Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has launched a scathing attack on the Republican Party's leadership, accusing them of abandoning Elon Musk and his DOGE cost-cutting initiatives while supporting President Trump's new spending bill.
According to Daily Mail, DeSantis's criticism came after House Republicans approved Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which significantly increases the national debt and government spending, effectively nullifying Musk's efforts to reduce government waste through DOGE.
The former presidential hopeful expressed his frustration on social media platform X, highlighting how Musk endured "attacks on his companies as well as personal smears" while leading DOGE's cost-cutting efforts, only to see his work undermined by his own party's leadership.
DeSantis didn't hold back during a bill signing ceremony in Florida, condemning the Republican Congress for failing to implement any DOGE cuts despite their landslide victory in November's election.
The governor emphasized how the massive spending increase would directly impact voters' wallets through inflation, which he described as an indirect tax on American citizens.
In a particularly pointed critique, DeSantis noted that the $2 trillion deficit spending would have the same effect as directly taxing citizens despite claims that the bill wouldn't raise taxes.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk expressed his own frustration with the situation during a SpaceX Starship launch event, directly criticizing Trump's $3.8 trillion spending bill.
During an interview with CBS, Musk bluntly stated that the bill "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing" and expressed disappointment in the massive spending increase.
The billionaire also lamented the treatment of his DOGE team, telling the Washington Post they had become "whipping boys" for everything that goes wrong, even when they had nothing to do with it.
The controversy has sparked speculation about DeSantis's potential candidacy in the 2028 GOP primaries, as he used the opportunity to outline early policy proposals.
Among his suggested reforms, the Florida governor called for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and term limits for members of Congress.
DeSantis concluded his remarks by declaring that while "DOGE fought the Swamp, the Swamp has won," suggesting a deeper divide within the Republican Party over fiscal policy and government spending.
The clash between Trump's spending agenda and Musk's cost-cutting initiatives has exposed growing tensions within the Republican Party over fiscal responsibility and government spending.
DeSantis's vocal support for Musk and criticism of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' signals a potential realignment of political alliances within the GOP, particularly concerning economic policy.
This development marks a significant moment in Republican politics, as prominent figures like DeSantis and Musk openly challenge the party's direction under Trump's leadership, potentially setting the stage for future political confrontations.
A whistleblower has come forward with explosive allegations about racial discrimination in the Biden administration's farmer loan forgiveness program, claiming the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deliberately excluded white male farmers from receiving debt relief.
According to Breitbart, the anonymous USDA insider revealed that the only qualification for loan forgiveness was being a non-white male farmer, drawing parallels to the controversial Pigford settlement from over a decade ago.
The whistleblower's claims suggest that USDA officials attempted to keep the racially-targeted program under wraps due to concerns about potential backlash over race-based loan forgiveness decisions.
The current controversy bears striking similarities to the Pigford scandal of 2010, which involved compensation for black farmers who faced historical discrimination from the USDA. That settlement, reached during the Clinton administration, later expanded under President Obama's tenure.
The original Pigford case resulted in a $1.33 billion settlement that extended beyond the initial 91 plaintiffs to include thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had not previously claimed discrimination in court.
Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama leveraged the promise of expanded compensation to secure crucial support in South Carolina during his 2008 primary campaign against Hillary Clinton.
The anonymous USDA insider disclosed the specifics of the current loan forgiveness initiative during an exclusive interview with NewsNation's Elizabeth Vargas Reports, highlighting the program's explicit racial criteria.
Farmer James Dunlap expressed his disbelief at the program's parameters, stating: "To me, it was just combating racism with more racism. I couldn't believe it was happening in today's age."
One particularly concerning aspect is that Tom Vilsack, who served as Agriculture Secretary during both the Obama administration's Pigford settlement and the current Biden administration, oversees the department implementing these controversial policies.
The New York Times eventually validated earlier investigations into the Pigford settlement, revealing widespread fraud and questionable claims processes that didn't require documentary evidence of discrimination.
Critics pointed out that claims came from unlikely sources, including urban residents and young children, often submitted with identical discrimination accounts in matching handwriting.
