political

BRIDGEWATER, N.J. — Elon Musk said he’s carrying out his threat to form a new political party after his fissure with President Trump, announcing the America Party in response to the president’s sweeping tax cuts law.

Musk, once an ever-present ally to Trump as he headed up the White House advisory team, which he calls the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, broke with the Republican president over his signature legislation, which was signed into law Friday.

As the bill made its way through Congress, Musk threatened to form the “America Party” if “this insane spending bill passes.”

“When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Musk said Saturday on X, the social media company he owns. “Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.”

The formation of new political parties is not uncommon, but they typically struggle to pull any significant support away from the Republican and Democratic parties. But Musk, the world’s richest man who spent at least $250 million supporting Trump in the 2024 election, could affect the 2026 elections determining control of Congress if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money.

His reignited feud with the president could also be costly for Musk, whose businesses rely on billions of dollars in government contracts and publicly traded company Tesla has taken a hit in the market.

It wasn’t clear whether Musk had taken steps to formally create the new political party. Spokespeople for Musk and his political action committee, America PAC, didn’t immediately comment Sunday.

As of Sunday morning, there were multiple political parties listed in the Federal Election Commission database that had been formed in the the hours since Musk’s Saturday X post with versions of “America Party” of “DOGE” or “X” in the name, or Musk listed among people affiliated with the entity.

But none appeared to be authentic, listing contacts for the organization as email addresses such as ” [email protected]″ or untraceable Protonmail addresses.

Musk on Sunday spent the morning on X taking feedback from users about the party and indicated he’d use the party to get involved in the 2026 midterm elections.

Last month, he threatened to try to oust every member of Congress who voted for Trump’s bill. Musk had called the tax breaks and spending cuts package a “disgusting abomination,” warning it would increase the federal deficit, among other critiques.

“The Republican Party has a clean sweep of the executive, legislative and judicial branches and STILL had the nerve to massively increase the size of government, expanding the national debt by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS,” Musk said Sunday on X.

His critiques of the bill and move to form a political party mark a reversal from May, when his time in the White House was winding down and the head of rocket company SpaceX and electric vehicle maker Tesla said he would spend “a lot less” on politics in the future.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who clashed with Musk while he ran DOGE, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that DOGE’s “principles” were popular but “if you look at the polling, Elon was not.”

“I imagine that those board of directors did not like this announcement yesterday and will be encouraging him to focus on his business activities, not his political activities,” he said.

Price writes for the Associated Press.

The country has had three leaders in as many days, following a court’s decision to suspend Paetongtarn Shinawatra.

Thailand has ushered in the appointment of its second interim prime minister this week, following the Constitutional Court’s suspension of the country’s leader, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, fuelled by a phone call scandal with a key Cambodian political figure.

Interior Minister Phumtham Wechayachai assumed caretaker responsibilities on Thursday, two days after Paetongtarn was banned from duties, a government statement on Thursday confirmed.

In a post on social media, the Thai government said that Phumtham’s role as acting prime minister had been agreed at the first meeting of a new cabinet, which took place shortly after ministers were sworn in by King Maha Vajiralongkorn.

The 71-year-old replaces Suriya Jungrungreangkit, who only carried out the role for one day ahead of the reshuffle.

The interim appointments occurred after Paetongtarn was temporarily barred from office earlier this week over allegations that she breached ministerial ethics in a leaked phone conversation with Cambodia’s influential former leader, Hun Sen.

The call took place in mid-June with the aim of defusing recent border tensions between the two countries following an eruption of violence that killed a Cambodian soldier.

Critics in Thailand expressed anger at Paetongtarn’s decision to call Hun Sen “Uncle” and to criticise a Thai army commander.

The Constitutional Court accepted a petition from 36 senators, which claimed that the 38-year-old had violated the constitution in her conversation with Hun Sen.

It said there was “sufficient cause to suspect” Paetongtarn had breached ministerial ethics, with an investigation now under way into the incident.

Before her suspension began, Paetongtarn appointed herself as culture minister in the new cabinet. She was sworn in to the position at the Grand Palace on Thursday.

Paetongtarn’s government had struggled to revive a flagging economy, with an opinion poll in late June suggesting that her popularity had dropped to 9.2 percent from 30.9 percent in March.

Thailand’s political dynasty has been facing legal peril on two fronts, as a separate court hears a royal defamation suit against her father, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Thaksin has denied the charges against him and repeatedly pledged allegiance to the crown.

Thaksin dodged jail and spent six months in hospital detention on medical grounds before being released on parole in February last year. The Supreme Court will this month scrutinise that hospital stay and could potentially send him back to jail.

Veteran Los Angeles political consultant Rick Taylor said he was pulled aside by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents while returning from a trip abroad, asked if he was from California and then separated from his family and put in a holding room with several Latino travelers for nearly an hour.

“I know how the system works and have pretty good connections and I was still freaking out,” said Taylor, 71. “I could only imagine how I would be feeling if I didn’t understand the language and I didn’t know anyone.”

Taylor said he was at a loss to explain why he was singled out for extra questioning, but he speculated that perhaps it was because of the Obama-Biden T-shirt packed in his suitcase.

Taylor was returning from a weeklong vacation in Turks and Caicos with his wife and daughter, who were in a separate customs line, when a CBP agent asked, “Are you from California?” He said he answered, “Yeah, I live in Los Angeles.”

The man who ran campaigns for L.A.’s last Republican mayor and for current Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla when he was a budding Los Angeles City Council candidate in the 1990s found himself escorted to a waiting room and separated from his family.

There, Taylor said he waited 45 minutes without being released, alleging he was unjustly marked for detention and intimidated by CBP agents.

“I have no idea why I was targeted,” said Taylor, a consultant with the campaign to reelect L.A. City Councilwoman Traci Park. “They don’t talk to you. They don’t give you a reason. You’re just left confused, angry and worried.”

The story was first reported by Westside Current.

Former Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said the incident brought to mind Sen. Alex Padilla, who was arrested and handcuffed June 12 while trying to ask a question during a Los Angeles press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“My former chief of staff and political consultant, Rick Taylor, was detained at Miami International Airport by federal authorities after returning from an international vacation,” he said in an email. “As Senator Alex Padilla said a couple of weeks ago, ‘if it could happen to me, it could happen to anyone.’ This Federal government operation is OUT OF CONTROL! Where will it end?!”

A representative from the Customs and Border Protection in Florida said an inquiry made by the Los Angeles Times and received late Friday afternoon will likely be answered next week.

“If Mr. Taylor feels the need to, he is more than welcome to file a complaint online on our website and someone will reach out to him to try and get to the bottom of things,” CBP Public Affairs Specialist Alan Regalado said in an email.

Taylor, a partner at Dakota Communications, a strategic communications and marketing firm, said he was more concerned about traveling and returning to the U.S. with his wife, a U.S. citizen and native of Vietnam.

He said he reached out to a Trump administration member before leaving on vacation, asking if he could contact that individual in case his wife was detained.

The family flew American Airlines and landed in Miami on June 20, where he planned to visit friends before returning to Los Angeles on Tuesday.

In a twist, Taylor’s wife and daughter, both Global Entry cardholders, breezed through security while Taylor, who does not have Global Entry, was detained, he said.

He said after the agent confirmed he was a Los Angeles resident, he placed a small orange tag on his passport and was told to follow a green line. That led him to another agent and his eventual holding room.

Taylor described “95% of the population” inside the room as Latino and largely Spanish-speaking.

“I was one of three white dudes in the room,” he said. “I just kept wondering, ‘What I am doing here?’”

He said the lack of communication was “very intimidating,” though he was allowed to keep his phone and did send text message updates to his family.

“I have traveled a fair amount internationally and have never been pulled aside,” he said.

About 45 minutes into his holding, Taylor said an agent asked him to collect his luggage and hand it over for inspection.

He said he was released shortly after.

“The agents have succeeded in making me reassess travel,” Taylor said. “I would tell others to really think twice about traveling internationally while you have this administration in charge.”

Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What’s more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation.

The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15.

On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles.

Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation’s violent history. “Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…” said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter’s June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: “Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…”

Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, “With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,” in response to Walz’s message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as “Nightmare on Waltz Street” before deleting the post.

Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants “eat their neighbours’ pets”. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: “IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.”

That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump’s immigration crackdowns, including Trump’s takeover and deployment of California’s National Guard in the nation’s second-largest city.

But it’s not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself.

Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011.

Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society.

The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump’s unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel’s attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law.

It wouldn’t be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations.

Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: “Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they’ve always made me glad.” Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation’s history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment’s right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — For a president seeking reelection, Friday’s news of a surge in jobs could not have arrived at a more opportune moment–and President Clinton was quick to take advantage.

“We have the most solid American economy in a generation,” Clinton told reporters hours after the Labor Department reported that unemployment had fallen in June to a six-year low. “The American economy has created 10 million jobs since the beginning of this administration.”

It is a message the White House is certain to repeat often in the coming weeks for one politically powerful reason: Voters judge a president not only as commander in chief but in a very real sense as chairman of the board, the steward of their economic well-being.

While Clinton’s Republican challenger, Bob Dole, has spent most of the campaign so far castigating his opponent over such matters as war and peace, personal character and ethics, it is the public’s verdict on the economy that frequently determines election winners.

And at this point, barring some sudden change, “based on what I see right now with inflation and growth, my prediction puts Bill Clinton between 52% and 53%” in a two-way contest, said Helmut Norpoth, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook who has looked at the role of the economy in elections dating back to 1872.

Michael Lewis-Beck, a professor at the University of Iowa and author of a book on forecasting presidential elections, concurs.

The economic figures would indicate that “the election isn’t going to be a landslide, but it wouldn’t be a squeaker either,” he said.

