President Donald Trump warned on Saturday that there would be "serious consequences" for Elon Musk if he were to fund Democratic candidates. The president made the remark during a phone interview with NBC News.
"If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that," Trump told NBC News. However, according to the outlet, Trump did not detail what the consequences would be.
The president also told the outlet that he has no interest in repairing his relationship with the Tesla founder and CEO. When asked if he thought his relationship with Musk was over, Trump reportedly told NBC News, "I would assume so, yeah." Trump also apparently has "no intention" of speaking with Musk — which is what he told Fox News Chief Political Anchor Bret Baier.
Trump and Musk have been engaged in a heated feud that has rapidly escalated in a matter of days. The spat began when Musk criticized the Trump-backed "Big Beautiful Bill" after his time with the administration ended.
"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said in a Tuesday post on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
Musk later had two explosive posts on X, both of which are now deleted. In one, Musk accused Trump of being in files related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Then, he agreed with a post calling for Trump's impeachment and suggested that Vice President JD Vance take charge.
In one of his posts criticizing the bill, Musk argued that the bill "more than defeats all the cost savings achieved by the DOGE team at great personal cost and risk."
On Friday, Trump spoke with Baier and told him that "Elon’s totally lost it." That same day Trump posted on Truth Social that Musk should have turned on him "months ago."
"I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. "This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Musk endorsed Trump after the then-candidate was nearly assassinated in Butler, Pa., during a campaign rally. The two seemed to become fast friends, with Musk eventually agreeing to join the Trump administration and lead DOGE.
Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on the Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote on X that "I can't believe I'm saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right." However, that seems to be the last point on which the two agree. They both object to the Big Beautiful Bill, viewing it as full of pork. Musk opposes the bill because he believes it raises government spending too much, while Schiff objects to what he calls its "far-right" content, which he describes as "dangerous."
Musk fired off a response rejecting Schiff’s alleged praise of the tech billionaire’s position on the bill.
"Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!"
On May 30, Musk’s time with the administration came to an end, and he seemed to leave things on good terms. President Donald Trump thanked Musk for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and gave him a symbolic "key to the White House" as a parting gift.
Following his departure from the White House, Musk said he was looking forward "to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president." However, things took a sharp turn as a feud between Trump and Musk quickly heated up after the Tesla founder began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill.
After the legislation passed the House, Musk said that the "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."
Musk’s criticisms received mixed reactions from Republicans, with some — such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — agreeing with him. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was "surprised" by Musk’s reaction and claimed the two of them had a good discussion about the bill.
Trump and Musk then began slugging it out on their respective social media platforms — X and Truth Social — as well as TV. The president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was "very disappointed" with Musk and claimed that the former DOGE head knew what was in the bill, something that Musk denied.
The heated exchange led to two explosive tweets, both of which were later deleted. In one post, Musk claimed Trump was mentioned in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex offender and disgraced financier. In his other post, Musk endorsed a message that called for Trump’s impeachment and said that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over.
While it’s unclear whether Trump and Musk will reconcile, for now it seems unlikely. Trump told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was not interested in talking to Musk and that "Elon’s totally lost it."
Elon Musk appears to be backtracking on some of the wild accusations he made during his ugly spat with President Donald Trump earlier this week.
Musk sensationally posted on Thursday that the president’s name appears in unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files — and said that’s why the files haven’t been made public.
"@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," Musk wrote on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"
Musk followed the post with another, saying, "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out."
But eagle-eyed online sleuths noticed that Musk had quietly deleted the posts.
The former "First Buddy" dropped the allegation in response to a back-and-forth series of social media messages between him and Trump. But as of today, the post has been removed from the Tesla CEO’s timeline.
The post wasn’t the only one he deleted: Musk also appears to have taken down a post endorsing a message that read, "Trump should be impeached" and that Vance "should replace him."
Musk shared the post and wrote "yes," but his comment is no longer visible.
The beef between Musk and Trump exploded onto the national scene this week with the SpaceX CEO publicly blasting Trump’s major legislation, the Big Beautiful bill, for increasing the deficit by around $2.5 trillion.
The feud came despite a months-long "bromance" between the pair, with Musk donating around $277 million to Trump’s campaign and enthusiastically supporting his return to office. Trump’s return to office also saw Musk oversee the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for months.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in the aftermath of Musk’s post that it was an "unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted."
The White House said a source familiar with the Epstein matter said it is widely known that Trump kicked Epstein out of his Palm Beach Golf Club.
The source also pointed out that the administration released the Epstein files, which included Trump’s name, and nothing was new about Musk’s revelation.
"If Elon truly thought the President was more deeply involved with Epstein, why did he hang out with him for 6 months and say he ‘loves him as much as a straight man can love a straight man?'" the source said.
Musk's bombshell allegation against Trump comes months after a trove of files pertaining to the Epstein case were released.
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel explaining the delay in the release of documents and placing blame on an FBI field office in New York.
Bondi said she requested the full Epstein case file before Patel was confirmed as the head of the FBI and received about 200 pages — far fewer than the number of pages released last year in a civil lawsuit connected to Ghisalaine Maxwell, the trafficker’s former lover and convicted accomplice.
Although Bondi pushed for the release of the full dossier, which included records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Epstein and his clients, the request remains unfulfilled.
One of the key pieces that remains unreleased is a client list, though Bondi claimed in February it was on her desk to be reviewed.
The documents that have been released so far include flight logs, an evidence list, a contact book and a redacted "masseuse list" believed to refer to Epstein’s victims.
Many people named in the documents have never been accused of Epstein-related wrongdoing. However, some have, like Maxwell; Prince Andrew, who has denied allegations of wrongdoing; and Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modeling agent who, like Epstein, died in a jail awaiting trial.
Epstein, Maxwell and unnamed co-conspirators allegedly abused young women and underage girls between 1996 and his death in 2019, according to the lawsuit. Citing police documents, it alleges that Epstein recruited girls between 14 and 16 as well as students at Palm Beach Community College for "sex-tinged sessions."
Maxwell is appealing her conviction while serving a sentence at a federal prison in Tallahassee. She is due for release in the summer of 2037.
Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller and Mike Ruiz contributed to this report.
EXCLUSIVE: Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville responds to Jewish donors who no longer support the Democratic Party due to the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.
"I've never seen a Democrat have dinner with Kanye West and Nick Fuentes," Carville told Fox News Digital. "I've never seen a Democrat that endorsed the Alternative für Deutschland Party in Germany. I can point to plenty of Republicans who have."
Carville is pouring cold water on Democratic donors' excuse that the rise of antisemitism on college campuses, particularly at Columbia University, means they can no longer support the Democratic Party.
"In my view, that makes no sense. You can't be for a Democrat because they're protesting against Biden? It's nonsense," Carville said.
