Trump Teases Deporting Elon: ‘We'll Have to Take a Look'
Musk's opposition to the bill led to an explosive war of words between him and Trump last month. The Tesla billionaire renewed his criticism this week, writing on Monday that if 'this insane spending bill passes,' he would form his own political party, the 'America Party,' the next day. 'Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE,' Musk wrote.
Musk added that he would ensure that every member of Congress who 'campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history' would 'lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.'
In a Truth Social post early Tuesday morning, Trump blamed Musk's outburst on his administration's move to revoke state-level electric vehicle mandates, which heavily benefit electric car companies like Tesla.
'Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign,' the president wrote. 'Elon may get more subsidies than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.'
The president added that 'perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look,' at Musk's companies and government contracts because there was 'BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!'
While speaking to reporters before heading to Florida hours later, Trump was asked if he was going to deport Musk. 'I don't know, we'll have to take a look,' the president mused, adding that the administration 'might have to put DOGE on Elon.'
'You know what DOGE is?' he asked the reporter, referring to Musk's supposed cost-cutting operation that gutted critical services across the government in a matter of months. 'The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' Trump continued. 'Wouldn't that be terrible?'
Musk responded on X that it was 'so tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.'
The GOP's massive reconciliation package is currently being debated in the Senate through a record breaking vote-a-rama session that became the longest in the chamber's history on Monday night. If passed, the legislation is expected to strip millions of their health care coverage, make social safety net programs less accessible, and worst of all — at least according to Musk — increase the national debt by about $4 trillion over 10 years.
Trump indicated on Tuesday that he was 'hopeful' for a full vote in the Senate before the end of the day.
More from Rolling Stone
Trump's Attack on Iran May Have Made the Nuclear Crisis Worse
Team Trump Is Serious About Unleashing the Espionage Act on the Media
White House Pushes B.S. About 'Big Beautiful Bill' as Popularity Craters
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
Supreme Court could release more on high-profile cases from its 'cleanup conference'
There is the potential for more news out of the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday when the justices release a list of orders and dispositions from the "cleanup conference," the last in-person gathering before summer recess. The timing of the release is somewhat unusual -- the conference was held last week, and typically the results of that session are released the day after the final opinion comes down, which would have been Monday. Veteran court watchers suspect that there could be a lot of writing from the justices, such as dissents or concurrences, on matters that they will address without oral argument. There are five outstanding emergency petitions involving President Donald Trump. Mass federal layoffs: Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees. Whether the Court should stay a nationwide injunction barring the executive branch from developing plans to initiate large-scale reductions of the federal workforce Dismantling the Department of Education: McMahon v. NY. Whether the court should stay a district court order requiring the government to reinstate Department of Education employees fired as part of a reduction in force. Florida immigration law: Uthmeier v Florida Immigrant Coalition. Whether the court should stay a preliminary injunction preventing Florida from enforcing SB4c, a law that criminalizes entry into and presence within Florida of those who have illegally entered the U.S. Jan. 6 police officers: Doe v Seattle Police Department. Whether to stay Washington state court mandates requiring four anonymous former and current Seattle police officers who attended the Jan. 6, 2021, rally at the Capitol to refile their lawsuit regarding public record requests under their true names. Deportation: Gomez v U.S. Whether the court should stay a lower court mandate certifying petitioner's extradition to Ecuador to stand trial for a charge of sexual abuse. The court also address other cases implicated by the ruling in the birthright citizenship case, the transgender health care case and others.