Internal USDA documents from March 2010 revealed that new settlements were viewed as a strategy to "neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic, Native American or women farmers."
The latest whistleblower allegations suggest that discriminatory practices persist within the USDA, as officials reportedly implemented a loan forgiveness program that explicitly excluded white male farmers from receiving financial assistance.
These revelations have reignited debates about the fairness of race-based agricultural policies and their potential violation of equal protection principles under federal law.
The controversy adds another chapter to the ongoing saga of USDA loan forgiveness programs, with Secretary Vilsack once again at the center of allegations regarding racially discriminatory practices in agricultural assistance programs.
An Obama-appointed federal judge has delivered a mixed ruling in the ongoing legal battle over Elon Musk's role in President Trump's government efficiency initiative, dismissing Trump as a defendant while allowing claims against Musk to continue.
According to Fox News, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion largely rejecting the Trump administration's request to dismiss a challenge related to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The judge agreed with the administration's argument that "the court may not enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties," resulting in Trump being dropped from the lawsuit while the case proceeds against other defendants, including Musk.
The lawsuit, filed by more than a dozen states in February, challenges Musk's role in the DOGE initiative, claiming his position violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause.
The states' complaint explicitly sought to "enjoin Mr. Musk from issuing orders to any person in the Executive Branch outside of DOGE and otherwise engaging in the actions of an officer of the United States." The lawsuit further asked the court to "declare that his actions to date are ultra vires and of no legal effect."
A Justice Department spokesperson defended the administration's position, stating, "This Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump's ability to conduct official duties and will continue to do so whenever those actions are challenged in federal court."
Musk has recently reduced his involvement with the DOGE initiative, shifting focus back to his various business ventures after initially dedicating significant time to the government efficiency program.
In a tweet last week, Musk announced he was "Back to spending 24/7 at work and sleeping in conference/server/factory rooms," indicating his need to concentrate on his companies rather than government reform efforts.
The tech billionaire expressed frustration with the challenges of reforming government, commenting on Tuesday, "The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least."
The ruling allows the substantive constitutional questions about Musk's role to proceed to further litigation, setting up a potential showdown over the limits of private citizen involvement in government operations.
The states' lawsuit fundamentally questions whether Musk has been functioning as an unconfirmed federal officer, which would violate constitutional requirements for appointments to government positions.
Judge Chutkan's order specifically states, "Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I against President Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I against all other defendants and Count II is DENIED."
The court's decision represents a partial victory for the Trump administration by removing the president from direct legal jeopardy while simultaneously allowing a significant challenge to one of its signature initiatives to move forward.
The DOGE program, championed by both Trump and Musk, has been positioned as a critical effort to reduce government waste and bureaucracy. Supporters view it as necessary reform, while critics have questioned both its methods and constitutional legitimacy.
As Musk steps back from his active role with DOGE to focus on SpaceX, Tesla, and his other companies, the legal challenge will continue to test the boundaries of how the administration can structure its government efficiency efforts going forward.
The makers of Skittles candy have quietly made a significant change to their colorful treat. Mars Wrigley has confirmed it has removed titanium dioxide, a whitening agent that has raised health concerns, from its popular rainbow-colored candies in the United States.
According to Fox News, a spokesperson for Mars Wrigley recently confirmed the ingredient change for the Skittles portfolio. The New Jersey-based company made the decision following growing scrutiny of the additive.
The ingredient change comes shortly after the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a report highlighting titanium dioxide as a potential health concern. The report specifically noted the additive may cause cellular and DNA damage.
Titanium dioxide has long been used in food products to create a whiter appearance and opacity in various foods. The ingredient is particularly common in candies, with the FDA's FoodData Central website listing 4,362 candy products containing the substance.
The European Union took stronger action against the ingredient in 2022, implementing an outright ban following a report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). That report pointed to genotoxicity concerns associated with the additive.
The EFSA report specifically noted that "genotoxicity refers to the ability of a chemical substance to damage DNA, the genetic material of cells." This finding was significant enough for European regulators to remove the substance from food products.
Mars Wrigley emphasized its commitment to product safety while confirming the ingredient change. The company maintains that consumer safety remains its highest priority.
