Latest news with #Potemkin
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Musk-Trump Feud: 5 Things To Watch For
President Donald Trump, left, and Elon Musk. Credit - Alex Wroblewski and Allison Robbert—AFP via Getty Images This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Like so many pieces of President Donald Trump's self-created reality, the key he handed to fellow billionaire and government hater Elon Musk was oversized and appeared to be coated with gold coloration. That Potemkin moment was merely one week ago today. Indeed, last Friday, Trump held the unusual send-off party for an adviser tasked with helping him destroy the spine of the federal workforce and a patron to his rise to power. Fast forward a week, and Trump has all but declared war on his one-time ally, lobbing threats to cancel federal contracts for everything from clean-energy cars, shuttles into the heavens, and access to satellite orbits. In turn, Musk kept pushing Republicans on the Hill to reject Trump's ambitious domestic policy agenda while throwing open the doors to conspiracy theories. The back-and-forth brinksmanship captivated Washington as the week headed toward its end. Both parties seemed to understand their ownership of the news cycle, and it's entirely possible that most of this spat was as scripted as a professional-wrestling beef. 'One thing's for sure,' Musk posted on X, 'it ain't boring!' That doesn't make it any less reckless. Here are five things to watch as this story unfolds. As catty as this feud has been, it is ultimately a huge distraction from Trump's agenda. The more time spent on a personality clash between this pair of mercurial iconoclasts, the less time is being dedicated to getting Trump's pending domestic agenda across the finish line. This is, to be clear, a fight that could leave both men empty handed. Trump is heading to his country club in New Jersey for the weekend, away from the White House and the churn of that campus. That may give Trump time to cool to a simmer—or to boil over if he's left alone with his DVR, social media feeds, and cell phone that gives him a constant hum of agitation. Establishment Republicans fear the window for a once-an-administration legislative reach is closing fast. The White House set a Memorial Day deadline for House passage and just barely got there. Administration officials are now looking at a July 4 target for the Senate following suit. The sooner Trump can quiet his frustrations, the better the odds of snagging the brass ring. Once Musk suggested—without evidence—that Trump is somehow implicated in the sex-trafficking criminality tied to the late billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, there really was no telling where this goes next. The mega-rich like Musk don't exactly have a huge degree of self-awareness or self-control. Musk knows he is already under Trump's skin, and any plays to exploit Trump's insecurities don't exactly take terrible imagination. That's why this stands to go further sideways in a big way. Musk is not exactly known for keeping the savviest of political minds at his table. Unlike other deep-pocketed patrons, Musk does not have an army of consultants and so-called donor-advisers at the ready. But he does have the ear of some in Trump's inner circle, especially Donald Trump Jr. and Vice President J.D. Vance. If the White House is looking for an off-ramp, it might avail itself of those two lesser-appreciated insiders. At its core, this spat began over Musk's criticism of the deficit spending that would accompany the Trump-branded 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that preserves and expands Trump's first-term tax cuts, slices into clean-energy initiatives carried in Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, and boosts spending on border and immigration policing. It's poised to add trillions to the national debt. Musk, a newly converted deficit hawk, has said he sees the red ink as an existential threat. House Republicans powered their first leg of this marathon across the line with the barest of majorities and zero margin for error. Democrats were unified in their opposition, and remain even more so now that they've had time to unpack everything in a 1,000-plus-page bill that also would limit how much courts could rein in Trump and neuter the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. In the Senate, things were already iffy. The White House plans to use a procedural trick that allows Senate Republicans to sidestep the typical filibuster rules and pass the legislation with a simple majority. But that's going to require keeping the parameters narrow and keeping the crayons inside the line, especially when it comes to long-term spending obligations. But Senate Republicans also plan to edit the bill text. Add in there Musk's threats of consequences for rubber stamping the House version and it's even murkier where this one goes. As soon as Musk and Trump began bashing one another in earnest on Thursday, the GOP base immediately started agitating in three big directions. In one corner were those bucking up Trump's flank. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon went so far as to suggest the feds look at Musk's immigration status, hinting that the South African-born Musk could find himself on the losing side of a deportation skirmish. In another stood Musk's defenders, who said maybe the world's richest man was onto something when it came to the criticism that sparked the fallout: that the tax cuts in the bill would balloon the nation's already terrifying pile of IOUs. Musk's following remains huge, but he does not have a natural constituency the way other political leaders enjoy. That is why he is such a potent force in electoral efforts, especially among voters who feel no one in elected office has their interests at heart. Add in there the libertarian-minded Silicon Valley set, and it's an unusual coalition that few others could muster. Finally—and this is where so many Republican lawmakers are falling in line—is the corner where there's a last-ditch hope that Trump and Musk can move on, forgetting the pettiness of the last week. The Kiss-and-Make-Up Caucus, as it's been jokingly called among Hill aides, is one with long odds, to be sure. But it's a detente that might allow both billionaires to save face while sparing lawmakers from picking sides, a fraught choice given the passions running high with low-information voters. Johnson, speaking with reporters on Friday, tried to navigate a way out of this mess without any new tinder. 'It's not personal,' Johnson told CNBC on Friday. 'I don't tell my friend Elon how … to build rockets. I wish he wouldn't argue with me on how to craft legislation and pass it.' Since Musk started busting-up the federal government in January, Hill Democrats have been in a listless tilt in search of a strategy. A few fiery speeches have not stopped Musk's march through the federal workforce. Some of the actions have been reversed, either through quiet climbdown or court-ordered pivots. But by and large, Democrats have been left on the sidelines and powerless to query Musk and his deputies, let alone stop them. That may shift now. Musk is clearly no longer a loyalist to Trump, who could still avail himself of claims of executive privilege and block Musk's cooperation with the Hill Democrats. But with Musk openly encouraging Trump's impeachment—which would be a record third time!—there are chances that this escalates in truly history-making ways. Hill Republicans have so far stuck together to protect Trump and, by extension, Musk from any real scrutiny. While much of Trump's Cabinet has bristled over Musk's over-reach into their fiefdoms, they have still dutifully shielded Musk and Co from any real oversight. Through some clever administrative trickery, the White House ensured that Musk was never technically a real federal employee, and even claimed he was never in charge of the office he was actually running. Efforts to haul him in for oversight hit a brick wall. Hill Republicans kept their frustrations buttoned-up and limited to closed-door venting. Now that Musk is untethered, the game may have changed. If the White House wanted to, it could go so far as to encourage Congress to make use of its subpoena power. While that's an unlikely outcome, Musk can no longer be assured of the safe bunker in Washington he had when this second Trump term began. Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter. Write to Philip Elliott at
Time Magazine
3 days ago
- Business
- Time Magazine
5 Things To Watch As the Trump-Musk Meltdown Proceeds
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Like so many pieces of President Donald Trump's self-created reality, the key he handed to fellow billionaire and government hater Elon Musk was oversized and appeared to be coated with gold coloration. That Potemkin moment was merely one week ago today. Indeed, last Friday, Trump held the unusual send-off party for an adviser tasked with helping him destroy the spine of the federal workforce and a patron to his rise to power. Fast forward a week, and Trump has all but declared war on his one-time ally, lobbing threats to cancel federal contracts for everything from clean-energy cars, shuttles into the heavens, and access to satellite orbits. In turn, Musk kept pushing Republicans on the Hill to reject Trump's ambitious domestic policy agenda while throwing open the doors to conspiracy theories. The back-and-forth brinksmanship captivated Washington as the week headed toward its end. Both parties seemed to understand their ownership of the news cycle, and it's entirely possible that most of this spat was as scripted as a professional-wrestling beef. 