Tag: DonaldTrump

A sweeping legislative package reflecting former President Donald Trump’s policy vision narrowly advanced in the Senate, overcoming internal Republican dissent and late-night wrangling. Despite opposition from key GOP senators over Medicaid cuts and debt concerns, the bill gained enough support to move forward, setting the stage for intense debate and a possible July 4 final vote.

In a dramatic turn of events on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans narrowly pushed forward a massive legislative package championed by former President Donald Trump, despite public resistance from members within their own ranks. The 1,000-page bill — a centerpiece of Trump’s revived domestic agenda — cleared its first procedural vote late Saturday, overcoming internal turbulence and a tense standoff that tested GOP unity.

Two Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, broke ranks and opposed the measure. Paul voiced sharp objections to the bill’s proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling hike, while Tillis cited a projected $38.9 billion cut to Medicaid funds in his home state, warning of devastating consequences for hospitals and rural communities.

The measure, which includes $160 billion for border security, $150 billion in defense spending, and sweeping tax reforms, teetered on the edge of collapse as GOP leaders scrambled to secure votes. The drama unfolded in real time on the Senate floor, where Senate Minority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), flanked by top Republicans, anxiously awaited key votes from skeptical colleagues.

Senators Mike Lee, Rick Scott, and Cynthia Lummis eventually cast their votes in favor after closed-door negotiations, with Senator Ron Johnson switching from “no” to “yes” under mounting pressure. Their support came after Vice President J.D. Vance and party leaders engaged in last-minute talks behind closed doors, culminating in a late-night walk to the chamber that clinched the advancement.

One of the most contentious points came earlier in the week when the Senate parliamentarian struck down a key Medicaid tax provision for violating the Byrd Rule. Republican leaders hastily rewrote the section to comply with Senate rules. Another flashpoint emerged just hours before the vote, when freshman Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) threatened to oppose the bill over a clause requiring the sale of public lands. Party leaders diffused the crisis by promising him a vote on an amendment to remove the language.

Despite these efforts, criticism from both sides of the aisle remains fierce. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) lambasted Republicans for dropping a nearly 1,000-page substitute amendment late Friday, leaving senators little time for review. He accused the GOP of hiding the bill’s true fiscal impact, stating, “They’re afraid to show how badly this will increase the deficit.”

Schumer cited a preliminary Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate indicating the legislation would slash Medicaid by $930 billion, a far deeper cut than the House-passed version. “It’s worse on health care, worse on SNAP, worse on the deficit,” he declared, vowing resistance.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), often a pivotal swing vote, offered tentative support for moving the bill forward but made clear she’s not yet on board for final passage. “There are positive changes, but I still want to see further revisions,” she told reporters, adding that she plans to propose several amendments.

Outside the chamber, the proposal also drew backlash from high-profile figures like Elon Musk, who denounced the bill as a backward-looking handout. “It’s full of giveaways to fossil fuel industries and will kill millions of jobs,” Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter.

In a procedural twist, Schumer warned that if the bill proceeded, he would invoke a time-consuming tactic to have the entire bill read aloud on the Senate floor — a move that could delay debate for up to 12 hours and test the stamina of both clerks and lawmakers ahead of a lengthy series of amendment votes, colloquially known as vote-a-rama.

With a July 4 deadline set by President Trump for final passage, the legislation now heads into what promises to be a grueling final stretch. While Thune celebrated the initial advancement as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity,” deep divisions within the GOP and fierce Democratic resistance signal that the road ahead will be anything but smooth.

Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani is poised to clinch the Democratic nomination for mayor after former Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded late Tuesday night following the initial round of ranked-choice voting. The early results sent shockwaves through the city’s political landscape as Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic socialist, pulled off an unexpected lead against the much older and more established Cuomo.

Mamdani’s campaign successfully energized younger voters and newcomers to the political process, establishing a robust ground operation that surpassed all competitors. Despite Cuomo’s significant name recognition and his campaign spending more than three times as much as Mamdani’s, the assemblyman surged ahead. With 95% of precincts reporting two hours after polls closed at 9 p.m., Mamdani was the first-choice candidate for 44% of voters, while Cuomo garnered 36%. City Comptroller Brad Lander followed with 11%.