Battle Continues

The timing of Friday’s unemployment report may be particularly auspicious for Clinton because the incumbent usually wins reelection when unemployment is falling at midyear, Lewis-Beck says. The economic performance in the fall is not so important because voters’ perceptions of the economy seem to lag behind the actual statistics by several months, analysts say.

Yet for all that, the crucial battle over the economy may not be over yet. Dole can take at least some comfort in evidence that voters have been less than euphoric about the state of the economy and divided over whether the president or his Republican challenger would do a better job in the head office.

On the campaign trail, Dole seeks to reinforce public doubts by lamenting a “Clinton crunch” and claiming that tax increases and over-regulation have cut into the national prosperity. He and his aides argue that many Americans have been frustrated by stagnant incomes and that the pace of economic growth has trailed that of earlier decades.

The Republican candidate was silent on the economy Friday–he and his advisors have been working on an economic plan to put forward, but they have yet to announce one.

Speaking for Dole, his press secretary, Nelson Warfield, said in a statement: “Even as more people found jobs last month, a stunning 70% of Americans agreed the country is on the wrong track,” a reference to recent public opinion polls. “If people are finding jobs but are still unhappy about where the nation is headed, Bill Clinton is in serious danger of unemployment himself.”

Changing Times

The latest economic figures are a notable contrast with those released this week four years ago, when Clinton was the challenger against Republican incumbent George Bush and the June unemployment report showed an increase in the jobless rate, from 7.5% to 7.8%.

Bush, deeply worried about the economic numbers, called on the Federal Reserve that very day to reduce interest rates. The Fed immediately cut the “federal funds” rate (which banks charge each other for overnight loans) from 3.75% to 3.25%. That may have helped end the recession, but it did not save Bush’s job.

This year many analysts believe that the Republicans will have difficulty selling the notion that Clinton has failed in his financial duties during his term in office, because the economy has performed relatively well in some of the ways that households care most about. Employment is high. Inflation is low. Not surprisingly, consumer confidence has registered at solid levels in recent surveys.

Remember the Misery Index? That infamous duo of unemployment and consumer inflation, which added up to almost 22% in 1980, is now below 9% and has been hovering at the lowest levels since the late 1960s.

Not only is unemployment low, but inflation remains stable and subdued around 3%, little changed from the day Clinton took office.

Interest rates have varied. The key 30-year Treasury bond, which stood at 7.6% in late 1992, plunged from 7.88% to 5.95% during 1995 before beginning to rise again earlier this year as the economy expanded. The bond yield jumped from 6.93% Wednesday to 7.19% Friday.

In addition, the federal budget deficit has shrunk by half since Clinton took office.

Contrary Messages

To this day, many conservatives remain angry that Clinton endorsed a deficit-reduction plan in 1993 that increased top income-tax rates for the affluent. Others, however, credit the program with helping to cut the deficit while preserving economic growth.

Even public anxiety over layoffs and corporate downsizing, so ballyhooed in prominent media reports, appears exaggerated, according to polling experts.

“If a Republican were running on this record, you’d hear nothing from the Republican side but, ‘Look what a good job we did,’ ” said Harvard University economist Benjamin Friedman. “I think the economy should definitely be a plus–and a large plus–for Clinton.”

Not surprisingly, a contrary message emerges from the Dole camp. Its assessment: Meager gains in productivity and a trend of subpar economic growth under Clinton have harmed progress in living standards. “Now it’s time to do something about it,” said John B. Taylor, a Stanford University economist who is advising Dole.

Some of the public opinion polls, such as surveys of consumer confidence, do not capture the undercurrents of unease that many Americans feel about the long-term performance of the economy, Taylor added. “I think most of those concerns reflect the slower long-term growth,” he said.

Yet many economists question whether the pejorative label, “Clinton crunch,” gives a true picture of long-term or even short-term trends in the economy.

The U.S. economy expanded at an average annual pace of 1.6% during the years of Bush’s presidency, according to David Wyss, an economist at DRI-McGraw Hill in Lexington, Mass. Under Clinton, Wyss said, the tempo picked up to 2.3%.

Gauging the Mood

Productivity gains–a key driver of living standards–have dipped during Clinton’s term, a matter of concern to economists, although the timing of economic slumps and recoveries complicates any comparisons of different periods.

Eager to put the Clinton statistics under a harsh light, a clutch of GOP advisors has been pressing Dole to unveil a bold plan of across-the-board tax cuts as a way to highlight his devotion to rising living standards. But the candidate has yet to sign off on a final plan.

“And, frankly, with the economy purring along fairly well right now, it’s a hard case to make to the American public that we need a major revolution,” Wyss said.

Certainly, the voters of 1996 view conditions to be more robust than they did four years ago.

In a May Gallup Poll, only 12% of voters considered the economy to be the nation’s most important problem, and just 13% cited jobs as the worst problem. Four years earlier, 29% cited the economy and 21% pointed to jobs.

Similarly, consumers are much more upbeat today. A June index of consumer confidence by the Conference Board came in at a solid 97.6. The same index had plunged to 61.2 four years earlier.

What is more, there is scant evidence that Americans are gripped with the rising terror of losing their jobs, for all the attention to layoff announcements this year. The number of Americans reporting such anxiety–slightly more than a third, according to Gallup polls–is significant but is about the same as it was four years ago.

To some analysts, this means that the media exaggerated the degree of worker anxiety earlier this year, when news coverage zeroed in on the GOP presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan and his focus on the vulnerability of U.S. workers in a world of free trade and corporate downsizing.

“The public didn’t buy into it even when they were hearing most about economic anxiety, and on the whole that’s still true,” maintained Everett C. Ladd, director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut.

Still, Dole may find reason for hope in voter attitudes about which candidate would be better for the economy.

In late June, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 37% of Americans felt Clinton would do a better job dealing with the economy, while an almost equal 34% chose Dole. Those findings were similar to the most recent Los Angeles Times Poll, in April.

In fact, one scholarly prognosticator of elections, Ray C. Fair of Yale University, gives Dole the edge in November, in part because of the less-than-spectacular pace of economic growth, though the race appears “so narrow as to be essentially a dead heat.”

It should be noted, however, that forecasting how the economy will influence an election is hardly an exact science. To cite one recent whopper, Fair, Lewis-Beck and others picked Bush in 1992.

Questions of forecasting aside, there may be an irony here: No president can exercise much immediate influence over the $7.5-trillion U.S. economy. On top of that, Clinton has served in a time when his party does not control Congress, further reducing his powers.

“The president has very limited importance in the short run about what happens with the economy,” said Jeremy J. Siegel, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

“I think he’s been lucky the economy has done well. Some of that good fortune is going to rub off on him.”

* MARKET JITTERS: Stocks, bonds hit amid fears of further upheaval Monday. D1

* PENT-UP DEMAND: Southland housing market takes rate boost in stride. D1

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Measuring the Misery

The misery index–the sum of the unemployment rate and inflation rate–is lower this election year than in any since 1968. In the table, the unemployment rate is an annual average, and the inflation rate is the yearly change in the consumer price index.

*–*

Unemployment Inflation Misery Presidential rate rate index result 1996* 5.6% 2.9% 8.5% ??? 1992 7.4% 3.0% 10.4% Incumbent lost 1988 5.5% 4.1% 9.6% Incumbent’s party won 1984 7.5% 4.3% 11.8% Incumbent won 1980 7.1% 13.5% 20.6% Incumbent lost 1976 7.7% 5.8% 13.5% Incumbent lost 1972 5.6% 3.2% 8.8% Incumbent won 1968 3.6% 4.2% 7.8% Incumbent’s party lost 1964 5.2% 1.3% 6.5% Incumbent won 1960 5.5% 1.7% 7.2% Incumbent’s party lost

*–*

* 1996 unemployment as of May, CPI change for 12 months ending in May

Source: Labor Department

A president who built his reputation as a real estate mogul and TV personality, not through political office or military service. A cultural influencer and entrepreneur best known as the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, he also leads companies like Neuralink and The Boring Company, both embroiled in a feud. An intriguing moment in politics, one that could steer the direction of public discourse and holds potential for both factionalism and authoritarian tendencies. Two political outsiders beefing in the political space. Perhaps, if both were real politicians, the first thing to say would be that in politics there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Since both are businessmen, perhaps the philosophy of supply and demand should take the lead.

One key area of tension is their vision for power and influence. Trump has traditionally sought loyalty and absolute control over his political base. Musk, on the other hand, champions a decentralized, free speech-centric internet and promotes what he calls “rational centrism.” Their feud exposes a broader struggle over who gets to define the conservative movement in the digital age. Is it career politicians like Trump or tech disruptors like Musk?

As the feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump escalates, it signals a seismic shift in where power and influence now reside in America. Musk represents the rise of the tech oligarch—billionaires who command not only wealth but also control over critical digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence. In contrast, Trump embodies the traditional fusion of business interests and political power. This public clash reflects more than a personal rivalry; it marks a defining moment in history when unelected figures with vast digital reach are rivaling, and in some cases eclipsing, the authority of elected officials. At stake is the very foundation of American democracy.

The cultural impact is equally significant. In today’s fragmented media landscape, Musk owns and controls X (formerly Twitter), one of the most influential social media platforms. Trump, meanwhile, promotes his views through Truth Social, his own media venture. Their battles play out in real time across these platforms, often fueling misinformation, deepening tribal divides, and eroding a shared sense of truth. This dynamic contributes to a growing destabilization of democratic norms. The rise of personality-driven politics is not confined to the United States; it is a global trend, reshaping leadership and public discourse worldwide. As Musk and Trump dominate headlines, millions are drawn into a media spectacle that distracts from urgent challenges like climate change, economic inequality, healthcare reform, and global instability. In this new era of digital power, the question remains: who truly holds the reins of influence, and at what cost to democratic society?

