Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump are sounding the alarm on what they call a growing health emergency among America’s youth. Their new commission, packed with prominent agency leaders, has just dropped an explosive report that’s already shaking up Washington.
According to Fox News, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s first assessment paints a grim picture: chronic conditions are skyrocketing among U.S. children, and the nation’s future security could be at risk.
The commission, headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy, highlights a sharp increase in conditions like obesity, depression, autism, and other health issues among children. According to the report, American children are experiencing more physical and mental health problems, even though the country is spending more on healthcare than ever before. The commission plans to release major policy proposals by the end of August in response to these concerns.
The MAHA report, released Thursday, reveals that more than 40% of America’s 73 million children now have at least one chronic health condition. These include asthma, allergies, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and behavioral disorders. Kennedy called the document a “diagnosis” of U.S. child health, with a “prescription” of solutions to follow in 100 days.
The statistics are startling. Teenage depression has nearly doubled from 2009 to 2019. One in five children over age six is considered obese. Autism diagnoses now affect one in 31 children by age eight, and childhood cancer rates have jumped 40% since 1975.
Commission leaders argue the nation’s health crisis is now a national security concern. They say roughly 75% of Americans aged 17-24 are ineligible for military service due to these chronic conditions, including obesity and behavioral disorders.
Commissioners blame a mix of factors for the chronic disease surge, including the American food system, environmental chemical exposure, and culture shifts. The report says the food supply is technically “safe,” but could be far healthier if it moved away from ultraprocessed foods loaded with sugars, chemical additives, and saturated fats.
Children’s exposure to pesticides, microplastics, and other chemicals is also cited as a contributing factor. But perhaps the most controversial claim centers on prescription drug use among youth. The report documents a 250% increase in ADHD prescriptions from 2006 to 2016, a 1,400% jump in antidepressant use between 1987 and 2014, and an 800% surge in antipsychotic medication for children from 1993 to 2009.
“American children are highly medicated — and it’s not working,” the report states. Officials say these trends outpace increases seen in other developed nations, suggesting a uniquely American crisis.
Not everyone agrees with the commission’s findings or its approach. Critics question the emphasis on environmental chemicals and food additives, arguing that the evidence tying these factors to chronic disease is not always clear-cut. Some public health experts argue that social and economic issues, such as poverty and access to care, play a much larger role.
The report’s findings on fluoride are especially controversial. A recent review cited by the commission found a “statistically significant association” between high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children, but critics say more research is needed before changing public health policies.
Others point out that the United States spends more than double per capita on healthcare compared to peer nations, yet still ranks last in life expectancy among high-income countries. They argue that broader reforms and a focus on prevention, rather than just changing food or medication policies, are needed to reverse these trends.
Commissioners stress that the chronic disease crisis is not just a health issue—it’s a threat to the nation’s security and economy. Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary warned, “We now have the most obese, depressed, disabled, medicated population in the history of the world, and we cannot keep going down the same road.”
Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary said,
We now have the most obese, depressed, disabled, medicated population in the history of the world, and we cannot keep going down the same road. So this is an amazing day. I hope this marks the grand pivot from a system that is entirely reactionary to a system that will now be proactive.
Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya added that today’s children may live shorter lives than their parents for the first time in American history. The commission highlighted the need for a strong economy to support public health, cautioning that weak economies can make health problems even worse.
The passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the House of Representatives has sparked a heated debate among Republicans over America's mounting national debt. Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson put themselves squarely in the spotlight, refusing to back President Donald Trump’s celebrated “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
According to Fox News, Massie and Davidson took to social media on Thursday, May 22, to explain their “no” votes on the high-profile legislation, citing grave concerns over the nation’s $36 trillion debt crisis. Their opposition came even as the House passed the bill by a razor-thin margin, giving Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump a hard-fought legislative victory.
The bill, a sweeping package that advances Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, and defense, promises to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. But critics, including these two Republican holdouts, warn it will actually swell deficits in the short term and fail to address the immediate fiscal crisis facing the United States.
Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio wasted no time clarifying their positions to constituents and colleagues alike. Davidson, voicing frustration just before the vote, made clear that promises of future spending cuts were not enough.
He stated, “While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we’re in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO.”