Miami Herald
35 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Bondi made changes to DOJ policy. Her former client Pfizer might have benefited
For the past several years, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for potential foreign corruption violations related to its activities in China and Mexico, according to the company's financial filings. But that appears to have changed after the Trump administration tapped Pam Bondi — previously an outside legal counsel for Pfizer — to lead the Justice department as attorney general. In the company's most recent annual report, filed three weeks after Bondi took office in early February, there was no longer any reference to the Justice Department investigations into the company's potential violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act. A quarterly report in May also contains no reference to these investigations. On her first day in office, Bondi rolled back the enforcement of foreign corruption cases that didn't involve drug cartels and international criminal organizations, among a host of sweeping changes she made to the department's priorities. That move was followed five days later, on Feb. 10, by a related executive order issued by President Donald Trump that paused new foreign corruption investigations and enforcement actions. The Justice Department also reportedly reduced the number of attorneys working on such cases and closed nearly half of existing foreign corruption cases. Bondi's stated goal in making the changes was 'Removing Bureaucratic Impediments to Aggressive Prosecutions,' but the actions she and President Trump took were widely seen as a signal that the Justice Department would be less interested in pursuing allegations that major corporations like Pfizer paid bribes to win business abroad. Pfizer is among several companies that filed financial documents this year suggesting that the Justice Department had dropped their federal corruption investigations. The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen raised concerns about Bondi's relationship with Pfizer in a letter sent last month to the Senate Judiciary Committee and questions how she may have played a role in the department's apparent decision to drop the case. 'We would always hope that our elected officials are above reproach ethically and a big part of that is ensuring that they don't have any conflicts of interest,' said Lisa Gilbert, the group's co-president. 'All of this comes back to the appropriateness of Pam Bondi's conduct and whether she should be touching anything that approaches Pfizer.' The Justice Department told The Miami Herald that Bondi's work for Pfizer had nothing to do with foreign corruption. 'Attorney General Bondi's brief work with this company occurred when she was a private citizen, concerned a Florida-specific legal matter, and bears no nexus whatsoever to the Department of Justice's FCPA guidance. Any suggestion to the contrary is incorrect,' said Justice Department spokesman Gates McGavick. Pfizer declined to comment beyond the disclosures in the company's financial filings. Work for Fort Lauderdale firm Bondi – who previously served as Florida's attorney general for two terms and also was one of Trump's attorneys during his 2019 impeachment trial – represented Pfizer while in private practice with the Fort Lauderdale law firm Panza Maurer, which she had been affiliated with since 2021, according to her financial disclosure form. It isn't clear exactly what Bondi did for Pfizer but the drug company is the only client she listed in connection with work for the law firm, which paid her more than $200,000 last year. Bondi also reported working as a lobbyist for the influential company Ballard Partners before entering office. The founder of that firm, Brian Ballard, also is listed as being of counsel with Panza Maurer, the same title Bondi held. Thomas Panza, a founding partner of the law firm, declined to say whether the firm is still representing Pfizer and on what matters it has represented the pharmaceutical company. He said Bondi did work for other clients besides Pfizer in the past, but declined to provide names. He also said that, to his knowledge, no one from the firm has been in contact with Bondi since she took the helm at the Justice Department. Under her federal ethics agreement before taking office, Bondi promised that she would not participate 'personally and substantially' in any matter involving former clients at Panza Maurer for one year after she last provided service to the client. Pfizer isn't the only former client that has raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest for Bondi. The Herald earlier reported that Bondi, before becoming attorney general, had lobbied on behalf of a China-backed refrigerant company called iGas USA which currently has an active lawsuit against the federal government, which is being defended by Justice Department lawyers. Reading the tea leaves While the Justice Department doesn't typically make public when it has decided to drop a foreign corruption investigation without seeking a penalty, legal experts say what a company says – or doesn't say – in its financial filings can provide clues. 