Veteran ABC News correspondent Terry Moran has lost his job after posting controversial comments about President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller on social media. The firing marks an abrupt end to Moran's nearly three-decade career with the network.
According to the Daily Mail, ABC News confirmed Moran's termination in a statement Tuesday, specifically citing his social media post as a "clear violation" of the network's policies. The now-deleted tweet described Trump as a "world class hater" and characterized Miller as a man "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred."
The incident occurred just weeks after Moran conducted an exclusive interview with President Trump in the Oval Office. The veteran journalist, who had served as ABC's senior national correspondent, previously co-anchored Nightline for eight years and worked as the network's Chief White House Correspondent from 1999 to 2005.
Moran's controversial post appeared shortly after midnight on Sunday, when he wrote that Miller is "a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred" and claimed "you can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment."
The journalist continued his critique by calling Trump "a world-class hater," though he distinguished the president's motivation, suggesting Trump's "hatred [is] only a means to an end, and that end his own glorification." The tweet was quickly deleted, but not before screenshots were captured and shared widely online.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reposted Moran's comments, drawing significant attention to them. Miller himself responded to the tweet, saying it revealed what he considers the true nature of mainstream media: "For decades, the privileged anchors and reporters narrating and gatekeeping our society have been radicals adopting a journalist's pose. Terry pulled off his mask."
ABC News initially suspended Moran on Monday "pending further evaluation" before announcing their decision not to renew his contract. The network emphasized its commitment to journalistic principles in its statement.
"We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post – which was a clear violation of ABC News policies – we have made the decision to not renew," the statement read. "At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism."
The termination comes months after ABC paid a $15 million libel settlement to Trump in December following erroneous on-air comments made by George Stephanopoulos, another longtime ABC News personality. The network has been navigating coverage of Trump's presidency while attempting to maintain journalistic impartiality.
Several Trump administration figures quickly weighed in on Moran's tweet, with Vice President JD Vance calling the comments a "vile smear" and demanding an apology to Miller from ABC News.
Miller, a key architect of Trump's immigration policies, including the administration's mass deportation agenda, framed Moran's comments as revealing a broader issue with media bias. His response on social media characterized the incident as a "full public meltdown" that exposed what he views as longstanding prejudice among journalists.
The backlash from administration officials and subsequent social media criticism likely contributed to ABC's swift action. The network, which has faced scrutiny over its coverage of the Trump administration, appeared eager to address the violation of its journalistic standards.
Moran's firing concludes a distinguished 28-year career at ABC News that included numerous high-profile interviews and assignments. The 65-year-old journalist had established himself as one of the network's senior correspondents after joining ABC in 1997.
Throughout his tenure, Moran received several journalistic honors, including the White House Correspondents Association's Merriman Smith Award for excellence in presidential reporting on deadline and a George Foster Peabody Award. His career included nine one-on-one interviews with former President Barack Obama during his time as Nightline co-anchor.
Interestingly, when Trump sat down with Moran for their April interview, the president reportedly told Moran he had selected him because he "had never heard of him," despite Moran's extensive experience and long career in television news. That interview, which took place in the Oval Office, came just weeks before the social media post that ultimately ended Moran's ABC career.
Vice President JD Vance has weighed in on the escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk, characterizing the public spat as detrimental to both parties and the nation. During a candid conversation on Theo Von's podcast, Vance expressed hope for reconciliation despite the increasingly hostile exchanges between the former allies.
According to The Daily Caller, Vance made it clear where his loyalties lie while still acknowledging Musk's contributions. The vice president praised Musk's entrepreneurial accomplishments and his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative but emphasized his primary allegiance remains with President Trump.
The interview comes after days of increasingly bitter public exchanges between Trump and Musk, culminating in explosive allegations from the Tesla CEO that were later deleted from social media. Vance's comments represent the first major administration response attempting to defuse the situation.
Vance suggested Musk's political inexperience may be contributing to the conflict. He noted that the tech entrepreneur has faced significant backlash since becoming more politically active, including attacks on his businesses.
