Aging billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling empire of U.S. media properties, including most notably the Wall Street Journal but also Fox News and the New York Post, have been steadily ramping up attacks on Vice President JD Vance.

The barrage on Vance, which seems to be a continuation of the Murdoch properties’ unsuccessful efforts to stop President Donald Trump from selecting Vance as his running mate last year during the 2024 presidential election, has included well more than a dozen hits in the Wall Street Journal against him and individual hits in the New York Post and Fox News as well.

The efforts from Murdoch’s properties are drawing the ire of people close to the president and vice president as well, with one source close to Vance telling Breitbart News that this is quite clearly a globalist plot to undermine the president’s agenda on peace and trade.

“Neocons have been screwing up U.S. foreign policy for decades and they’re furious that they have no foothold in this administration,” a source close to Vance told Breitbart News. “President Trump has ended Houthi terrorist attacks on U.S. ships, freed all living American hostages in Gaza and he’s forcing Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table and stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They hate his success because it has exposed them as massive failures.”

A senior GOP political adviser added that this shows the Murdoch properties are out of step with the direction of the Republican Party.

“It’s a shame so much of the old guard media is still pushing forever wars and completely out of touch with the direction of the GOP,” the GOP adviser told Breitbart News.

Another GOP strategist with close ties to the Trump White House, added that people inside the administration and those close to it are more than happy to work with other outlets like Breitbart News instead of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal since those outlets seem to be running counter to the wishes of the electorate.

“President Trump has been the leader of the Republican Party for almost a decade, and Murdoch-media still isn’t onboard with his agenda,” the strategist said. “They’re digging their own graves and they’re going to keep losing access. There are plenty of outlets the White House can talk to, like Breitbart, who reach Republican voters and actually believe in making America great.”

Dating back to February, the Wall Street Journal has run a whopping 17 op-eds at least, and letters-to-the-editor attacking Vance—a pattern that seems to have increased in frequency in late May and early June. They attack Vance mostly on economic and foreign policy issues, showing a deep divide between the old guard of the GOP establishment and the new rising economic nationalist wing of the party that Vance quite clearly represents.

For instance, before the passing of Pope Francis, the Wall Street Journal back in mid-February ran this headline: “The Pope vs. JD Vance on Immigration.” The opinion piece, from a Canada-based priest, called for Vance—who is a Catholic convert—to ditch his principles and side with Francis against “mass deportations.” Vance, of course, has done nothing of the sort and stands arm-in-arm with Trump and his administration as they carry out immigration enforcement.

Then, a couple weeks later, the Journal began ripping Vance in a pair of pieces attacking his views on Germany where the Vice President went to call out the regime in Berlin for a lack of freedom of speech. Instead of calling out the German government for their oppressive, speech-stifling behavior toward the opposition, the Journal incredibly sides with the oppressors in a bid to rip Vance.

When that did not work in wiping out the vice president, the Murdoch-owned newspaper turned next to pressuring Vance on Ukraine. An early March letter to the editor from a Pennsylvania man amazingly attacks Vance after Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s blow-up in the Oval Office that saw Zelensky unceremoniously kicked out of the White House. This was the headline to that: “Has Vance Said Thank You to Ukraine Once?”

An Editorial Board piece from the Journal later, in late April, accuses Vance of having made what it calls the “cardinal error” of Trump’s second term by following the president’s directions in peace negotiations between the Russians and the Ukrainians and having the gall to try to understand what both sides want. The Editorial Board piece, which comes from the people who run the newspaper, points to this quote from Vance: “We’ve really tried to understand things from the perspective of both the Ukrainians and the Russians. What do Ukrainians care the most about? What do the Russians care the most about? And I think that we’ve put together a very fair proposal.”

And then the Editorial Board argues that Vance’s comment there “reveals the Administration’s cardinal error,” and pushes Trump to change course on Russia and Ukraine writing that “Mr. Trump can’t want his legacy to be handing Ukraine to Mr. Putin.”

Even more pieces from the Journal attack Vance on the Signal chat leak to The Atlantic magazine, with one Editorial Board slam on March 24 falsely arguing that Vance broke with the president in them, then another the next day on March 25 again slamming Vance falsely as having shown in the messages “contempt for allies.”