'One thing's for sure,' Musk posted on X, 'it ain't boring!' That doesn't make it any less reckless. Here are five things to watch as this story unfolds. Does Trump Turn the Page? As catty as this feud has been, it is ultimately a huge distraction from Trump's agenda. The more time spent on a personality clash between this pair of mercurial iconoclasts, the less time is being dedicated to getting Trump's pending domestic agenda across the finish line. This is, to be clear, a fight that could leave both men empty handed. Trump is heading to his country club in New Jersey for the weekend, away from the White House and the churn of that campus. That may give Trump time to cool to a simmer—or to boil over if he's left alone with his DVR, social media feeds, and cell phone that gives him a constant hum of agitation. Establishment Republicans fear the window for a once-an-administration legislative reach is closing fast. The White House set a Memorial Day deadline for House passage and just barely got there. Administration officials are now looking at a July 4 target for the Senate following suit. The sooner Trump can quiet his frustrations, the better the odds of snagging the brass ring. Does Musk Escalate? Once Musk suggested—without evidence—that Trump is somehow implicated in the sex-trafficking criminality tied to the late billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, there really was no telling where this goes next. The mega-rich like Musk don't exactly have a huge degree of self-awareness or self-control. Musk knows he is already under Trump's skin, and any plays to exploit Trump's insecurities don't exactly take terrible imagination. That's why this stands to go further sideways in a big way. Musk is not exactly known for keeping the savviest of political minds at his table. Unlike other deep-pocketed patrons, Musk does not have an army of consultants and so-called donor-advisers at the ready. But he does have the ear of some in Trump's inner circle, especially Donald Trump Jr. and Vice President J.D. Vance. If the White House is looking for an off-ramp, it might avail itself of those two lesser-appreciated insiders. Is the 'Big Beautiful Bill' In Limbo? At its core, this spat began over Musk's criticism of the deficit spending that would accompany the Trump-branded 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that preserves and expands Trump's first-term tax cuts, slices into clean-energy initiatives carried in Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, and boosts spending on border and immigration policing. It's poised to add trillions to the national debt. Musk, a newly converted deficit hawk, has said he sees the red ink as an existential threat. House Republicans powered their first leg of this marathon across the line with the barest of majorities and zero margin for error. Democrats were unified in their opposition, and remain even more so now that they've had time to unpack everything in a 1,000-plus-page bill that also would limit how much courts could rein in Trump and neuter the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. In the Senate, things were already iffy. The White House plans to use a procedural trick that allows Senate Republicans to sidestep the typical filibuster rules and pass the legislation with a simple majority. But that's going to require keeping the parameters narrow and keeping the crayons inside the line, especially when it comes to long-term spending obligations. But Senate Republicans also plan to edit the bill text. Add in there Musk's threats of consequences for rubber stamping the House version and it's even murkier where this one goes. Does MAGA World Have To Pick Sides? As soon as Musk and Trump began bashing one another in earnest on Thursday, the GOP base immediately started agitating in three big directions. In one corner were those bucking up Trump's flank. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon went so far as to suggest the feds look at Musk's immigration status, hinting that the South African-born Musk could find himself on the losing side of a deportation skirmish. In another stood Musk's defenders, who said maybe the world's richest man was onto something when it came to the criticism that sparked the fallout: that the tax cuts in the bill would balloon the nation's already terrifying pile of IOUs. Musk's following remains huge, but he does not have a natural constituency the way other political leaders enjoy. That is why he is such a potent force in electoral efforts, especially among voters who feel no one in elected office has their interests at heart. Add in there the libertarian-minded Silicon Valley set, and it's an unusual coalition that few others could muster. Finally—and this is where so many Republican lawmakers are falling in line—is the corner where there's a last-ditch hope that Trump and Musk can move on, forgetting the pettiness of the last week. The Kiss-and-Make-Up Caucus, as it's been jokingly called among Hill aides, is one with long odds, to be sure. But it's a detente that might allow both billionaires to save face while sparing lawmakers from picking sides, a fraught choice given the passions running high with low-information voters. Johnson, speaking with reporters on Friday, tried to navigate a way out of this mess without any new tinder. 'It's not personal,' Johnson told CNBC on Friday. 'I don't tell my friend Elon how … to build rockets. I wish he wouldn't argue with me on how to craft legislation and pass it.' Do Hill Democrats Finally Have an Opening? Since Musk started busting-up the federal government in January, Hill Democrats have been in a listless tilt in search of a strategy. A few fiery speeches have not stopped Musk's march through the federal workforce. Some of the actions have been reversed, either through quiet climbdown or court-ordered pivots. But by and large, Democrats have been left on the sidelines and powerless to query Musk and his deputies, let alone stop them. That may shift now. Musk is clearly no longer a loyalist to Trump, who could still avail himself of claims of executive privilege and block Musk's cooperation with the Hill Democrats. But with Musk openly encouraging Trump's impeachment—which would be a record third time!