Latest news with #GOP-aligned
Business Insider
24-05-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Elon Musk says he's getting back to business at X and Tesla: 'I must be super focused'
Elon Musk had been the face of President Donald Trump 's efforts to reduce the size of government. More recently, however, the billionaire has said he intends to return his focus to the companies that helped make him the world's richest man. "Back to spending 24/7 at work and sleeping in conference/server/factory rooms," Musk said in a post on his social media platform, X, on Saturday. The site had just grappled with widespread outages. "I must be super focused on 𝕏/xAI and Tesla (plus Starship launch next week), as we have critical technologies rolling out." The comment followed a similar statement Musk made last month during a Tesla earnings call. "I think I'll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the president would like me to do so, and for as long as it is useful, but starting next month, I'll be allocating far more of my time to Tesla, now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done," he said at the time. Musk's foray into government has been marked by major disruptions in the federal workforce, leaving many workers on edge about their futures. Musk and the Trump administration also targeted entire agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the US Agency for International Development. Musk has been a near-omnipresent part of Trump's White House since January and has become a polarizing figure among the general public as a result. The tech titan's super PAC, for example, funneled millions of dollars in an unsuccessful effort to help elect the GOP-aligned candidate in a critical Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Many expect his political activism to carry over to the 2026 midterms. In a virtual appearance at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday, however, Musk said he'd contribute "a lot less" in political donations moving forward, but didn't specify the reasoning behind the decision. "Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it," Musk said at the time. "I do not currently see a reason." Musk's government work led to a backlash against Tesla, throttling share prices. Tesla's stock bounced back immediately after Musk said in the earnings call that he would step back from his work at the White House DOGE Office.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. is making Republicans anxious again: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Allan Smith got his hands on some new polling that shows why some Republicans are starting to fret about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s political impact. Plus, Andrea Mitchell looks at how President Donald Trump has already reshaped foreign policy at the outset of his trip abroad. Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here. — Adam Wollner Have a question for the NBC News Politics Desk about Trump's foreign trip, the fate of his legislative agenda on Capitol Hill or this year's elections? Send your questions to politicsnewsletter@ and we may answer them in a future edition of the newsletter. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump said he would allow Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to 'go wild' on health, food and medicine. But now, three months into Kennedy's tenure as health and human services secretary, some Republicans want Trump to rein him and his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda in. They're concerned Kennedy's efforts could hurt them in the midterm elections by raising costs for farmers and consumers as voters say prices remain their top concern. Here's how one Republican strategist working on 2026 races put it: 'It's time to start to give RFK some handcuffs.' MAGA split: There's a divide between conservatives excited about Trump's deregulatory and tax-cut agenda versus a new right that favors protectionism, tax increases on the rich and price limits on prescription drugs, which Trump unveiled Monday in an executive order. Kennedy's mission is at the forefront of this split. The Cabinet secretary — who declared 'sugar is poison' — has launched a war against the food industry, moving to phase out synthetic food dyes and artificial food additives and prevent food stamps from being used on soda and candy. As part of his 'MAHA commission' to investigate chronic disease, he pledged to probe any connection with processed foods or pesticides. And Kennedy has gone on a nationwide tour to promote state legislation he sees as critical in getting food companies to negotiate with him. Concern on Capitol Hill: Some Republican lawmakers on Wednesday expressed concern with Kennedy's efforts at a House hearing. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., pushed back against banning synthetic dyes, saying they have 'been deemed safe for many years,' to which Kennedy responded 'good science' has linked them to neurological injury and cancer. At the same hearing, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, a former dentist, questioned Kennedy's anti-fluoride push. New poll: An internal poll conducted last month by the Tyson Group, a GOP-aligned data firm, and Plymouth Union Public Research of 813 likely Republican primary voters found nearly 60% would be less likely to support a candidate for governor or state legislator if they 'sided with RFK jr. on food regulation, knowing it could undermine' Trump 'and make food more expensive.' But the survey also showed some of Kennedy's and MAHA's strengths with Republicans. Notably, more