Just after midnight, Mamdani took the stage at his election night celebration on a Long Island City rooftop brewery, where he received a hero’s welcome. “Today, eight months after launching this campaign with the vision of a city that every New Yorker could afford, we have won,” Mamdani declared. “I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Gov. Cuomo or felt too disillusioned by a long, broken political system to vote at all. I will fight for a city that works for you, that is affordable for you, that is safe for you.”

The ranked-choice system played in Mamdani’s favor, especially due to Lander’s public endorsement of him as a second-choice pick. This alignment meant Lander’s supporters were likely to boost Mamdani in subsequent tabulation rounds. “Together, we are sending Andrew Cuomo back to the suburbs,” Lander said at his own campaign event.

Although Cuomo conceded the primary, he and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams have already petitioned to appear on the general election ballot in November as independent candidates.

According to preliminary data, Mamdani led citywide with 43.5% of more than 990,800 votes cast across the five boroughs. Cuomo’s campaign headquarters at the Carpenters Union building on Manhattan’s west side saw a surprise appearance from the former governor. “I want to applaud the Assemblyman for a really smart and good and impactful campaign. Tonight was his night. He deserved it. He won,” Cuomo stated, accompanied by his daughters and son-in-law. He also shared that he had personally called Mamdani to congratulate him.

Mamdani began primary day with a 5:40 a.m. press conference in Astoria Park before heading to Jackson Heights to meet voters. “We are approaching the dawn of a new era in New York City,” he said that morning. “We are turning the page on the corrupt politics of the past that made this the most expensive city in the United States of America.”

As vote counts trickled in during the evening, Mamdani’s supporters gathered at the brewery to watch the results, while most of his volunteers were at various watch parties organized by allied groups. The mood was jubilant. “I am in a little bit of a state of disbelief,” said Gabbi Zutrau, a social media strategist for the campaign.

“It is such a historic moment for us as Muslims, as South Asians, as immigrants, as New Yorkers,” said Saman Waquad, president of the Muslim Democratic Club of New York. “The way Zohran has brought people together in this campaign has been so incredibly beautiful.”

Janos Marton, a former candidate for Manhattan district attorney who helped canvass for Mamdani, noted the campaign’s ability to energize diverse voter bases. “It was clear that he was bringing new people in — South Asians, Muslims, young people — and that was true on Staten Island, where I live, and I guess it was across the city too,” Marton remarked.

Other candidates trailed significantly behind. Former Comptroller Scott Stringer conceded shortly after polls closed, and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams received just 4% of the vote. Several others — including Zellnor Myrie, Michael Blake, Whitney Tilson, Jessica Ramos, Paperboy Prince, and Selma Bartholomew — secured less than 1% each.

In other races, incumbent Public Advocate Jumaane Williams defended his seat against Assemblymember Jenifer Rajkumar. Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine held a substantial lead in the comptroller race over Brooklyn Councilmember Justin Brannan, who conceded later that evening.

The results released Tuesday night reflect only ballots cast in person or those received and scanned by June 20. The Board of Elections will not release the full ranked-choice tabulation until at least July 1. Affidavit ballots and corrected absentee ballots returned by July 14 will also be included in the final tally, with certified results expected thereafter.

Mamdani’s upset victory over Cuomo marked a powerful rebuke of the political establishment. Cuomo had initially entered the race as a frontrunner, capitalizing on his extensive political résumé and asserting his experience as a counter to both the Trump administration and what he portrayed as city mismanagement. Despite not residing in New York City for decades, Cuomo adopted a “Rose Garden” strategy, keeping a low profile while letting his well-funded campaign and outside groups, including the $25 million-backed Fix the City PAC, dominate the media space with anti-Mamdani messaging.

Nevertheless, Mamdani prevailed. Currently serving his third term in the New York State Assembly, he drew support through viral social media content and a ground game driven by 50,000 volunteers who knocked on over a million doors across the five boroughs. His campaign promises included fare-free buses, rent freezes on stabilized units, and municipal grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Mamdani and Lander co-endorsed one another to maximize the ranked-choice system’s potential, even appearing together on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on the eve of the primary. Lander’s visibility grew after he was arrested by ICE officers while escorting immigrants from a routine court hearing.