"Elon's new to politics... his businesses are being attacked nonstop, they're literally like firebombing some of his cars, and by the way, we're looking into a lot of this stuff," Vance explained during the interview. "I think part of it is this guy got into politics and has suffered a lot for it, and I get the frustration there."
The vice president acknowledged Musk's frustrations while still maintaining that the public criticism of Trump was misguided. He expressed concern that the feud could have negative consequences not only for the country but for Musk personally.
The public disagreement erupted Tuesday when Musk harshly criticized Trump's signature spending legislation, which he characterized as a "disgusting abomination" in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This 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 wrote on the platform he owns.
The tech billionaire further claimed the bill would increase national debt by $2.5 trillion and predicted that Trump's tariff policies would trigger a recession before year's end. The criticisms struck at the heart of Trump's economic policy agenda, prompting a swift response from the president.
President Trump responded by accusing Musk of hypocrisy, claiming the tech entrepreneur had been fully informed about the legislation's contents before its passage. According to Trump, Musk only objected after learning about planned cuts to electric vehicle mandates.
"I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here... he had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to have cut the EV mandate," Trump stated during a press briefing.
The conflict quickly intensified, with Musk eventually making explosive allegations about Trump's connection to Jeffrey Epstein in a post he later deleted. This marked a significant escalation in the feud between the two influential figures.
Vance emphasized throughout the interview that he believes the ongoing conflict serves neither party well and damages the country's interests. The vice president expressed hope that Musk would eventually return to working with the administration.
"My hope is, [Musk] comes back, says 'look, made some mistakes, didn't mean to say everything, let's smooth it out and let's all be friends,' because again I care about the country, and I think the country's better off under the president's leadership, Elon's helping us out as opposed to fighting the administration," Vance stated.
He concluded the interview by reiterating his desire to see the conflict resolved quickly, noting that neither he nor President Trump wants continued hostility with the influential tech entrepreneur who had previously been a key supporter of the administration.
The unexpected continuation of campaign emails from the late Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly's campaign has stirred ethical discussions. Kamran Fareedi, a former FBI informant, revealed that fundraising correspondence persisted after Connolly's death, urging recipients to back James Walkinshaw, Connolly's former chief of staff, as his successor.
Walkinshaw's candidacy has raised ethical concerns as campaign emails from Rep. Gerry Connolly, who recently passed away, continue to be sent to supporters, as the Daily Caller reports.
Connolly, who served Virginia's 11th congressional district, succumbed to a resurgence of esophageal cancer earlier this year at the age of 75. His passing left a notable vacancy, which Walkinshaw, Connolly’s confidant and former chief of staff, aspires to fill. However, the political campaign's activity did not pause with Connolly's demise, causing discomfort for individuals such as Fareedi who received ongoing emails asking for support despite the congressman’s death.
Fareedi, taking a stand on the nature of these communications, voiced his unease at the continuation of Connolly’s campaign activities. As a former FBI informant, elected political processes hold significant importance to him. He pointed out possible conflicts, raising the concern that the campaign was acting “beyond unethical” since it continued operations without the late congressman’s direct endorsement or guidance in his afterlife.
The emails were received posthumously, allegedly campaigning for Walkinshaw. As Connolly's trusted advisor, Walkinshaw's ambition for the prominent congressional seat seems to be facilitated by these controversial efforts taken by the remaining campaign team. Fareedi criticized the attempt to "coronate" Walkinshaw, stressing how troubling it is for those connected to the campaign to operate in this manner without the prominent leader they once served.
For those who closely follow political movements, the influence exerted by former Connolly operatives signifies an attempt to solidify and carry forward a political legacy through his protégé. Fareedi’s assertion that the campaign mechanism wants to “secure” Walkinshaw's place reveals ongoing attempts to establish a familiar face in the political realm of Fairfax County, which is part of Virginia's 11th district.
The actions taken, from Fareedi’s perspective, imply attempts to retain political continuity with Walkinshaw's potential long-term position with constituents. It places Walkinshaw in the spotlight as he seeks broad support and attempts to maintain the political success Connolly had achieved.