Elon Musk’s companies play a pivotal role in the U.S. economy, particularly in the automotive, aerospace, and infrastructure sectors. Should President Donald Trump choose to launch a political or rhetorical campaign against Musk, it could prompt Republican policymakers to reassess their support for clean energy subsidies, government contracts, or regulatory leniency. At the same time, Musk’s significant influence over financial markets—including cryptocurrencies and tech stocks—means that any sustained public clash with Trump could spark market volatility, especially if investors anticipate political retaliation or regulatory changes.

Should this feud be prolonged, the two figures could have far-reaching implications for Silicon Valley and the broader culture of innovation. Elon Musk is widely regarded as a symbol of entrepreneurial ambition and visionary risk-taking. Should former President Trump cast him as a political adversary, it could politicize certain elements of the tech industry, potentially undermining bipartisan support for innovation-driven initiatives. On the other hand, such a clash might encourage other tech leaders to adopt more overt political positions, either aligning with Musk’s views or deliberately distancing themselves from his influence, thereby challenging the traditionally apolitical posture of the tech sector.

The cultural implications of such a feud could be profound. Elon Musk resonates with younger, tech-savvy audiences through memes, livestreams, and direct engagement on social media platforms. In contrast, Donald Trump appeals to an older demographic that emphasizes traditional values and nationalist rhetoric. A prolonged conflict between the two figures could highlight and deepen the generational and ideological divides in American society. As business and politics become increasingly performative and adversarial, the space for collaboration, empathy, and thoughtful public discourse may continue to shrink.

Ultimately, in a nation already grappling with deep polarization, media fragmentation, and widespread institutional mistrust, a public clash between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could intensify existing divisions. While such a feud may appear, at first glance, to be mere spectacle, its ripple effects could extend far beyond headlines, impacting politics, economics, culture, and technology. As highly influential figures, both Musk and Trump bear a responsibility that transcends their personal brands. Their actions and their conflicts resonate throughout American society, making the consequences of their feud not just personal, but profoundly national.

The assassination of one Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife at their homes are just the latest addition to a long and unsettling roll call of political violence in the United States.

The list, in the last two months alone: the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C.; the firebombing of a Colorado march calling for the release of Israeli hostages; and the firebombing of the official residence of Pennsylvania’s governor — on a Jewish holiday while he and his family were inside.

Here is a sampling of other attacks before that — the assassination of a healthcare executive on the streets of New York City late last year; the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally during his presidential campaign last year; the 2022 attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) by a believer in right-wing conspiracy theories; and the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) by a gunman at a congressional softball game practice.

“We’ve entered into this especially scary time in the country where it feels the sort of norms and rhetoric and rules that would tamp down on violence have been lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies extremism. “A lot of people are receiving signals from the culture.”

Individual shootings and massacres

Politics have also driven large-scale massacres. Gunmen who killed 11 worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, 23 shoppers at a heavily Latino Walmart in El Paso in 2019 and 10 Black people at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store in 2022 each cited the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews was trying to replace white people with people of color. That has become a staple on parts of the right that support Trump’s push to limit immigration.

The Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the United States were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police.

“You’re seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies,” said Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who researches terrorism. “It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent.”

The United States has a long and grim history of political violence, including presidential assassinations dating to the killing of President Abraham Lincoln, lynchings and other violence aimed at Black people in the South, and the 1954 shooting inside Congress by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Experts say the last few years, however, have reached a level not seen since the tumultuous days of the 1960s and 1970s, when political leaders the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated.

Ware noted that the most recent surge comes after the new Trump administration has closed units that focus on investigating white supremacist extremism and pushed federal law enforcement to spend less time on anti-terrorism and more on detaining people who are in the country illegally.

“We’re at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,” Ware said.

One of Trump’s first acts in office was to pardon those involved in the largest act of domestic political violence this century — the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob intended to prevent Congress from certifying Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Those pardons broadcast a signal to would-be extremists on either side of the political debate, Dallek said: “They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you’re a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.”

Ideologies not always aligned — or coherent

Often, those who engage in political violence don’t have clearly defined ideologies that easily map onto the country’s partisan divides. A man who died after he detonated a car bomb outside a Palm Springs fertility clinic last month left writings urging people not to procreate and expressed what the FBI called “nihilistic ideations.”

But each political attack seems to inspire partisans to find evidence the attacker is on the other side. Little was known about the man police identified as a suspect in the Minnesota attacks, 57-year-old Vance Boelter. Authorities say they found a list of other apparent targets that included other Democratic officials, abortion clinics and abortion rights advocates, as well as fliers for the day’s anti-Trump “No Kings” parades.

Conservatives online seized on the fliers — and the fact that Boelter had apparently once been reappointed to a state workforce development board by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — to claim the suspect must be a liberal. “The far left is murderously violent,” billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media site, X.

It was reminiscent of the fallout from the attack on Paul Pelosi, the former House speaker’s then-82-year-old husband, who was seriously injured by a man wielding a hammer. Right-wing figures falsely theorized the assailant was a secret lover rather than what authorities said he was: a believer in pro-Trump conspiracy theories who broke into the Pelosi home echoing Jan. 6 rioters who broke into the Capitol by saying: “Where is Nancy?!”

No prominent Republican ever denounced the Pelosi assault, and GOP leaders including Trump joked about the attack at public events in its aftermath.

On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi posted a statement on X decrying the Minnesota attack. “All of us must remember that it’s not only the act of violence, but also the reaction to it, that can normalize it,” she wrote.

After mocking the Pelosis after the 2022 attack, Trump on Saturday joined in the bipartisan condemnation of the Minnesota shootings, calling them “horrific violence.” The president has, however, consistently broken new ground with his bellicose rhetoric toward his political opponents, whom he routinely calls “sick” and “evil,” and has talked repeatedly about how violence is needed to quell protests.

The Minnesota attack occurred after Trump took the extraordinary step of mobilizing the military to try to control protests against his administration’s immigration operations in Los Angeles during the last week, when he pledged to “HIT” disrespectful protesters and warned of a “migrant invasion” of the city.

Dallek said Trump has been “both a victim and an accelerant” of the charged, dehumanizing political rhetoric that is flooding the country.

“It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,” he said, “and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

A day after federal agents forcibly restrained and handcuffed U.S. Sen Alex Padilla at a Los Angeles news conference, leaders of the country’s two political parties responded in what has become a predictable fashion — with diametrically opposed takes on the incident.

Padilla’s fellow Democrats called for an investigation and perhaps even the resignation of the senator’s nemesis, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, for what they described as the unprecedented manhandling of a U.S. senator who was merely attempting to ask a question of a fellow public official.

Noem and fellow Republicans continued to depict Padilla as a grandstander, whose unexpected appearance at Noem’s news conference seemed to her security detail to represent a threat, as she tried to speak to reporters at the Federal Building in Westwood.

Republicans continued Friday to chastise Padilla, using words like “launch,” “lunge” and “bum rush” to describe Padilla’s behavior as he began to try to pose a question to Noem at Thursday’s news conference.

The Trump administration official was just a few minutes into her meeting with reporters when Padilla moved assertively from the side of the room, pushing past a Times photographer as he moved to more directly address Noem. He did not lunge at Noem and was still paces away from her when her security detail grabbed the senator.

Padilla and his staff described how the veteran lawmaker went through security and was escorted by an FBI employee to the room where the press conference was held, saying it was absurd to suggest he presented a threat.

Padilla spoke out after the secretary asserted that her homeland security agents had come to L.A. to “liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that the governor and the mayor have placed on this country.”

The former South Dakota governor would have some reason to recognize Padilla, since he questioned her during her Senate confirmation hearing. A spokesperson at the Homeland Security Department did not respond to a question of whether Noem recognized Padilla when he arrived at her press conference.

As has become the norm in the nation’s political discourse, Republicans and Democrats spoke about the confrontation Friday as if they had observed two entirely separate incidents.

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.) said Noem “should step down,” adding: “This is ridiculous. And she continues to lie about this incident. This is wrong.”

Lujan urged his Republican colleagues to support Democrats in asking for “a full investigation.”

“This is bad. This is precedent-setting,” Lujan told MSNBC. “And I certainly hope that the leadership of the Senate, my Republican leaders, my friends, that they just look within. Pray on it. That’s what I told a couple of them last night. Pray on this and do the right thing.”

Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus went to Speaker Mike Johnson’s office to protest Padilla’s treatment.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) spoke out on X and on the floor of the Senate. He said the episode fit into “a pattern of behavior by the Trump administration. There is simply no justification for this abuse of authority …. There can be no justification of seeing a senator forced to their knees.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) went on X to repeat the call for an investigation and to say that “Republican leadership is complicit in enabling the growing authoritarianism in this country.”

Speaking publicly only one Republican lawmaker sounded a note of distress about the episode.

“I’ve seen that one clip. It’s horrible,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). ”It is shocking at every level. It’s not the America I know.”

But most Republicans remained silent, or accused Padilla of being a provocateur.

“I think the senator’s actions, my view is, it was wildly inappropriate,” said Johnson, the House speaker. “You don’t charge a sitting Cabinet secretary.”

Johnson added that it was Padilla, who should face some sanction. “At a minimum … [it] rises to the level of a censure. … I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we are going to do, that’s not how we’re going to act.”

Rep. Tom McClintock, (R-Elk Grove) zinged Padilla on X, with some “helpful tips.” “1. Don’t disrupt other people’s press conferences. Hold your own instead. 2. Don’t bum-rush a podium with no visible identification. … 3. Don’t resist or assault the Secret Service. It won’t end well.”