Less than two weeks later on April 4, the Wall Street Journal was at it again, this time running another letter-to-the-editor that compared Vance to assassins who plotted to successfully murder Roman emperor Julius Caesar under this headline: “Et Tu, Vice President Vance?”

An opinion piece a few days earlier accused Vance of plotting against Trump and beyond his term in office. “JD Vance Already Has an Eye on His Post-Vice Presidency,” read a headline from the opinion piece in the Journal published on April 1 written by Journal editorial page writer Barton Swaim.

Then in early May, the Editorial Board was at it yet again, writing a straight up attack on Vance on Trump’s tariffs after the vice president’s visit to a steel plant in South Carolina.

Then later in May, the Journal’s Kimberley Strassel argued that Vance criticizing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “Courts Trouble for Trump” and was “unhelpful to the administration.” Two days earlier, the Journal had printed an opinion piece from former Bill Clinton administration and former Al Gore and Walter Mondale campaign official William Galston attacking Vance over his arguments that the courts should be deferential to the administration on deportations. Interestingly, the article does not disclose, at least in the online version, that Galston worked for top Democrats including Clinton, Gore, and Mondale.

The Journal has also run a series of op-eds and letters-to-the-editor in recent days attacking Vance’s views on trade and markets.

In addition to the steady drumbeat of attacks from the Journal, Murdoch’s other major U.S. properties like Fox News and the New York Post have jumped on the bandwagon as well with anti-Vance attacks. For instance, Fox News ran this headline on May 21: “Will Vance remark about US bailing on Ukraine encourage Putin to sink nascent peace talks?”

The article is centered around a quote from an official with a questionable group called the “Foundation for the Defense of Democracies” criticizing Vance on his comments on the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. That very same group led a series of criticisms against Trump’s special envoy and senior adviser Steve Witkoff, who previously responded to them in a Breitbart News exclusive published earlier in May. The baseless attacks, first on Witkoff and now on Vance, seem centered on undermining Trump’s push for peace worldwide, particularly in the Middle East and in Europe.

And in the New York Post, Kimberley Strassel echoed attacks on Vance made in the Wall Street Journal over his criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court. “JD Vance sabotages self with attack on Supreme Court,” was the headline in a May 30 New York Post column from Strassel.

All of this, of course, comes after as Breitbart News has previously reported there was a serious effort from Murdoch-owned media outlets to undermine Trump’s then-eventual decision to make Vance his running mate last year. And it also comes after a decade-long string of attacks from such outlets on Trump himself, as Breitbart News also reported earlier this year.

How this all shakes out—and whether the Journal and other Murdoch-owned properties like Fox News and the New York Post face any serious consequences—remains to be seen. But it’s clear from conversations with Breitbart News with many of them that most people around the president and vice president are not too pleased with them at the moment.

“The ongoing barrage of BS against true America First leaders to bolster Fox News’ and the Wall Street Journal’s neocon plants is getting old and tired,” a very senior well-connected source close to Trump’s family told Breitbart News. “It’s a sure way to see that true conservative leadership never happens again in this country.”

But one thing is very clear: Since these Murdoch-owned outlets failed so spectacularly to stop Trump over the last decade multiple times, this probably bodes very well for Vance’s chances long-term politically–if they are attacking him, he is probably winning and they know it.

Breitbart, Matthew Boyle

FBI Director Kash Patel says agents have recovered phones once used by Dr. Anthony Fauci during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a discovery Patel called a “breakthrough” in the bureau’s ongoing investigation into Fauci’s role in the crisis, The Hill reported.

“We just had a great breakthrough this week on Fauci,” Patel told host Joe Rogan in Friday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “They had always been looking for phones and devices he used while he was back in Trump one during COVID, and nobody had found it until two days ago.”

The discovery, Patel said, could help uncover new information about how the federal government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he cautioned against premature conclusions.

“Everybody listening to us shouldn’t jump to the conclusion everything’s in there,” he said. “Maybe it’s deleted, maybe it’s not. But at least we found it. And at least now we can tell people that we have been looking, because it is of public importance.”