College campuses became the epicenter of resistance to the war in Gaza as students across the country, a typically Democratic voting bloc, began protesting President Joe Biden during his re-election campaign last year.
Before Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris, students chanted, "Genocide Joe has got to go!" outside his campaign rallies in critical swing states and organized protest votes to express their disapproval of the United States' support for Israel in the war against Hamas.
Last month, President Donald Trump's administration accused Columbia University of violating federal law through its "deliberate indifference" toward anti-Israel protests that have persisted on campus since Oct. 7, 2023.
But Carville, speaking to Fox News Digital about recent comments on his podcast, said it makes no sense for Jewish donors to turn away from the Democratic Party because of protesters at Columbia.
Carville said it is the Democratic Party – not the Republican Party – that has historically supported Israel.
"I would tell my Republican friends, which president was instrumental in the founding of the state of Israel? I happen to know Harry Truman. I happen to know he's a Democrat," Carville said.
"Which president came closest to achieving Middle East peace and security for the state of Israel? I happen to know his name was Bill Clinton," he added.
"Which president installed the Iron Dome, which saved, I don't know, how many thousands of Israeli lives? I happen to know Barack Obama. So, when you're looking at who is more supportive of the state of Israel, it's not even close," Carville told Fox News Digital.
Carville drew a stark contrast with the Republican Party as he criticized Trump for dining with Kanye West, who is infamous for making antisemitic comments, and Nicholas Fuentes, considered a "white supremacist, Holocaust denier who hates Jews" by the American Jewish Committee.
The longtime Democratic strategist also criticized Elon Musk, who until this week was a loyal Trump confidant and a "special government employee," for endorsing the Alternative for Germany party, considered a "confirmed extremist" group by Germany's domestic intelligence agency.
Carville said on his podcast, "Politics War Room," this week that those Jewish donors are most likely embracing the Republican Party because they want their "f---ing tax cut."
Speaking with Fox News Digital, Carville reiterated that Columbia University protests weren't a very good excuse for abandoning the Democratic Party.
But the White House rejected Carville's perception of the Republican Party.
"President Trump received unprecedented support from the Jewish community in his historic re-election, and this support continues to grow as he combats the left’s rampant anti-Semitism that is exposed daily. The Trump administration is the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish in our nation’s history, and the President’s record stands as a testament to this commitment," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Fox News Digital.
Trump signed executive orders during his first administration, and again last month, aimed at combating antisemitism in the United States.
Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Pritchett and Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass faced backlash on social media Friday, including from members of the Trump administration, for pushing back on Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids targeting illegal immigrants in her city.
"This morning, we received reports of federal immigration enforcement actions in multiple locations in Los Angeles," Bass said in a statement on Friday.
"As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place. These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this."
The mayor’s statement, which garnered over two million impressions on X, drew immediate pushback from conservatives, with many pointing out criticisms of her leadership, preparedness, and response to the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year that killed 30 people.
"You have no say in this at all," White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller posted on X. "Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced."
"It’s amazing the number of elected officials who don’t grasp the basics of federalism, or federal sovereignty over immigration issues, or the First Amendment," Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice Harmeet Dhillon posted on X.
"They’re Illegals," Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka posted on X. "Not ‘immigrants.’ One just tried to burn Americans alive in Boulder. If you’re aiding and abetting them you’re a criminal too. Are you ready to be treated as a criminal? Because we are ready to treat you as one if you commit a crime."
"Can’t get permits for people to rebuild their homes after a wildfire, but focused like a laser beam on stopping immigration enforcement," Red State writer Bonchie posted on X.
"Communist sympathizer Karen Bass takes the side of illegal alien criminals vs. American citizens," conservative communicator Steve Guest posted on X. "To think, she was almost Biden’s VP pick."
"LA Mayor Karen Bass promises to protect illegals in her city," conservative influencer account LibsofTikTok posted on X. "Obstructing or impeding ICE operations is a crime."
"If only Karen Bass fought against the Los Angeles fires like she fights for illegal aliens," GOP Rep. Darrell Issa posted on X.
The Associated Press reported that immigration advocates confirmed at least 45 people had been arrested across seven locations. The locations included two Home Depot stores, a store in the fashion district and a doughnut shop, according to Angelica Salas, the executive director of the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), who spoke at an afternoon news conference to denounce the actions.
Videos of the operations taken by bystanders and TV news crews showed people being escorted across a Home Depot parking lot by federal agents. The videos also captured clashes between protesters and federal agents at detention sites.
As the protests grew on Friday evening, and law enforcement in riot gear had to be brought in to calm the crowds, Bass drew even more criticism online from users accusing her of stirring up protesters.
"Karen Bass whipped all of this up," Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions of United States Ric Grenell posted on X. "She attacked the rule of law. She undermined democracy. The @MayorOfLA is creating chaos in LA."
Fox News Digital reached out to the mayor's office for comment.
Adding to the controversy, the Los Angeles Police Department issued a statement that it was not getting involved with deportations or immigration enforcement.
"Today the LAPD became aware that federal law enforcement agencies conducted activities in the City of Los Angeles. I’m aware that these actions cause anxiety for many Angelenos, so I want to make it clear: the LAPD is not involved in civil immigration enforcement," LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement posted on X.
"While the LAPD will continue to have a visible presence in all our communities to ensure public safety, we will not assist or participate in any sort of mass deportations, nor will the LAPD try to determine an individual’s immigration status."
That position drew criticism on social media, including from Assistant Secretary Dept. of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin.
"Assaulting ICE enforcement officers, slashing tires, defacing buildings," she posted. "800 protestors have surrounded and breached the first layer of a federal law enforcement building in LA. @LAPD has not responded. This violence against @ICEgov must stop."
Guest added in another post: "The fact the LAPD has not responded is a MAJOR scandal. As this violence against federal law enforcement rages, Democrat LA Mayor Karen Bass has so far refused to restore law and order. She should step up or step aside—LA deserves a leader who defends the rule of law."
Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report
FIRST ON FOX: A House committee witness that was called out by Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California during a hearing this week is pushing back after the congressman unearthed a past social media post on Social Security in an attempt to discredit his testimony.
During a House oversight DOGE subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Garcia grilled Power the Future CEO Dan Turner while holding up a posterboard of a past tweet calling Social Security a "government-sponsored Ponzi scheme."
"Madoff went to jail for it. Congress runs on it," the post said. "I should be able to keep 100% of my money and not watch government waste it with a paltry percentage return."
Garcia then suggested that post was evidence that Turner lacks the credibility to be testifying about the billions of federal tax dollars directed to left-wing NGOs.
"A Ponzi scheme and so I think it's interesting, of course, as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and that's the person that we should be taking advice from here today," Garcia said.
"Without Social Security, 22 million people would be pushed into poverty. That includes over 16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children. And in fact, Elon Musk has also said and agreed with you, sir, that this is a Ponzi scheme. I think it's ironic that you are one of our witnesses talking about efficiency when you want to attack the single best program that we have to support people not just out of poverty, but across this country to uplift them, to ensure they can afford a decent life."