"Our commitment to quality is what has enabled Mars to be enjoyed by consumers for over a century, and nothing is more important than the safety of our products," the Mars Wrigley spokesperson told Fox News Digital. This statement underscores the company's focus on maintaining consumer trust amid growing scrutiny of food additives.
The spokesperson further stated that all their products "are safe to enjoy and meet the high standards and applicable regulations set by food safety authorities around the world," adding that safety standards are something the company "will never compromise on."
The removal of titanium dioxide from Skittles follows a broader trend of food manufacturers responding to health concerns about various additives. This move comes as consumers increasingly demand transparency about ingredients in their food.
The MAHA Commission report released last Thursday took a comprehensive look at chronic diseases, with particular attention to those affecting children. The report listed several additives of potential concern, with titanium dioxide among them.
Research into titanium dioxide has raised red flags beyond the European findings. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted experimental animal inhalation studies with the substance and classified it as a "possible carcinogenic to humans."
The decision by Mars Wrigley could signal a shift in how American food manufacturers approach ingredients that have been banned or restricted in other countries. In-N-Out Burger recently made similar ingredient changes to its drinks and condiments.
The FDA continues to list titanium dioxide as "generally recognized as safe" in the United States, creating a regulatory difference between American and European approaches to food safety. This discrepancy puts pressure on U.S. manufacturers to decide whether to proactively remove ingredients that face restrictions elsewhere.
Mars Wrigley has not detailed what replacement ingredient it is using to maintain Skittles' appearance, nor has the company indicated whether the change will affect other products in its extensive candy portfolio that may contain the additive.
Ramon Morales-Reyes, a 54-year-old man from Mexico, has found himself at the center of a high-profile security incident involving President Donald Trump. This alarming situation, unfolding just months after a violent attack on the president, raises urgent questions about safety and border security.
The core of this unsettling story revolves around a direct threat to President Trump's life, as detailed by federal authorities. According to a report by Breitbart, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Morales-Reyes on May 22 after he allegedly handed over a handwritten note promising to assassinate the president at a rally.
Digging deeper into the incident, this arrest comes less than a year after President Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. That event left the nation on edge, and now, with this new threat emerging, concerns about the safety of political figures have intensified. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem emphasized the gravity of repeated threats against Trump, pointing to a troubling pattern of violence and rhetoric surrounding the president.
Scrutinizing the details of Morales-Reyes’ threat reveals a deeply personal and hostile motive. On the day before his arrest, he reportedly delivered a note to an intelligence officer outlining his plan to target President Trump. The explicit nature of his words has sparked outrage among many who see this as a direct attack on national stability.
Examining the content of the note, Morales-Reyes expressed frustration with Trump’s policies toward Mexicans, claiming they have contributed more to the U.S. than others. His written intent to act violently before self-deporting back to Mexico paints a picture of someone driven by resentment and desperation. Such statements have fueled debates over immigration and the rhetoric surrounding it.
Beyond the note, the suspect’s background adds layers of concern to this case. ICE officials disclosed that Morales-Reyes had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally at least nine times between 1998 and 2005. With a criminal history including felony hit-and-run and domestic abuse-related charges, his repeated unlawful entries raise serious questions about border enforcement effectiveness.
Reflecting on this incident, many conservative voices argue it underscores a critical failure in immigration policy. They contend that lax border controls have allowed individuals like Morales-Reyes to enter and re-enter the country, posing risks to public safety. This perspective sees the arrest as a wake-up call for stricter enforcement and policy reform.
On the other side, critics of stringent immigration policies argue that such cases are exploited to demonize entire communities. Advocacy groups suggest that focusing on individual criminal acts distracts from systemic issues like the need for comprehensive immigration reform. They caution against narratives that paint all undocumented immigrants as threats, urging a balanced discussion on the issue.
Delving into the broader context, incidents like this often polarize public opinion on border security. While some demand immediate action to prevent future threats, others highlight the contributions of immigrants and the complexities of their circumstances. This divide continues to challenge policymakers seeking solutions that address both security and humanitarian concerns.