The Working Families Party had backed a progressive slate topped by Mamdani and Lander. Adrienne Adams, their third endorsed candidate, addressed her supporters in Southeast Queens, saying: “We made people stand up and take note who this campaign was and why we were here and made people realize there really is somebody in this race that really does care about me.”

Elsewhere in the city, several borough-level contests saw decisive outcomes. In The Bronx, incumbent Borough President Vanessa Gibson fended off City Councilmember Rafael Salamanca. In Brooklyn, Borough President Antonio Reynoso retained his seat, defeating cannabis executive Khari Edwards. Manhattan’s borough presidency went to State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who beat Councilmember Keith Powers.

Manhattan and Brooklyn also held district attorney races. Incumbents Alvin Bragg and Eric Gonzalez won re-election easily. These contests, tied to the state judicial system, were not subject to ranked-choice voting.

All 51 City Council seats were up for election, many facing heated primary contests. In Brooklyn, Councilmember Shahana Hanif beat challenger Maya Kornberg, while Alexa Aviles triumphed over Ling Ye. In Manhattan, Chris Marte maintained a lead over Elizabeth Lewinsohn and Jess Coleman. In The Bronx, Councilmember Pierina Sanchez dominated former Councilman Fernando Cabrera.

Although the full results and ranked-choice redistribution won’t be finalized until July, the early data suggests that Zohran Mamdani has not only won the Democratic nomination but has also reshaped New York City’s political conversation heading into November’s general election.

Low-income families and children would be among the most affected groups under the Republicans’ proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). While the bill promises substantial benefits for affluent Americans, it would reduce support for some of the nation’s most vulnerable populations.

To fund the extension of the 2017 Trump-era tax cuts, Republicans in both chambers of Congress aim to scale back several essential safety net programs, including healthcare, food aid, and financial assistance. These changes would impact millions of American children.

Currently, more than 37 million children receive healthcare through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP covers pregnant women and children slightly above the Medicaid poverty line. Combined, these programs provide coverage to nearly half of all children in the United States, ensuring vital prenatal care, facilitating over 40% of U.S. births and nearly half of rural births, and supporting millions of children through adolescence.

Under the Republican plan, states would be allowed to impose waiting periods before families can enroll in CHIP and penalize them for missing premium payments by locking them out of the program. Additionally, the bill proposes a nationwide Medicaid work requirement for the first time. Though the House version claims to exempt parents, Allison Orris of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes, “What we’ve seen from past experience with work requirements is that exemptions are not always effective.”

Senate Republicans take it a step further, requiring even part-time work from parents of children over 14. Kevin Corinth of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) argues that this may benefit families: “If [parents’] earnings go up because they’re complying, that actually could be good for the kids. Because there is good research showing that, when parents work and we get more earnings coming into the household, that can improve current and future outcomes [for children].”

However, critics believe these requirements create more red tape. “When there’s more red tape, we know that it’s harder for families,” explains Joan Alker, who leads the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “To see these kinds of cuts is very, very scary.”

Despite these criticisms, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office defended the proposals, stating, “Republicans are protecting and strengthening Medicaid for American citizens who need and deserve it by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.” On NBC’s Meet the Press, Johnson also declared, “There are no Medicaid cuts in the Big, Beautiful Bill. We’re not cutting Medicaid.”

However, the CBO estimates that the House bill would reduce federal Medicaid spending by approximately $800 billion over the next decade. The Commonwealth Fund suggests that one in five children could lose Medicaid coverage under this plan. Alker warns that the proposed changes would push states into making tough choices between reducing services or raising taxes. “Governors are gonna have to do the dirty work,” she says, adding that the Senate’s version would likely impose even greater burdens on states.

CBO research indicates that childhood Medicaid coverage correlates with increased adult earnings and higher tax contributions, potentially offsetting the cost of the program. “Increasing children’s enrollment in Medicaid would reduce the future federal deficit by between roughly $800 and $3,400 per child per year of enrollment,” the CBO found.

Beyond healthcare, Republicans are targeting food assistance. The House bill proposes substantial changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, which currently helps over 15 million U.S. children afford groceries. Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, said the House proposal represents “the deepest cut to food assistance in history.”