Fox News Digital spoke to Turner, who stood by his post and outlined his belief, echoed by many, that Social Security is structured like a Ponzi scheme by definition.
"Rep Garcia does not know the definition of Ponzi scheme," Turner said. "Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi, demanding more and more people at the bottom pay in to fund the people at the top, expect our demographics have this now reversed. The system will default. Mr. Garcia nor I will likely never see a dime. That should worry him more than my social media feed."
Turner told Fox News Digital that if Garcia’s staff spent as much time trying to save Social Security as it did "combing through my social media" then "perhaps the Ponzi scheme can survive long enough for me to get a small percentage of what the government confiscated during my lifetime."
Turner explained that his father received a "paltry percentage" of what he paid into the program and the the government "kept the rest" when his father died.
"That’s not just a Ponzi scheme, it’s government greed and politicians running a money-laundering operation to get reelected. No one should be compelled to pay into a failed system, yet in a free America, you don’t have that choice."
In addition to Turner and Elon Musk suggesting that Social Security is by definition set up like a Ponzi scheme, Fox News Digital previously spoke to James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, who said the characterization has "validity."
"A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors," Agresti said. "That's the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that's exactly how Social Security operates."
Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, a program mired for decades with concerns about waste, fraud, and improper payments, "doesn't take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we're older" like many Americans might believe.
"What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes," Agresti said. "That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations."
The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being "looted," Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to "put surpluses in it" from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn't pay out immediately and pays interest on.
"The interest that's been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation," Agresti said. "So, the problem isn't that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme."
Democrats have vocally pushed back against efforts by Republicans and DOGE to reform Social Security or make cuts to what they say are examples of wasteful or improper spending from the department.
"There's been a lot of misinformation about that as of late," Agresti told Fox News Digital. "You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they're paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially."
Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old age benefit.
"Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard," Turner said. "This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it."
A former D.C. police officer has been sentenced to 18 months in prison after being convicted on one count of obstructing justice and three counts of making false statements.
Shane Lamond, who was the supervisor of the Intelligence Branch of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homeland Security Bureau, leaked sensitive information to then-national chairman of the Proud Boys, Henry "Enrique" Tarrio.
Tarrio attended Lamond’s sentencing and held a news conference afterward, calling on President Donald Trump to pardon the former officer.
"I ask that the Justice Department and the President of the United States step in and correct the injustice that I just witnessed inside this courtroom," Tarrio said, according to reports.
Lamond was convicted in December 2024 for tipping off Tarrio about his own department’s investigation into the destruction of a "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) banner.
"As proven at trial, Lamond turned his job on its head—providing confidential information to a source, rather than getting information from him—lied about the conduct, and obstructed an investigation into the source," U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves said after Lamond’s conviction. "The intelligence gathering role that Lamond was supposed to play is critical to keeping our community safe. His violation of the trust placed in him put our community more at risk and cannot be ignored."
According to a Dec. 2024 press release from the Justice Department, Lamond and Tarrio were regularly in contact regarding "planned" Proud Boys activities in D.C. starting in July 2019. This did not change after Lamond’s department began an investigation into the Dec. 12, 2020, destruction of a BLM banner.
Despite the fact that Tarrio was considered the "prime subject" of the investigation, Lamond gave the then-Proud Boys leader "confidential law enforcement information." The Justice Department says that Tarrio passed the information to other members of the Proud Boys.
Weeks later, on Jan. 4, 2021 — just two days before the infamous Jan. 6 Capitol riot — Lamond sent Tarrio a message that was "set to self destruct" informing the Proud Boys leader that there was a warrant for his arrest. Tarrio, who was traveling from Florida to D.C. when he received the message, was arrested and pleaded guilty.
In D.C., the maximum penalty for obstruction of justice is 30 years in prison, while false statement charges carry a maximum of five years.
Progressive group "Indivisible," which was behind many of the Tesla protests in recent months as well as mobilizing for other far-left causes, appears to now be getting involved in a key congressional swing district with the goal of growing resistance against President Donald Trump in Congress.
With primary races already underway for the 2026 Midterm elections, the group appears to have in their sights Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican in a critical swing state representing New York's 17th District, in the form of a candidate with extensive ties to the group, progressive Democrat and Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson.
Davidson's social media presence includes several posts promoting Indivisible, including attending an event in June in Rockland, New York and Davidson was featured in a promotional video for Indivisible Northern Westchester that same month.
Indivisible has been front and center in other aspects of the race and local chapters of the group helped to organize protests at Lawler town hall events in April and May.
Fox News Digital reported on local Indivisible chapter leaders in Rockland planning an anti-Lawler protest in April. Footage obtained by Fox News Digital of the meeting showed organizing committee leader Pascale Jean-Gilles discussing filling the entire street in front of the event.
"It is a long street, and we’re trying to fill the entire street, so everyone coming into the rally will see people there and recognize it’s not going to be all, like, sunshine and daisies," Jean-Gilles said.
Ahead of the event, Davidson indicated that over a thousand protesters would attend the demonstration, saying on X: "Please pass him a note that 1100 or so of his ‘friends’ are excited to see him in my county legislative district tomorrow!"
At another Indivisible protest against Lawler earlier in the month, Davidson posted on X that she was "proud to stand with more than 1,000 people at the #HandsOff rally organized by @IndivisWstchr @1199seiu @nwindivisible@cwaunion and more to stand up for our freedoms and our future!"
"Mike Lawler may be silent on the daily assaults on healthcare, education, social security and national security, but We the People are NOT!" said Davidson.
Davidson congratulated Indivisible Rockland for a "packed event" in April 2025 after speaking at one of their events a month earlier, accusing Lawler of hiding from his constituents.
Bill Batson, a member of the Indivisible Rockland steering committee, gave $250 to Davidson's campaign via his own campaign committee, FEC records show.
In response to Indivisible and Davidson’s apparent collaboration, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Maureen O’Toole accused the group of "infiltrating" congressional races to undermine Trump’s agenda.
"Indivisible has a new plan: stop shouting outside congressional offices and start infiltrating them," said O’Toole. "Their first attempt? NY-17, where they’re backing far-left extremist Beth Davidson to carry out their agenda."
Indivisible was founded in response to Trump’s election in 2016, according to its website. The group’s website says that they were "brought together by a practical guide to resist the Trump agenda, Indivisible is a movement of thousands of group leaders and more than a million members taking regular, iterative, and increasingly complex actions to resist the GOPs agenda, elect local champions, and fight for progressive policies."
Indivisible's presence at Tesla protests nationwide, according to a Washington Free Beacon report, included a "reimbursement program" for local activists that showed up at the protests.