Analyzing the response from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, her statement reflects a strong stance on protecting President Trump. She criticized the inflammatory rhetoric from politicians and media, linking it to repeated threats against the president. Her call for toned-down discourse aims to prevent further escalation of violence in an already charged political climate.
Opponents of Noem’s position argue that her comments risk stifling free speech and deflecting from deeper issues. They suggest that focusing on rhetoric ignores systemic factors contributing to such threats, including political polarization and economic disparities. This counterargument insists on addressing root causes rather than surface-level blame.
Looking at the timing, Noem noted that this threat follows closely after former FBI Director Comey’s controversial call for Trump’s assassination, as mentioned in her statement. Such remarks from high-profile figures amplify public tension, creating an environment where threats can proliferate. This cycle of provocation and reaction remains a significant hurdle for national unity.
A stunning shift is unfolding at the southern border, and President Donald Trump’s name is at the center of it all. Border officials in San Diego, long used to surges in illegal crossings, are taking unprecedented action.
According to RedState, a massive migrant processing facility in San Diego has been shuttered after a staggering drop in illegal crossings. Border officials cite a 186 percent decrease in apprehensions compared to the previous year—a statistic that is fueling both praise and skepticism.
Trump’s supporters are calling it a historic victory for border security, while critics are openly questioning the methods and messaging behind the sharp decline. The closure of the San Diego Soft Sided Facility, which once housed up to 1,000 migrants, marks a dramatic turn for the region often at the heart of the national immigration debate.
The San Diego Soft Sided Facility, a key temporary shelter for migrants taken into custody near the border, is no more. Officials say daily apprehensions have plummeted to an average of 38 people—a figure that led authorities to conclude the facility was no longer necessary.
Chief patrol agent reports confirm a dramatic drop in crossings, particularly in March of this year. In March 2025, San Diego border patrol arrested just 1,199 illegal aliens, which officials note is a 186 percent decrease from March 2024. This sharp downturn is being called “unprecedented” by those overseeing border operations.
Republicans and border security advocates are pointing directly to Trump’s executive actions as the reason for the turnaround. They say the new administration’s uncompromising message—“do not come here or you will be immediately sent home”—has finally resonated with would-be border crossers, deterring illegal entries on a scale rarely seen before.
Yet while Trump allies are celebrating, others are raising alarm bells about the tactics and broader implications of these policies. The president’s approach has been to act quickly and forcefully, relying on executive action rather than waiting for new congressional legislation. This has drawn criticism from Democrats and some immigration advocates, who say it bypasses the normal legislative process.
On “Fox and Friends,” political commentator Charlie Hurt praised the results, stating:
The border is closed. And it's kind of remarkable to think about, if any president accomplished what President Trump has accomplished at the border, you could just sort of go home. Of course, that is not the case with President Trump, he is still working.
But this success story is not without controversy. Many Democrats argue that the administration’s focus on mass deportations and aggressive messaging ignores the complex humanitarian issues at play. They insist that comprehensive immigration reform is still needed and claim that simply shutting down facilities does not solve the underlying problems.
Democratic leaders and progressive activists are not buying the administration’s line that only a new president was needed to secure the border. They point to years of warnings from experts that the border crisis is driven by a range of factors—poverty, violence, and instability in migrants’ home countries—that cannot be solved by executive fiat alone.
During a recent speech to Congress, Trump dismissed these arguments, saying:
The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. We must have legislation to secure the border. But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president… Joe Biden didn't just open our borders, he flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals and communities throughout the country.
Partisan lines have hardened considerably. Republicans insist the numbers speak for themselves, while Democrats charge that the administration is using fear and harsh rhetoric to achieve short-term gains at the expense of America’s core values. The debate over what constitutes a secure border has rarely been so fierce.
While the closure of the San Diego facility is being hailed by conservatives as proof that Trump’s approach works, many are watching to see if the trend will hold. Republicans want to see Congress pass new legislation to “beef up” border security efforts even further, but so far, no major bills have advanced.
Meanwhile, administration officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance, are pledging to keep up the pressure. They argue that the country is witnessing the dawn of a “Golden Age” thanks to the president’s unrelenting actions and vow that this is only the beginning.