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) also sought to reinforce the notion that agents protecting Noem sensed a real threat, having no way of knowing that Padilla was who he said he was.

The congressman said on Fox Business that Padilla had obtained “the outcome that they wanted. Now they have a talking point.”

None of the officials in the room, several of whom know Padilla, intervened to prevent the action by the agents, who eventually pushed the senator, face down, onto the ground, before handcuffing him.

Noem did not back off her earlier statement that Padilla had “burst” into the room.

“Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem,” Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant Homeland Security secretary, said in a statement Friday.

McLaughlin also said that Padilla “was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers’ repeated commands,” though video made public by Friday did not show such warnings, in advance of Padilla’s first statement.

The senator’s staff members said he privately had received messages of concern from several Republican colleagues, including Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.)

Padilla told Tommy Vietor of the “Pod Save America” podcast that Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown is an attempt to distract from many other failures — continued instability with the economy, a lack of peace in Ukraine and Gaza and a federal budget plan that is proving unpopular with many Americans.

“He always finds a distraction,” Padilla said, “and, when all else fails, he goes back to demonizing and scapegoating immigrants. … He creates a crisis to get us all talking about something else.”

Padilla said repeatedly that Americans should be concerned about how everyday citizens will be treated, if forces working for the Trump administration are allowed to “tackle” a U.S. senator asking questions in a public building.

On Friday afternoon, he sent a mass email urging his constituents to sign up for the protests planned for Saturday, to counter the military parade Trump is holding in Washington. “PLEASE show up and speak out against what is happening,” Padilla wrote. “We cannot allow the Trump administration to intimidate us into silence.”

Driverless Waymo vehicles, coated with graffiti and engulfed in flames. Masked protesters, dancing and cavorting around burning American flags. Anonymous figures brazenly blocking streets and shutting down major freeways, raining bottles and rocks on the police, while their compatriots waved Mexican flags.

The images flowing out of Los Angeles over nearly a week of protests against federal immigration raids have cast America’s second most populous city as a terrifying hellscape, where lawbreakers rule the streets and regular citizens should fear to leave their homes.

In the relentless fever loop of online and broadcast video, it does not matter that the vast majority of Los Angeles neighborhoods remain safe and secure. Digital images create their own reality and it’s one that President Trump and his supporters have used to condemn L.A. as a place that is “out of control” and on the brink of total collapse.

The images and their true meaning and context have become the subject of a furious debate in the media and among political partisans, centered on the true roots and victims of the protests, which erupted on Friday as the Trump administration moved aggressively to expand its arrests of undocumented immigrants.

As the president and his supporters in conservative media tell it, he is the defender of law and order and American values. They cast their opponents as dangerous foreign-born criminals and their feckless enablers in the Democratic Party and mainstream media.

The state’s political leaders and journalists offer a compelling rebuttal: that Trump touched off several days of protest and disruption with raids that went far beyond targeting criminals, as he previously promised, then escalated the conflict by taking the highly unusual step of sending the National Guard and Marines to Southern California.

Reaction to the raids by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the subsequent turmoil will divide Americans on what have become partisan lines that have become so predictable they are “calcified,” said Lynn Vavreck, a political science professor at UCLA.

“The parties want to build very different worlds, voters know it, and they know which world they want to live in,” said Vavreck, who has focused on the country’s extreme political polarization. “And because the parties are so evenly divided, and this issue is so personal to so many, the stakes are very high for people.”

1

2

3

4

5

1. A demonstrator waves a Mexican flag as a fire that was set on San Pedro street burns on Monday night. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 2. Protesters continue to clash with the Los Angeles Police Department in downtown on Monday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 3. Protesters continue to clash with the Los Angeles Police Department in downtown Los Angeles on Monday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times) 4. Anti-ICE protesters face off with the LAPD on Temple St. on Monday. (Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times) 5. Flowers lay at the feet of federalized California National Guard members as they guard the Federal Building on Tuesday. (Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

As a curfew was imposed Tuesday, the sharpest street confrontations appeared to be fading and a national poll suggested Americans have mixed feelings about the events that have dominated the news.

The YouGov survey of 4,231 people found that 50% disapprove of the Trump administration’s handling of deportations, compared with 39% who approve. Pluralities of those sampled also disagreed with Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to Southern California.

But 45% of those surveyed by YouGov said they disapprove of the protests that began after recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. Another 36% approved of the protests, with the rest unsure how they feel.

Faced with a middling public response to the ICE raids and subsequent protests, Trump continued to use extreme language to exaggerate the magnitude of the public safety threat and to take credit for the reduction in hostilities as the week progressed.

In a post on his TruthSocial site, he suggested that, without his military intervention, “Los Angeles would be burning just like it was burning a number of months ago, with all the houses that were lost. Los Angeles right now would be on fire.”

A large crowd hold their fist up with faith leaders outside the Federal building in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrators protest immigration raids in L.A. on Tuesday,.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

In reality, agitators set multiple spot fires in a few neighborhoods, including downtown Los Angeles and Paramount, but the blazes in recent days were tiny and quickly controlled, in contrast to the massive wildfires that devastated broad swaths of Southern California in January.

Trump’s hyperbole continued in a fundraising appeal to his supporters Tuesday. In it, he again praised his decision to deploy the National Guard (without the approval of California Gov. Gavin Newsom), concluding: “If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

The Republican had assistance in fueling the sense of unease.

His colleagues in Congress introduced a resolution to formally condemn the riots. “Congress steps in amid ‘out-of-control’ Los Angeles riots as Democrats resist federal help,” Fox News reported on the resolution, being led by Rep. Young Kim of Orange County.

A journalist based in New Delhi pronounced, based on unspecified evidence, that Los Angeles “is descending into a full-blown warzone.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas Collins suggested that the harm from the protesters was spreading; announcing in a social media post that a care center for vets in downtown L.A. had been temporarily closed.

“To the violent mobs in Los Angeles rioting in support of illegal immigrants and against the rule of law,” his post on X said, “your actions are interfering with Veterans’ health care.”

A chyron running with a Fox News commentary suggested “Democrats have lost their mind,” as proved by their attempts to downplay the anti-ICE riots.

Many Angelenos mocked the claims of a widespread public safety crisis. One person on X posted a picture of a dog out for a walk along a neatly kept sidewalk in a serene neighborhood, with the caption: “Los Angeles just an absolute warzone, as you can see.”

Federal officers and the National Guard protect the Federal building in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrators protest on Tuesday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

In stark contrast to the photos of Waymo vehicles burning and police cars being pelted with rocks, a video on social media showed a group of protestors line dancing. “Oh my God! They must be stopped before their peaceful and joy filled dance party spreads to a city near you!” the caption read. “Please send in the Marines before they start doing the Cha Cha and the Macarena!”

And many people noted on social media that Sunday’s Pride parade in Hollywood for the LGBTQ+ community went off without incident, as reinforced by multiple videos of dancers and marchers celebrating along a sun-splashed parade route.

But other activists and Democrats signaled that they understand how Trump’s position can be strengthened if it appears they are condoning the more extreme episodes that emerged along with the protests — police being pelted with bottles, businesses being looted and buildings being defaced with graffiti.

On Tuesday, an X post by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass reiterated her earlier admonitions: “Let me be clear: ANYONE who vandalized Downtown or looted stores does not care about our immigrant communities,” the mayor wrote. “You will be held accountable.”

The activist group Occupy Democrats posted a message online urging protesters to show their disdain for the violence and property damage.

“The moment violence of property damage begins, EVERY OTHER PROTESTER must immediately sit on the floor or the ground in silence, with signs down,” the advisory suggested. “The media needs to film this. This will reveal paid fake thugs posing as protesters becoming violent. ….The rest of us will demonstrate our non-violent innocence and retain our Constitutional right to peaceful protest.”

Craig Silverman, a journalist and cofounder of Indicator, a site that investigates deception on digital platforms, said that reporting on the context and true scope of the protests would have a hard time competing with the visceral images broadcast into Americans’ homes.

“It’s inevitable that the most extreme and compelling imagery will win the battle for attention on social media and on TV,” Silverman said via email. “It’s particularly challenging to deliver context and facts when social platforms incentivize the most shocking videos and claims, federal and state authorities offer contradictory messages about what’s happening.”

Dan Schnur, who teaches political science at USC and UC Berkeley, agreed. “The overwhelming majority of the protesters are peaceful,” Schnur said, “but they don’t do stories on all the planes that land safely at LAX, either.”

Protesters march in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday.

(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)

Though it might be too early to assess the ultimate impact of the L.A. unrest, Schnur suggested that all of the most prominent politicians in the drama might have accomplished their messaging goals: Trump motivated his base and diverted attention from his nasty feud with his former top advisor, Elon Musk, and the lack of progress on peace talks with Russia and Ukraine. Newsom “effectively unified the state and elevated his national profile” by taking on Trump. And Bass, under tough scrutiny for her handling of the city’s wildfire disaster, has also gotten a chance to use Trump as a foil.

What was not disputed was that Trump’s rapid deployment of the National Guard, without the approval of Newsom, had little precedent. And sending the Marines to L.A. was an even more extreme approach, with experts saying challenges to the deployment would test the limits of Trump’s power.

The federal Insurrection Act allows the deployment of the military for law enforcement purposes, but only under certain conditions, such as a national emergency.

California leaders say Trump acted before a true emergency developed, thereby preempting standard protocols, including the institution of curfews and the mobilization of other local police departments in a true emergency.

Even real estate developer Rick Caruso, Bass’ opponent in the last election, suggested Trump acted too hastily.