than 40% of likely Republican primary voters said siding with RFK Jr. even at Trump's expense would make them more likely to vote for a candidate. An Economist/YouGov poll last month found that 42% of U.S. adults view Kennedy favorably — virtually in-line with Trump and higher than Vice President JD Vance and fellow Cabinet secretaries Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick and Kristi Noem. Read more from Allan → More on RFK Jr.: During his appearance before a House committee, Kennedy sidestepped a question about vaccines and whether he would choose to vaccinate his children today against a number of diseases, saying, 'I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me.' Read the full story from Berkeley Lovelace Jr. and Megan Lebowitz. President Donald Trump's tour of the Persian Gulf this week has proved to be more consequential in reshaping the region's U.S. foreign policy than anyone could have imagined. When Trump made Saudi Arabia the first stop on his first official foreign trip of his second term, it was thought that he would also visit Israel, as he did in his first term. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opposition to Trump's willingness to hold direct talks with Iran — and Israel's determination to oppose a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip — are at cross-purposes with the president's evolving vision for the region. The visit also produced a commitment for hundreds of billions of dollars of business investment by the Saudis in the U.S. And the trip came against the backdrop of Trump family's ongoing real estate, crypto and golf business ventures in the region. What is more surprising this week is Trump's lifting of sanctions on Syria and meeting with Ahmed al-Sharaa, the new leader of the post-Bashar al-Assad Assad regime. The Biden administration, ever cautious, waited until European diplomats had flocked to Damascus before sending a mid-level diplomat to meet with al-Sharaa, a former leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which is linked to both the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. But Trump was pressed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Saudi de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to bolster the fledgling Syrian regime, whose country has come under repeated military attack from Israel and internal domestic factions. As Trump said, 'Oh, what I do for the crown prince.' His lavish arrival in Riyadh — greeted by the crown prince and his limousine escorted by American flag-carrying riders on Arabian horses — was a far cry from the muted reception for then-President Joe Biden in 2022. But Biden had told me during a Democratic presidential primary debate in 2019 he would make Saudi Arabia a 'pariah' state over the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. In contrast, when the CIA concluded that Khashoggi's death was most likely ordered by the crown prince, Trump repeatedly questioned the intelligence and suggested we might never really know the truth. This week, Trump has shown both a proclivity for royal welcomes and an ability to pivot toward unexpected diplomatic initiatives with a foreign policy that's both high-wire and deeply personal. Related read:The Trump franchise is expanding in the Middle East — and so are ethical concerns, by Katherine Doyle💲 Jet price tag: Converting a Qatari-owned 747 jet into a new Air Force One for President Donald Trump would involve installing multiple top-secret systems, cost over $1 billion and take years to complete, three aviation experts told NBC News. Read more → 🌎 NSC shakeup: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is now also serving as the national security adviser, is planning to make major changes to the National Security Council, including shrinking the agency and shifting its role from making policy recommendations to carrying out the president's orders. Read more → 📝 'Big, beautiful bill' update: Two key House committees passed portions of the GOP's massive bill for Trump's agenda related to taxes and Medicaid. Read more → 🤔 On second thought: Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., backed off his effort to force a vote Wednesday on his resolution to impeach Trump following pushback from Democratic leaders. Read more → ⏪ 2028 watch: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed cutting back on health care benefits for undocumented immigrants, a reversal of his previous promises of universal health care. Read more → 🌽 2028 watch, cont.: Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took aim at the Trump administration in an Iowa town hall and discussed the Democratic Party's path forward. Read more → ⚖️ SCOTUS watch: The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Thursday over Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship, with a focus on the administration's use of executive power. Read more → ⚖️ Elsewhere in the courts: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly obstructing ICE agents who were looking to detain an undocumented immigrant. Read more → 💰 About those checks: A new lawsuit filed against Elon Musk's America PAC alleges that the group did not follow through on its promise to pay swing-state voters who signed a pro-Trump petition in 2024. Read more → 🗳️ About last night: In the Omaha mayoral election, Democratic-aligned candidateJohn Ewing defeated GOP-aligned Mayor Jean Stothert, who was seeking a fourth term. Read more →That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Bridget Bowman. If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up . This article was originally published on