Democrats, for their part, are mobilizing to push back against what they see as an overreach of executive power. They warn that closing one facility in San Diego does not address the long-term challenges of immigration, asylum, and humanitarian relief that the nation continues to face.
Donald Trump and his family have ignited a storm of reaction after revealing a massive new gamble on cryptocurrency markets. The bold move, involving billions of dollars and some of the world’s most controversial digital assets, has political and financial circles buzzing.
According to Daily Mail, President Trump’s Trump Media & Technology Group plans to pour $3 billion into cryptocurrencies, with Bitcoin as the crown jewel. This unprecedented push aims to position the United States as the unquestioned “crypto capital of the world” and create one of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasuries anywhere.
The plan, announced just ahead of a major cryptocurrency investor meeting in Las Vegas, involves $2 billion in fresh equity from roughly 50 institutional investors and another $1 billion from a convertible bond sale. Trump’s sons Don Jr. and Eric, Vice President JD Vance, and crypto adviser David Sacks are all set to play key roles, signaling just how central digital currencies have become to the Trump agenda.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social, is leading the charge. Despite losses and modest ad revenue since going public, the company’s new strategy is to diversify away from social media and aggressively enter the financial sector. CEO Devin Nunes described Bitcoin as “an apex instrument of financial freedom” and emphasized that cryptocurrency will now be a foundational part of the company’s asset base.
President Trump remains the largest shareholder, with over 50 percent of Trump Media’s stock—valued at about $2.7 billion. The initial infusion of cash is expected to rapidly establish the Trumps as leading players in the crypto world, leveraging the family’s name and business network to amass digital reserves at unprecedented scale.
The timing is deliberate. Trump’s announcement comes as the White House seeks to showcase American innovation and financial independence and just as a high-profile crypto gathering convenes in Las Vegas. The company’s pivot follows a string of Trump-branded digital ventures, including NFTs, a meme coin, and stakes in a new bitcoin producer and crypto exchange.
The move has triggered fierce debate in Washington and beyond. Supporters of the Trump family’s plan see it as a patriotic bet on American technological leadership. They argue that by embracing cryptocurrency, the administration is fostering financial freedom and keeping the U.S. at the forefront of a booming new sector.
Critics, however, see ulterior motives and potential conflicts of interest. Democrats and ethics watchdogs have slammed the president’s family for turning the White House into a launchpad for personal financial gain, pointing to a private dinner at Trump’s golf club attended by more than 200 wealthy crypto investors. Some have accused the Trump family of using political power to attract foreign investment without adequate transparency or background checks.
President Trump pushed back at the criticism, defending his family’s business acumen while accusing President Biden’s family, especially Hunter Biden, of far worse. “Ultimately, no matter what it is, I always put the country way ahead of the business,” Trump told dinner guests, contrasting his actions with the Biden family’s controversial art sales.
As the Trump crypto initiative takes off, the president’s inner circle is rallying around the new venture. Don Jr. and Eric Trump have been instrumental in driving the family’s digital asset strategy, while Vice President JD Vance and adviser David Sacks are expected to speak at the upcoming Las Vegas conference. The event is designed to showcase the administration’s commitment to innovation and reward top backers of the $TRUMP meme coin.
The atmosphere has been electric, with investors posting photos from exclusive dinners and touting the promise of Trump-branded crypto projects. Many of these backers are foreign nationals, raising additional questions about the vetting process and national security.
Blockquote from Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group:
We view Bitcoin as an apex instrument of financial freedom, and now Trump Media will hold cryptocurrency as a crucial part of our assets.
Nevertheless, the president’s team insists that all investments are above board and that the real priority is American prosperity. They point to the Trump family’s long history of successful business ventures and argue that this latest move simply reflects changing times.
The Trump family’s cryptocurrency ambitions have not escaped political heat, with some observers warning of financial risks and ethical pitfalls. Trump Media reported a staggering $32 million loss last quarter on just $820,000 in revenue, fueling skepticism about the company’s viability and the wisdom of such a massive bet on volatile digital assets.
Democrats continue to question the ethics of raising funds from largely anonymous and sometimes foreign investors. Trump allies, on the other hand, see the attacks as politically motivated and dismiss concerns about transparency as media-driven hysteria.