Indivisible, a group that has received more than $7 million from the George Soros network since 2017, according to the New York Post, has also been involved in protests calling to "abolish" ICE.
Earlier this year, Indivisible published a "tool kit" with recommendations for protesting at town halls and lawmakers' district offices. A section on how to "take the fight to Elon" includes steps for planning and executing a demonstration at Tesla dealerships, showrooms and factories for Elon Musk’s role as then-head of the Department of Government Efficiency.
While many of the protests outside Tesla dealerships were peaceful, the anti-Musk effort resulted in several instances of violence that the Department of Justice labeled "domestic terrorism", including acts of arson.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Lawler campaign spokesperson Chris Russell, called Davidson's association with Indivisible "disgraceful."
"They’ve had Nazi imagery and antisemitic tropes at their rallies and promoted a baseless election denialism conspiracy theory rooted in antisemitism on their website. I’m demanding she denounce them immediately, this dangerous rhetoric will lead to more violence and threatens our democracy."
Davidson condemned the imagery at the rally she attended in a post on X in March saying, "To be clear, I absolutely condemn the imagery of that poster. I will always be a voice against anti-Semitism and for my Jewish community. It's time for Mike Lawler to stop weaponizing antisemitism for his own political gain and stop using the Jewish community — my community, not his — as political pawns."
Lawler responded on X making the case that Davidson's statement did not go far enough.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Davidson campaign for comment on this story.
Davidson has been endorsed by Mondaire Jones, a progressive who is the last Democrat to hold Lawler's seat.
The race for NY-17 will be one of the most closely watched in the country as Republicans attempt to preserve their razor-thin majority in Congress, which historically has proven difficult for the party in power following a new president taking office.
The Cook Political Report ranks the race, where Davidson is one of several Democrats running in the primary, as "Lean Republican."
The White House is challenging the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending package will raise the federal deficit by trillions of dollars throughout the next decade.
The national debt, currently $36.2 trillion, tracks what the U.S. owes its creditors, while the national deficit measures how much the federal government’s spending exceeds its revenues. So far, the federal government has spent more than $1 trillion more than it has collected this fiscal year, according to the Department of the Treasury.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued an analysis Wednesday predicting that the so-called "big, beautiful, bill" the House passed in May would increase the federal deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.
But according to the White House, the CBO’s analysis is based on a faulty premise because it assumes that Republicans in Congress will fail to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
Rather, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecasts that the tax and spending measures would independently reduce deficits by $1.4 trillion.
Additionally, the White House argues that the measure, coupled with other initiatives like tariffs and other spending cuts, will lead to reducing the deficit by at least $6.6 trillion over 10 years.
The "big, beautiful, bill" has faced criticism from figures including SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who labeled the measure an "abomination" and argued that the bill would increase the federal deficit.
The measure now heads to the Senate, where lawmakers, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-K.Y., have voiced opposition to the legislation.
Meanwhile, OMB Director Russell Vought told lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday that he believed the CBO’s analysis was "fundamentally wrong."
"It will lead to reduced deficits and debt of $1.4 trillion," Vought said. "It will reduce mandatory savings of $1.7 trillion. I don't think the way they construct their baseline, not only does it not give a fair shake to economic growth, but it fundamentally misreads the economic consequences of not extending the current tax relief."
Failure to pass Trump’s tax package would trigger a recession, according to Vought.
"We'll have a recession," Vought told lawmakers. "The economic storm clouds will be very dark. I think we'll have a 60% tax increase on the American people."
Meanwhile, the White House has accused the CBO of employing those who’ve contributed to Democratic campaigns, even though CBO Director Phillip Swagel served in former President George W. Bush’s administration.
"I don’t think many people know this: There hasn’t been a single staffer in the entire Congressional Budget Office that has contributed to a Republican since the year 2000," Leavitt told reporters Tuesday. "But guess what, there have been many staffers within the Congressional Budget Office who have contributed to Democratic candidates and politicians every single cycle since. So unfortunately, this is an institution in our country that has become partisan and political."
The CBO director is appointed according to the recommendations of the House and Senate Budget Committees. Then-Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming, first recommended Swagel in 2019, and then Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, recommended Swagel again in 2023.
The CBO did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital on OMB's analysis or claims from the White House about the office being full of staffers who've backed Democrats.
Fox News’ Deirdre Heavey contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk engaged in a public feud Thursday, less than a week after the White House held a farewell press conference for Musk highlighting his contributions spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Musk departed his tenure as a special government employee with DOGE May 30, but swiftly launched into criticisms of Trump’s massive tax and spending package dubbed the "big, beautiful, bill." Tuesday, Musk labeled the measure a "disgusting abomination" because of reports it ramps up the federal deficit.
On Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that Musk opposed the bill because it eliminates an electric vehicle tax credit that benefits companies like Tesla. But Trump said that provision has always been part of the measure.
"I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office in a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair."
Musk immediately responded on X to Trump's statements, urging a removal of the "disgusting pork" included in the measure. He also said it was "false" that he was shown the measure "even once."
The two continued to publicly spar against one another, with Musk asserting that Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election if it weren’t for his own backing. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going "CRAZY" over cuts to the EV credits, and said that Musk was "wearing thin."
Additionally, Trump told Fox News on Friday that "Elon's totally lost it" and was not interested in speaking over the phone with Musk, despite media reports suggesting the two would talk.
Here’s what also happened this week:
Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz met with Trump at the White House Thursday, where the two discussed the war in Ukraine.
While Merz asserted that the U.S. was in a powerful spot to bring a meaningful end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Trump offered that the world might need to "let them fight for a little while."
"America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war," Merz said.
Merz said that Germany was willing to help however it could, and wanted to discuss options to partner with the U.S. to bring peace. Likewise, Merz suggested that European allies exert additional pressure on Russia to end the conflict.
But Trump said that he told Putin in a recent call that perhaps both countries would need to feel the consequences of fighting more acutely, claiming he told Putin "maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot."
"Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don't want to be pulled," Trump said. "Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart."
Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday to discuss trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing.
"I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal," Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries."
Trump said the conversation focused "almost entirely" on trade, and that Xi invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Likewise, Trump reciprocated and invited Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, to visit the U.S.
The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China May 30 for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May. And on Wednesday, Trump said Xi was "extremely hard to make a deal with" in a Truth Social post.
The negotiations from May prompted both countries to agree that the U.S. would lower its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would reduce its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%.
Fox News’ Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.
Some of the White House’s conservative House allies say they’re interpreting the upcoming vote on President Donald Trump’s $9.4 billion spending cut proposal as a "test" of what Congress can achieve in terms of rolling back federal funding.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he would not speak for members of the Trump administration but added, "I do think it is a test."
"And I think this is going to demonstrate whether Congress has the fortitude to do what they always say they’ll do," Roy said. "Cut the minimal amount of spending – $9 billion, NPR, PBS, things you complain about for a long time, or are they going to go back into their parochial politics?"