Massie echoed Davidson’s stance, emphasizing that serious action was needed immediately, not in some distant future. On the House floor, Massie delivered a sober warning about the bill’s fiscal impact, stating:
I’d love to stand here and tell the American people, ‘We can cut your taxes and increase spending and everything is going to be just fine.’ But I can’t do that because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?
Despite the coordinated push for party unity from House leadership, the close vote and vocal dissent from Massie and Davidson highlighted the ongoing rift within Republican ranks over how to address the national debt.
The White House was quick to respond to the opposition. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Massie and Davidson’s votes, suggesting they should face primary challenges for bucking the party’s key agenda item. Leavitt pointedly asked, “Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That’s the alternative by them trying to vote ‘no.’ The president believes the Republican Party needs to be unified.”
As Trump allies celebrated passage of the bill, Massie took to social media to fundraise off the backlash, writing on X, “The big beautiful bill has issues. I chose to vote against it because it’s going to blow up our debt. For voting on principle, I now have the President AND his press Secretary campaigning against me from the White House podium. Can you help me by donating?”
The political tension was further stoked by former Rep. Bob Good, who lost his seat after supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 primaries. Good warned that “The Big Ugly Truth is that the Big Ugly Bill will push the Big Ugly Debt over $60 trillion,” underscoring how Trump’s critics within the GOP remain deeply concerned about fiscal responsibility.
For fiscal conservatives, the numbers remain alarming. Even with $1.5 trillion in planned spending cuts, the United States’ national debt stands at over $36 trillion, with the Treasury Department reporting an additional $1.05 trillion spent over government receipts in the current fiscal year. The House Republican leadership’s win, while celebrated, is viewed by some as a temporary reprieve rather than a lasting solution.
Massie, wearing his trademark national debt clock pin, described the legislation as a “debt bomb ticking,” painting a dire picture for those who believe the bill will do little to curb runaway spending.
According to Fox News Digital columnist David Marcus, the American public’s indifference to the deficit may be one of the greatest challenges facing lawmakers who want real reform.Rep. Thomas Massie said on the House floor: “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?”
Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson, two vocal House Republicans, stood apart this week as they voted against President Trump’s signature legislation, citing what they see as a looming fiscal crisis. Both lawmakers used social media to explain their votes, warning that the bill’s promises of future savings do not counteract the immediate reality of rising deficits and an ever-growing national debt.
The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by a single vote, but the debate over how to address the $36 trillion debt is far from over. As President Trump and House leadership move forward, the fate of fiscal hawks like Massie and Davidson—and the voices of their supporters—will remain a key storyline as Republicans continue to wrestle with America’s debt and spending challenges.
A new political storm is brewing in Washington, and President Donald Trump is at the center of it. With his latest legislative push, Trump has reignited a fierce debate over taxpayer funding, transgender rights, and the future of Medicaid coverage.
President Trump’s ambitious “one big, beautiful, bill” has passed the House of Representatives by the slimmest of margins and now heads to the Senate. According to Breitbart News, the bill would strip Medicaid funding for all gender transition procedures, ending coverage for treatments ranging from puberty blockers to hormone therapy and surgery.
The measure, which originally focused on banning Medicaid coverage for minors, was amended late Wednesday to remove age restrictions. Now, the bill targets all Medicaid recipients seeking gender transition treatments, regardless of age. Supporters hail the move as a fiscal and cultural victory, while critics argue it’s a direct attack on a vulnerable population.
The House passed President Trump’s reconciliation budget by a razor-thin 215-214-1 vote early Thursday morning, demonstrating just how contentious the issue has become. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed deep emotions, with the bill’s substance and scope evolving until the last minute.
Initially, the measure sought to prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” only for minors. But a late-night amendment struck the words “minors” and “under 18 years of age,” sweeping all adults under the new regulations as well. This turn of events widened the bill’s impact significantly, raising the stakes for both its supporters and opponents.
A 2023 study cited in the debate found that 25 percent of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States were paid for by Medicaid, with over 12,000 out of 48,019 patients relying on the program. That figure underscores just how many Americans could be affected if the bill becomes law.