These revelations have added layers of complexity to Walkinshaw’s candidacy. There is a significant focus on securing electoral victory under traditional means, but the persistent campaign in Connolly's name leaves lingering doubts about ethical decision-making.
For the constituents of the district, it raises the question of transparency in transitioning leadership after Connolly's death. They are now faced with not only assessing Walkinshaw's credentials but also the implications of the campaign methods purportedly employed on his behalf.
Fareedi's remarks express his discontent with the present scenario. He mentioned control over Connolly's campaign infrastructure as an ethical boundary crossed in pursuit of securing nominations for Walkinshaw.
Reflecting the mixed reactions in the locality, some individuals advocate for Walkinshaw’s political acumen and continuity. Others, echoing Fareedi’s concerns, express discomfort with the apparent disregard for ethical propriety involving the deceased congressman’s campaign resources.
Ultimately, the continuation of Connolly's campaign efforts after his passing could resonate beyond Fairfax County's borders, serving as a reminder of the thin line between legacy and ethical integrity. Thus, Fareedi’s insights peel back subtle political maneuvers and spotlight the ethical conversations that arise amid unforeseen political transitions.
The unfolding events compel the community to deliberate on the balance between traditional political endorsements and the boundaries when such endowments are availed through unforeseen circumstances like a representative's untimely passing. In doing so, they confront the complexities intertwined with honoring Connolly’s memory while fostering the growth of a new political leader.
A tense legal and humanitarian situation has arisen as a deportation flight, diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, captivates attention amid extreme and perilous conditions.
An unanticipated detour to a naval base in Djibouti has escalated into a troubling scenario involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and migrants caught in a struggle over immigration directives and safety concerns, as the Daily Mail reports.
The situation unfolded when a flight intended to deport eight migrants to South Sudan was redirected to a military facility in Djibouti. The detour followed a decision by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, who determined that the Trump administration had violated a judicial order by initiating the rapid deportation of these individuals. The verdict provided the deported individuals a chance to voice fears about the possible hazards they might face upon returning to South Sudan.
The postponed deportation process comes amid heightened scrutiny over the government's immigration strategy. Meanwhile, this legal obstacle has left ICE officers and deportees confined under trying conditions.
The group finds themselves restricted to a shipping container in the naval base, dealing with sweltering heat, the presence of nearby burn pits, and fears of rocket attacks. ICE officers and detainees are exposed to distressing physical and health challenges.
Health issues reported include coughing, fever, and joint pains, but medical resources remain scarce. Officers lack adequate medication, raising concerns about their well-being as they await a resolution to the legal stalemate.
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin voiced that the judicial intervention has left the ICE personnel vulnerable, without essential resources or safety. In a sharp critique, McLaughlin challenged the tentatively suspended deportation of what she termed individuals “so monstrous and barbaric” with no other countries willing to accept them.
Legal representatives struggle to contact their clients, leaving families as the sole line of communication. There is anxiety over the uncertain duration they will remain at the base, exacerbated by long-standing immigration law disagreements.
The Justice Department is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to back expedited deportations to other nations, underscoring the administration's firm stance on immigration policy enforcement.
Human rights organizations have expressed concern over the restraints facing the men at the base. Reports indicate that the limited space, lack of adequate shelters, and insufficient security exacerbate the risks associated with detaining individuals there.
Human Rights First highlights the human rights considerations at play and the crucial nature of ensuring proper legal representation and access to communicate with their lawyers. The group is enduring severe strain due to inadequate detention facilities.
The shared small space comprises only a few beds, a shortfall in showers, and a conference room that lacks practical safety measures for detainees. Acting Executive Deputy Associate Director Mellissa B. Harper noted the precariousness of the medical resources, adding another layer of concern to an already tense situation.
The unfolding situation spotlights the broader conflict over the current administration's immigration crackdown strategy. In particular, it highlights the tension between expedited deportation policies and the legal checks ensuring those facing deportation can adequately present their cases.
The ICE officers' predicament, caught between fulfilling enforcement duties and navigating the uncertainties of legal challenges, adds another dimension to the turbulent discourse surrounding U.S. immigration policies. The episode underscores the complexities and unexpected ramifications faced during enforcement operations abroad.