—there are chances that this escalates in truly history-making ways. Hill Republicans have so far stuck together to protect Trump and, by extension, Musk from any real scrutiny. While much of Trump's Cabinet has bristled over Musk's over-reach into their fiefdoms, they have still dutifully shielded Musk and Co from any real oversight. Through some clever administrative trickery, the White House ensured that Musk was never technically a real federal employee, and even claimed he was never in charge of the office he was actually running. Efforts to haul him in for oversight hit a brick wall. Hill Republicans kept their frustrations buttoned-up and limited to closed-door venting. Now that Musk is untethered, the game may have changed. If the White House wanted to, it could go so far as to encourage Congress to make use of its subpoena power. While that's an unlikely outcome, Musk can no longer be assured of the safe bunker in Washington he had when this second Trump term began.
Business Wire
20-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Brighthouse Financial Recommends Shareholders Reject 'Mini-Tender' Offer by Potemkin Limited
CHARLOTTE, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Brighthouse Financial, Inc. ('Brighthouse Financial' or the 'company') (Nasdaq: BHF) announced today that it has received notice of an unsolicited 'mini-tender' offer made by Potemkin Limited ('Potemkin') to Brighthouse Financial shareholders to purchase up to 100,000 shares of Brighthouse Financial's common stock at a price of $36.00 per share. This means that Brighthouse Financial shareholders who tender their shares in the offer will receive a price significantly below the current market price for the company's common stock and which is an approximate 41.12% discount to the closing price of the company's common stock as of May 19, 2025 ($61.14 per share). Brighthouse Financial does not endorse Potemkin's unsolicited mini-tender offer and is not affiliated or associated in any way with Potemkin, its mini-tender offer or the offer documentation. Brighthouse Financial recommends that shareholders do not tender their shares in response to Potemkin's offer because the offer is at a price that is significantly below the current market value of Brighthouse Financial's common stock. The offer is currently scheduled to expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on September 16, 2025, unless extended or earlier revoked by Potemkin. Shareholders who tender their shares may withdraw them in the manner described in Potemkin's offering documents. A mini-tender offer is an offer for less than 5% of a company's shares and is therefore not subject to the disclosure and procedural requirements required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') for larger tender offers. As a result, mini-tender offers do not provide investors with the same level of protections under U.S. securities laws that are provided for larger tender offers. The SEC has cautioned investors about mini-tender offers, providing guidance to investors at Brighthouse Financial encourages brokers and dealers, as well as other market participants, to review the SEC's letter regarding broker-dealer mini-tender offer dissemination and disclosures at and the NASD Notice to Members 99-53 issued in July 1999 regarding guidance to members forwarding mini-tender offers to their customers, which can be found at Shareholders should obtain current market quotations for their shares of Brighthouse Financial common stock, consult with their broker or financial advisor and exercise caution with respect to Potemkin's mini-tender offer. Brighthouse Financial requests that a copy of this news release be included with all distributions of materials relating to Potemkin's mini-tender offer related to Brighthouse Financial's common stock. About Brighthouse Financial, Inc. Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (Brighthouse Financial) (Nasdaq: BHF) is on a mission to help people achieve financial security. As one of the largest providers of annuities and life insurance in the U.S., 1 we specialize in products designed to help people protect what they've earned and ensure it lasts. Learn more at
Chicago Tribune
15-05-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Paul Vallas: Two years in, Mayor Brandon Johnson's rhetoric doesn't match reality