“There is no emergency, widespread threat, or out of control violence in Los Angeles,” Caruso wrote on X Sunday. “And absolutely no danger that justifies deployment of the National Guard, military, or other federal force to the streets of this or any other Southern California City.”

“We must call for calm in the streets,” Caruso added, “and deployment of the National Guard may prompt just the opposite.”

The public and dramatic clash between the incumbent President Donald Trump and tech tycoon Elon Musk—two of the United States’ most popular and powerful figures—has escalated the political chaos of a novel sort in the U.S. political culture. In addition to shocking their supporters, their recent rift has revealed the profound and growing ideological and economic divisions in American society. They were once close friends nonetheless. Using important quotes, posts on X, and reliable data, this essay explores the causes and effects of their conflict in order to shed light on the larger American crisis.

A Glance at Trump-Musk Amity

Deregulation, economic protectionism, and a shared detestation of what they called ‘wasteful government spending’ served as the foundation for Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s amity. According to Federal Election Commission filings, Musk was a major supporter of Trump’s 2024 campaign, giving an estimated $300 million. In order to reduce bureaucratic expenses and streamline federal agencies, Trump then created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and appointed Musk as its head. A new era of American political-cum-economic strategy was marked by this odd friendliness between the then-former president and a tech billionaire.

This amity was evident in Musk’s initial post on X. Musk posted on May 12, 2025:

“Proud to help make America more efficient and innovative. DOGE is about unleashing our true potential. #MakeAmericaEfficient”

On May 15, 2025, Trump returned the compliment by tweeting:

“Elon Musk is a true American genius. With DOGE, we’re cutting the waste and putting America first again! #MAGA”

The media extensively reported on their public amity, with many analysts pointing out that Trump’s populist rhetoric combined with Musk’s technological vision made them a powerful force in the U.S. political culture.

The Fault Lines of Ideology and Economics:

The Trump-Musk relationship deteriorated after Trump’s new spending bill was put into effect, despite their initial unity. The bill called for significant cuts to funding for healthcare and education, higher import duties, and large tax cuts for the capitalists, particularly entrepreneurs in America. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next ten years, the bill would increase the national debt by $2.5 trillion. This bill exposed the profound differences over fiscal policy and social priorities and provoked intense debate among economists, politicians, and the general public.

Musk made his opposition apparent on May 28, 2025, in a widely shared X post:

“This new spending bill is fiscal insanity. We’re mortgaging the future of every American for the benefit of a few. Time to wake up! #DebtSlavery”

During a broadcast interview with CNBC, Musk clarified:

“We’re heading toward a debt crisis that will enslave future generations. Cutting essential services while giving tax breaks to billionaires is not just bad policy—it’s immoral.”

Never one to back down from a public challenge, Trump responded on his Truth Social account:

“If Elon wants to save money, maybe he should give up the billions in government incentives his companies get. No more free rides for Tesla! #AmericaFirst”

Millions of followers magnified these interactions, which soon made headlines and provoked contentious debates on all political sides.

Historical Context: Reminiscent of Roosevelt and Reagan

The Trump-Musk rift is not happening alone; Ronald Reagan, who promoted tax cuts, deregulation, and the dismantling of social programs from the New Deal era in the 1980s, is echoed in Trump’s rhetoric and policies. According to economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Reagan’s ‘trickle-down economics’ theory has mainly fallen short of its promise that the wealthy would eventually benefit the general populace.

In his book The Price of Inequality, Stiglitz notes:

“The top 1% have seen their incomes soar, while the middle class has stagnated. The idea that wealth would trickle down has proven to be a myth.”

The legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which established the contemporary American welfare state in reaction to the Great Depression, has always been the true target of these policies. The Social Security Administration claims that these reforms created a social safety net that is still essential today and helped millions of people escape poverty. The American economy and society were radically altered by the New Deal’s organizations and initiatives, like Social Security and unemployment insurance, which offered security and hope in times of need.

Inconsistencies in the Economic Agenda of Trump

There are serious inconsistencies in Trump’s economic policy. He intends to increase revenue through tariffs, particularly on Chinese imports, while simultaneously advocating for additional tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. He encourages domestic industrialization while undermining important organizations that foster economic planning and innovation, such as government agencies and universities. A contradictory outlook for the future of the American economy is produced by this combination of nationalist protectionism and pro-business incentives.

But instead of creating jobs at home, corporate tax cuts frequently result in offshore investments and profit hoarding, as the Tax Policy Center notes. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the imposition of tariffs has also harmed American manufacturers who depend on international supply chains. Both the business community and regular Americans, who perceive little improvement in their own economic prospects, are perplexed and frustrated by these contradictions.

Musk brought attention to these inconsistencies in his X post on June 1, 2025:

“You can’t cut taxes for the rich, raise tariffs, and expect manufacturing to boom. The math doesn’t work. We need real solutions, not slogans.”

Several economists, who have long maintained that balanced policies that promote both social welfare and innovation are necessary for sustainable economic growth, found resonance in this statement.

The Clash: Political and Social Repercussions

Both the Republican Party and the general American public have been rocked by the public rift between Trump and Musk. The possibility of losing Musk’s financial and technological support worries a lot of Republicans. The poor and middle class will be disproportionately harmed by the spending bill’s cuts to healthcare and education, according to critics. The debate has also revealed divisions within the Republican Party, with some members voicing worries that Trump’s strategy is alienating important groups and jeopardizing the party’s long-term viability.

According to a June 2025 Pew Research Center survey, 62% of Americans think the nation is ‘headed in the wrong direction,’ with growing worries about political dysfunction and inequality.

Trump has responded in his usual combative manner. At a rally on June 3, 2025, he said:

“We don’t need billionaires telling us how to run our country. We need strong leadership and American values. If Musk doesn’t like it, he can take his rockets and go home.”

In addition to energizing Trump’s supporters, this rhetoric has widened rifts both within the party and across the nation.

The U.S. image in the world amidst domestic chaos

The U.S. has become more assertive overseas as domestic tensions have increased. The U.S. has expanded its military presence in areas like Eastern Europe and the South China Sea because it is unable to keep up with China’s economic growth. In 2024, U.S. military spending hit $950 billion, the highest in the world, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). This aggressive foreign policy is seen by some analysts as a symptom of imperial decline, as the U.S. seeks to maintain its global influence despite mounting internal challenges.

In his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, historian Paul Kennedy makes the following claim:

“Empires in decline often resort to military solutions as their economic base erodes, leading to overextension and eventual collapse.”

As America’s internal crises increasingly influence its actions on the international scene, these developments have important ramifications for maintaining global stability.

Lessons for other nations

For nations like Pakistan, which have traditionally depended on U.S. assistance, the Trump-Musk conflict and the larger American crisis provide crucial lessons. The dangers of becoming too close to a waning superpower increase as American politics become more erratic. Instead, countries are encouraged to steer clear of what Musk has referred to as ‘imperialist dollar wars’ and instead pursue autonomous, people-centered development. In an era of such volatility, it is becoming more and more dangerous to rely on the United States for economic or security guarantees.

In conclusion, more than just a personal disagreement, the public rift between Elon Musk and Donald Trump is a reflection of the profound inconsistencies and problems the U.S. is currently facing. The limitations of trickle-down economics, the perils of unbridled debt, and the brittleness of alliances based on expediency rather than values have all been made clear by their conflict. The world keeps a close eye on America as it struggles with its internal conflicts and external issues, knowing that the outcome of this superpower will have an impact on the entire world. The Trump-Musk rift is both a sign and a symptom of a country at a turning point, with its internal contradictions exposed for everyone to see and its future course uncertain.

WASHINGTON — When racial justice protests roiled cities across America at the depths of the pandemic, President Trump, then in his first term, demonstrated restraint. Threats to invoke the Insurrection Act and to federalize the National Guard never materialized.

This time, it took less than 24 hours of isolated protests in Los Angeles County before Trump, more aggressive than ever in his use of executive power, to issue a historic order. “The federal government will step in and solve the problem,” he said on social media Saturday night, issuing executive action not seen since civil unrest gripped the nation in the 1960s.

It was the latest expression of a president unleashed from conventional parameters on his power, unconcerned with states’ rights or the proportionality of his actions. And the targeting of a Democratic city in a Democratic state was, according to the vice president, an intentional ploy to make a political lesson out of Los Angeles.

The pace of the escalation, and the federal government’s unwillingness to defer to cooperative local law enforcement authorities, raise questions about the administration’s intentions as it responds to protesters. The administration skipped several steps in an established ladder of response options, such as enhancing U.S. Marshals Service and Federal Protective Service personnel to protect federal prisons and property, before asking the state whether a National Guard deployment might be warranted.

Local officials were clear that they did not want, or need, federal assistance. And they are concerned that Trump’s heavy-handed response risks escalating what was a series of isolated, heated clashes consisting of a few hundred people into a larger law enforcement challenge that could roil the city.

The president’s historic deployment prompted fury among local Democratic officials who warned of an infringement on states’ rights. Trump’s takeover of the California National Guard, Gov. Gavin Newsom said, was prompted “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.”

“Don’t give them one,” he said.

Vice President JD Vance, calling the anti-ICE protesters “insurrectionists,” welcomed the political pushback, stating on X that “one half of America’s political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil.”

Protests against ICE agents on Friday and Saturday were limited in scale and location. Several dozen people protested the flash raids on Friday afternoon outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, with some clashing with agents and vandalizing the building. The LAPD authorized so-called less-lethal munitions against a small group of “violent protesters” after concrete was thrown at an officer. The protest disbursed by midnight.

On Saturday, outside a Home Depot, demonstrators chanted “ICE go home” and “No justice, no peace.” Some protesters yelled at deputies, and a series of flash-bang grenades was deployed.

“What are you doing!” one man screamed out.