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
John Curran relaunches LG bid as write-in, alleging signature sabotage
John Curran has re-entered the lieutenant governor contest as a write-in candidate. (Photo courtesy of John Curran). John Curran, the former Republican candidate for lieutenant governor who said internal sabotage cost him a spot on the primary ballot, announced Monday he is re-entering the race — this time as a GOP-aligned write-in. 'Today, I am announcing my WRITE-IN campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia as a Republican,' Curran said in a statement. 'My decision is not to split the ticket but to save it.' Curran's announcement reignites tensions in an already turbulent race following his exit in April, when he failed to qualify for the ballot despite claiming to have far surpassed the 10,000-signature requirement. 'Unfortunately, a person(s) associated with my campaign conspired to steal most of my signatures and then attempted to extort money for them,' Curran wrote in a Facebook post after the filing deadline passed. 'Disappointingly, the Virginia Department of Elections and the Republican Party of Virginia did nothing to correct this wrong.' Mark Peake, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, dismissed Curran's write-in bid as entirely unofficial, distancing the party from his campaign. 'He is not running under the GOP banner whatsoever,' Peake said. 'We have a GOP candidate, and that's John Reid.' Peake pointed out that Curran never qualified for the Republican primary, despite claiming to be a contender. 'He failed to get enough signatures to get on the ballot,' he said. 'He is 100% not a Republican candidate in this upcoming election.' And Andrea Gaines, a spokeswoman for the department, said in an email that since write-in candidates do not appear on the ballot, 'they do not have party affiliation.' Political observers say Curran's surprise reentry raises more questions than answers. 'It is difficult to know what to make of John Curran's announcement,' said David Richards, a political science professor at the University of Lynchburg. 'As a write-in candidate, it seems like the sore loser law might not apply, but it also might limit his campaigning. Regardless, the whole thing seems odd.' Curran said in his statement that his campaign is fueled by 'grassroots organizations, religious and family groups, and collegiate groups' and not designed to divide the party. But by positioning himself as an alternative to Reid, the GOP's official nominee, he risks deepening an already visible rift within the party. 'Is Curran running to offer an alternative to John Reid? While that might seem a likely scenario, it has the danger of splitting the party,' Richards noted. 'And the GOP has already been wrestling with Reid's candidacy.' Reid, a conservative commentator and longtime Richmond radio host, became the GOP's nominee by default after Pat Herrity, a longtime member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, dropped out for health reasons. Late last month, Virginia's GOP turmoil escalated when Reid accused Gov. Glenn Youngkin's Spirit of Virginia PAC of attempted extortion, claiming the group offered to make damaging attacks disappear if he dropped out. Reid said the threats came after Youngkin personally urged him to quit over concerns tied to a controversial social media account. Reid, the first openly gay statewide candidate in Virginia history, called the situation 'bigotry and ugliness,' warning that the pressure from party leaders has only intensified. Curran alluded to those dynamics Monday, emphasizing that his concern is not Reid's personal background, but the process that installed him as nominee. 'This issue is not about my opponent being gay; it is about Virginia deserving the ability to choose who represents them as the Republican candidate,' he said. When asked for comment about Curran's renewed bid, a campaign spokesman for Reid texted back, 'Who?' Curran is now betting that Virginia conservatives will rally around a write-in candidacy — a historically uphill battle. 'Write-in campaigns are notoriously difficult to pull off,' Richards said, pointing to the failed 2024 effort by Bob Good supporters to mount a last-ditch write-in bid after his congressional primary defeat. 'Only a few hundred wrote in Good's name. This time it is a candidate himself announcing the write-in campaign. Maybe he will gain some traction, but it will take a tremendous shift in the GOP vote to make a difference.' Curran's platform touches on a range of issues — from housing and disaster recovery in Southwest Virginia to opposing abortion and improving adoption services. 'Virginia faces real issues that require strong leadership,' he said, portraying himself as a principled outsider wronged by the system. 'It is time for common sense and strength, for someone who will fight for everyone.' Still, his decision could prove costly for Republicans in November. 'Every write-in for Curran will mean a vote taken away from Reid,' Richards said. 'That opens the lead for whoever wins the Democratic primary in June.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Axios
06-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
GOP faces Medicaid conundrum with clock ticking