Supporters of Trump’s bill see it as a major victory for taxpayers and traditional values. Groups like the American Principles Project have praised the measure, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on what they call controversial medical procedures.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, applauded the bill’s passage, referencing public opinion on the use of government funds for gender transition treatments. He argued that most Americans are uncomfortable with taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, especially for procedures involving children.
Proponents also argue that the measure will restore fiscal sanity to Medicaid, a program that has faced mounting costs in recent years. They view the bill as a necessary step to ensure government health programs focus on what they see as core medical needs.
On the other side, critics of the bill warn of dire consequences for thousands of Americans. Advocacy groups and medical professionals have argued that gender-affirming care is essential for transgender individuals and that stripping Medicaid coverage could lead to increased suffering and health disparities. Transgender comedian Stacy Cay was among those who spoke out forcefully, calling the move an “attempt of genocide.”
Many in the medical community have echoed these concerns, pointing to studies that show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals who can access gender transition care. They fear that eliminating Medicaid funding will make these treatments financially impossible for low-income Americans.
Opponents also criticize the decision to remove age restrictions from the bill, claiming that it disproportionately impacts adults who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs and who have no other options for covering these costly procedures.
As the bill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for a high-stakes showdown. Some senators have already signaled concerns about the impact on rural and low-income Americans, especially those living in red states where Medicaid is a critical healthcare lifeline.
In a statement, American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling praised the House version and urged senators to maintain its core provisions. Meanwhile, advocacy groups are mobilizing supporters, warning that the bill could set a precedent for further restrictions on transgender healthcare.
Senate Republicans are expected to push for swift passage, while Democrats and some moderates may seek amendments or attempt to block the bill entirely. With the country watching closely, the Senate’s decision could shape the national conversation on healthcare, gender, and government spending for years to come.
Democrats and Republicans face off as Supreme Court justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, reach a stalemate over religious school funding in Oklahoma. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s unexpected recusal leaves supporters and critics of religious charter schools scrambling for answers.
A 4-4 split decision from the Supreme Court on Thursday effectively upholds Oklahoma’s ban on public funds for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, marking a significant setback for advocates of religious charter schools. According to Fox News, justices issued a brief order affirming the lower court’s ruling, with Justice Barrett recusing herself from the case.
This deadlock leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s determination that directing state funds to a Catholic charter school would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With no majority opinion, the legal landscape for religious charter schools remains as divided as ever.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School—approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board in June 2023—sought to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The school agreed to comply with federal, state, and local education laws and promised to be open to all students, mirroring traditional public schools.
However, St. Isidore officials made clear that their institution “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and is committed to participating “in the evangelizing mission of the church.” That admission sparked fierce legal and political battles over whether a religious institution can receive taxpayer dollars while maintaining its faith-based mission.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond led the charge against public funding for St. Isidore, calling the school’s approval “an unlawful sponsorship” of a sectarian institution and describing it as “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling that state dollars cannot be used to fund a school rooted in religious teachings.
Central to the case was whether charter schools should be treated as public schools—extensions of the state and thus bound by the Establishment Clause—or as private contractors, as argued by St. Isidore. If considered public, the school would be constitutionally barred from receiving state funds for religious instruction.
During oral arguments, justices explored whether Oklahoma’s actions placed an undue burden on the school’s religious mission, potentially violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. School choice advocates argued that denying funding amounted to religious discrimination, while critics countered that public dollars must not support religious evangelization.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan pressed attorneys for St. Isidore on how the school would handle students from different religious backgrounds. Questions about curriculum supervision and the extent of state oversight dominated the debate, exposing deep ideological divides among the justices.
The Supreme Court’s one-sentence decision—“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court”—offers little guidance for states considering similar proposals. With Justice Barrett recused, the even split means the Oklahoma ruling stands but sets no binding precedent for other courts.
This outcome frustrates both sides of the debate. Religious liberty advocates see the decision as a missed opportunity to expand school choice and allow faith-based institutions to compete for public funds. Opponents argue the deadlock preserves vital constitutional protections against government endorsement of religion.
In recent years, the Court’s conservative majority has allowed taxpayer support for religious organizations providing non-sectarian services. However, this case raised new questions about how much control states would have over curriculum and religious practices if faith-based charter schools were publicly funded.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called the situation “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” St. Isidore officials stated the school “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and participates “in the evangelizing mission of the church.”
