his radical agenda.
The conservative New York Post published an editorial pleading with Cuomo to drop out and shore up Adams, a moderate Democrat who has cooperated with the Trump administration on immigration.
If Cuomo does not run in the fall, it is expected that Adams would benefit by gaining some of Cuomo's supporters. Business leaders in the world's financial capital are considering backing Adams, although some have concerns about the mayor's popularity rating, the New York Post reported.
Adams' coziness with Trump has made him a reviled figure to many in New York, and he is persona non grata with the Democratic establishment. Several prominent Democrats rushed to congratulate Mamdani on Tuesday, including New York Governor Kathy Hochul and former president Bill Clinton, who had supported Cuomo in the primary.
GOP operatives are also looking at ways to convince Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa to end his campaign - including by lining up a job in the Trump administration, in order to get Adams on the Republican line, the New York Post reported.
Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX) is no longer seeking her party's top seat on the powerful House Oversight Committee after a cool reception from her fellow Democrats.
The controversial lawmaker said she would have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Trump if Democrats won back the House and she became chair of the Oversight Committee.
Her flashy, aggressive style was too much for most Democrats, who elected California Rep. Robert Garcia, a 47-year-old staunch leftist born in Peru.
Garcia had the backing of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus and California's Democratic delegation, the biggest in Congress.
This is only Garcia's second term as a congressman. He was among the Democrats who traveled to El Salvador to advocate for the return of accused trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia, in a spectacle that reinforced the party's image as weak on immigration and crime.
Democrats are still without direction months into Trump's second term, but they seem to realize that Crockett's attention-grabbing style is not what will help them convince voters that they are serious about governing. Crockett is aware of that perception.
“It was clear by the numbers that my style of leadership is not exactly what they were looking for and so I didn’t think that it was fair for me to then push forward,” Crockett told The Dallas Morning News.
Crockett came dead last in a closed-door vote by the Democratic steering committee, which recommended Garcia for the position of ranking member on the House Oversight Committee.
Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) also quit after a poor showing from the steering committee, and Garcia defeated the sole remaining candidate, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Ma.)
The position was opened up after Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly died from cancer at age 75, mere months after he defeated challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Ny) for the ranking member job.
Connolly's death in office sparked a fresh debate on the Democratic party's aging leadership, which has faced criticism from the left over its cautious approach to confronting Trump.
Democrats dismissed an impeachment attempt from 77-year-old rabblerouser Al Green (D-Tx.) almost as soon as it was introduced Tuesday, with 128 Democrats helping to block the resolution.
Crockett pushed back on Democratic critics of her impeachment plans, saying she would have used the Oversight Committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry into Trump's conduct rather than try to remove Trump from office, something Democrats have tried unsuccessfully in the past.
Ultimately, Crockett said she's staying true to herself, and it's working for her so far.
“At the end of the day, I am who I am, and I believe that my authenticity is what works, and it definitely works for my district in the state of Texas,” Crockett said.
The Supreme Court just gave President Trump a major boost, ruling he may remove illegal aliens to countries other than their native lands without notice.
The court reversed the ruling of a Democrat judge who tried to place constraints on Trump's power to conduct third-country removals to war-torn nations like South Sudan.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented, with Sotomayor accusing the court of "rewarding lawlessness."
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote.
The dispute is one of many legal challenges brought against Trump immigration officials on due process grounds. Several of these cases have involved losses for Trump, leaving the president and his supporters exasperated with "activist" judges.
The Supreme Court's ruling is a reprieve from that streak of losses, lifting a major roadblock to Trump's mass deportation efforts.
Lawyers for the immigrants in the case, convicted criminals from countries like Cuba and Vietnam, argued they face persecution and torture in a strange, dangerous country, and a district judge ruled they must have a chance to fight their removals.
The Trump administration had said the district court's order undermined Trump's efforts to address the "worst of the worst illegal aliens."
"Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process," Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing. "In addition to usurping the executive's authority over immigration policy, the injunction disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts."
The Department of Homeland Security called the Supreme Court's ruling a "victory for the safety and security of the American people."
"DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," a statement read in part. "Fire up the deportation planes."
Despite Trump's Supreme Court win, District Judge Brian Murphy has continued to insist that some of the immigrants cannot be summarily removed to South Sudan, citing a separate order that Trump did not appeal.
The immigrants have been detained inside a converted shipping container at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, a country in East Africa near South Sudan.
The Trump administration says Murphy is out of line, and they are calling on the Supreme Court to correct him. The Justice Department even suggested the court "may consider ordering that the case be reassigned to a different district judge."
"The district court’s ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals,” the administration said.
A federal appeals court has blocked Louisiana from displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools.
The Fifth Circuit is one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country, but the panel of three judges that decided the case was dominated by two Democrat appointees.
“This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education,” said Heather L. Weaver, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “With today’s ruling, the Fifth Circuit has held Louisiana accountable to a core constitutional promise: Public schools are not Sunday schools, and they must welcome all students, regardless of faith.”