The bill would expand existing work requirements under SNAP. “Research has repeatedly shown that this doesn’t increase people’s employment. It doesn’t increase their earnings. It just cuts people off of SNAP and leaves them hungry,” Bergh argues.

In total, the House plan would cut over $290 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years. Bergh estimates this would “eliminate or substantially reduce” food support for more than 2 million children. The plan would also require states to fund between 5% and 25% of SNAP costs, a shift Bergh and others worry could prompt some states to reduce benefits, limit eligibility, or exit the program entirely. CBO notes that as a result, children could also lose access to free school meals, which are automatically tied to SNAP enrollment.

Overall, CBO estimates the poorest households would lose about $1,600 annually under the GOP proposal—mainly due to reductions in programs like Medicaid and SNAP. In contrast, the wealthiest Americans would gain an average of $12,000 per year. Disputing the analysis, House Republicans insist that “the biggest beneficiaries of this [bill] will be low- and middle-income Americans,” according to Speaker Johnson.

The Senate’s plan closely aligns with the House’s in imposing work requirements and shifting costs to states.

On the tax side, Senate Republicans propose modest improvements to tax benefits for families, including the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. Sarah Rittling, executive director of First Five Years Fund, welcomed this move, saying, “Expanding child care tax credits in the Senate bill is a step in the right direction toward making care more affordable and accessible for families nationwide.”

However, proposed changes to the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) have raised concerns among researchers. The EITC, a critical anti-poverty measure for low-income working families, would require parents to undergo a burdensome precertification process before claiming the credit. Kevin Corinth of AEI notes that this added requirement could create barriers for families and place further strain on the IRS, which has already suffered staffing reductions.

The current Child Tax Credit allows families to deduct up to $2,000 per child from their tax bill. The House bill would raise this to $2,500 but maintains income requirements that limit access for low-income households. Megan Curran, policy director at Columbia University’s Center on Poverty and Social Policy, points out that the proposal would make it even harder for families to qualify. The House plan would disqualify an estimated 4.5 million children by requiring both parents to have Social Security numbers. The Senate version, by contrast, would require only one parent to have a Social Security number, though it’s unclear how many children that would still exclude.

The bill would also preserve the existing rule that blocks the lowest-income families from receiving the full credit. “Under current policy, a two-adult, two-child family needs at least $36,000 [in income] in order to get the full [credit],” Curran explains. “That’s 1 in 4 kids nationwide who are left out of the full credit.” If the credit is raised, that same family would need $48,000 in income to qualify. “As a result, under the House Reconciliation Bill, 1 out of every 3 children would be left out of the full credit nationwide,” Curran adds.

While many countries provide child benefits to all families, Curran emphasizes that “we exclude the families with lower and moderate incomes. And those are children who arguably could really benefit from this type of investment the most.”

In 2021, Congress briefly expanded the CTC to cover the lowest-income families, cutting child poverty nearly in half during its six-month duration. Curran argues such investments pay for themselves. “Every dollar that you spend on the child tax credit in an expanded form that reaches all kids would return at least $10 a year,” she says. The return comes in the form of better health, improved academic outcomes, higher lifetime earnings, and increased tax contributions.

Tensions boiled over in Los Angeles on Sunday as thousands of protesters flooded the streets in defiance of President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard. Demonstrators blocked a major freeway and torched self-driving cars while law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash bangs in an effort to disperse the crowds.

The protests, ignited by Trump’s immigration policies and intensified by the Guard’s presence, reached a new level of volatility. As dusk fell, police declared an unlawful assembly, ordering people to leave or face arrest. Although many complied and left the area, some stayed behind and clashed with police. Makeshift barricades were erected across streets, and objects like concrete chunks, rocks, electric scooters, and fireworks were hurled at California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers. Some officers had to retreat under a freeway overpass for safety.

Centered in several downtown blocks, the demonstrations marked the third and most heated day of protests in the city of nearly 4 million residents. The presence of roughly 300 National Guard troops seemed to deepen public outrage and fuel fear among citizens. The troops were tasked specifically with guarding federal properties, including a downtown detention facility that became a focal point for demonstrators.