Observers anticipate upcoming legal deliberations to guide the next steps, with an eye on potential impacts on the broader policy landscape. This holds especially as questions persist about balancing national security, law enforcement duties, and individuals' rights under international human rights frameworks.
Catholic Charities Bureau and its leadership were thrust into the national spotlight Thursday as the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name now headlines a case that could reshape the legal landscape for religious nonprofits, and Wisconsin officials face tough questions about state policy.
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin violated First Amendment protections when it denied Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption for unemployment compensation, as reported by Breitbart News. The decision comes after years of litigation and a contentious debate about what it means to operate “primarily for religious purposes.”
Catholic Charities Bureau, along with four of its related entities, sought exemption from state unemployment taxes as an organization operating under the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. Wisconsin’s highest court had ruled against them, arguing that because the group’s charitable services were not restricted to Catholics nor focused on proselytizing, it failed to meet the legal standard for a religious purpose. The Supreme Court, however, saw the matter differently.
The legal dispute centered on whether the Catholic Charities Bureau’s broad approach to charity was “religious” enough to warrant tax exemption. Wisconsin law, echoing federal statutes, exempts certain nonprofits “operated primarily for religious purposes” and “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or association of churches.” State officials argued that broad, non-proselytizing services did not qualify.
Catholic Charities Bureau countered that Catholic doctrine prohibits using charity for proselytism or limiting aid to church members. This theological nuance became a key point in the case, as the organization maintained its work was entirely consistent with the church’s teachings.
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the unanimous court, rejected Wisconsin’s distinction and cautioned about government interference in religious beliefs. The justices made clear that the state’s reasoning imposed an unconstitutional denominational preference.
The Supreme Court’s opinion emphasized the risk of government entanglement with religion when officials attempt to parse theological motivations behind charitable work. Sotomayor warned that such scrutiny gives rise to favoritism and discrimination among different faiths.
She wrote for the Court, “When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
The ruling underscored that faith-based service, not just worship or religious instruction, is protected religious exercise. Sotomayor’s opinion signals a broad interpretation of the First Amendment’s protection for religious organizations operating in the public sphere.
Eric Rassbach, attorney for Becket Law and lead counsel for Catholic Charities Bureau, celebrated the decision as a sweeping affirmation of religious freedom for all faiths. He argued that the ruling will safeguard the rights of various religious groups to serve their communities according to their beliefs.
Rassbach said, “This decision therefore protects the right of religious groups of all stripes—including Jews, Muslims, and Hindus—to care for the poor and needy consistent with their sincere religious beliefs about the nature of charity.” He also noted the significance of a unanimous court, adding, “the fact that the opinion was unanimous underscores that religious liberty is not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issue, but a fundamental freedom that protects all Americans. That is something we should all take pride in.”
Critics of the decision argue that broadening religious exemptions from generally applicable laws could open the door to organizations avoiding regulations under the guise of faith. Some legal experts worry that this could make it harder to enforce workplace protections and tax policy consistently.
The Supreme Court did not grant an automatic exemption but sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with its new interpretation. State officials must now re-examine how Wisconsin applies its religious exemption law, potentially affecting other faith-based nonprofits.
Catholic Charities Bureau and its sub-entities will continue their fight for exemption, with the Supreme Court’s opinion making it far more likely they will prevail. The case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, No. 24-154, could reverberate across the country as states review similar statutes.
Broader implications for church-state relations loom large as nonprofits in every state watch to see how courts and legislatures respond. The ruling will likely become a touchstone for future religious liberty claims involving tax exemptions and social services.
CNN's ratings have plummeted to a startling new low, with the network attracting only 374,000 primetime viewers during the week of May 26 to June 1. According to Breitbart, this figure represents just one-sixth of Fox News Channel's audience, which averaged an impressive 2.3 million primetime viewers during the same period.