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on Thursday, leaving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s bid for public funding unresolved. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling stands, barring the school from state dollars due to concerns over the Establishment Clause.
Supporters and critics alike now await possible new legal challenges or legislative action that could clarify the boundaries between religious freedom and state funding of education. Nationally, the outcome has reignited debate over the proper role of religion in publicly funded schools and the future of school choice in America.
Demands and drama erupted in Washington this week as President Donald Trump confronted Rep. Andy Harris and members of the House Freedom Caucus behind closed doors. The standoff, which began with a walkout and ended with a presidential ultimatum, left the Capitol buzzing and conservatives divided over what really happened.
President Trump’s intervention over his signature domestic policy package forced hardline Republicans to back down and propelled the massive tax-and-spending bill to House passage, according to POLITICO. While GOP leaders call it a Trump victory, some conservative holdouts insist they won key concessions in the final hours.
Tensions reached a boiling point with hardliners demanding deeper cuts and major policy changes, only to be confronted directly by Trump in the Cabinet Room. His message was clear—unite behind the bill or risk economic chaos, a bold move that reshaped the legislative landscape and left critics and allies alike reassessing their strategies.
President Trump’s Tuesday morning arrival on Capitol Hill set the tone for what would become a decisive week for House Republicans. He delivered a pointed warning to conservative holdouts, urging them to “fall in line—now,” but not everyone was ready to comply. Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the Freedom Caucus, left the meeting early and told reporters afterward that a deal was still far off, casting doubt on Trump’s ability to sway the group.
Back at the White House, Harris and a handful of conservatives pressed for deeper spending cuts and Medicaid reforms in a tense Cabinet Room meeting. Trump, clearly frustrated, cut off the discussion and lit into Harris. According to several people in the room, Trump accused Harris of grandstanding and warned that sabotaging the bill would lead to historic tax hikes and fiscal disaster.
Trump reportedly told Harris, “You’re out there grandstanding when you should be uniting. You are going to sink this legislation and have the highest tax increase in history and bankrupt the country. That’s the only alternative.” Trump then walked out, leaving stunned lawmakers to reconsider their positions.
Senior Republican aides and White House officials quickly described the outcome as a clear victory for Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson, arguing that the Freedom Caucus had overplayed its hand. They say the president’s tough stance sent hardliners “back down Pennsylvania Avenue with their tails between their legs,” forcing a vote on a bill they had previously rejected.
However, some conservatives involved in the talks pushed back hard. One described the idea that they had been rolled at the White House as “straight-up bullshit,” pointing to several promises they secured, including a new executive order on health care that could save taxpayers billions. Yet, key fiscal parameters of the megabill did not change, and many of the policy demands made by the Freedom Caucus were not met.
Despite threats to hold out for further concessions, most of the group ultimately voted for the bill less than 24 hours after the heated White House meeting. Only Rep. Harris voted present, maintaining his protest while the rest of the coalition largely fell in line. The megabill now advances to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain, and conservatives vow to fight for more changes.
The standoff grew more intense after a handful of conservatives joined Democrats to temporarily derail a Budget Committee vote, prompting Trump—returning from a Middle East trip—to personally question Budget Chair Jodey Arrington about the misstep. Over the weekend, Trump, his staff, and House leaders launched a pressure campaign, warning of dire economic consequences if the bill failed or if Trump’s 2017 tax cuts expired.
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly called for GOP unity, stressing the importance of passing the legislation before Memorial Day. Trump’s Tuesday visit to the Capitol was intended to reinforce that message, with Trump telling House Republicans, “We need to stick together and get this bill passed,” as soon as he entered the conference room.
Some moderate Republicans, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, managed to negotiate deals on state and local tax deduction issues, but Freedom Caucus members remained defiant. Even as Trump made his case, Harris restated his opposition, arguing that waste and abuse in Medicaid had not been fully addressed—a point that infuriated White House officials and deepened the divide.
After Wednesday’s breakdown in talks, Trump invited the remaining hardliners to the White House for a final round of negotiations. He presented a list of conservative victories already included in the legislation and urged the group to “take the victory” and avoid jeopardizing Republican priorities. Still, as the hardliners pushed for more changes, Trump’s patience wore thin.