House GOP leaders unveiled legislation seeking to codify Trump’s spending cut request, known as a rescissions package, on Friday. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote sometime next week.
"The rescissions request sent to Congress by the Trump Administration takes the federal government in a new direction where we actually cut waste, fraud, and abuse and hold agencies accountable to the American people," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement introducing the bill.
The legislation would claw back funding that Congress already appropriated to PBS, NPR, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – cuts outlined by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year.
And while several Republican leaders and officials have already said they expect to see more rescissions requests down the line, some people who spoke with Fox News Digital believe the White House is watching how Congress handles this first package before deciding on next steps.
"You’re dead right," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked if the rescissions package was a test. "I think that it’s a test case – if we can’t get that…then we’re not serious about cutting the budget."
A rescissions package only needs simple majorities in the House and Senate to pass. But Republicans in both chambers have perilously slim majorities that afford them few defections.
Republicans are also racing the clock – a rescissions package has 45 days to be considered otherwise it is considered rejected and the funding reinstated.
Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, did not directly say whether he viewed the spending cuts as a test but dismissed any potential concerns.
"This is very low-hanging fruit, and I don’t anticipate any problems," Gooden told Fox News Digital.
"I’ve heard a few comments in the media, but I don’t think they’re serious comments. If someone on the Republican side can make a case for PBS, but they won’t take a tough vote against illegal immigration, then we’ve got a lot of problems."
Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), told Fox News Digital last week, "This first rescissions package from President Trump is a test as to whether Congress has the ability to deliver on his mandate by canceling wasteful spending through a filibuster-proof process."
"If they can’t then it’s a signal for the president to turn up the dial with other tools at his disposal," Winfree, who served as Director of Budget Policy in the first Trump administration, said.
Both Roy and Norman suggested a process known as "pocket rescissions" could be at least one backup plan – and one that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has floated himself.
"Pocket rescissions" essentially would mean the White House introduces its spending cut proposal less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. In theory, it would run out the clock on those funds and allow them to expire whether Congress acted or not.
Vought told reporters after meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday that he wanted to "see if it passes" but was "open" to further rescissions packages.
"We want to send up general rescissions bills, to use the process if it's appropriate, to get them through the House and the Senate," Vought said. "We also have pocket rescissions, which you’ve begun to hear me talk a lot about, to be able to use the end of the fiscal year to send up a similar rescissions, and have the funds expire. So there's a lot of things that we're looking at."
Still, some moderate Republicans may chafe at the conservative spending cuts.
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., refused to comment on whether he’d support the legislation before seeing the details but alluded to some concerns.
"Certainly I'm giving you a non-answer right now until I read the details," Bacon said.
"It does bother me because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they've been great to work with, and so that would be one I hope they don't put in."
He also raised concerns about some specific USAID programs, including critical investments to fight Ebola and HIV in Africa.
The legislation is expected to come before the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most legislation sees a House-wide vote, on Tuesday afternoon.
It's separate from Trump's "one big, beautiful bill," a broad piece of legislation advancing the president's tax, energy, and immigration agenda through the budget reconciliation process.
The fallout between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump is an evolving situation marked by a public blowup on Thursday, but their relationship ties back to Trump’s first term and even earlier.
A November 2016 CNBC interview with the Tesla CEO, who’s now the richest man in the world, took a critical tone of the now president just days before he was elected president in an upset that signified the strength of the populist movement.
"Honestly, I think Hillary’s economic policies and her environmental policies particularly are the right ones, you know, but yeah. Also, I don’t think this is the finest moment in our democracy at all," Musk said.
"Well, I feel a bit stronger that probably he’s not the right guy. He just doesn’t seem to have the sort of character that reflects well on the United States," he later added in the interview.
During Trump's first term, Musk was part of some of his economic advisory councils, which often includes CEOs, but ultimately left his post because he disagreed with the president’s move to exit the Paris Climate Accords.
"Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world," Musk posted at the time.
The two continued to have an on-and-off relationship, but there were some positive signs in May 2020.
"Elon Musk, congratulations. Congratulations, Elon. Thanks, Elon. For Elon and 8,000 SpaceX employees, today is the fulfillment of a dream almost two decades in the making," Trump said at the Kennedy Space Center in May 2020.
And at the SpaceX Demo-2 launch, Trump said he and Musk communicate regularly.
"Well, I won’t get into it. But, yeah — but I speak to him all the time. Great guy. He’s one of our great brains. We like great brains. And Elon has done a fantastic job," he said.
Fast forward to 2022, when Musk purchased Twitter and renamed it X, and brought back Trump’s account that November, after it was suspended after the events of Jan. 6, 2021. In 2022, Musk also announced that he would vote Republican, but indicated he would back Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis if he opted to seek the nomination.
DeSantis launched his campaign on X in a "space," a virtual public event forum, with Musk, who also reportedly significantly financially backed the Florida governor, according to The Wall Street Journal.
However, a major turning point was in July 2024, after the assassination attempt of Trump at a rally in Butler, Penn.
"I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk posted.
Musk then campaigned for the president, including a famous moment when he was jumping on stage at his comeback rally in Butler.
"I want to say what an honor it is to be here and, you know, the true test of someone's character is how they behave under fire, right?" Musk said at the rally. "And we had one president who couldn't climb a flight of stairs and another who was fist pumping after getting shot."
"This is no ordinary election," the tech CEO continued. "The other side wants to take away your freedom of speech."
"Just be a pest to everyone," he added. "You know, people on the street everywhere: Vote, vote, vote!"
The tech billionaire spent roughly $300 million through America PAC to boost swing state voter efforts, including Pennsylvania.
By the time the presidential election rolled around, Trump and Musk appeared to be close friends as the Tesla CEO was with Trump in Mar-a-Lago on election night. Over the next few days, Musk remained in Florida and was reportedly advising Trump on appointments and policy as the transition to a new administration kicked off.
A week later, shortly before Musk and the new president appeared at a SpaceX launch together in Texas, Trump announced that Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy would be heading up the Department of Government Efficiency in an effort to rid the government of waste, fraud, and abuse.
Trump described the pair as "two wonderful Americans' and although Ramaswamy left that post in January and is now running for governor in Ohio, Musk stayed on and quickly became the face of an agency that made him the main target of attacks from Democrats pushing back on spending cuts that they argued were too drastic.
Protests erupted nationwide against Musk and DOGE including violent outbursts at his Tesla dealerships that tanked the company's stock and were labeled as acts of "domestic terrorism" by the Justice Department.
During the first few months of the year, Musk and Trump were spotted together at several viral events including a UFC fight, an Oval Office meeting where Musk's son "Little X" stole the show, and a cabinet meeting in late February where Musk was the main focus.