The ratings collapse comes as Fox News achieved a remarkable milestone by outperforming all three major broadcast networks during the week of May 26-30. While NBC and CBS managed 2.4 million average primetime viewers and ABC earned 2.3 million, Fox News surpassed them with 2.7 million viewers.
CNN's dwindling viewership numbers have raised questions about its future, particularly as it deals with potential loss of carriage fees and ad revenue. Despite efforts to rejuvenate its programming, the numbers paint a challenging picture of CNN’s current broadcast landscape. By contrast, Fox News continued to solidify its dominance.
In the same period, Fox News not only dominated primetime viewership with 2.3 million average viewers but also outperformed in total day ratings. Across the entire day, Fox News secured an average of 1.5 million viewers compared to CNN’s 308,000, underscoring the network's broad appeal.
Analyzing demographic-specific performance, Fox excelled in the key age bracket of 25-54, which typically informs advertising rates. Here, Fox averaged 175,000 viewers during the full day and 240,000 in primetime, contrasting sharply with CNN’s lower numbers of 49,000 and 61,000 respectively.
"The Five," a popular show on Fox News, saw more demo viewers than CNN’s overall primetime average during this period, with an impressive 409,000. The show also drew 3.7 million total viewers, demonstrating the enduring appeal of Fox's programming.
Looking at the broader ratings from May, the momentum for Fox News remained strong. With an average of 2.463 million primetime viewers, the network showcased resilience, marking a 24% increase from the previous year. This growth contrasts with MSNBC’s 877,000 and CNN’s 426,000 for the same month.
Throughout the total day in May, Fox averaged 1.557 million viewers, effectively capturing a substantial audience across varied time slots. In comparison, CNN struggled with just 353,000 total day viewers, trailing both Fox and MSNBC.
CNN's recent attempts to reinvigorate its lineup with familiar faces appear to have had limited success in reversing these declining trends. The figures suggest ongoing struggles in retaining viewership in a highly competitive media environment.
The broader appeal of Fox News, which encompasses diversified demographics including Democrats and women, might be a contributing factor to its sustained ratings success. This diverse audience base has fortified Fox’s standing in the television news sector.
CNN faces the challenge of adapting its strategy to appeal to broader demographics while managing potential commercial implications from the recent viewership decline. This situation is critical as the network navigates the complexities of a shifting media landscape.
The future for CNN is uncertain as it grapples with declining viewership figures, affecting its potential for carriage fees and advertising revenue. A robust strategy will be essential to regain lost ground and reassert its position in the cable news domain.
Efforts to rejuvenate CNN's primetime programming lineup with familiar faces indicate a strategy aimed at drawing back viewers by leveraging known personalities. However, the current ratings highlight a clear gap in effectiveness.
As networks continue to compete for audience engagement, adaptability and a keen understanding of viewer preferences could be essential for future success. Fox's current trajectory suggests the network has successfully tapped into a winning formula for attracting and retaining a wide audience.
CNN's path forward will require strategic innovation, targeted appeals to broaden its viewership base, and potentially transformative content decisions. The challenge lies in reversing current trends while also competing with more dominant players like Fox.
FBI Director Kash Patel's aggressive immigration enforcement strategy has yielded unprecedented results in the first months of 2025, marking a significant shift in the bureau's operational focus under the Trump administration.
According to Fox News, FBI data reveals 10,553 immigration-related arrests since January 20, 2025, showcasing the bureau's expanded role in supporting Department of Homeland Security operations.
The dramatic increase in immigration enforcement represents a major transformation of the FBI's priorities, with over 13,000 bureau employees participating in immigration-related tasks since the beginning of the year.
Recent operations highlight the FBI's enhanced involvement in immigration enforcement, including a notable operation in May targeting Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. The joint effort with ICE resulted in 32 arrests, including an MS-13 gang member and a suspect facing serious criminal charges.
The Los Angeles field office currently leads the bureau's immigration enforcement efforts, followed by the Philadelphia, Houston, and San Antonio offices. This strategic deployment reflects the FBI's focus on areas with significant immigration challenges.
Patel's social media presence has actively promoted these enforcement successes, including the high-profile April arrest of Harpreet Singh, an Indian national who allegedly entered the U.S. illegally in 2022 while facing terrorism charges in his home country.