Republicans in Congress want to make the biggest changes to Medicaid in its 60-year history. But politics and budget math are increasingly raising doubts about whether it's feasible to cut the program to pay for a giant tax package. Why it matters: Medicaid's growth makes the program a prime target for federal funding cuts. But increased enrollment during the pandemic has also made the program popular enough with voters that it's become something of a political third rail, similar to Medicare. More than 75% of U.S. adults surveyed in April said they oppose major cuts to federal funding for Medicaid, including more than half of Republicans, according to KFF. Multiple GOP-aligned polling firms have released similar results. Where it stands: Republican leaders in the House are caught between wary moderates and conservative hardliners in trying to hit a target of as much as $880 billion in Medicaid savings. The party is also struggling with how to reconcile its working-class appeal and cuts to the safety net program that red states have, at least in some fashion, embraced. President Trump said he wants to "love and cherish" Medicaid but is said to be open to imposing work requirements, and wants Congress to require that drugmakers accept lower prices for Medicaid-covered prescriptions, pegged to what's paid abroad. "The Trump administration is protecting Medicaid while proposing to slash the waste, fraud, and abuse within the program," White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Axios in an email. "These reforms, along with our push for a Most Favored Nations policy to reduce drug prices in Medicaid, will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries." Congress also is still weighing whether to lower the 90% share of federal costs for Medicaid expansion enrollees. Another option being discussed is capping federal funding for expansion enrollees. The potential for millions of people losing their coverage heading into the midterm election cycle hangs over the deliberations about what to do next. Many voters "don't want it cut, because they know how important it has been for them, for their families and their neighbors," said Matt Salo, a health care consultant and former executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. For policymakers backing cuts, "it has become necessary to try to paint the program with as broad a brush as possible — as being so synonymous with waste, fraud and abuse that no amount of change will actually hurt people," he said. "I really don't think that that is resonating with voters at all." State of play: A key House committee postponed a critical markup of legislation that was supposed to take place this week, to get more time to figure out a plan for handling Medicaid cuts. The markup is now slated for next week. The delay signals "that the Medicaid cut number is getting smaller and smaller," Duane Wright, a senior health policy analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, wrote in an email. Meanwhile, advocates are hosting a vigil for Medicaid at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday to protest cuts. More than 1,000 hospital leaders are convening in D.C. for meetings on the Hill, where opposition to Medicaid cuts will likely take center stage, Stat reports. Work requirements are the big change that people so far find most politically palatable. More than 60% of adults support work requirements as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, per a February KFF poll. The majority of non-senior adults on Medicaid already work. In order for work requirements to generate savings, they have to involve people being removed from Medicaid. Real-world evidence from Arkansas' brief implementation of work requirements in 2018 resulted in people losing Medicaid coverage without any statistically significant increase in employment. What to watch: The lack of consensus is raising questions about whether the GOP can make good on Speaker Mike Johnson's vow to vote on the tax package by the Memorial Day recess. "They're not going to walk out of there with zero" cuts, Salo said. But slashing $880 billion in federal Medicaid spending is also unrealistic for Congress at this point, he added.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judicial Impeachments Should Be a Last Resort
'This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!' With a Truth Social post last week, President Donald Trump added his voice to the growing chorus of Republicans and GOP-aligned pundits calling to impeach federal judges for issuing rulings blocking or pausing Trump administration policies. Members of the House of Representatives have already introduced several impeachment resolutions, and judges themselves have certainly noticed the heightened political and rhetorical attacks on the judiciary. A sitting president publicly calling for the impeachment of a judge who has ruled against him is unprecedented. Unprecedented, but not unexpected. Considering Trump spent much of his first term complaining about 'so-called judges' and much of Biden's term complaining about 'Trump-hating judges,' it should come as no surprise that he and his allies have again gone after judges who rule against him as his second term begins. Still, we are entering unusual and dangerous territory. Criticism of the courts is nothing new, of course—just look at Trump's immediate predecessor—but serious threats of impeachment are extremely uncommon. Acting on that threat can undermine judicial independence and the rule of law, of course, but even the threat itself can intimidate judges into doing what politicians want. Of course, these attacks on federal judges from Trump and his allies are not happening in a vacuum. Trump has made a number of bold moves through unilateral executive action in the first few months of his second term, while lawmakers in Congress have been mostly content to sit on the sidelines. The legal authority underpinning