President Donald Trump and his allies have accused Fauci, the infectious disease expert who advised Trump on the COVID-19 pandemic, of misleading the public about the pandemic’s origins and the effectiveness of certain government measures. 

“We think that there was definite foul play, but my opinion is irrelevant,” Patel said. “It only matters what I can show the American people and prove.”

Patel added that the investigation must be handled carefully.

“That’s what we’re working on. That’s why I don’t run out there and say, Look, we’re gonna get this guy. We’re 100% gonna get him,” he said.

Fauci has faced mounting scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who last year said Fauci should be jailed over alleged ties to lab research in China. Paul and others claim Fauci’s involvement in gain-of-function research contributed to the COVID-19 outbreak and accuse him of causing “between 10 [million] and 20 million” deaths.

Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2024, maintaining that he followed available science and never covered up a potential “lab leak.” He argued government interventions saved lives, stating another million Americans may have died without them, though he admitted “how long you kept them going is debatable.”

Before leaving office, former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a sweeping presidential pardon, shielding him from prosecution for any actions related to his roles from Jan. 1, 2014, through the end of Biden’s term. The pardon drew swift condemnation from Trump.

Jim Thomas ✉

Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.

As President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up immigration enforcement in his second term, California Democrats are doubling down on their efforts to shield illegal aliens from federal authorities, even in places where public safety is at stake.

This week, the California State Senate passed a series of bills that critics argue would all but handcuff federal immigration agents operating in the state.

Democrats are moving to place fresh restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The legislation would ban ICE from making arrests at schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, and domestic violence shelters unless they obtain a judicial warrant — a move law enforcement leaders say will hamper their ability to detain and deport dangerous individuals.

The bills, all of which passed largely along party lines, are now headed to the Democrat-controlled State Assembly, where they are expected to sail through.

If signed into law by Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, the measures would cement California’s status as the most aggressive “sanctuary” state in the country.

Here’s a breakdown of the new bills:

SB 48 would bar ICE from entering non-public areas of schools without a warrant.

SB 81 applies similar restrictions to hospitals.

SB 841 blocks ICE access to homeless and domestic violence shelters.

While California Democrats claim these bills are about protecting vulnerable communities, opponents warn they send the message that California is a haven for illegal aliens, even those involved in serious crimes.

Critics point to recent scandals involving illegal aliens abusing sanctuary protections, including a 24-year-old man who posed as a teenager to enroll in an Ohio high school.

…

It also follows reports of abuse in Massachusetts shelters housing illegal aliens.

The move is just the latest in a long line of anti-enforcement policies pushed by California Democrats.

Just days after President Trump’s re-election, the Los Angeles City Council officially designated the city as a “sanctuary city.”

And in December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors passed a “super sanctuary” ordinance that further limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Tom Homan, Trump’s former ICE director and now border czar, has warned that these “sanctuary” policies won’t stop ICE.

They’ll just force federal agents to operate more aggressively in areas that refuse to cooperate, he noted.

“If local police won’t help us, we’ll do it ourselves — but don’t complain when we’re knocking on more doors,” Homan said.

In April, Trump signed a sweeping executive order directing the Department of Justice and DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and cut off federal funding where applicable.

Lawsuits are also expected to follow.

The California bills, if enacted, would also nullify key reforms Trump made to immigration enforcement immediately after taking office again.

In early 2025, his DHS scrapped the Biden-era “sensitive locations” policy that restricted ICE activity at schools, hospitals, and churches, arguing that such loopholes gave illegal migrants “nowhere to go but safe zones.”

Now, California Democrats are trying to reinstate those protections statewide, effectively turning public institutions into legal fortresses for illegal aliens, regardless of their background.

In addition to restricting ICE’s physical access, California lawmakers are pushing other bills to cut off information-sharing with the federal government.

One would block local governments from giving ICE data on street vendors, and another would prohibit public health departments from disclosing parents’ countries of birth on birth certificates.

Opponents say these laws make a mockery of immigration enforcement and elevate political posturing over public safety.

“California is choosing illegal immigrants over its own citizens,…

They’re creating a parallel legal system for people who shouldn’t even be here — and tying the hands of federal agents tasked with protecting our communities.”