Mayor Brandon Johnson's first two years in office can best be described as delusional. Even from a progressive perspective, there is a glaring disconnect between his rhetoric and reality. Johnson has declared his tenure the most accomplished of any mayor in Chicago history and claims the city is now a national model for building a worker-centered, safe and affordable city. But his proudest accomplishments amount to little more than a progressive Potemkin village. For example, he opened just three of 12 mental health facilities closed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. His reestablished Department of Environment is an office with a few staff members and no real authority or resources. Johnson's flagship initiative — a $1.25 billion bond program — is a continuation of the city practice of bonding for capital investments. His 'Green Social Housing' ordinance is a small low-interest loan program and no substitute for a serious affordable housing policy. These checkbox initiatives, among others, are designed more for optics than substance. Despite his rhetoric, Johnson has done little to confront the city's mounting problems. Instead, he resorts to playing the race card to explain the challenges he inherited and his own failures to address them. As Johnson completes his second year, what is his record? And what is the real state of the city? Finances Johnson or his administration has done nothing to address the financial storm engulfing the city, schools and public transit system — each faces historic deficits in the coming year. The city projects a budget shortfall exceeding $1 billion. The new teachers contract pushes Chicago Public Schools' deficit to more than $800 million, and the CTA faces a $600 million revenue shortfall. Meanwhile, the mayor's backing of a $1.5 billion contract with the Chicago Teachers Union makes it virtually impossible to balance either the city or CPS budget without major tax hikes. Taxes While the City Council blocked a property tax hike, the mayor's school board has increased property taxes each year. Voters resoundingly rejected Johnson's proposed increase in the real estate transfer tax, yet he continues to advocate for other campaign tax proposals, including a city income tax, a head tax on employers and a financial transaction tax. Chicago already leads major cities in property and sales taxes and fees, and our commercial property tax burden is among the highest in the nation. The new $1.5 billion CTU contract almost guarantees annual property tax hikes but adds no instructional time or accountability measures. The mayor's hand-picked school board has effectively reinstated social promotion and eliminated any meaningful accountability for underperforming students, schools or teachers. The contract also undermines successful public school alternatives for low-income families such as public charter and magnet schools. Police staffing remains 1,700 officers below pre-COVID-19 levels, in part due to the mayor's elimination of 833 positions. While homicides and shootings have declined nationally since the pandemic, Chicago has until this year ranked near the bottom of large cities in homicide reduction. Overall, violent crime remains above pre-pandemic levels and is likely underreported, given the decline in high-priority 911 responses since 2019. The mayor's economic policy has focused on growing the public sector and expanding subsidies through public-private partnerships, rather than fostering a business-friendly environment. Johnson fulfilled a promise to eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped workers — a policy that imposes a costly, unfunded mandate on small and midsize businesses. Johnson and his administration have no coherent affordable housing strategy. The administration has failed to leverage tools such as tax abatements, reactivation of vacant properties or creation of opportunity zones to combat disinvestment or gentrification. Johnson's promise to 'cut the tape' has amounted to little more than bureaucratic reshuffling with no substantive outcomes. The CTA faces a huge deficit next year and needs to restore ridership to pre-COVID-19 levels to avoid deep service cuts. That requires that the CTA become significantly safer. Yet the mayor-controlled CTA continues to spend money on private, unarmed security. That money could increase the number of Chicago police officers assigned to the CTA by 500. Currently, the CTA has just over 100 police officers dedicated to transit — roughly the same as the mayor's own security detail. Johnson has fully embraced Chicago's sanctuary city status, largely refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement while offering aid to migrants, including emergency housing, medical care, legal services and de facto protection from immigration authorities. The city has spent more than $600 million on migrant services. Johnson has failed to advance a single piece of anti-corruption legislation. He has clashed with City Council ethics chair Ald. Matt Martin and Inspector General Deborah Witzburg, who accused his administration of building 'brick walls' against oversight and transparency. In two years, little of substance has been done to address Chicago's mounting challenges. Look to the mayor to continue refusing to take responsibility for anything — preferring to deflect, gaslight and race-bait instead. Paul Vallas is an adviser for the Illinois Policy Institute. He ran against Johnson for Chicago mayor in 2023 and was previously budget director for the city and CEO of Chicago Public Schools.