In March, Trump hosted Elon at a Tesla showcase in front of the White House amid a dip in Tesla stock where the president told reporters he was purchasing a Tesla while touting the company.
As Musk's time at DOGE began to wind down, his employee classification allowed him to serve for 130 days, the newly formed agency had become the poster child of anti-Trump sentiment from Democrats who consistently attacked the $175 billion in spending cuts that DOGE estimated it delivered.
Signs of fracture in the relationship began showing in late May when Musk took a public shot at Trump's "big beautiful bill" as it made its way through Congress.
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Musk said.
Two days later, Musk announced his official departure from DOGE.
"As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending," Musk said, adding that the effects of DOGE "will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government."
DOGE, which fell short of Musk's initial goal of slashing $1 trillion in spending which Musk said he still remains optimistic will happen in the future, will continue its work without Musk, who said, "I look forward to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president."
That optimistic tone shifted drastically on June 3 when Musk took to X, the platform he owns, and blasted the budget reconciliation bill calling it "a disgusting abomination" and criticizing the Republicans who voted for it.
"KILL THE BILL," Musk said the next day.
A day after that, on Thursday, the feud hit a fever pitch.
While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said that he was "very disappointed" by Musk’s vocal criticisms of the bill. The president claimed that Musk knew what was in the bill and "had no problem" with it until the EV incentives had to be cut.
On X, Musk called that assessment "false."
Trump turned to social media to criticize Musk, who he appointed to find ways to cut $2 trillion after forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump said in one post.
In another post, Trump said, "I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given."
"If this Bill doesn’t pass, there will be a 68% tax increase, and things far worse than that. I didn’t create this mess, I’m just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
At one point, Musk referenced late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump as part of the larger tirade in a comment that several Republicans told Fox News Digital went "too far."
Other posts from Musk included a claim that Trump would not have won the election without his help while accusing Trump of "ingratitude." In another post, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President Vance.
It is unclear if a resolution to the feud is coming in the next few days. Fox News Digital reported on Friday morning that Musk wants to speak to Trump and that White House aides could possibly broker a meeting.
Trump told Fox News on Friday that he isn't interested in talking to Musk, adding that "Elon's totally lost it."
Trump also said to Fox News' Bret Baier that he isn't worried about Musk's suggestion to form a new political party, citing favorable polls and strong support from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
The Trump administration has taken a more aggressive approach than its predecessor toward addressing the nationwide surge in antisemitic incidents, launching investigations, punishing elite universities, and intensifying its immigration enforcement practices.
President Donald Trump, through his Department of Justice (DOJ) and other agencies, is using law-and-order tactics that his deputies say are necessary, but that critics say could constitute overreach.
Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ's assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News Digital she has not seen any "close cases" when it comes to weighing antisemitic behavior against First Amendment rights of those who oppose Israel or Judaism.
"Criticizing the government of Israel is not what I'm typically seeing here," Dhillon said. "I'm seeing an intifada revolution. I'm seeing blocking Jewish students from crossing campuses and destroying property on campus, which is a crime. … Quiet, polite conversation and disagreement with Israeli policy is not really what's happening here. It's literally people saying Israel shouldn't exist — and bringing the revolution to the United States."
Dhillon added that "that type of violent rhetoric has led to violent acts in our country."
After Hamas’s deadly terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the FBI’s hate crime statistics showed a sharp spike in anti-Jewish incidents in the U.S. The data runs through December 2023.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) data from 2024 and high-profile incidents this year suggest the trend is continuing.
An Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally in Boulder, Colorado, is facing state and federal charges for allegedly injuring 15 people, including elderly victims and a dog last weekend with Molotov cocktails during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration in support of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.
Suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, stated to authorities "he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead," according to an FBI affidavit. During the attack he allegedly yelled "free Palestine," the agent said.
In May, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, who worked at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., were gunned down outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in D.C.
Suspect Elias Rodriguez of Illinois shouted "free Palestine" as he was detained, and Interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro said her office is investigating the case as a hate crime and act of terrorism.
In another incident, a man allegedly set fire to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s residence on the first night of Passover. Emergency call logs released by local authorities revealed that the suspect, Cody Balmer, invoked Palestine after the arson and blamed Shapiro, who is Jewish, for "having my friends killed."
Tarek Bazrouk, who identified himself as a "Jew hater" and said Jewish people were "worthless," allegedly carried out a series of assaults on Jewish New Yorkers in 2024 and 2025, according to an indictment brought against him in May.
Bazrouk wore a green headband that mimicked Hamas garb and a keffiyeh during the attacks, and he celebrated Hamas and Hizballah on his social media, according to federal authorities.
Trump warned in an executive order at the start of his presidency that foreign nationals participating in "pro-jihadist protests" would be deported, and he specifically highlighted college campuses as being "infested with radicalism."
Unlike the Biden administration, the Trump administration has since gone to war with elite universities, some of which have been roiled by disruptive pro-Palestinian protests that involve occupying academic buildings and installing encampments.
Harvard and Columbia, in particular, are now engaged in litigation after Trump moved to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the universities and ban Harvard's foreign students.
The embattled schools have been successful in winning temporary pauses to Trump’s sanctions through the courts, but litigation is pending and legal experts have said they face an uphill battle.
The Trump administration has zeroed in on non-citizen students and activists who it has accused of supporting Palestinian causes in ways it deems hostile to U.S. interests.
Amid Trump’s pursuit of visa and green card holders, Mahmoud Khalil’s case has become a flashpoint.
Khalil was arrested in March and detained after the administration accused him of violating immigration laws by engaging in anti-Israel activism.
This week, Khalil said in court papers the administration’s claims against him were "grotesque" and that his activism involved "protesting this Israeli government’s indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians."
Civil rights groups have warned that the government’s hardliner posture risks violating free speech and protest rights. A coalition of 60 groups issued a joint statement this week on antisemitic hate crimes in which it warned the Trump administration not to over-correct because it would "make us all less safe."
"As we condemn these heinous [antisemitic] acts and those who perpetrate hate and violence, we also recommit to ensuring that these events — and the legitimate fear in the Jewish community — are not exploited to justify inhumane immigration policies or to target Arab Americans and those who peacefully and nonviolently exercise their First Amendment rights in support of Palestinian human rights," the groups said.
Dhillon told Fox News Digital: "It's not my responsibility to balance free speech issues on campus. It's my responsibility to enforce the federal civil rights laws. And my opinion, there's really no conflict."
When he took office, Trump vowed in a string of executive orders to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to "aggressively prosecute terroristic threats, arson, vandalism and violence against American Jews."
Trump appointees at the DOJ then moved quickly to convene an antisemitism task force. Dhillon said there is also frequent communication between the White House, the DOJ, and Jewish leaders about addressing antisemitism.
"We have heard from the Jewish community, and I've probably met with — I think there's at least two dozen rabbis who have my number on speed dial now. I literally sent three emails to rabbis in the last hour," she said.