The legislation represents a direct challenge to the Trump administration, which has vowed to prioritize border security and the rule of law in its second term.

Whether Governor Newsom — widely considered a potential 2028 presidential contender — signs the bills could signal just how far Democrats are willing to go in their fight against federal immigration enforcement.

Frank Bergman, Slay News

by Mike LaChance Jun. 6, 2025 9:20

A student in North Carolina just got $20,000 richer.

His school district was forced to apologize to him and make the cash payment because he was suspended for using the term ‘illegal alien.’

The left is so triggered by the topic of illegal immigration, that you can’t even use accurate language when talking about the issue without someone going crazy.

The family of a North Carolina high school student suspended for using the term “illegal alien” is slated to receive a $20,000 payment and a public apology under a proposed settlement, according to The New York Post.

The outlet reported Thursday that the settlement was reached to remove all references to racial bias from now-17-year-old Christian McGhee’s record, provide compensation and issue a public apology “for the mischaracterization of racial bias.”

“The Proposed Settlement provides C.M. with monetary compensation intended to defray the costs of his new school, which is private and charges annual tuition,” according to the document.

The teen received a three-day suspension last year after asking his teacher if a conversation in class was centered around “spaceship aliens” or “illegal aliens who need green cards” after he returned to the classroom from the restroom.

A Latino student present in the class reportedly “joked” that he was going to “kick Christian’s a–,” leading the teacher to escalate the situation to the assistant principal.

What was the school thinking?

Perhaps the person who issued the suspension should be fired.

Mike LaChance has been covering higher education and politics for Legal Insurrection since 2012. Since 2008 he has contributed work to the Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Breitbart, the Center for Security Policy, the Washington Free Beacon, and Ricochet. He has also written for American Lookout, Townhall, and Twitchy.

Sometime in the Twenties, Józef Piłsudski quipped that the “most beloved state” of the Polish people is indecision. Almost exactly a century on, the modern nation’s founding father has never been more right, with last week’s presidential election resulting in an almost literal dead heat. Though the conservative Karol Nawrocki finally carried the day, the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) candidate only defeated Rafał Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw, by just 1.78% of the vote, with less than 370,000 ballots separating the two men in a country of 37 million.

Since Nawrocki’s win, commentators of all stripes have been eager to pigeonhole the election as a win for Russia, as the MAGA-fication of Poland, or as the nail in the coffin of Poland’s warm relationship with Ukraine. In truth, it’s none of those things — politics here is never so simple. The razor-thin margin of Sunday’s election, and indeed the divided, hamstrung government that has existed here for the last 18 months, is emblematic of a deeper fight about the nature of Polish identity in the 21st century. Caught between a future at the heart of the EU, and the familiar, reassuring hearth of traditional Catholic values, Poland is scrabbling for its future, even as it faces the old security challenges Piłsudski knew so well.

In the first place, Nawrocki’s win has crystallised the resurgent ascendancy of the country’s Right, this time with a new anti-establishment cadre of Gen Z acolytes at its back. It’s true, of course, that the guiding star of this quintessentially Polish brand of nationalism lies not in Europe: but in Trump’s America. Not only do its true believers take a “Poland First” approach on immigration and security, but their views on taxation, government regulation, and gun ownership are much closer to Trump’s than those of the PiS. Having posed with Nawrocki during his visit to the Oval Office in May, Trump hailed him this week as an “ally” whose victory had shocked “all in Europe”. But regardless of what Poland’s populists do next, what the country has achieved over the last three or four years cannot be undone. Behind Nawrocki’s win lies the simple fact that this country has left its mark on Europe, becoming indispensable to the very stability of the continent no matter who’s in charge.

The seeds of Poland’s modern-day dualism were sown long before Donald Tusk, the country’s embattled centrist prime minister, took power in 2023. Rather, they stretch back to the twilight days of communist rule. In 1989, after years of chaos and martial law, the country’s Soviet-backed regime agreed to sit down for discussions with Lech Wałęsa and other Solidarity leaders. The talks were ostensibly to diffuse tensions — but in practice ended up setting the stage for the collapse of communism right across Eastern Europe. Alongside Wałęsa, Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński also attended the meetings, with the twin brothers going on to form the PiS in 2001.