The battle isn't over yet, with Louisiana's Republican leaders vowing to take the case to the Supreme Court.
"We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court," said Republican attorney general Liz Murrill.
“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Governor Jeff Landry (R) said.
The appeals court ruled that Louisiana's law is "plainly unconstitutional," upholding a lower court decision that blocked the statute.
"H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional. The district court did not err," the appeals court said. "H.B. 71’s minimum requirements provide sufficient details about how the Ten Commandments must be displayed. Plaintiffs have shown that those displays will cause an "irreparable" deprivation of their First Amendment rights."
The case is a classic dispute on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. While often understood to require a complete separation of religion from public life, interpretations of its text vary widely, from the strictly secular to a more flexible reading that respects the important role of religion in upholding a moral society.
The Ten Commandments have moral and educational purposes that are not strictly religious, making the debate over their public display a complex issue. Defenders of Louisiana's law point out that the Ten Commandments are an important part of America's legal and cultural heritage, but some argue that they have no place in public schools, which serve students of different faiths.
Texas has enacted a new law similar to Louisiana's that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments, setting up more legal challenges on the issue.
In 1980, a divided Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Kentucky, finding it was plainly religious in nature, without any secular purpose.
Of course, the Supreme Court looks much different today, giving conservatives fresh hope of a different outcome.
President Donald Trump ordered one of the most amazing military strikes in modern U.S. history, and while most Democrats are hopping mad about it, one high-profile Pennsylvania Democrat has different feelings from his party.
According to Breitbart, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) bucked his party's messaging on Trump's strikes on Iran's nuclear facility and called it the "correct move."
Fetterman has been an ardent supporter and backer of Israel, much to the dismay of his fellow Democrats, especially the radical, pro-Palestinian types.
The Pennsylvania senator is one of the few Democrats in the party able to think and speak logically about hot-button issues without resorting to the party's talking point playbook, which is usually something anti-Trump.
Fetterman made his stance on the U.S.-led bombing run on Iran's nuclear facilities crystal clear in an X post the day after the attack occurred.
"As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world," Fetterman wrote.
As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS.
Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.
I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/YZ0pIaunff
— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 22, 2025
Trump had previously kept his attack plans close to his vest, especially as reporters peppered him with questions over the past two weeks regarding what he was going to do.
"You don’t seriously think I’m going to answer that question? ‘Will you strike the Iranian nuclear component, and what time exactly, Sir? Sir, would you strike it? Would you please inform us so we can be there and watch?” Trump said, mocking a reporter who pestered him about a timeline.
Trump and his closest allies were praised by many for pulling off the extremely complex and tightly coordinated attack on Iran.
Fetterman's post agreeing that Trump made the right move drew plenty of feedback from his followers and others.
"Please resign and run as a republican. Let us nominate a real Democrat," one presumably angry Democrat wrote on X.
Another X user wrote, "Senator. I have a lot of respect for you and yes it needed to be done. Are we prepared for the reaction?"
The world watches and waits to see if and when Iran will retaliate, and what that will ultimately mean for the country.
As promised during his campaign, President Donald Trump just took a big axe to former President Barack Obama's legacy by making significant changes to his signature Obamacare legislation.
According to The Hill, on Friday, the Trump administration made several critical changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including shortening the annual open enrollment period.
Another massive change to Obamacare was that it can no longer cover immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children, which completely reversed former President Joe Biden's expansions and extensions of the program.
Under Biden, the ACA was heavily expanded and as a result, saw a record number of sign-ups during his time in the White House. Trump argues that the expansions simply opened the program up to record levels of fraud.
The enrollment period modification is one of the most impactful changes made to the ACA by the Trump administration .
The Hill noted:
According to the rule, the federal open enrollment period will run from Nov. 1 through Dec. 31. Currently, federal open enrollment ends Jan. 15.
States operating their own health insurance exchanges will have the flexibility to set their open enrollments, so long as they run no longer than nine weeks between the November and December dates.
Coverage for "Dreamers," or those who came to the United States illegal as children and were given protected status, will also be terminated under Trump's new rules for the program.
Trump administration makes sweeping changes to ObamaCare, ends ‘Dreamer’ coverage https://t.co/iRmFWbRJAd via @@YahooNews -- This POS does't understand is that the MORE people without healthcare the MORE people in ER so that people who have heart attaks and such can not get seen.
— Michael F (@VegasMike61) June 22, 2025
Other changes made to Obamacare revolve around "gender-affirming" care rules and procedures.
The Hill added:
The administration also banned plans from covering “sex-trait modification” as an essential health benefit beginning in plan year 2026. The policy will apply to the five states that currently include coverage for gender-affirming care, as well as in states that do not have such coverage expressly mentioned.
The rule changes are expected to save the United States billions by "reining in wasteful federal spending, and refocusing on making health insurance markets more affordable and sustainable for hardworking American families."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services project that an estimated $12 billion will be saved by next year alone.
Not surprisingly, Democrats reacted negatively to the changes.
It'll be interesting to see if there's anything left of the ACA over the coming years under Trump.