Gov. Ron DeSantis warns Elon Musk about running ‘America Party' candidates against GOP: ‘Democrats would win'
'I think Washington needs to be overhauled 100%, but I just don't think a third party is going to do it,' DeSantis said at a press conference in Jacksonville, referring to Musk's intention to launch the cost-cutting focused 'America Party.'
The Sunshine State governor and former GOP presidential primary candidate warned that if Musk-backed candidates vie against Republicans in competitive state races, Democrats will be the ones winning elections.
'The problem is, when you do another party, especially if you're running on some of the issues that he talks about, you know, that would end up, if he funds Senate candidates and House candidates in competitive races, that would likely end up meaning the Democrats would win all the competitive Senate and House races,' DeSantis, 46, said.
'I'm a Republican … I don't want to see that happen,' he added.
3 Gov. DeSantis suggested that Musk should focus his political efforts on getting a balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution.
Getty Images
DeSantis weighed in on Musk's effort to launch an alternative to the two-party system at the end of a nearly hour-long press conference on education. The governor's remarks were not prompted by reporters.
DeSantis praised the Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and X chief as 'one of the most innovative entrepreneurs … probably in world history' and said he appreciated Musk's efforts to help President Trump and Republicans ahead of the 2024 election and rein in government waste, fraud and abuse as head of the Department of Government Efficiency.
'I think he's got a lot more left in the tank,' he said, suggesting that Musk should support efforts to add balanced budget and term limit amendments to the Constitution, rather than start a new party.
3 Musk has Trump's agenda bill for the amount of money it adds to the deficit.
REUTERS
3 Musk announced the name of his new political party on Saturday.
REUTERS
'Honestly, if you're concerned about the debt … I don't think just electing a few better people is going to change the trajectory,' DeSantis argued. 'We need the incentives in Washington that are going to lead to these outcomes really regardless of the outcome of elections at this point.'
The governor noted that dozens of states, under Article V of the Constitution, have formally petitioned Congress to draft a balanced budget amendment, and argued that if Musk were to support those efforts, he would have a 'monumental impact.'
'I'm a believer in trying to work this stuff out through the Republican process … but I think even more than that, doing these amendments — which are within our grasp — it doesn't require Congress,' DeSantis said.
'You can do it through Article V and do it through the states … that would have a huge impact on the trajectory of the country.'
Musk announced the formation of the America Party in response to GOP lawmakers passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4.
The megabill is set to add $3.9 trillion to the nation's debt over the next 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Musk, 54, has fumed that the legislation makes a 'mockery of the work' done by his DOGE team to rein in the deficit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Land swaps with Russia are not only unpopular in Ukraine. They're also illegal
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A peace deal that requires Kyiv to accept swapping Ukrainian territory with Russia would not only be deeply unpopular. It also would be illegal under its constitution. That's why President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has categorically rejected any deal with Moscow that could involve ceding land after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested such a concession would be beneficial to both sides, ahead of his meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Zelenskyy said over the weekend that Kyiv 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done,' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' The remarks came after Trump said a peace deal would involve swapping of Ukrainian territories by both sides 'to the betterment of both.' For Zelenskyy, such a deal would be disaster for his presidency and spark public outcry after more than three years of bloodshed and sacrifice by Ukrainians. Moreover, he doesn't have the authority to sign off on it, because changing Ukraine's 1991 borders runs counter to the country's constitution. For now, freezing the front line appears to be an outcome the Ukrainian people are willing to accept. A look at the challenges such proposals entail: Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, from the country's northeast to the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed illegally in 2014. The front line is vast and cuts across six regions — the active front stretches for at least 1,000 kilometers (680 miles) — but if measured from along the border with Russia, it reaches as far as 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles). Russia controls almost all of the Luhansk region and almost two-thirds of Donetsk region, which together comprise the Donbas, as the strategic industrial heartland of Ukraine is called. Russia has long coveted the area and illegally annexed it in the first year of the full-scale invasion, even though it didn't control much of it at the time. Russia also partially controls more than half of the Kherson region, which is critical to maintain logistical flows of supplies coming in from the land corridor in neighboring Crimea, and also parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Kremlin seized Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Russian forces also hold pockets of territory in Kharkiv and Sumy regions in northeastern Ukraine, far less strategically valuable for Moscow. Russian troops are gaining a foothold in the Dnipropetrovsk region. These could be what Moscow is willing to exchange for land it deems more important in Donetsk, where the Russian army has concentrated most of its effort. 