'If they had language about it and then suddenly there's no language about it, you can probably infer that either the investigation is closed, or they no longer believe that it's material for investors to know,' said William Garrett, who manages a database of foreign corruption cases maintained by Stanford University's law school. Pfizer isn't the only company that appears to have benefited from the new policies. Three other companies listed in the Stanford foreign corruption case database – Johnson & Johnson, Toyota and medical device company Stryker – indicated in financial filings this year that the Justice Department had dropped investigations into potential foreign corruption violations by their companies. In early April, Alina Habba, the acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, also dropped charges against executives for Cognizant Technologies, an information technology consulting and outsourcing company, citing Trump's executive order. President's Trump's pause on new foreign corruption cases was lifted last month, and the department said it would resume bringing new cases but that it would prioritize focusing on the conduct of individuals rather than attributing 'nonspecific' wrongdoing to 'corporate structures.' The recent foreign corruption investigations involving Pfizer weren't the first time the company's foreign activities came under such scrutiny. In 2012, Pfizer subsidiaries agreed to pay the federal government more than $60 million in penalties and surrendered profits and interest in response to allegations of corruption in a number of different countries. 'Pfizer took short cuts to boost its business in several Eurasian countries, bribing government officials in Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan and Russia to the tune of millions of dollars,' Mythili Raman, then the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said of one of the investigations. More recently, Pfizer disclosed that the foreign corruption units from the Justice Department and the SEC had requested documents connected to the company's activities in Russia in 2019, but the company ceased making any mention of that investigation last year.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Doylestown Democrats returns donations after campaign finance violations review
Political organizing committee Doylestown Democrats returned $1,766 in contributions in February amid a state investigation into alleged campaign finance violations. A campaign finance report from May shows that Doylestown Democrats reimbursed three local businesses for 2024 contributions: The Wyck, a Buckingham restaurant, as well as Evolution Candy and Comedy Cabaret, both in Doylestown. The donations may have violated state election law, the Doylestown Republican Committee wrote in a statement on Monday, which prohibits corporations from donating to political committees in many cases. Ed Sheppard, a spokesperson for the GOP committee who sent Monday's press release, filed the campaign finance complaint in late January, according to emails reviewed by this news organization. Sheppard's press release did not mention who had filed the complaint, and he blacked out all mentions of his name in the emails he provided, but his information was legible despite the redactions. (Sheppard said he only meant to redact his email address and had omitted all other references to his name by mistake). The Pennsylvania Department of State completed its investigation by March. "Dear Mr. Sheppard, Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to your complaint dated January 25, 2025 regarding Doylestown Democrats," wrote a compliance analyst for the state's campaign finance office. "After review, the Bureau of Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure has worked with the committee to rectify any violations of Article XVI and the committee is now in compliance." 'Local offices, like this year's Township Supervisor's race, are not supposed to have corporate sponsors," Sheppard wrote in the press release. Doylestown Democrats "proactively worked with the Pennsylvania Department of State to address any concerns related to contributions to our organization," said the committee chair, Judy Dixon. The committee returned the contributions in late February, according to campaign finance records. "There was no secret, no scandal, and no wrongdoing," said Connor O'Hanlon, who chaired the committee at the time of the alleged violations. "We worked transparently with the Department of State, who is completely satisfied that everything has been handled properly. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than a political stunt." The Department of State said Wednesday that it keeps campaign finance violation complaints confidential. The largest contribution, for $1,050, came from Comedy Cabaret. The committee does fundraisers at the comedy club, said Dixon and the club's owner, Andy Scarpati. A variety of other companies and organizations host fundraisers at the venue, according to its website. "They weren't paying us," said Johnny King-Marino, a Democratic organizer, explaining that the comedy club was giving back to the committee $1,050 in donations the committee had received during a fundraiser at the club. Since then, the committee has handled the donations from the comedy fundraisers in cash or through King-Marino, the organizer and the club owner said. The latest campaign finance report shows that King-Marino made two sizable contributions to the committee in early May, a few days after the Doylestown Democrats' April 26 fundraiser at the venue. More: Polarizing politics chills participation in Bucks County primary races. Why no one ran The Doylestown Republican Committee also alleged that the state had taken the investigation off the Bucks County Board of Elections' hands because the state didn't think Bucks officials would handle it appropriately. Both the state and the county elections board had received the complaint, county spokesperson Jim O'Malley said Tuesday, but the state was responsible for conducting the investigation. Doylestown Democrats' finances fall under the state department's purview because it's a state-level committee, O'Malley said. When the county received the complaint in January, Bucks officials contacted the state to confirm the complaint fell under the state's remit, and Pennsylvania officials agreed that it did. The GOP committee also criticized O'Hanlon for not disclosing the investigation when he was being appointed to Doylestown Borough Council. O'Hanlon did not address that criticism on Tuesday. Jess Rohan can be reached at jrohan@ This article originally appeared on Bucks County Courier Times: PA investigated Doylestown Democrats for campaign finance violations