The PiS emerged from the ruins of Solidarity Electoral Action, a diverse coalition of parties created as the political wing of Solidarity in the mid-Nineties. Civic Platform, led by Tusk and supported by Wałęsa, was another party to emerge from the ashes of Solidarity Electoral Action. Though Tusk and the Kaczyńskis had common roots in Poland’s anti-communist centre-right, in other words, by the early 2000s their paths had diverged. Civic Platform set its sights on EU membership, while the PiS defended the Polish social conservative tradition.

Over the next two decades, both parties led governments in Poland, while drifting further and further apart. After joining the EU in 2004, Poland reaped enormous economic benefits, not only becoming the fastest growing economy in Europe, but also gaining the rare distinction of being the only country on the continent not to experience recession in 2008. But in the eyes of the PiS — and the growing number of Poles who saw traditional Catholic values as central to their identity — the boom came with trade offs. Like other conservatives in Europe, they felt that on the road to European integration, something deep within the national soul had begun to slip away. Soon enough, they began to castigate Tusk, Civic Platform, and all liberal-minded Poles, dismissing them as foreign interlopers intent on selling the country out to the old German nemesis. For their part, Poland’s liberals returned the favour. Centred in the cities and more Left-leaning areas in western Poland, they characterised the PiS as the party of backward, provincial cultists, holding the nation back from fulfilling its ambitions.

The pivotal moment came in 2015, when the PiS won a majority in both houses of parliament and secured the presidency for Andrzej Duda, giving the party broad control over the country’s institutions. In the name of completing decommunisation, the PiS reordered Poland’s courts, stacking the constitutional tribunal with loyal judges, all while tightening abortion laws, politicising state media, and cracking down on LGBT rights. Amid the battles with Brussels that followed, Poland’s liberals no longer saw themselves merely as pro-EU advocates fighting to pull their country out of the prejudices of the village — they were now freedom fighters trying to save Poland from a hostile internal takeover.

Into this tumult stepped Russia. In 2021, when with Russian backing Belarusian dictator Lukashenko began luring migrants to the border of the EU, before forcing them to cross into countries like Poland, the PiS was catapulted into the European spotlight. The party was now not only defending Poland’s national character from the scourge of liberalism, but Europe itself from Putin’s hybrid warfare. The fact he chose migrants as his weapon of choice made things even more convenient — its fight against European multiculturalism had become intertwined with Poland’s ancient struggle with the Kremlin.

The start of the war in Ukraine further enhanced the PiS’s role on the European stage, taking Poland as a whole along with it. The party’s leaders became the face of Europe’s embrace of Ukrainian refugees, and the facilitators of Ukraine’s defense, as Warsaw got its first real taste of international prestige. But the moment also gave Poland something else — an opportunity to merge its EU aspirations with its traditional anti-Russian animus. Now, rather than challenging the European order, Polish nationalism was something the EU and Nato not only commended but actually demanded. In other words, then, the PiS had got the best of both worlds, and for a brief moment had bridged the divide that had been growing in Poland since Tusk and the Kaczyński brothers went their separate ways.

Yet before long, things fell apart once again, this time with help from a new brand of populist Rightists — for whom the PiS was an inadequate guardian of Polishness. Fuelled by farmers’ protests over Ukrainian grain imports, anger over perceived preferential treatment of Ukrainians refugees, and a good dose of historical grievance over the unresolved massacres of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists during the Second World War, the Polish far-Right, led by the Confederation Party, pushed the PiS to adopt an ever-harsher line on Ukraine. Not that Ukraine is the only issue these new nationalists care about. Worries about immigrants from non-European countries do too, even as Confederation also calls for economic libertarianism and continues the familiar refrain that Poland’s business interests and political future are being outsourced to Brussels insiders.

Even so, Ukraine has risen to become the essential issue of Polish politics. To be sure, rearming at home and backing Nato abroad are still causes that unify almost everyone from Warsaw to Wrocław. But for Confederation, and increasingly for the PiS too, they are no longer the Europeanist projects they once were — even as they have increasingly begun to see Ukrainians in Poland as an impediment to Polish sovereignty rather than a boon.