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell acknowledged the strain on his department, stating, “Officers were overwhelmed by the remaining protesters,” and adding that some of the demonstrators were known agitators who regularly attend protests to stir unrest.

Law enforcement arrested dozens of people over the weekend. Among them, one person was detained on Sunday for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at officers, while another individual was taken into custody for ramming a motorcycle into a line of police.

Trump reacted on his social media platform, Truth Social, by urging McDonnell to take a harder line: “Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!” He also encouraged the arrest of masked protesters.

Meanwhile, similar unrest unfolded in San Francisco. Police there reported dozens of arrests after a group refused to disperse following a protest near Sansome and Washington streets. The San Francisco Police Department explained via a social media statement that the gathering turned violent, prompting officers to declare it an unlawful assembly. While many participants left, others regrouped near Market and Kearny streets, where they vandalized buildings and damaged a police vehicle.

The disturbances continued to Montgomery Street, where authorities arrested 60 individuals after they failed tocomply with dispersal orders. The department reported three officers injured, with one requiring hospitalization. In their statement, police emphasized, “Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco but violence — especially against SFPD officers — will never be tolerated.”

Back in Los Angeles, the National Guard’s arrival on Sunday morning escalated the situation further. Clad in riot gear and armed with long guns, troops formed lines while protesters chanted “shame” and “go home.” As tensions rose, law enforcement began dispersing smoke canisters into the crowds. Soon after, the Los Angeles Police Department fired crowd-control rounds, asserting that the demonstrators were violating assembly laws.

The group then took their protest onto the 101 Freeway, blocking traffic for hours until CHP officers eventually cleared the roadway by late afternoon. Not far from this scene, four self-driving Waymo cars were torched, creating massive black smoke plumes and intermittent explosions as the electric vehicles burned. Police later declared an unlawful assembly and shut down multiple downtown blocks.

The evening air was frequently punctuated by the sound of flash bangs as officers attempted to clear remaining pockets of resistance.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, formally requested the removal of the National Guard in a letter to Trump on Sunday afternoon. He described the deployment as a “serious breach of state sovereignty” and was in Los Angeles meeting with local officials and law enforcement at the time. Notably, the move marked one of the rare instances in recent decades where a state’s National Guard had been activated without the consent of its governor — a stark escalation in federal response to opposition against mass deportation efforts.

Both Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed Trump’s decision to deploy troops for the intensifying protests. They accused the administration of deliberately heightening tensions rather than prioritizing public safety. “What we’re seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration,” said Bass during a press conference Sunday afternoon. “This is about another agenda, this isn’t about public safety.”

Chief McDonnell, however, said the unrest was part of a typical protest escalation cycle, with tensions peaking on the second or third day. He dismissed claims from Trump administration officials that LAPD had failed to support federal authorities during Friday’s demonstrations, which erupted in response to a series of immigration raids. McDonnell emphasized that his department had not been informed about the federal actions in advance and, as a result, had not been able to prepare officers accordingly.

While federal and city authorities exchanged blame, Newsom reiterated that California’s law enforcement agencies were fully capable of managing the situation without federal intervention. He even took a swipe at Trump for celebrating prematurely. The president had posted a congratulatory message following the Guard’s arrival, which Newsom ridiculed given the unfolding chaos.

The tensions across California underscore the fragile state of relations between the federal government and local leadership, especially when it comes to immigration enforcement and protest control. While the White House insists the Guard deployment is necessary to maintain order and protect federal property, state officials argue that it only serves to escalate unrest and provoke further violence.

In both Los Angeles and San Francisco, the weekend’s events were marked by chaos, confrontations, and a deepening divide over how protests and public dissent are handled. As the dust settles, city officials continue to urge peaceful demonstrations, even as fears mount over future escalations.

The unrest shows no signs of abating as calls grow louder for federal forces to withdraw, and local leaders brace for what could be another week of conflict and confrontation.

Not long ago, U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk seemed to share a strong public camaraderie. They were often seen together at events, collaborated on interviews, and spoke highly of each other. However, that apparent bond fractured suddenly, spiraling into a very public and bitter feud that now threatens political alliances and business interests.

The rift erupted when Trump publicly attacked Musk for his criticisms of the Republican tax-cut and spending bill. The situation escalated rapidly, unfolding through dueling posts on Trump’s Truth Social platform and Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), capturing national attention and drawing reactions from business leaders and politicians alike.