Times reporters witnessed federal agents lobbing multiple rounds of flash-bangs and pepper balls at protesters.

Despite the limited scale of the violence, by Saturday evening, the Trump administration embraced the visuals of a city in chaos compelling federal enforcement of law and order.

“The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday night. “These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The commander-in-chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in a statement Saturday, said the administration is prepared to go further, deploying active-duty U.S. Marines to the nation’s second-largest city. “This is deranged behavior,” responded California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s decision Saturday to call in the National Guard, using a rarely used authority called Title 10, has no clear historic precedent. President Lyndon Johnson cited Title 10 in 1965 to protect civil rights marchers during protests in Selma, Ala., but did so out of concern that local law enforcement would decline to do so themselves.

By contrast, this weekend, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department said it was fully cooperating with federal law enforcement. “We are planning for long-term civil unrest and collaborating with our law enforcement partners,” the department said in a statement.

The 2,000 Guardsmen called up for duty is double the number that were assigned by local authorities to respond to much wider protests that erupted throughout Los Angeles in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

Tom Homan, the president’s so-called border czar, told Fox News on Saturday evening that the administration was “already ahead of the game” in its planning for a National Guard deployment.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” he said. “We’re stepping up.”

National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, deploying around federal buildings in L.A. County.

“If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs,” Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform, “then the federal government will step in and solve the problem.”

Paramount Global’s efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento.

Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount’s controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe.

Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement.

“I haven’t seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,” state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. “We’re concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.”

Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount’s $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family’s fortunes.

Trump contends CBS edited the “60 Minutes” interview to enhance Harris’ appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount’s recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous.

“This is a really important case,” said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA’s School of Law. “Legislators are starting to raise alarms.”

But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount’s leaders paid a bribe.

Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room.

“We would have to have a lot more facts,” Cummings said. “Bribery requires a quid pro quo … and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.”

Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it’s unclear who would prosecute such a case.

No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the “60 Minutes” edits rose to the level of news distortion.

It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said.

Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.

(CBS News)

That hasn’t stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms.

U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company’s deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down.

“It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,” the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. “If Paramount officials make these concessions … to influence President Trump … they may be breaking the law.”

Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators’ questions by this week’s deadline, according to Warren’s office.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has suggested that Paramount executives could be liable for unlawfully paying a bribe if it settles President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS to secure approval of Paramount’s sale to Skydance Media.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment.

Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance’s proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal’s particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power.

Trump has demanded Paramount pay “a lot” of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC.

For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution.

Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology.

The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations.

Paramount’s leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources.

The two California state senators — Becker and Tom Umberg (D-Orange) — hope such fractures provide an opening.

Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento.

McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said.

Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence.

“You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,” Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee.

California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times.

The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris’ response to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show “Face the Nation” used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, “60 Minutes” aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul.

Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered “mental anguish” as a result of the interview.

CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine.

Since then, the FCC’s review of Paramount’s Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr’s approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family.

Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters.

Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction.

Trump and his team “essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,” Cummings said.

Paramount’s decision could open the company to shareholder complaints.

The reason Trump’s CBS “60 Minutes” lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is “because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,” said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates.

“This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,” Stern said.

Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump’s goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million.

“The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,” Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. “If Trump’s goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President’s best interests.”

UCLA’s Cummings sees another deleterious outcome.

A settlement could “legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there’s some sort of corruption within these media entities,” Cummings said. “He could point to a settlement and say: ‘I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.’ ”

“Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,” Cummings said.

California’s two most prominent Democrats remain mum on their future plans, but former Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Gavin Newsom both took time to tend to their political personas in Compton Thursday, attending separate events at local schools.

As hundreds of graduating seniors crossed the stage in their blue and white regalia early that morning at Compton High School, many paused to shake hands and take selfies with an honored guest on the dais: the former vice president herself, who’d made a surprise appearance after being invited by a graduating student.

Several hours later, Newsom read to young students at Compton’s Clinton Elementary School before standing with local leaders in front of a cheery, cartoon mural to launch a new state literacy plan. The issue is one of deep importance to the governor, whose own educational career was often defined by his dyslexia.

The adjacent appearances, which occurred a few miles apart, were “coincidental,” Newsom said. But they come at a moment when both the high-octane Democrats are in a political limbo of sorts.

The pair are viewed as potential 2028 presidential candidates, but the California political world is also waiting on tenterhooks to see if Harris enters California’s 2026 race for governor – a move that would almost certainly preclude a 2028 presidential bid. Harris is expected to make a decision by summer, and her entrance would upend the already crowded race.

With just 19 months left in his second and final term, the lame duck governor is scrambling to cement his gubernatorial legacy while also positioning himself as a pragmatic leader capable of steering his national party out of the wilderness. Harris, meanwhile, must decide if she actually wants to govern a famously unwieldy state and, if she does, whether California voters feel the same.

Both Harris and Newsom were notably absent at the state party convention last weekend, as thousands of party delegates, activists, donors and labor leaders convened in Anaheim.

California Governor Gavin Newsom presents his Golden State Literacy Plan at Clinton Elementary School in Compton on Thursday.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Newsom was a famously loyal surrogate to then-President Biden. But in recent months with his “This Is Gavin Newsom” podcast and its long list of Democratic bête noire guests, the governor has worked to publicly differentiate his own brand from that of his bedraggled party, one controversial interview at a time.

Meanwhile, Newsom — who previously scoffed at the speculation and said he wasn’t considering a bid for the White House, despite his manifest ambitions — is more openly acknowledging that he could run for the country’s top job in the future.

“I might,” Newsom said in an interview last month. “I don’t know, but I have to have a burning why, and I have to have a compelling vision that distinguishes myself from anybody else. Without that, without both, and, I don’t deserve to even be in the conversation.”

Newsom demurred Thursday when asked whether he thought Harris would run for governor.

“Look, I got someone right behind me running for governor, so I’m going to be very careful here,” Newsom said to laughter, as California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — who announced his 2026 gubernatorial bid back in September 2023 — smiled behind him.

Harris attended the Compton High graduation at the invitation of Compton Unified School District Student Board Member MyShay Causey, a student athlete and graduating senior. She did not speak at the ceremony, though she received an honorary diploma.

Staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.

During Trump’s tour of Gulf states in May, the US president was eager to talk about the deals he’d made and the investments he’d secured, but do the numbers add up and how many of the agreements touted were actually a result of his visit?

PALM DESERT — They came to the baking desert to honor one of their own, a political professional, a legend and a throwback to a time when gatherings like this one — a companionable assembly of Republicans, Democrats and the odd newspaper columnist — weren’t such a rare and noteworthy thing.

They came to bid a last farewell to Stuart Spencer, who died in January at age 97.

They came to Palm Desert on a 98-degree spring day to do the things that political pros do when they gather: drink and laugh and swap stories of campaigns and elections past.

And they showed, with their affection and goodwill and mutual regard, how much the world, and the world of politics, have changed.

“This is how politics used to be,” Democrat Harvey Englander said after sidling up to Republican Joel Fox. The two met through their work with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a spawn of the Proposition 13 taxpayer revolt, circa 1978.

“We had different views of how government should work,” Englander said as Fox nodded his assent. “But we agreed government should work.”

Spencer was a campaign strategist and master tactician who helped usher into office generations of GOP leaders, foremost among them Ronald Reagan. The former president and California governor was a Hollywood has-been until Spencer came along and turned him into something compelling and new, something they called a “citizen-politician.”

Hanging, inevitably, over the weekend’s celebration was the current occupant of the Oval Office, a boiling black cloud compared to the radiant and sunshiny Reagan. Spencer was no fan of Donald Trump, and he let it be known.

“A demagogue and opportunist,” he called him, chafing, in particular, at Trump’s comparisons of himself to Reagan.

“He would be sick,” Spencer said, guessing the recoil the nation’s 40th president would have had if he’d witnessed the crass and corrupt behavior of the 45th and 47th one.

Many of those at the weekend event are similarly out of step with today’s Republican Party and, especially, Trump’s bomb-the-opposition-to-rubble approach to politics. But most preferred not to express those sentiments for the record.

George Steffes, who served as Reagan’s legislative director in Sacramento, allowed as how the loudly and proudly uncouth Trump was “180 degrees” from the politely mannered Reagan. In five years, Steffes said, he never once heard the governor raise his voice, belittle a person or “treat a human being with anything but respect.”

Fox, with a seeming touch of wounded pride, suggested Trump could use “some pushback from some of the ‘old thinking’ of the Stu Spencer/Ronald Reagan era.”

A flag flown over the U.S. Capitol in Spencer’s honor was displayed at his memorial celebration, along with White House schedules from the 1984 campaign.

(H.D. Palmer)

Behind them, playing on a big-screen TV, were images from Spencer’s filled-to-the-bursting life.

Old black-and-white snapshots — an apple-cheeked Navy sailor, a little boy — alternated with photographs of Spencer smiling alongside Reagan and President Ford, standing with Dick Cheney and George H.W. Bush, appearing next to Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Wilson, a spry 91, was among the 150 or so who turned out to remember Spencer. He was given a place of honor, seated with his wife, Gayle, directly in front of the podium.)

In a brief presentation, Spencer’s son, Steve, remembered his father as someone who emphasized caring and compassion, as well as hard work and the importance of holding fast to one’s principles. “Pop’s word,” he said, “was gold.”

Spencer’s grandson, Sam, a Republican political consultant in Washington, choked up as he recounted how “Papa Stu” not only helped make history but never stinted on his family, driving four hours to attend Sam’s 45-minute soccer games and staying up well past bedtime to get after-action reports on his grandson’s campaigns.