The pivotal moment in the PiS’s shift took place late last month, after the first round of voting, when Confederation’s candidate Sławomir Mentzen came third behind Nawrocki. That led Mentzen to invite his PiS rival to appear on his YouTube channel and make his case to Confederation’s voters ahead of the runoff. Without hesitation and on camera, Nawrocki signed a document in support of Confederation’s agenda, notably pledging to oppose Ukraine’s Nato membership. The PiS’s fellowship with Confederation was sealed, and the tactic largely worked: over 88% of Mentzen supporters in the first round voted for Nawrocki in the second. Whatever happens over the weeks ahead, it seems clear that Poland is headed for a PiS-Confederation coalition in 2027, with Tusk’s fragile coalition probably splintering.

For now, though, Poland will remain in stasis, with political gridlock set to continue. It’s ironic, then, that the very voters who ended up delivering Nawrocki his victory were those who’d once yearned for a more dynamic political landscape — and for more options outside the PiS-Civic Platform duopoly. Driven by frustration with the establishment, Mentzen’s effective and direct social media presence, and a desire to return to traditional Polish roots, a slim majority of young people voted for Right-wing populist parties in the first round of the election, subsequently supporting Nawrocki in the runoff. By embracing their desire for more radical ideas and aligning itself with Confederation in the long-term, the PiS may well reinvent itself too, ensuring the tug-of-war with Poland’s liberals remains as energetic as ever.

For its part, Civic Coalition has had to adapt too. Despite his reputation as an urban progressive, Trzaskowki ran a more conservative campaign than expected, even going so far as criticising some social programs for Ukrainians in Poland. Though it clearly didn’t help him, he won’t be the last liberal to appeal to the increasingly conservative masses before the decade is out. Having already moved Rightward on migration, Tusk is also flexing his conservative muscles on the European stage, for instance rallying against the Green Deal earlier this year by framing it as a threat to European competitiveness. In a testament to how much Poland has moved the needle on the continent, meanwhile, many other countries are now following Tusk’s lead.

We shouldn’t exaggerate here. Though his own days as prime minister are numbered, Polish liberals are unlikely to wholly cave to the rising Right anytime soon. The record turnout of Sunday’s vote proved that despite the country’s polarisation, and despite the obstacles in their way, pro-EU Poles will continue to be a force to be reckoned with so long as there remains space for Poland at Europe’s top table.

Cliché though it may be, Poles are capable of overcoming their differences and banding together in the face of adversity. Back in the interwar years, Piłsudski shaped the country’s trajectory as he saw fit, but the Poles themselves were never able to get over their indecisiveness until the Nazis and Soviets came knocking in 1939. In today’s Poland, though, waiting that long may not be an option — a synthesis in national identity will necessarily have to emerge, not only for Poland’s own national security, but if Europe wants to defend itself against whatever Russia has in store for Nato’s east.

Poland’s longtime political divisions haven’t hampered its rise so far, but as it enters a new arena of geopolitical competition, the rules of the game have changed. If it hopes to expand its influence in Europe, solidify its brand — and resist Russian imperialism all at the same time — it will have to break through the glass ceiling currently limiting its rise. Once it does so, a vision that unites forward-looking Europeanism with a positivistic nationalism will be Poland’s only ticket in town. Even in the interwar years, Piłsudski understood this well. “Poland will be great,” the marshal once said, “or it won’t be at all.”

Michal Kranz is a freelance journalist reporting on politics, society and defence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. He runs The Eastern Flank, a Substack newsletter focused on Eastern European geopolitics.

Michal_Kran

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has been stolen.”—Friedrich Nietzsche

Let’s face it, no one expected Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” to be perfect. But for Elon Musk to adopt the intransigent position that the work of government should stop in its tracks in pursuit of perfection is a manifest nonsense. Especially when considering OMB chief Russ Vought’s explanation of how the bill helps reduce the deficit.

Musk has a habit of failing to see the wood for the trees. He’s been a long-standing backer of China, which my website has reported on for years. He supported DeSantis, not Trump, in the primary. He recently tried to depose Brexit leader Nigel Farage (it went badly for Musk), and just a few weeks ago lashed out at the architect of the tariffs – Dr. Peter Navarro.