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both,' Trump said Monday. Ukrainian forces are still active in the Kursk region inside Russia, but they barely hold any territory there, making it not as potent a bargaining chip as Kyiv's leaders had probably hoped when they launched the daring incursion across the border last year. Swapping Ukrainian controlled territory in Russia, however minuscule, will likely be the only palatable option for Kyiv in any land swapping scenario. Conceding land risks another invasion Surrendering territory would see those unwilling to live under Russian rule to pack up and leave. Many civilians have endured so much suffering and bloodshed since pro-Moscow forces began battling the Ukrainian military in the east in 2014 and since the full-scale invasion in 2022. From a military standpoint, abandoning the Donetsk region in particular would vastly improve Russia's ability to invade Ukraine again, according to the Washington-based think tank Institute for the Study of War. Bowing to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its 'fortress belt,' the main defensive line in Donetsk since 2014, "with no guarantee that fighting will not resume,' the institute said in a recent report. The regional defensive line has prevented Russia's efforts to seize the region and continues to impede Russia's efforts to take the rest of the area, ISW said. Ukraine's constitution poses a major challenge to any deal involving a land swap because it requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders, said Ihor Reiterovych, a politics professor in the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 'Changes in territorial integrity can be done only by the decision of the people — not the president, the cabinet of ministers or the parliament can change it,' he said. 'In the constitution it is written that only by referendum can changes to Ukraine's territory be conducted.' If during negotiations Zelenskyy agrees to swap territory with Russia, "in the same minute he will be a criminal because he would be abandoning the main law that governs Ukraine,' Reiterovych said. Trump said he was 'a little bothered' by Zelenskyy's assertion over the weekend that he needed constitutional approval to cede to Russia the territory that it captured in its unprovoked invasion. 'I mean, he's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump added. 'Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody.' Zelenskyy is still trying to regain the people's trust that was damaged when he reversed course on a law that would have diminished the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. The move was a red line for those citizens who are protective of the country's institutions and are suspicious of certain members of Zelenskyy's inner circle. Freezing the conflict seems a lesser evil for Ukraine Analysts like Reiterovych dismiss a land swap as a distraction. Freezing the conflict along the current front line is the only option Ukrainians are willing to accept, he said, citing recent polls. This option would also buy time for both sides to consolidate manpower and build up their domestic weapons industries. Ukraine would require strong security guarantees from its Western partners to deter future Russian aggression, which Kyiv believes is inevitable. Still, freezing the conflict will also be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Along with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the partial occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk after that, it would require accepting that the Ukrainian military is not able to retake lost territories militarily. Kyiv accepted its inability to retake these territories but never formally recognized them as Russian. A similar scenario could unfold in the new regions taken by Russian forces. It also is not a viable long-term solution. 'It is the lesser evil option for everyone and it will not provoke protests or rallies on the streets,' Reiterovych said. —- Associated Press journalist Volodymyr Yurchuk contributed. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Is there any reason to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell except to buy her silence?
It's all about the art of the deal — the quid pro quo. Jeffrey Epstein was perhaps the most conspicuous pimp since the Marquis de Sade, and he did so on a grand scale. His associates included bankers, princes, CEOs, governors and past and future presidents. One of Epstein's friends was President Trump. Their relationship lasted 15 years. We don't know how their friendship got started, and we don't know the exact details of why it persisted or ended. We do know that it has become an albatross for Trump in his second term. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump — assuming that the Epstein files contained a list of prominent Democrats who were clients — promised his MAGA base that, if elected, the government files would be released. Now, the Wall Street Journal has suggested Trump's own name could be in the files, which are closely guarded by his captive Justice Department. So, what to do? The first line of defense is deception. Pretend you are making full disclosure when you are not. Vice President JD Vance proclaimed Trump's commitment to full disclosure. 'First of all, the president has been very clear,' Vance said. 'We're not shielding anything. The president has directed the attorney general to release all credible information and, frankly, to go and find additional credible information related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.' What Vance failed to say is that Trump did not order his attorney general to disclose the files that would be the 'most credible information' to be examined in all their stark significance. Trump prevaricated and ordered her only to unseal the grand jury minutes underlying the prosecutions of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, indicted in the Southern District in 2020, tried and convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in 2022. Any prosecutor will tell you that grand jury minutes are largely uninformative. They will not normally include the thousands of pages of video and audio tapes, witness statements and other documentary evidence residing in the Justice Department's files. Also, grand jury minutes are by law secret and may only be unsealed by order of the court, where there are very narrow grounds. Justice Department lawyers went through the motions of a kamikaze mission to have the court unseal the minutes, and two federal courts have now denied the motion, as expected. This ploy would hardly satisfy elements of Trump's MAGA base, which by now was screaming for full disclosure of the files that might tell the full story of his relationship with Epstein. The Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee got into the act, subpoenaing Maxwell to testify. She presumably was in the room where it happened and could answer the key questions about the Trump-Epstein relation. As might be expected, Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment rights unless she was granted full immunity. A spokesperson for the committee replied that it 'will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony.' What a charade! If there ever was a 'don't throw me in the briar patch' scenario, this