Some veteran agents have expressed mixed reactions to the bureau's new direction. While some view the immigration focus as a departure from traditional FBI priorities, others recognize it as a necessary response to current challenges.
Patel adviser Erica Knight defended the strategy, saying: "With over 10,000 immigration-related arrests, the Bureau under the direction of Director Patel is making it clear, it's not turning a blind eye to the border crisis, it's targeting the violent cartels and criminal networks that are exploiting it."
A retired FBI agent with two decades of experience noted that the bureau's unique capabilities, including extensive databases and specialized skill sets, bring valuable resources to immigration enforcement operations.
The Virginia Homeland Security Task Force exemplifies the bureau's new interagency approach, bringing together state and federal law enforcement agencies to address transnational organized crime and immigration violations.
U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert reported impressive results from the task force, including 342 arrests, with 81 suspects having confirmed gang or transnational crime connections. The initiative demonstrates the effectiveness of coordinated law enforcement efforts.
The operation has also provided valuable intelligence-gathering opportunities, with arrested individuals offering insights into criminal networks and potential security threats.
The FBI's expanded role in immigration enforcement represents a significant evolution in federal law enforcement strategy under the Trump administration's border security initiatives.
Director Patel's leadership has fundamentally transformed the bureau's approach to immigration enforcement, creating new partnerships with DHS and other agencies while maintaining the FBI's traditional law enforcement responsibilities.
These enforcement efforts have particularly targeted individuals with criminal backgrounds or gang affiliations, demonstrating the bureau's commitment to addressing both immigration violations and associated criminal activities.
Justice Clarence Thomas has once again voiced his frustration with the Supreme Court, this time over its refusal to hear a case challenging Maryland’s controversial ban on AR-15 rifles. The conservative justice’s remarks have reignited a heated debate about Second Amendment rights and the role of the judiciary in protecting them.
According to the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a petition from a pro-gun rights group seeking to overturn Maryland’s 2013 law banning various semiautomatic firearms, including the AR-15. The law, which labels these firearms as illegal “assault weapons,” was upheld by a lower appeals court in a 10-5 decision. The high court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the ban in place.
In a dissenting opinion, Thomas sharply criticized the court for what he sees as its negligence in addressing a critical constitutional issue. His remarks also targeted the appeals court for placing what he called an excessive burden on challengers of the Maryland law.
Thomas’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision was unflinching. He argued that the AR-15, one of the most popular firearms in the United States, deserves protection under the Second Amendment. For him, the court’s avoidance of the issue suggests a troubling inconsistency in how constitutional rights are upheld.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Thomas wrote. “That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country. We have avoided deciding it for a full decade.” He further argued that failing to address the matter relegates the Second Amendment to “a second-class right.”
Thomas also took issue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld Maryland’s ban. He criticized the court’s reasoning, stating that it unfairly shifted the burden of proof onto those challenging the law, rather than requiring Maryland to justify the legality of its prohibition.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in dissenting from the decision to deny the petition. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while not formally dissenting, also expressed concerns about the lower court’s ruling. In a statement, Kavanaugh made it clear that the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Maryland’s law.
“Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision-making on the AR–15 issue,” Kavanaugh wrote. He suggested that similar petitions are likely to come before the court in the near future, and he expressed hope that the issue would be addressed “in the next Term or two.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition, the group that brought the challenge, echoed these frustrations. In a statement, the organization accused the Supreme Court of lacking the “judicial courage” to uphold the Constitution and vowed to continue fighting against bans on semiautomatic firearms.
The pro-gun movement has long argued that bans like Maryland’s unfairly target law-abiding gun owners and fail to address the root causes of gun violence. The Firearms Policy Coalition, in particular, views the AR-15 as a symbol of Second Amendment rights and has made it a focal point of its legal battles.
“Like millions of peaceable gun owners across the country, we are frustrated that the Court continues to allow lower courts to treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right,” the group said in its statement. Declaring their resolve to “eliminate these immoral bans,” they promised to return to the Supreme Court with similar cases in the future.