Ultimately, most of the Freedom Caucus accepted the parameters laid out by GOP leaders, with a few sweeteners: the White House agreed to consider additional executive orders on Medicaid, and new incentives were included to encourage states not to expand Medicaid further. While conservatives touted these as significant wins, Trump’s allies argued that the core of the deal had not changed.
The outcome sent a message about Trump’s leadership style and his willingness to confront even his own party’s most vocal dissenters. As the megabill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for another round of negotiations, with conservatives promising to draw “red lines” and White House officials remaining skeptical.
Democrat megadonor Alex Soros, son of billionaire George Soros, made headlines after a tragic event involving two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. His reaction to the killing of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky has drawn fierce backlash online, with critics questioning his philanthropic ties.
According to Fox News, Soros publicly condemned the murder of the two Israeli staffers, calling it "evil in its most basic form" and denouncing it as a "brutal antisemitic act." Detractors, however, quickly pointed to his role as chairman of the Open Society Foundation, which has funded groups often accused of fostering anti-Israel sentiment.
The shooting occurred Wednesday night outside the Capital Jewish Museum, where Milgrim and Lischinsky, who were reportedly set to be engaged, were killed as they left an event. Authorities identified Elias Rodriguez as the suspect, who was heard shouting "Free, free Palestine!" while in custody, according to police and witnesses.
Critics wasted no time condemning Alex Soros’s statement, arguing that his foundation’s financial support for organizations critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinian causes indirectly fuels the kind of hatred that leads to violence. Social media platforms were flooded with comments accusing Soros and his father of enabling anti-Israel activism through their global influence and funding.
One user, Joseph Janecka, responded to Soros’s post by saying, "Alex, you and your father created this problem through the ruthless and international silencing of critics to open borders policies. Their blood is on your hands as much as their murderers. We will never forget." Another, Carl Wheless, echoed similar sentiments, stating, "You are behind the hate, so excuse us if you don't wish to hear from you on the matter."
Some critics went further, alleging links between Soros-backed organizations and more radical elements. Commentator Eitan Fischberger asserted that Soros "funds the revolutionary Marxist group the shooter belonged to," though police had not established Rodriguez’s affiliations at the time.
The Open Society Foundation, chaired by Alex Soros, has a long record of supporting progressive and leftist causes worldwide. Among these are groups such as Human Rights Watch and J Street, both of which have drawn criticism from Israeli officials for their stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s minister of diaspora affairs and social equality, Amichai Chikli, told Fox News Digital in 2023 that Alex Soros appears set to continue his father’s "anti-Israel agenda." Chikli argued that the OSF funds entities that accuse Israel of apartheid and seek to delegitimize the state. He pointed specifically to Human Rights Watch, accusing it of "attacking Israelis heavily and attacking Israel as an apartheid state and delegitimizing and demonizing Israel."
Chikli also highlighted OSF’s support for J Street, a U.S.-based advocacy group that describes itself as pro-Israel but is frequently criticized for policies perceived as favorable to Iran and the Palestinians. The Soros foundation’s funding of the NGO Adalah was also cited, with Chikli describing it as "denying the vision of Israel as a Jewish state."
The debate over Soros’s influence has reached diplomatic circles as well. In December 2023, Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Gilad Erdan, blasted the elder George Soros for donating more than $15 million to NGOs that he claims support Hamas and seek the "destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." Erdan charged that Soros-backed organizations have never pursued real peace but instead promote the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement to isolate Israel.
Israel’s ambassador Gilad Erdan told Fox News Digital, "George Soros’ donations to organizations that seek the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish state is shameful. However, I am not surprised."
Others, however, defend the mission of the Open Society Foundation as one of promoting human rights and open debate, asserting that criticism of Israeli government policy is not synonymous with antisemitism. Soros’s defenders claim that attempts to link him to violence are politically motivated and misrepresent the foundation’s intent.
The killings of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky outside the Capital Jewish Museum shocked both the D.C. community and the global Jewish diaspora. Police quickly detained the suspect, Elias Rodriguez, who reportedly shouted pro-Palestinian slogans during and after the attack. The victims, both young Israeli Embassy staffers, were about to get engaged, adding a heartbreaking dimension to the tragedy.