The conflict soon turned aggressive. Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw billions in government contracts awarded to Musk’s businesses. In retaliation, Musk implied that Trump owed his past electoral success to his support, stating that Trump “could not have won the election without him.”

As the feud became a national spectacle, several high-profile individuals attempted to intervene or weigh in. Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, publicly urged the two men to reconcile for the country’s sake. Posting on X, Ackman said, “We are much stronger together than apart.” Musk responded briefly: “You’re not wrong.”

U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan, speaking on Fox News’ Laura Ingraham show, also expressed hope for a reconciliation between Trump and Musk, while defending the contested budget bill that had triggered Musk’s initial criticism. But not all of Trump’s allies shared Jordan’s conciliatory tone.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who has had his own recent clashes with Musk, took a far more aggressive stance. On his “War Room Live” show, Bannon called for Trump to invoke the Defense Production Act — a national security law — to seize control of SpaceX. “The U.S. government should seize it,” Bannon declared, also urging the administration to revoke Musk’s security clearance and freeze all federal contracts with his companies pending an investigation.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a Republican known for his independent streak and previous opposition to Trump’s budget plans, pointed out the inherent clash in personalities. On X, he remarked, “The falling out was inevitable. You don’t land rockets backwards or get cars to drive themselves by suffering fools gladly.”

As the feud dominated headlines, others began floating new political concepts. Billionaire investor Mark Cuban appeared to back a suggestion Musk had posted in a poll — the formation of a new political party that would represent the “80% in the middle” of the American political spectrum. Former presidential candidate Andrew Yang joined the discussion, reposting Cuban’s endorsement and later proposing an “Independent ‘28 presidential primary” that could include figures like Cuban, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and actor Matthew McConaughey.

The ripple effects of the Trump-Musk feud weren’t confined to the U.S. European officials also chimed in. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, who had previously sparred with Musk and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the role of Musk’s Starlink satellite service in Ukraine, took a swipe at the tech mogul. Referencing Musk’s earlier insult in which he told Sikorski to “Be quiet, small man,” the Polish minister retorted on X, “See, big man, politics is harder than you thought.”

Thierry Breton, the former European Union leader for digital policy and a previous critic of Musk, posted a cryptic combination of emojis — eyes and popcorn — suggesting he was watching the Musk-Trump drama unfold with interest.

Meanwhile, Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, gave a blunt assessment on X: “Trump is more powerful than elon, but far less competent.”

The feud also triggered massive turmoil in the financial world, particularly for Tesla, Musk’s flagship electric vehicle company. Spooked investors began selling off Tesla stock rapidly, sending its value plunging by more than 14% and wiping out a staggering $152 billion in market capitalization.

Dan Ives, managing director and senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities, noted in a research brief that the public conflict had rattled markets. “The conflict was jaw dropping and a shock to the market,” he wrote, adding that the feud “creates major fear for Tesla investors.”

Ives further explained the potential implications for Tesla: “Tesla’s stock is under major pressure down 15% as investors fear that this Musk/Trump battle will stop their friendship and change the regulatory environment for Tesla on the autonomous front over the coming years under the Trump Administration.” Still, he emphasized that Wedbush remained bullish on Tesla long-term, though he admitted the situation “clearly does put a fly in the ointment of the Trump regulatory framework going forward.”

Other Tesla supporters were less optimistic. Ross Gerber, CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management and a well-known Tesla investor, criticized Musk sharply. In a series of posts on X, he wrote that Musk was “now attacking all the people he helped put in power.” Gerber continued: “Elon going postal on Trump and tesla stock is getting walloped. Trump will be returning his new tesla and is saying he got musked. All this can’t be good for shareholders. But hey, who cares about us.”

Gary Black, managing director at the Future Fund added to the pessimism. Black, whose firm recently sold all of its Tesla shares, commented that the feud would create further downward pressure on the stock. “These same bulls argued for months that the Musk-Trump alliance would streamline the federal process allowing TSLA to secure general unsupervised autonomy license nationally. That prospect is now highly unlikely.”