The group’s frustration highlights a broader concern among conservatives: that the judiciary has become too hesitant to defend gun rights. For activists, the AR-15 ban represents more than a single law—it is a test of whether courts will uphold their interpretation of the Second Amendment.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has declined to take up a major gun rights case, but the justices’ recent rulings have suggested a willingness to revisit Second Amendment issues. In 2022, the court struck down a New York law restricting concealed carry permits, signaling a potential shift toward broader gun rights protections.
The Maryland case, however, reveals lingering divisions among the justices. While Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch appear eager to expand Second Amendment protections, others on the bench seem more cautious. Kavanaugh’s statement suggests that the court may be waiting for a more favorable case—or additional input from lower courts—before taking a definitive stance on AR-15 bans.
In the meantime, Maryland’s law will remain in effect, along with similar bans in other states. The Supreme Court also declined on Monday to hear a separate case challenging Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines, further frustrating gun rights advocates.
According to Daily Mail, Elon Musk recently voiced strong opposition to President Donald Trump's proposed spending bill, predicting it would negate the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) achievements.
In a CBS Sunday Morning interview, Musk critiqued the bill for erasing fiscal savings and increasing national debt.
During the interview, Musk expressed disappointment, stating that the proposed legislation threatens to undo DOGE's gains. Specifically, Musk warned that the bill could eliminate most of the savings DOGE achieved within a year. These savings had originally aimed to reach $2 trillion but fell short at $175 billion.
Musk, who stepped down from his advisory role days before voicing his concerns, criticized the bill's potential consequences. He emphasized the damage that $5 trillion in tax cuts and a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit could cause to DOGE's fiscal reforms. Musk had previously invested $288 million in Trump's campaign and was actively involved in DOGE efforts.
Despite these efforts, DOGE measures led to a 71% decrease in Tesla's profits and massive job cuts within the government. Musk lamented that "DOGE became the whipping boy" for various issues and feared the continuance of economic challenges.
Musk stressed that DOGE faced undue criticism for potentially affecting Social Security checks, which he assured was untrue. He remarked that they were viewed as the "DOGE boogeyman," unfairly blamed for financial cutbacks.
Looking to the future, Musk stated DOGE aimed for an eventual $1 trillion in savings, though the path remains fraught with complications from newly proposed policies. He likened the burdensome nature of government interventions to an overly complex DMV, underscoring inefficiencies.
The bill seeks sweeping changes to tax legislation, immigration, and Medicaid, areas Musk feels conflict with DOGE goals. He underscored his skepticism of the bill's ability to be both "big" and "beautiful," a critique he has consistently voiced.
Musk plans to turn his focus toward his professional ventures post-resignation but pledges to remain as a visiting friend and advisor to President Trump. This personal shift comes after a farewelling ceremony in the Oval Office, where Trump commemorated Musk with a symbolic gift, a gold key.
During the farewell, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared tense over the proceedings, and Musk's remarks generated considerable attention across Washington. The CBS interview clip showcasing Musk's perspective quickly went viral, fueling discussions about the implications of Trump's bill.
As Musk shared his government efficiency predictions, he aimed to temper his comments with assurance to the public: the congressional adjustments wouldn't jeopardize crucial social infrastructure like Social Security.
Musk reiterated that the "DOGE team is doing an incredible job" in maintaining cost-effective governance, even as complexities arise with new federal proposals. His assertion of ongoing results reflects his belief that DOGE efforts will persist despite external challenges.
After airing his views publicly, Musk attended a related SpaceX event, which took an unexpected turn when a rocket exploded upon re-entry. This incident added another layer of complexity and drama to the narrative surrounding Musk's critique.
Musk, known for his ambitious endeavors, has been at the forefront of implementing fiscal reforms through DOGE. His resignation and subsequent critique signal a pivotal moment in his relationship with the administration and broader financial governance strategies.
While Musk's long-term influence on governmental policies remains to be seen, his outspoken nature continues to provide a lens through which to understand and critique proposed changes affecting the nation's fiscal future.