Local and international leaders expressed outrage, with Israel’s Consul General in New York, Ofir Akunis, calling the deaths "a result of brainwash" in an interview with Fox News. The attack also reignited debates about rising antisemitism, the safety of Jewish communities worldwide, and the impact of charged rhetoric on real-world violence.
Meanwhile, anti-Israel protests and demonstrations, often supported by groups receiving OSF funding, have become increasingly visible in major U.S. cities, including New York. Critics argue that such demonstrations provide cover for antisemitic acts, while supporters insist they are legitimate expressions of opposition to Israeli policies.
Elon Musk’s digital empire is facing new turbulence—with thousands of Americans suddenly locked out of his prized social media platform, X, on Wednesday. The billionaire entrepreneur, never far from controversy, is once again in the spotlight as critics and supporters weigh in on the latest crisis.
According to the Daily Mail, X, formerly known as Twitter, went offline for much of the U.S. on Wednesday, leaving users frustrated and fueling debate about Musk’s stewardship of the $44 billion platform. The outage is only the latest in a string of setbacks for Musk this year, as he also contends with political defeats and a steep drop in Tesla’s fortunes.
Reports flooded in from the East Coast and major cities—including Dallas, Los Angeles, and Chicago—where users found themselves unable to access X either on the web or via mobile app.
Downdetector, a service that tracks online disruptions, confirmed the widespread nature of the problem. As the outage persisted, users vented their anger and disappointment, questioning Musk’s management and the reliability of the platform under his ownership.
Discontent spread rapidly as Americans lost access to X, sparking heated discussions across the internet. Downdetector began logging complaints around 11 a.m. Eastern, with a significant spike two hours later as more users realized they were locked out. Frustration mounted as roughly 56 percent cited issues with the website, 35 percent reported mobile app failures, and 9 percent experienced server connection problems.
For many, the outage was more than an inconvenience. Social media users rely on X for news, networking, and free speech. One user’s post on Downdetector summed up the anger felt by many:
This is Why Discord and Youtube is Way better Platform than Twitter. There Hardly any Random outages on those Sites. #ElonMuskResign
The technical causes remain unclear, but experts warn that failed server connections can lead to service disruptions, data loss, and even security vulnerabilities. The timing and scale of the crash raised eyebrows, especially as Musk faces mounting pressure on several fronts.
Elon Musk’s woes extend far beyond Wednesday’s outage. Just weeks earlier, Musk and his supporters suffered a political setback in Wisconsin, where Democrat Susan Crawford defeated Republican Brad Schimel in a high-profile Supreme Court race. Musk and his allies reportedly spent more than $20 million backing Schimel in hopes of shifting the state court’s ideological balance.
Adding to Musk’s headaches, Tesla’s stock value plunged in April, with sales dropping 13 percent. Analysts have pointed to Musk’s polarizing social media activity and stiff competition from Chinese automakers as contributing factors. Critics argue that Musk’s outspoken posts on X, including controversial political commentary, may be alienating consumers and investors.
Musk’s international profile has also taken hits. He recently faced allegations—unproven and strongly denied—of making a Nazi salute at President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The controversy has fueled anti-Tesla protests and even vandalism of the company’s vehicles, including the Model 3, Model X, and the Cybertruck.
The outage comes at a sensitive time for Musk, who has made X his principal outlet for sharing views and rallying followers. The platform’s reliability is now in question, with critics seizing the moment to highlight what they see as a pattern of mismanagement since Musk’s high-profile acquisition.
Meanwhile, Musk’s visibility in government has diminished. After spending the first 100 days of President Trump’s new term frequently at the White House—including attending Cabinet meetings and even bringing his young son to budget briefings—Musk is reportedly no longer a regular presence. Trump’s chief of staff revealed that Musk has been absent from the West Wing for several weeks.
Supporters argue that Musk remains a visionary whose bold moves—whether in tech, business, or politics—inevitably attract controversy and resistance. They point to his continued investments and willingness to challenge the status quo as proof of his value to both industry and public discourse.
Elon Musk, the billionaire behind some of the world’s most influential tech companies, was thrust into the headlines this week as X crashed for thousands of users across the United States. The outage, which struck major cities and disrupted daily routines, has intensified scrutiny of Musk’s management amid a year already marked by political and financial setbacks.