The dramatic deterioration in relations between Musk and Trump — once seen as mutual power brokers with influence over tech and politics alike — now poses uncertain risks for both figures. For Musk, the potential loss of regulatory favor and political alliances could hamper Tesla’s ambitious plans in autonomy and federal contracts for SpaceX. For Trump, alienating a high-profile tech magnate risks splintering support among moderate conservatives and business leaders ahead of a pivotal election.

What began as a disagreement over fiscal policy has ballooned into a fierce standoff with implications far beyond partisan politics. With influential voices urging a truce and the markets reeling, it remains unclear whether the damage can be undone — or if this feud marks a new chapter of political and corporate rivalry.

The once strong alliance between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk came apart abruptly on Thursday amid a fierce disagreement over Trump’s proposed tax legislation currently awaiting Senate approval.

In a sharp rebuke, Trump referred to Musk as “crazy” and hinted at severing federal contracts with Musk’s various companies, which include Tesla, the aerospace giant SpaceX, and the AI venture xAI. Following Trump’s remarks, Tesla’s stock suffered a significant drop, and Musk reacted by announcing that SpaceX would start dismantling its Dragon spacecraft program without delay due to what he deemed as threatening behavior from the president.

According to Trump, Musk—who had previously been a top advisor—opposes the sweeping tax package primarily because it removes tax credits for electric vehicles and because Trump decided not to nominate Musk’s chosen candidate, Jared Isaacman, to lead NASA. “I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Just a week earlier, he had praised Musk’s involvement in the DOGE project, aimed at slashing government spending and cutting down on the federal workforce.

Reflecting on their past, Trump added, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

Musk quickly responded through a terse post on his platform, X, simply stating, “Whatever.” He has publicly opposed the bill on the grounds that it would drive up federal deficits. In a more detailed critique, Musk posted, “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful.”

Further escalating tensions, Musk tweeted, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” asserting that his contributions were pivotal to Trump’s political fortunes. He went on to say, “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” referring to the 2024 elections. Musk had poured over $250 million into Trump’s re-election campaign, making him the largest donor to that effort. “Such ingratitude,” Musk concluded in a follow-up post.

The billionaire CEO also launched a poll on X, asking, “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”—a clear sign of his disillusionment with current political alignments.

The spat had immediate financial implications as Tesla’s share value dropped more than 8% amid the very public fallout between Musk and Trump. The conflict comes after several days of Musk lambasting the bill, which Trump has described as his “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” on the grounds that it would inflate federal deficits. Musk had previously labeled the legislation a “disgusting abomination.”

Just days before the verbal feud, Trump had hosted Musk at an Oval Office event and commended him for his role in federal fiscal initiatives. However, things took a turn when the president rescinded his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire favored by Musk, to head NASA. “You know, I’ve always liked Elon,” Trump said on Thursday. “I’d rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible.”

Trump emphasized that Musk’s objections seemed tied to financial incentives for electric vehicles being cut from the bill. “Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate, and you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles,” he explained. “And you know, they’re having a hard time, the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy.”

According to Trump, Musk was not only aware of the proposed elimination of EV tax credits, but had accepted it earlier in the process. “Elon knew this from the beginning,” Trump stated. “He knew it … a long time ago.”

Trump also criticized Musk for what he sees as a sudden and opportunistic shift in position. “I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it,” Trump said.

“But all of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair,” Trump added.

Regarding the withdrawn NASA nomination, Trump explained, “I’m sure [Musk] respected him, but to run NASA … I didn’t think it was appropriate.” He also pointed out Isaacman’s political leanings as a factor. “You happen to be a Democrat, like totally Democrat,” Trump remarked. “And I say, you know, look, we won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges we don’t have to appoint a Democrat. NASA is very important.”

Trump hinted that Musk’s change in tone followed a common pattern he had observed with other former allies. “People leave my administration, and they love us. And then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don’t know what it is,” Trump noted.

“It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it,” he added. “But we have it with others too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamor is gone.”

In sum, the dramatic unraveling of the Trump-Musk relationship underscores the growing divide between pro-business conservatives and the evolving priorities of Trump’s economic agenda. What began as a fruitful partnership rooted in mutual ambitions for innovation and deregulation has now devolved into a public clash over subsidies, spending, and political loyalty—with potentially lasting consequences for both men.