much of that presidential activity has not always been clear, with many of Trump's actions relying on untested theories, aggressive interpretations of the law, and in some cases the reversal of existing Supreme Court precedents. As a result of both its own aggressive actions and the dynamic of polarized politics, Trump's first administration faced an extraordinary number of lawsuits resulting in nationwide injunctions—judicial orders prohibiting a policy from being implemented—and that trend has continued thus far in his second term. It is true that incoming presidential administrations often face well-organized litigation campaigns by state governments held by the opposite party and affiliated interest groups, and that those litigants can often wrack up some quick victories in carefully chosen district courts before the lawsuits get bogged down in appeals. Federal district judges have grown more inclined in recent years to issue broad rulings purporting to halt administration efforts to advance its policies not only in a particular case but across the country. Parties alleging that the executive is taking some action against them in violation of the law can ask the court to stay—or enjoin—that action, first temporarily as the issue is argued and perhaps permanently if the judge decides against the administration. So-called nationwide or universal injunctions go beyond the individual party in a particular case and order the administration not to do anything similar in any other case. Such sweeping injunctions have been quite controversial, and the Trump administration is pressing the appellate courts not only to agree with the executive about the merits of their policy actions but also to rein in the trial courts on the expansive remedies that they are offering plaintiffs, sometimes at very early stages of proceedings before the facts and legal issues have even been seriously vetted. But the data indicate that the White House bears plenty of responsibility for the record number of injunctions it has faced. In his second term, the Trump administration has lost as often before Republican-appointed judges as it has before Democratic-appointed judges. In its early days, the administration is getting outlawyered and the courts are proving to be quite skeptical of the lawfulness of some of its most high-profile actions. Federal judges hold their office during 'good behavior,' which is understood to be lifetime tenure—unless they commit impeachable offenses. Congress has the power to impeach, convict, and remove them for committing acts of 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' a necessary check to address not only criminal behavior but also abuse of power in the judiciary. Lawmakers have exercised this power only 15 times in U.S. history, however, most recently in 2009 and 2010: One judge was charged with sexual assault, the other with accepting a bribe. Identifying abuses of the public trust and condemning them when the officer is driven by corrupt motives is fairly straightforward. The judge who abuses his power to line his own pocket or the diplomat who abuses his power to advance the interests of a foreign adversary are unlikely to find a sympathetic hearing on the floor of the Congress if they attempt to offer justification for their actions. More difficult is the case of the officer who exercises power in a way that some find abusive but that others do not, who acts on motives that are public-spirited but who pursues goals that much of the public would reject. A judge who thinks an alien needs more due process before being deported than the administration does might be wrong on the law, but is not acting to advance their personal interests. When there is reasonable disagreement about whether a given action is in fact an abuse of the judicial power, lawmakers should be reluctant to deploy the impeachment power. Ordinary politics consists of debates over constitutional meaning, efforts to advance favored understandings, and attempts to better effectuate them in political practice. Constitutional disagreements are hashed out through elections, judicial appointments, and litigation. Part of our normal political give-and-take is the recognition that others who hold deeply disagreeable constitutional, political, and policy views might nonetheless win elections and gain offices. Indeed, impeachments in general should be a last resort to addressing abuses of power. While there are certainly occasions when nothing short of impeachment and removal will be adequate to remedy the problem posed by a misbehaving officer, we have more routine tools for addressing constitutional abuses. In the case of lower court judges, the first and most routine tool for addressing rulings that seem to be incorrect is to appeal that ruling to a higher court. If a judge has truly acted in a manner that is beyond the pale, then correction by an appellate court can be easily achieved. Only if a judge seems to make it a practice of engaging in such behavior should the blunt tool of impeachment become necessary. The administration seems to have little patience this time around for normal governing procedures, but litigation requires some patience as cases are argued, decided, and appealed. Threatening the impeachment of judges when litigation is still in process and the legality of the executive actions in question is open to debate is less about correcting an abuse of power and more about eliminating checks and balances on executive actions. The long-term damage to judicial independence and the constitutional system from such a premature impeachment of judges would be immense.