Wednesday’s outage left Americans asking tough questions about the platform’s future and Musk’s ability to steer it through turbulent times. As critics and supporters continue to spar, the fate of X—and Musk’s $44 billion gamble—hangs in the balance. For now, the tech mogul faces yet another test of leadership as his digital ambitions collide with real-world challenges.
Democrats and immigration advocates are sounding alarms after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a new operation that targets illegal immigrants at their immigration and asylum hearings, a move driven by President Donald Trump’s administration.
According to Fox News, ICE began rolling out its nationwide effort on Wednesday, aiming to arrest and rapidly deport migrants who have been in the United States for fewer than two years and appear for scheduled immigration hearings. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is instructing agents to drop pending immigration cases, facilitating expedited removals for those arrested.
This new tactic marks a significant shift from earlier enforcement strategies, which had focused primarily on illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. Now, even those whose only alleged offense is crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are being swept up in the latest round of arrests. The Trump administration’s focus on enforcement and border security continues to be a defining theme as court battles over deportation policies play out.
Supporters of the Trump administration’s strategy argue it is long overdue, citing concerns that loopholes and lengthy court processes allow many illegal immigrants to remain in the country for years. ICE officers, according to sources who spoke with Fox News Digital on condition of anonymity, say Americans should “expect to see a lot more” arrests at immigration and asylum hearings in the coming months.
Critics, however, warn the policy could have far-reaching consequences for families and communities. The expedited deportation process—requiring DHS to drop pending cases before arresting migrants—removes certain legal protections and can leave migrants with little chance to make their case before an immigration judge. Opponents argue this raises due process concerns and risks separating families who have established lives in the U.S.
The policy also comes as the Department of Homeland Security faces legal scrutiny for its deportation practices. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that DHS violated a court order by sending a plane of eight migrants to South Sudan without proper “credible fear interviews.” These interviews are required to ensure migrants are not sent to countries where they could face danger.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy has emerged as a key figure in the ongoing legal debate. On Wednesday, Murphy ruled that the eight deported migrants—convicted of crimes including homicide and robbery—had not been given the interviews mandated by law. Such interviews allow migrants facing removal to a third country to argue they would be at risk if deported there.
Murphy’s ruling did not immediately halt the deportations but did prompt a review of whether the interviews could be conducted in South Sudan or if the migrants should be returned to the U.S. pending further proceedings. The judge’s scrutiny extends to other cases, such as proposed deportations to Libya, where Murphy previously found that any plans to remove people without notice would “clearly” violate his standing orders.
Legal experts and immigration advocates say these court battles highlight the complexity of immigration enforcement under President Trump. While DHS defends its right to expedite removals for those with no legal status, judges continue to insist that constitutional and humanitarian protections must be respected throughout the process.
Reaction on Capitol Hill has been swift and divided along party lines. House Republicans have expressed strong support for the new ICE initiative, arguing that stricter enforcement is necessary for national security and the rule of law. Some have targeted Democratic officials accused of obstructing ICE operations, pointing to recent controversies at facilities like Delaney Hall.
Democrats, meanwhile, have accused the administration of creating chaos and fear within immigrant communities. They argue that the new policy will lead to more family separations and undermine faith in the justice system. Some Democratic lawmakers have pledged to introduce legislation to limit the administration’s ability to expedite removals without judicial oversight.
The public response reflects this polarization. Advocates for tighter border controls say the administration is finally tackling abuses in the system. Immigration rights groups, however, warn that the policy’s reach could impact thousands of migrants who have otherwise followed legal procedures to seek asylum or relief in the United States.
Legal experts believe that the Trump administration’s expanded enforcement efforts could result in a significant increase in deportations, particularly among migrants who have not committed crimes beyond illegal entry. As more cases are dropped to enable expedited removals, the fate of these individuals will largely depend on ongoing legal challenges and the administration’s willingness to adjust its policies in response to court rulings.
ICE sources have indicated that the public should brace for “a lot more” of these arrests at immigration hearings around the country. For many migrants, the prospect of arrest at their scheduled court appearance adds a new layer of uncertainty as they navigate an already complex and often intimidating immigration system.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, under the direction of President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security, is now pursuing a strategy that could fundamentally reshape the way illegal immigration cases are handled in the United States. The outcome of the current court battles and public debate will determine just how far these new policies go—and what they mean for both the nation’s borders and its values.