Now, he’s set his sights on the President, tweeting this afternoon about how Trump is in the Epstein Files, as if this were new information. It’s not.

Such petulance, however, was visible to some of us for a very long time. A while ago, I told the New York Times: “Musk is an atheistic, amoral, CCP-aligned, unaccountable foreigner that’s going to be the head of the MAGA movement at some point.” I may have been wrong about that last bit.

Now, Elon has very publicly severed his links with the MAGA movement, going so far as to retweet Malaysian influencer Ian Miles Cheong (who, to my shame, once worked for me), saying Trump should be impeached and replaced with J.D. Vance.

Let’s be honest: this is no great loss. Trump should immediately cancel all SpaceX, Tesla and X contracts with the US government.

After all, Elon once claimed he would save US taxpayers $2 trillion. That figure was then revised down to $1 trillion and then to $150 billion. At last check, just 27 percent of these recommendations can be verified. That is worse than failure.

And he’s not just hurting himself with his very public meltdown. He’s harming the MAGA movement. He’s harming the President of the United States. He’s harming his shareholders and investors. And he’s harming the fight against the far left. For what? His amour propre? 

It’s a pretty predictable and sad ending for Musk’s short foray with the MAGA right. Good riddance, as far as I am concerned. 

Raheem Kassam, The Spectator

The goodwill Elon Musk established with House Republicans is plummeting about as fast his relationship with President Donald Trump, and the GOP doesn’t appear to be concerned the tech tycoon who donated millions to back the party in 2024 could work against them in the 2026 midterms.

Musk has been a fervent opponent of the reconciliation budget bill that narrowly passed the House last week and is being considered by the Senate because it adds too much to the federal deficit and doesn’t cut enough spending. He also reportedly is angry that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act phases out by 2026 the tax credit of up to $7,500 given to buyers of electric vehicles, which could be crucial to the success of Musk’s Tesla.

“I’ve had a lot of love and respect for you for what you’ve done for this country over the last several months, but you’ve lost your damn mind,” Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told reporters of Musk, The Hill reported Thursday. “You’ve lost your mind. Enough is enough. Stop this. I don’t think it’s healthy.”

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., said Musk’s standing with Republicans has diminished.

“He’s extremely bright, my God. I mean — SpaceX, Tesla, all that stuff,” Van Drew said, according to The Hill. “However, I never saw that he had his finger on the pulse of America and what the American man and woman is thinking. I quite frankly, don’t think he does.”

Musk compounded his criticisms by urging his followers on X in a Wednesday post: “Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.” The post had more than 329,000 likes and 46.5 million impressions as of 7:30 p.m. EDT on Thursday.

But out of nearly a dozen Republican Capitol Hill offices that spoke with The Hill, ranging from rank-and-file members to leadership, almost none said they received calls from GOP-supporting constituents opposing the bill by the afternoon after Musk’s tweet, or callers making references to Musk. One office reported a caller who said, “kill the bill.”

As party leaders push to get the legislation to Trump’s desk by July 4, lawmakers said there is no time to go back to the drawing board.

“It would be problematic starting at ground zero since it’s taken us about three months to get what we’ve done,” Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said Wednesday, according to The Hill. “I don’t know if Elon understands the whole process, but I think that the Senate will make it more conservative.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, noted how Musk stood back while members of the group went to war against GOP leaders and demanded more deficit reductions in the bill ahead of the vote.

When there was blistering fire heaped upon them, he didn’t really have much to say,” Biggs said Wednesday, The Hill reported. “He’s waiting till now to make the assessments? It’s kind of odd.”

House Republicans, including some who benefited from Musk’s donations in 2024, said they are not concerned about losing out on his cash in the midterms, The Hill reported. They aren’t convinced he will follow through with spending plans a year from now, and if he does, it will be effective. Musk and his groups spent more than $20 million to support the losing candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this year.

As long as a candidate has Trump’s endorsement, one GOP member told The Hill, “You don’t [have] to worry if Elon spends $5 million.” And in a swing district, “Elon being against you if you are a Republican probably isn’t so bad either.”

Michael Katz ✉

Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and politics.