Stu Spencer, he said, was a voracious reader and owned “one of the greatest political minds in history.”

Outside the golf resort, a stiff wind kicked up, ruffling the palm trees and sending small waves across a water hazard on the 18th green — an obvious metaphor for these blustery and unsettled times.

Fred Karger first met Spencer in 1976 when his partner, Bill Roberts, hired Karger to work on an unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign. (In 2012, Karger made history as the first out gay major-party candidate to run for president.)

He no longer recognizes the political party he dedicated his life to. “It’s the Trump-publican Party,” Karger said. “It’s no longer the Republican Party.”

But politics are cyclical, he went on, and surely Trump and his MAGA movement will run their course and the GOP will return to the days when Reagan’s optimism and Spencer’s less-hateful campaign style return to fashion.

His gripped his white wine like a potion, delivering hope. “Don’t you think?”

When tenant rights attorney Ysabel Jurado ran for Los Angeles City Council last year, she positioned herself as a potential fourth vote against Mayor Karen Bass’ plan to hire more police officers.

While she was waging her campaign, the council’s three-member super progressive bloc — Eunisses Hernandez, Nithya Raman and Hugo Soto–Martínez — voted against the mayor’s budget, decrying the amount of money allocated for the Los Angeles Police Department. Jurado, who went on to unseat Councilmember Kevin de León, said she would have joined them, turning the 12-3 budget vote into an 11-4.

Turns out it none of that was necessary.

On Thursday, the council approved a $14-billion annual budget that would cut police hiring in half, while sparing hundreds of other city workers from layoffs. Jurado, now on the council, praised the spending plan, then voted for it.

And this time around, the council members on the losing end of a 12-3 vote were those who occupy the body’s more moderate wing: Monica Rodriguez, Traci Park and John Lee.

The shift in budget votes from last year to now offers perhaps the strongest evidence of the political pendulum swing under way at City Hall. When other recent votes are added to the equation, the council chamber might even be undergoing a permanent realignment.

The council also voted 12-3 last week to hike the city’s minimum wage for hotel employees and private-sector tourism workers, boosting it to $30 per hour by 2028. Park, Rodriguez and Lee were in the minority on that issue as well, arguing that hotel and airport wages were rising too much and too quickly, jeopardizing the financial health of L.A.’s tourism industry.

The three ultra moderates also voiced alarm at their colleagues’ decision to scale back the mayor’s plan for increasing hiring at the fire department. Rodriguez, who gave a long and passionate speech against the budget, said in an interview she thinks “there’s clearly a shift in the politics of the council.”

“We have different ideology with respect to how we need to be making sure that the city is safe,” she said.

Soto-Martínez, who represents an Echo Park-to-Hollywood district, wouldn’t pin the political shift on any one vote, arguing instead that “the realignment has been happening for quite some years now.” The move to the left at City Hall, he said, has been driven by the election of candidates — including himself — who have sworn off contributions from corporations and real estate interests.

Because this year’s financial situation was so dire, and the list of proposed cuts so large, the council had no sacred cows when preparing the 2025-26 spending plan, he said. That paved the way for the council to scale back the recruitment of new police officers, he said.

“For many years, including the first two years that I was here, that issue was untouchable. No one would touch it or go near it,” said Soto-Martínez, who was elected in 2022. “And this year, we were realistic about police hiring.”

The realignment is in part of the product of years of campaigning and grassroots advocacy from the hotel workers’ union, LA Forward, Democratic Socialists of America-Los Angeles and many other organizations. But it also reflects the choices of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who is still in his first year in his leadership role.

Harris-Dawson reshuffled the council’s committee assignments last year, offering plum spots to the newest arrivals. Hernandez, who promised during her 2022 campaign not to hire any additional police officers, landed a coveted spot on the budget committee. She then forged a strong working relationship with Councilmember Heather Hutt, another new appointee to the budget committee, who broke into tears on Thursday as she described Hernandez’ contributions to their deliberations.

Over the course of the budget committee’s nine meetings, Hernandez worked with her colleagues to restore funding for programs that help day laborers, an LGBTQ+ liaison in the city’s civil rights department and $1 million for the legal defense of immigrants facing deportation. She also fought for core services, such as street light repairs, graffiti removal and crews that address illegal dumping.

By contrast, Rodriguez, Park and Lee made clear they felt excluded from key decisions, particularly the budget committee’s vote to shift management over certain homelessness initiatives out of the office of City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo and into the Los Angeles Housing Department.

After a lengthy debate, the three moderates picked up two votes in their effort to delay those changes, not enough to win the day. Instead, their biggest victory — one that took multiple tries — was securing the votes to restore $376,961 at the fire department, which will allow the city to send 45 firefighters to paramedic training.

Park, whose district includes the fire-scarred Pacific Palisades, sounded furious by the time the entire budget came up for a vote.

“I don’t think we should agree to spend another penny on homelessness until we as a full council — not just the few of you who get invited into the conversation — have the chance to chime in,” she said, adding: “But instead of fixing that mess, what did we decide to go after? The increase [Bass requested for] our fire department, after all we literally just witnessed in January.”

One day after the budget vote, Councilmember Bob Blumenfield acknowledged that the pendulum had swung left at City Hall, pointing to the results of several recent elections. Still, he cautioned against reading too much into a single budget, saying a pendulum can swing in opposing directions.

Blumenfield, who represents part of the west San Fernando Valley, said he voted to slow down police hiring as part of a compromise to protect civilian jobs at the LAPD and elsewhere. “I hate seeing the lower number of police recruitment,” he said.

Blumenfield, who occupies the terrain between super progressive and ultra moderate, said he’s still hoping the council will find additional funds later in the budget year to allow the LAPD to hire more officers beyond the 240 that received funding from the council.

“I don’t like to look at the council as a spectrum. I don’t see myself on that spectrum,” he said. “On different issues, I feel like I’m on different parts of it.”

State of play

— SEEKING A VETO: Business groups pressed Mayor Karen Bass to veto the measure hiking the minimum wage of tourism workers, saying hotels and other businesses cannot afford to wage hikes of 50% between now and 2028. Bass, appearing Tuesday at the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, sounded sympathetic to their complaints but stopped short of stating her opposition.

“I’m concerned about the hit to tourism and just the hit in general, especially with downtown, but citywide, because downtown was already suffering,” she told the audience. She also raised doubts that she would intervene, calling the initial wage vote “veto proof.”

— BAD CALL: Former deputy Mayor Brian Williams struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors, admitting he called in a fake bomb threat to City Hall late last year that was blamed on anti-Israel sentiment. Williams, who handled public safety issues for Bass, falsely stated that he had just received a call on his city-issued cellphone from an unknown male caller who made a bomb threat against City Hall, according to his plea agreement.

— HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD: L.A.’s mayor promised to reduce barriers to filming in Los Angeles this week, signing an executive directive aimed at streamlining city permit processes and increasing access to legendary L.A. locations, such as Griffith Observatory and the Central Library. “We’ve taken the industry for granted,” Bass said. “We know that the industry is a part of our DNA here. And sometimes, if you think it’s a part of your DNA, you can think it’s always going to be here.”

— ZOO STORY: The elephants Billy and Tina were whisked out of the Los Angeles Zoo this week, relocated to a zoo in Tulsa over the fierce objections of animal advocates. The late night relocation drew complaints from Blumenfield and an array of activists, who argued that the pachyderms needed a much larger expanse of land for their health and well being.

— PUBLIC PAYOUTS: Two fired employees who received a combined $800,000 in legal settlements from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority had accused the agency’s chief executive, Va Lecia Adams Kellum, of hiring cronies for top jobs, attempting to destroy records and being “extremely inebriated” at an out-of-state conference, according to two settlement demand letters released this week. LAHSA “strenuously” denied the allegations, saying the agency “made a business decision” to pay the fired workers and resolve the employee dispute.

— PUSHBACK OVER PCH: Officials from city and state government tussled this week over plans for reopening an 11-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway. Nancy Ward, who leads the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, complained that her office had been kept “in the dark” about the city’s security plan for the fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades area. A Bass spokesperson pushed back on that claim, saying the city would deploy 112 officers to staff 16 checkpoints 24 hours a day in the Palisades. Either way, traffic was flowing Friday afternoon.

— COUNTY CRIME: A veteran emergency management official with Los Angeles County has been arrested on charges of murdering his mother. Robert Barreras, 42, was suspended without pay, and had been on leave when the crime took place, a county official said.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness carried out operations in two locations: the area around Lankershim Boulevard and Strathern Street in Councilmember Imelda Padilla’s San Fernando Valley district and the area around Vermont Avenue and 73rd Street in Harris-Dawson’s South L.A. district. Outreach workers also returned to other parts of South L.A. and Hollywood, according to the mayor’s team.
• On the docket for next week: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up appointees to its new governance reform task force, which will help oversee the implementation of Measure G, last year’s voter-approved measure to overhaul county government.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Actions, we know, have consequences. And an apparent Marxist’s cold-blooded murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington on Wednesday night was the natural and inevitable consequence of a conscientious, years-long campaign to dehumanize Jews and otherize all supporters of the world’s only Jewish state.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

Some of President Trump’s more colorful all-caps and exclamation-mark-filled social media posts evince an impending jackboot, we’re sometimes told. (Hold aside, for now, columnist Salena Zito’s apt 2016 quip about taking Trump seriously but not literally.) Words either have meaning or they don’t. And many left-wing Americans have, for a long time now, argued that they have tremendous meaning. How often, as the concept of the “microaggression” and its campus “safe space” corollary took off last decade, were we told that “words are violence”? (I’ll answer: A lot!)