She said her division has opened several investigations involving land use for religious purposes under a law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), including five related to Judaism. The administration is also notifying Jewish communities of grants available for added security at synagogues, and she said campuses are a "significant focus" for her.
After reports surfaced that Dhillon's shakeup in the Civil Rights Division led to a mass exodus of more than 100 attorneys leaving the division, she told the media she was unfazed by the departures and that her focus remains on launching the division's work toward combating antisemitism.
Testing the limits of his subordinates and the courts, another top DOJ official, Emil Bove, launched an internal investigation into Columbia student protesters early this year. The probe caused concern among line attorneys, who felt it was flimsy and was also met with multiple reprimands from a magistrate judge, according to the New York Times.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement in May that the New York Times' story was false and fed to the newspaper "by a group of people who allowed antisemitism and support of Hamas terrorists to fester for years."
Blanche confirmed the veracity of the investigation and said it involved, in part, a probe into a Hamas-linked image on Columbia University Apartheid Divest’s social media.
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced.
The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas.
Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation.
Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university.
"Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies.
Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard.
The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard.
Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration.
Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News.
Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige.
Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview.
Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said.
Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said.
Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely.
Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News.
Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview.
Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said.
"This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said.
"Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good."
Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead.
This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits.
"Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist."
"They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."
Elon Musk’s fiery feud with President Donald Trump spilled onto the top Republicans in Congress, where the tech billionaire questioned if their zeal to cut spending had disappeared.
Musk launched into a social media assault this week against Trump’s "big, beautiful bill," and accused Republicans of crafting a "disgusting abomination" full of wasteful spending.
What started as a rant against the bill turned into pointed attacks against Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
The tech billionaire and former head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lamented the bill as not cutting deep enough into Washington’s spending addiction. The House GOP’s offering, which is now being modified in the Senate, set a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts.
Musk set a benchmark of finding $2 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse to slash with his DOGE initiative, but fell far short, hitting only $160 billion in his four-month stint as a special government employee.
Still, he came with receipts, questioning whether Trump, Thune and Johnson were actually committed to making deep cuts.
Below are moments from the campaign trail and recent months compiled by Fox News Digital where the trio affirmed their commitment to putting a dent in the nation’s nearly $37 trillion debt.
A common theme for Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign was to go after the Biden administration, and his opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, for "throwing billions of dollars out the window."
The then-presidential candidate vowed that should he win a second term, his incoming administration would halt wasteful spending.
"We will stop wasteful spending and big government special interest giveaways, and finally stand up for the American taxpayer, which hasn't happened since I was president," he said. "We stood up. Our current massive deficits will be reduced to practically nothing. Our country will be powered by growth. Our country, will be powered by growth, will pay off our debt, will have all this income coming in."
Thune has agreed with his colleagues in the House GOP that the tax cut package needs to achieve steep savings, and believes that the Senate GOP could take those cuts a step further. After the bill advanced from the House last month, the top Senate Republican re-upped his vow to slash federal funding.
"It does everything that we set out to do. It modernizes our military, secures our border, extends tax relief and makes permanent tax relief that will lead to economic growth and better jobs in this country, and makes America energy dominant, coupled with the biggest spending reduction in American history," he said. "So those are our agenda items, and that's what we campaigned on. That's what we're going to do."
Johnson had to strike a balancing act in the House to cobble together enough support behind the legislation, and struck deals and satisfied concerned lawmakers across the spectrum of the House GOP while still setting a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. Rooting out waste, fraud and abuse has been a continued mantra of the speaker and his allies.
"I said this is the beginning of a process, and what you're going to see is a continuing theme of us identifying waste, fraud and abuse in government, which is our pledge of common sense, restoring common sense and fiscal sanity," Johnson said.
Medicaid reform in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" has drawn a partisan line through Congress.
Democrats have railed against potential Medicaid cuts since Trump was elected, while Republicans have celebrated Medicaid reform through the reconciliation process as an efficient way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the welfare program.
Fox News Digital asked lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum to react to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid reform. The results were as expectedly divided.
"This is all B.S., what the Democrats are doing," Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told Fox News Digital. "They're pushing the agenda that we're cutting 10 million people off Medicaid. It's people that actually shouldn't be on it, illegals that shouldn't be on it. We're reforming it."
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that has been ridiculed by Republicans, estimated this week that Trump's "big, beautiful bill" would leave 10.9 million people without health insurance, including 1.4 million who are in the country without legal status in state-funded programs.
But Republicans are holding firm in their defense of Medicaid reform, which Republicans say only cuts benefits to illegal immigrants, those ineligible to receive benefits who are currently receiving benefits, duplicate enrollees in one or more states and those who are able but choosing not to work.
"The people who would not continue to get Medicaid benefits under this bill were not qualified to get them in the first place," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital.
Democrats continue to sound off on the healthcare threat of eliminating 10 million people from Medicaid. Not a single House Democrat voted to pass Trump's championed legislation, which includes fulfilling key campaign promises like cutting taxes, immigration reform and American energy production.
"These burdensome regulatory requirements for proving that somebody has obtained or sought work are going to mean millions of people will go without healthcare, and the restrictions on food assistance are equally an obstacle to people meeting their everyday needs," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
Blumenthal added he is "very, very concerned about these seemingly cruel and unproductive ways of raising money simply to finance tax cuts" for "wealthy billionaires."
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said he is happy to have an "honest conversation" about government efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars, but that's not the reality of this bill.
"People are struggling, and I feel like, in the richest, most powerful country in the world, we should be able to make sure that people can have the basic needs they need to be able to survive," Kim said of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., told Fox News Digital there is "nothing beautiful" about Trump's "big, beautiful bill."
"This is horrific, and it adds massive amounts to our debt, compromising our ability to [fund] the fundamentals in the future, foundations for families to thrive — health care, housing, education, good-paying jobs. That's what we should be doing here, not doing massive tax cuts for billionaires and paying for them by tearing down programs for ordinary families," Merkley said.
The Transportation Security Administration clarified this week that a Costco membership card is not sufficient to present at airport security.
"We love hotdogs & rotisserie chickens as much as the next person but please stop telling people their Costco card counts as a REAL ID because it absolutely does not," the TSA wrote on Facebook Wednesday.
The reminder comes less than a month after the U.S. began requiring a REAL ID driver's license when flying domestically May 7.
Aside from REAL IDs, which have enhanced federal standards, domestic flyers can also use their passports or another federally-approved form of identification like Defense Department-issued IDs (but not a Costco card).
"Department of Defense IDs for active and retired military continue to be an acceptable form of ID at TSA checkpoints following the implementation of REAL ID last month," the TSA wrote on Facebook Thursday.
REAL IDs were available for years before the requirement went into effect after a 2005 law passed based on recommendations from the 9/11 Commission report.