Democrats and Republicans alike are watching closely as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt navigates tough questions about President Donald Trump’s response to assassination attempts and the official explanations surrounding them. Leavitt and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino are now at the center of fresh controversy after remarks that have sparked intense speculation in Washington.
According to the Daily Caller, Leavitt sidestepped direct questions about whether Trump is “satisfied” with Bongino’s recent public statements, choosing instead to reference Trump’s own words and offering no further clarification. This response came after Trump himself called the narrative “a little bit strange,” despite expressing trust in his security team.
The questions were prompted by Bongino’s comments during a Fox News interview, in which he insisted there was nothing “explosive” behind the attempts on Trump’s life, saying, “the ‘there’ you’re looking for is not there.” Leavitt’s refusal to elaborate has only fueled further debate among Trump’s supporters and critics alike.
White House correspondent Reagan Reese pressed Leavitt on whether President Trump felt the investigations into the attempts on his life had been thorough or if he suspected more was going on. Leavitt responded, “Well, in the lead up to your question, you answered your own question with the president’s own words, and I’ll leave it at that.” She declined to provide any additional insight into Trump’s personal feelings.
Trump’s previous remarks to Fox News host Bret Baier are now under renewed scrutiny. He acknowledged a level of trust in his advisors, stating, “I’m relying on my people to tell me what it is … The Secret Service, they tell me it’s fine. But it’s a little hard to believe. It’s a little bit strange.” This comment has added fuel to suspicions among some conservatives who believe the official story is incomplete.
Bongino, a former Secret Service agent himself, attempted to shut down speculation by reiterating that nothing was being hidden. He told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, “If it was there, we would have told you.” Despite these assurances, questions remain for those unconvinced by the official line.
Skeptics have pointed to the unusual circumstances of the assassination attempts on President Trump, noting that both the Butler, Pennsylvania, and West Palm Beach, Florida incidents have left a trail of unanswered questions. In July 2024, the FBI identified Thomas Matthew Crooks as the suspect in the Butler shooting, who was killed by the Secret Service on the scene. Federal authorities later charged Ryan Wesley Routh for a separate attempt in September 2024, alleging he was spotted with a rifle while Trump played golf.
Some on the right continue to voice doubts, arguing that the public deserves full transparency about any threat to the president. They point to Trump’s own hesitation to accept the official narrative as evidence that more should be investigated. For these critics, Leavitt’s reluctance to clarify Trump’s views only deepens mistrust.
Others, however, agree with Bongino’s assessment. They argue that conspiracy theories only serve to distract from the facts already uncovered by law enforcement. Supporters of the administration insist that the FBI and Secret Service have acted professionally and transparently and that Trump’s safety is being handled with utmost seriousness.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Bongino both addressed public skepticism in their Fox News appearance, addressing not only the Trump attempts but also other high-profile cases. Patel, in particular, responded to widespread doubt about the official account of Jeffrey Epstein’s death, stating bluntly that he believed Epstein had committed suicide based on his own experience in the prison system.
Bongino backed up Patel’s assessment, saying, “He killed himself,” after reviewing the case file. Their directness was meant to draw a line under the rumors, though many in the public remain unconvinced.
Both officials emphasized their willingness to communicate openly with the public, but their insistence that “the ‘there’ you’re looking for is not there” has not been enough for some. Calls for independent investigations and further transparency continue to grow, especially from those who see a pattern of secrecy in high-profile political cases.
For now, Leavitt, Bongino, and Patel face mounting pressure to offer more detailed explanations. Trump’s unique position—both as president and as someone who has openly voiced skepticism—has made the White House’s messaging more complicated than usual.
Leavitt’s handling of the media has drawn mixed reviews. Supporters praise her discipline and consistency, while critics accuse her of stonewalling and evasiveness. The administration must now balance reassuring the public with avoiding any appearance of impropriety or cover-up.
As more details emerge about the suspects and circumstances behind the assassination attempts, all eyes remain on the White House. The coming weeks may bring new revelations or simply more questions.