So are we really not supposed to take seriously the clear calls for Jewish genocide that have erupted on American campuses and throughout American streets since the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7, 2023? Are we really supposed to believe that chants such as “globalize the intifada,” “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “there is only one solution, intifada revolution” are vague and open to competing interpretations?

That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

When pro-Israel Jewish American Paul Kessler died after being hit on the head during a clash of protesters in Thousand Oaks on Nov. 5, 2023, that is what “intifada revolution” looks like in practice. When Israeli woman Tzeela Gez was murdered by a jihadist while en route to the hospital to deliver her baby earlier this month, that was what “from the river to the sea” looks like in practice. And when two young Israeli Embassy staffers were executed while leaving an event this week at Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum, that is what “globalize the intifada” looks like in practice.

Really, what did you think was going to happen?

Indeed, it is the easily foreseeable nature of Wednesday night’s slayings that is perhaps the most tragic part of it all. The suspect in the deaths of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim left behind a handy manifesto laying out a clear political motivation. This was not a random drive-by shooting. Hardly. This was a deliberate act — what appears to be an act of domestic terrorism. And the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, has a long history of involvement in far-left activist causes. If the killer intended to target Jews, then the fact that both victims were apparently Christian only underscores the “globalize” part of “globalize the intifada.”

Zito had it right back in 2016: Trump’s social media posts should be taken seriously, not literally. But when it comes to the murderous, genocidal clamoring for Jewish and Israeli blood that has become increasingly ubiquitous ever since the Jews themselves suffered their single bloodiest day since the Third Reich, such anti-Israel and antisemitic words must be taken both seriously and literally.

A previous generation of lawmakers once urged Americans to fight the terrorists “over there” so that they can’t harm us “here.” How quaint! The discomfiting reality in the year 2025 is this: The radicals, both homegrown and foreign-born alike, are already here. There are monsters in our midst.

And those monsters are not limited to jihadists. Domestic terrorists these days come from all backgrounds. The deaths of two Israeli diplomats are yet another reminder (not that we needed it): Politically motivated violence in the contemporary United States is not an equivalent problem on both the left and the right.

In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attempted to shoot up the socially conservative Family Research Council because he heard it was “anti-gay.” In 2017, James Hodgkinson shot up the Republican congressional baseball team a few weeks after posting on Facebook that Trump is a “traitor” and threat to “our democracy.” In 2022, Nicholas Roske flew cross-country to try to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and thus prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned. Earlier this year, anti-Elon Musk activists burned and looted Teslas — and assaulted Tesla drivers — because of Musk’s Trump administration work with his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency. And who can forget Luigi Mangione, who is charged in the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson?

Both “sides” are not culpable here. They just aren’t. Israel supporters in America aren’t out there gunning down people waving the PLO flag. Nor are capitalists out there gunning down socialists.

There is a real darkness out there in certain — increasingly widespread — pockets of the American activist left. Sure, parts of the right are also lost at the moment — but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Regardless, the violence must end. And we must stop treating open calls for murder or genocide as morally acceptable “speech.” Let’s pull ourselves back from the brink before more blood is shed.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

May 22 (UPI) — A former Republican House candidate from Florida has been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for threatening to kill his political opponent.

William Robert Braddock, 41, of St. Petersburg, Fla., was sentenced Wednesday by U.S. District Judge William Jung, the Justice Department said in a statement.

The former Republican candidate for Florida’s 13th Congressional District pleaded guilty in February. He was charged with interstate transmission of a threat to injure.

Braddock was running for the Republican nomination for the 13th Congressional District in 2021. Though court documents do not name the target of his threats, information in the filings and media indicate it was Anna Paulina Luna, the frontrunner in that 2022 election.

According to federal prosecutions, Braddock viewed Luna — referred to in court documents as Victim-1, the Republican Party frontrunner — as his only obstacle to winning the primary.

He disparaged Luna for months to her peers and tried to involve himself in her life, court documents show. Then, in June 2021, during a phone call with one of Luna’s acquaintances, he threatened to have her murdered.

The court documents state he threatened to “call up my Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” who could make Luna “disappear.”

“I will be the next congressman for this district. Period. End of discussion,” he said, according to federal prosecutors. “And anybody going up against me is [expletive] ignorant for doing so.”

He continued by calling Luna “ignorant” and because of that, “I don’t have a problem taking her out, but I’m not going to do that dirty work myself, obviously.”

Then in November 2021, Braddock flew to Thailand and then settled in the Philippines where he remained until surrendering to Manila authorities in June 2023.

In September 2024, he was indicted and deported to the United States to stand trial.

Luna is currently serving her second term as the U.S. House Representative for Florida’s 13 Congressional District.

By Tina Teng

Published on
21/05/2025 – 6:56 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he intends to significantly reduce his political spending in future campaigns, during an interview at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday.

Musk reportedly donated more than $250 million (€221 million) to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. When asked whether he would match that level of spending in the 2026 midterm elections, Musk replied, “I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future.”

He was offered the role of head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), assisting the president in cutting thousands of federal jobs. However, Musk’s political involvement has drawn backlash towards Tesla, including protests and acts of vandalism targeting its showrooms. His support for far-right European parties has also proved controversial, contributing to a steep drop in Tesla’s EV sales across the region.

Speaking at a town hall in Wisconsin in March, Musk commented, “It’s costing me a lot to be in this job,” referring to his role as a special government employee. Trump had also signalled that Musk’s government tenure may be drawing to a close. During Tesla’s Q1 earnings call, Musk stated that the time he spends on DOGE would decrease “significantly” from May onwards. On Tuesday, he reaffirmed that he would remain Tesla’s CEO for at least the next five years.

Tesla shares rebound

Tesla’s share price rose 3.6% intraday before paring gains later in the session. The world’s largest EV maker has seen its stock rebound more than 50% from a year-low in late April, helped by improving market sentiment abroad amid easing US-China trade tensions.

President Trump’s recent Middle East tour further boosted US tech stocks, as he secured deals worth over $1 trillion with three major Gulf states. Musk was among the business leaders accompanying Trump on the trip. However, Tesla’s shares are still down 12% year-to-date as of the market close on 20 May.

Asked about the decline in Tesla’s sales, Musk downplayed the concern. “It’s already turned around,” he said, referring to the share price recovery. “The stock wouldn’t be trading near all-time highs if it was not.”

While acknowledging that Europe remains Tesla’s weakest market, Musk attributed the decline to multiple factors, including tariff shocks and soft EV demand. The company reported a 20% year-on-year decline in EV revenue worldwide in the first quarter.

In April, Tesla’s European sales continued to fall significantly year-on-year: down 46% in Germany, 62% in the UK, and by more than two-thirds in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Nevertheless, Musk highlighted stronger performance in other regions, stating, “The sales numbers at this point are strong.”

Robotaxi launch set for Austin

Despite the headwinds, investor optimism remains focused on Tesla’s upcoming Robotaxi programme. Musk confirmed on Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC, that Tesla will launch the fully autonomous vehicle services in Austin by the end of June, as originally planned. He added that Robotaxi will later expand to Los Angeles and San Francisco following its Austin debut.

Musk had earlier stated that unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology would roll out in California and Texas by June. The Austin launch will feature the Model Y fitted with a “localised parameter set” optimised for the region.

Washington, DC – United States Congresswoman LaMonica McIver has been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer after a standoff at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in early May.

On Tuesday, Democrats denounced the charge as an attempt by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to silence his political rivals for speaking out against his deportation campaign.

In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Gil Cisneros blasted the administration for having “gone after judges, prosecutors, and now, Members of Congress” in its attempts to stifle dissent.

“The charges against Rep McIver are a blatant political attack and an attempt to prohibit Members of Congress from conducting oversight,” Cisneros wrote.

The charge was announced on Monday evening, with federal prosecutor Alina Habba —Trump’s former personal lawyer — accusing McIver of having “assaulted, impeded, and interfered” with law enforcement.

“The conduct cannot be overlooked,” Habba wrote in a statement. “It is my constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties.”

The criminal charge stemmed from an incident on May 9, when McIver joined two other members of Congress for an oversight tour of Delaney Hall, a privately run immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey.

The visit devolved into a fracas involving elected officials, protesters and federal law enforcement agents. The mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, was arrested at the scene for alleged trespassing.

In Monday’s statement, Habba announced the charge against Baraka has since been dropped “for the sake of moving forward”. But his arrests likewise spurred outcry over possible political motives.

‘Intimidate and interfere’

Late on Monday, McIver responded to the charges against her with a statement of her own, saying she and other members of Congress were “fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities” when they visited the detention centre.

McIver accused ICE agents at the scene of creating an “unnecessary and unsafe confrontation”. She added that the charges against her “mischaracterise and distort my actions”.

“The charges against me are purely political,” McIver wrote.

Top Democrats also remained defiant in the face of the Trump administration’s accusations, saying they would continue their oversight duties at immigration facilities like Delaney Hall.

“The criminal charge against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact,” Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said in a joint statement.

They underscored that they have a right as Congress members to show up at federal facilities unannounced for inspections.

The charges against McIver, they argued, are a “blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch”.

In a separate statement, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said the criminal charge was a “dangerous precedent” that “reveals the increasingly authoritarian nature of this administration”.

“Representative McIver has our full support, and we will do everything in our power to help fight this outrageous threat to our constitutional system,” they said.

Democrats have denounced the Trump administration’s push for “mass deportation” as violating constitutional and human rights. As part of that push, the Trump White House has sought to expand the use of private detention centres to house the growing number of people arrested for deportation.

Mayor Baraka, in particular, has repeatedly protested the 1,000-bed Delaney Hall for opening without the proper permits and approvals. Its operator, The GEO Group, has denied any violations.

The facility became operational in early May, under a 15-year agreement made with ICE.