With many procrastinating until shortly before the deadline, DMV centers were inundated with long lines in April and early May, and there was confusion about what forms of identification, such as a passport, birth certificate or Social Security card, were acceptable at a DMV to secure a REAL ID.
President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping had agreed to start sending rare earth minerals to the U.S. after halting the shipments in April.
Trump held a gaggle on the presidential jet Friday evening, and one reporter asked him just before landing if Xi had agreed to restart the flow of rare earth minerals and magnets to the U.S.
"Yes, he did," Trump replied. "We’re very far advanced on the China deal."
The news comes about a month and a half after China effectively halted exports of seven precious minerals, vital for assembling cars, robotics and defense systems, to the U.S. in a direct strike on America’s manufacturing and defense supply chain.
Overseas deliveries of magnets stopped April 4, when new licensing rules took effect, according to The New York Times. Companies are only allowed to export rare earth materials if they obtain special export licenses, which take 45 days to receive.
The halt also threatened to undercut Trump’s tariff strategy because China produces about 60% of the world’s critical mineral supply and processes even more, up to 90%.
China's mineral halt to the U.S. Defense Department came after Beijing had already imposed sanctions on multiple U.S. military contractors late last year, according to Reuters. Chinese entities were prohibited from engaging or cooperating with them in response to an arms sale to Taiwan, the outlet reported.
Trump and Xi had a lengthy call Thursday amid economic and national security friction regarding trade between the U.S. and China.
"I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal," Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries."
Trump said the conversation focused mostly on trade.
The call came nearly a week after Trump condemned China for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May and a day after Trump said Xi was "extremely hard to make a deal with" in a Truth Social post.
Fox News' Diana Stancy, Bonny Chu, Danielle Wallace, Morgan Phillips and Reuters contributed to this report.
The ongoing feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his one-time "special government employee," has brought an "unprecedented" dynamic compared to other famous disputes, long-time Democratic political strategist and Fox News contributor Jacques DeGraff said.
After somewhat muted rumblings from Musk about why he opposed a Trump-endorsed Republican spending package, the DOGE leader launched complaints after Trump began firing back this week, including threats aimed at Musk's business revenue.
"It's unprecedented, but the reality is that what makes it a singular moment in history is that no single figure has ever been able to say, 'I made a president and then (fell) out with that individual," DeGraff told Fox News Digital Friday.
"There have been groups, there have been individuals who wanted to pretend that they did, but the record is clear. And, I mean, this man (Elon) brought his son into the Oval Office. He wore a hat and didn't wear a suit to the Oval Office. He clearly had carte blanche. … The president, in effect, did a Tesla ad in the Rose Garden … and now they've fallen out in life."
DeGraffe, who has been a political advocate and strategist for years, quipped that, ordinarily, "we would have to go to family court," adding "what's the court here?"
Trump is no stranger to quarrels with his staff. During his first term, his relationship soured with his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, and his press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci, after they diverged on different issues and publicly criticized Trump.
But, for DeGraffe at least, this quarrel has "distinguished itself from anything in the past."
One major difference he pointed to is the implications for both parties in this spat.
"Tesla stock has dropped $150 billion, Trump stock has dropped but it also occurs at the same time as this legislation and so that is going to have – no matter how it turns out – it's going to have massive political and public policy implications for the country," DeGraffe said. "So this is no small dispute."
DeGraffe also contended that this is "the first time" there has been a major deviation from Trump "from the MAGA side of the aisle." He suggested the split could be bad news for Trump and others who hope to see the GOP's budget package pass the finish line in its current form.
"This major split will allow other players to take positions other than the party line, and it gives them room and comfort and cover in order to do so," DeGraffe suggested. "Will senators who follow Musk, or, better yet, disagree with Musk, face intensely funded primaries?
"That's a consideration that everyone involved will have to take. … As a lifelong Democrat, I'm sitting with my bowl of popcorn saying, ‘Go at it.’ Because anything that slows this horrific legislation has got to be good news to the rest of the country."
However, while DeGraffe sees the Trump-Musk feud as having wide-ranging and lasting implications, GOP political strategist Dallas Woodhouse says he thinks the feud is unimportant to most Republicans.
"I am currently at the North Carolina State GOP convention, and this is not a topic of concern among activists," Woodhouse said. "No doubt it makes for funny and entertaining X posts, but the GOP faithful are laser-focused on growing the new diverse GOP/Trump winning coalition."
President Donald Trump responded to the sudden return of Salvadoran illegal and alleged gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying, "he’s a bad guy" and that the courts will "show how horrible this guy is."
Trump appeared unbothered by Abrego Garcia’s return on Friday afternoon, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that the Department of Justice made the decision and that soon the world will see how "horrible" a person he is.
Trump expressed confidence in the DOJ and its case against Abrego Garcia.
"The DOJ made a decision," he said, adding, "I think their decisions have been very, very good."
"Maybe they just said, ‘Look, all of these people, these judges, they want to try and run the country.’ A local judge trying to run the country," said Trump. "The man has a horrible past, and I could see a decision being made, bring him back, show everybody how horrible this guy is."
The president said, "Frankly, we have to do something because the judges are trying to take the place of a president that won in a landslide. That's not supposed to be the way it is. So, I can see bringing him back. I could see. He's a bad guy."
The Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old illegal alien who was living in Maryland, to a high-security prison in his home country back in March on the grounds that he is a member of the violent MS-13 gang.
Soon after his deportation, Democrats jumped to advocate for Abrego Garcia’s release and return to the U.S., arguing that he was a wrongly deported "Maryland man."
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Friday that Abrego Garcia, 29, has landed in the United States and is set to face federal charges for human smuggling and conspiracy.
"Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice," Bondi said. "A grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned a sealed indictment charging him with alien smuggling and conspiracy."
According to the indictment, Garcia played a "significant role" in a human smuggling ring operating for nearly a decade. Bondi described him as a full-time smuggler who made more than 100 trips, transporting women, children, and MS-13 gang-affiliated persons throughout the United States.
Fox News Digital obtained Tennessee Highway Patrol bodycam footage from a 2022 traffic stop where troopers pulled over Garcia for speeding. Inside his vehicle were eight other men, raising immediate suspicions. "He’s hauling these people for money," one trooper said.
Troopers found $1,400 in cash and flagged Garcia in the National Crime Information Center, which returned a gang/terrorism alert. ICE was called but never responded.
Though Democrats have also pushed a narrative that Abrego Garcia is a "family man," court records show Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, filed a protective order against her husband in August 2020. The order said their shared son and stepchildren needed protection from Abrego Garcia, accusing him of verbal and physical abuse against her and mental abuse against her children.
Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who led the charge among Democrats to push for Abrego Garcia’s return, released a statement after news of the return broke, saying, "For months the Trump Administration flouted the Supreme Court and our Constitution. Today, they appear to have finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States."