New York Post
08-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Hate and hackery: How the Pulitzer Prize destroyed itself
This week Mosab Abu Toha, a Hamas apologist and serial fabricator who vilified female Israeli hostages and justified their kidnapping on Oct. 7, won the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for commentary for a series of essays about Gaza in The New Yorker. It is unsurprising, because the Pulitzer Prize has become an irremediable joke. You'd think that the Pulitzer, administered and awarded by Columbia University, would want to repair its tattered reputation after awarding a slew of debunked pieces that spread the Russia-collusion hoax. Advertisement They went in another direction. The Pulitzer for 'public service,' for instance, went to the leftist propaganda site ProPublica for 'exposing the fatal consequences of abortion bans.' ProPublica is perhaps the nation's leading purveyor of Potemkin journalism, which entails dressing up political propaganda with neutral-sounding journalistic verbiage to create the impression that you've done genuine reporting. Advertisement Its abortion stories are perhaps the sloppiest and sleaziest of its catalog, even worse than its string of pitiful smears against Supreme Court justices. In a healthy environment, journalism schools would use them as prime examples of hackery and conjecture. Take its award-winning story on Amber Thurman. In August 2022, the 28-year-old North Carolina woman checked herself into a suburban Atlanta hospital emergency room, complaining of severe pain. She was suffering from an infection caused by the remains of twin fetuses she had aborted by pill five days earlier. Advertisement The first thing you'll notice when reading ProPublica's Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters is that they fail to offer a single on-the-record source who maintains that abortion laws slowed or stopped doctors from providing medical help for Thurman. Not one. Indeed, a reader must plow through to the 57th paragraph of the article to find this throwaway line: 'It is not clear from the records available why doctors waited to provide [emergency help].' Advertisement Not clear? That's a remarkable concession to make deep into a story. The headline, after all, promises to prove that 'Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care.' Have, not may have. Anyway, by 'not clear,' the reporters mean no testimony exists to support the implication that a dilation and curettage procedure, in which the lining of the uterus is scraped to remove tissue, was delayed because doctors were nervous about Georgia's abortion law. Whenever the story hits a juncture at which any real reporter would feel compelled to offer corroboration, ProPublica switches to interviewing nameless 'OB-GYNs in states that outlawed abortion' or pro-abortion activists who offer politically motivated guesswork. We call that a 'column' in the business. To confuse readers, ProPublica regularly conflates miscarriages with elective abortions. And here's the thing: The fetuses had already been destroyed. There was absolutely no legal basis for any doctor, not even one confused about the supposed ambiguities of abortion laws, to fail to give Thurman all the care she needed. That seems like a vital fact that should have been mentioned somewhere in a 3,400-word investigative piece. Advertisement I don't care where you stand on abortion, that's not journalism. Yet this is the type of hackery that wins you a Pulitzer these days. The only inarguable truth in the Thurman case is that she died from complications caused by abortion pills. That's the headline. That's the buried lede. Advertisement Knowing this, ProPublica feels compelled to assure readers that there are only 'rare complications' from abortion pills — 'extremely rare' even. ProPublica, funded by a deep-pocketed progressive group, exists to create fake stories for politicians to use as oppo material. You may remember when many political experts assured us that the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision and resulting state-level abortion limitations would forever sink the entire GOP? Well, less than a week after the Thurman story hit, Axios reported that Senate Democrats would launch a 'blitz on emergency abortion care . . . after ProPublica reporting on death of Georgia woman.' Advertisement Former Vice President Kamala Harris mentioned Thurman on many occasions. It should be said that ideological bias doesn't prevent a journalist from making arguments that rely on facts. It is implausible, however, that any genuine journalist could possibly believe ProPublica's Thurman story was well-reported, or that Abu Toha's essays enlightened anyone. Advertisement And the fact that the Pulitzer Prize rewards this kind of transparent hackery only further destroys its already battered credibility. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