was it. That might have ended the matter. But what if Trump needed to be sure of Maxwell's silence? A peek at what Maxwell might say would help. So would a deal about what Maxwell wouldn't say. There was talk of clemency and a full pardon. Trump said, 'Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it.' He had to do his due diligence first. Trump considers himself the master of the art of the deal — the quid pro quo. This has been his core philosophy from the old days in Queens, Manhattan, Atlantic City and Roy Cohn. He has made other deals for women's silence, lest we forget Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels. Trump's freezing of urgently needed military aid to Ukraine in a bid to extract political dirt on the Bidens during his first term was a classic. This quid pro quo led to his 2020 impeachment — a reference to which, as it just happens, was removed last month from an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. (A modified reference has now been restored.) His appointment of three justices to the Supreme Court who would vote his way whenever the issue was presented might be another. And his dismissal of the indictment of New York City Mayor Eric Adams was widely decried as a quid pro quo for Adams's kowtowing to Trump's draconian immigration crackdown. So, has the time come for a quid pro quo with Maxwell? Her current lawyer is David Oscar Markus, a Florida-based criminal defense attorney who is a friend of Todd Blanche, Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and now the deputy attorney general. An ethicist might say there is nothing wrong with this, but one might fairly wonder why Attorney General Pam Bondi chose Blanche to coordinate with Markus about an extraordinary meeting with his imprisoned client. The two-day recorded meeting occurred and, according to Markus, Blanche asked Maxwell about '100 different people.' Maxwell reportedly 'answered every single question' truthfully and to the best of her ability. It is interesting that Maxwell was willing to talk to Blanche but unwilling to talk to Congress. One week later, without explanation and to the consternation of the victims' families, Maxwell was transferred from a low security prison in Tallahassee to a minimum-security prison in Bryan, Texas. Sex offenders, the New York Times reports, are rarely sent to minimum-security prisons, which house inmates with the lowest level of security risk. You may ask whether Trump approved the transfer. You can bet on it. This Justice Department doesn't make a move without Trump's thumb on the scale. Is favored treatment the part of a deal to ensure silence about Trump? Is it the prelude to a pardon for Maxwell? After all, with Trump, it's all about the quid pro quo.
USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Doug LaMalfa faces hostile crowd at town hall meeting in his own congressional district
Even though he was deep inside his bright red congressional district, U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa faced a mostly hostile crowd Monday during his first North State town hall meeting in several years. Residents at LaMalfa's town hall meeting in Red Bluff peppered him with a wide range of questions and comments on such topics as immigration, redistricting, the Epstein files, support for Israel, tariffs, wildfires, climate change, forest management and changes to Medicaid. Many times he was shouted down by members of the audience, who held up green cards to show approval or red pieces of paper for disapproval. "You just embarrass yourself when you act like that," LaMalfa said after several people yelled out "You're a liar," and "Tell the truth!" It was the second rowdy crowd the Republican lawmaker faced Monday. He held a similar town hall earlier in the day in Chico, where members of the audience shouted obscenities at him. Jill Smith, a lifelong Red Bluff resident, said the crowd of about 350 people was upset because it had been years since LaMalfa had held a public meeting in Tehama County. "All these people are angry. They have concerns. I have concerns. I could vote Democrat or Republican as long as I think they're doing something good for our country. But right now I don't see that happening with this, and that's why everybody's angry," Smith said. LaMalfa was criticized for many of his votes in Congress, including his support in 2021 not to certify the 2020 election that ushered in Joe Biden as president and this year for backing President Trump and his many executive orders, which some on Monday said usurped power from Congress. "You made a choice to violate your oath to the Constitution," Max Walter of Redding said, referring to LaMalfa's vote not to certify the 2020 presidential election. "And every day since then, you have violated your oath. But you have loyalty, you have loyalty to a felon (Trump), to somebody who mocks people in wheelchairs, to someone who mocks women." On questions about tariffs, LaMalfa said he supported them, claiming they would bring jobs back to the U.S. He also said he supported release of the Epstein files, but wanted to make sure the names of victims aren't released. Roy Reddin asked if LaMalfa supported the type of congressional redistricting that is proposed in Texas. "Currently the Texas legislature is very close to to an epic gerrymandering where they are going to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Democratic voters by realigning their districts. So my question to you, is in two parts: Do you support what the Texas legislature is doing and why should California not do the same thing for five seats, one of which could be yours," Reddin said. Although redistricting congressional districts happen at the state level, LaMalfa said he opposed attempts at redistricting such as what is happening in Texas, where the state legislature has proposed redrawing congressional district maps. The redistricting plan in Texas could lead to the state picking up an additional five Republican seats in Congress, helping the GOP retain a majority in the House next year. But other states, including California, have vowed to re-draw congressional district boundaries, if Texas goes through with its plan. Not everyone was critical of LaMalfa. One woman said she was an immigrant and she supports LaMalfa because he backs the Trump administration's actions against undocumented immigrants. "He's an honest Christian man and he's fighting for us," one woman said. One woman who spoke out said many of the issues that came up Monday were moral issues that transcended a political climate that has become too divisive. "I'm afraid to stand up for my rights because I might get shot," she told LaMalfa, citing the shootings of state legislators in Minnesota this summer.