The U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.2% in the first quarter of 2025, marking its first decline in three years. According to a revised estimate released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, the economic downturn was largely driven by President Donald Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of tariffs, which disrupted normal business activity. The updated figure was a slight improvement from the government’s original estimate, though it still reflects an overall slowdown in economic momentum.

A key factor behind the drop was a significant increase in imports during the first three months of the year. Companies rushed to bring in foreign goods ahead of the president’s widely publicized tariff hikes. This surge in imports, while representing increased spending on foreign products, had a negative effect on GDP calculations because imported goods are not counted as part of domestic production.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of the nation’s economic activity, had expanded by 2.4% in the final quarter of 2024. However, the sudden spike in imports in early 2025 reversed that growth. Imports jumped at a remarkable annual rate of 42.6%, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2020, and this alone subtracted more than five percentage points from GDP. In addition to the impact of trade, consumer spending also experienced a marked slowdown.

Federal government expenditures contributed further to the decline. Spending fell at an annual rate of 4.6% from January through March, representing the largest contraction in federal outlays in three years.

The way imports affect GDP is primarily a technical matter. Imports are subtracted from the GDP calculation to ensure that only domestically produced goods and services are counted. As an example, when an American consumer buys Costa Rican coffee, it shows up as consumer spending. But because the product was not made in the United States, it is later subtracted to avoid distorting the true level of domestic production.

Economists believe the unusual import surge observed in the first quarter is unlikely to recur in the second quarter, which spans April through June. As a result, imports are not expected to exert the same downward pressure on GDP in the next government report.

Despite the overall contraction, there were some areas of strength within the economy. Business investment grew at a robust annual rate of 24.4% in the first quarter. One reason for this was that companies increased their inventories in anticipation of the tariffs, boosting overall economic activity. This buildup of inventories added more than 2.6 percentage points to GDP growth during the quarter.

A specific measure within the GDP data that reflects the core strength of the economy rose by 2.5% annually in the first quarter. This figure, while lower than the 2.9% rate recorded in the previous quarter, still suggests the economy maintains a solid foundation. This core measurement includes consumer spending and private investment but excludes more volatile components like exports, government spending, and changes in inventories.

Still, the outlook for the economy remains clouded by policy uncertainty stemming from President Trump’s aggressive trade stance. His administration has implemented 10% tariffs on nearly every trading partner worldwide, in addition to targeted levies on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. These actions have led to significant unease among businesses and consumers, and their long-term effects remain uncertain.

This week, a federal court added to the uncertainty by blocking some of the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. The court ruled that the president had exceeded his legal authority by imposing 10% tariffs and other specific duties on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China. The ruling could lead to further legal and political challenges to the administration’s trade policy and may complicate efforts to renegotiate trade agreements.

The Commerce Department’s report issued Thursday is the second in a series of three estimates for the first quarter’s GDP. A final, more comprehensive revision is scheduled to be released on June 26. This upcoming report will incorporate additional economic data and provide a more complete picture of the country’s economic performance during the early months of 2025.

Overall, while the first quarter’s economic decline reflects real challenges tied to trade policy and consumer caution, some underlying metrics continue to show resilience. But as the legal and economic implications of the president’s tariffs play out, businesses and policymakers alike will be watching closely for signs of either recovery or further disruption.

The report paints a complex picture: on one hand, it reflects the drag caused by an extraordinary surge in imports and reduced government spending, and on the other, it reveals solid business investment and a still-growing core economy. Whether those strengths will be enough to offset continued trade tensions in future quarters remains to be seen.

Economists and analysts have emphasized that while GDP is a critical gauge of economic health, short-term changes can be volatile, especially when influenced by policy-driven shifts such as tariffs. Still, the drop in GDP, even if slight, has raised concerns.

President Trump has framed his tariff strategy as a means to bolster American industry and reduce the country’s trade deficit. However, the short-term outcome, at least as captured in this latest GDP report, has been mixed. The administration’s efforts have triggered import spikes, supply chain disruptions, and a response from trading partners, all of which have fed into the current economic narrative.

What happens next will depend in part on how businesses adapt to the new trade environment and whether consumer spending rebounds in the coming months. The final GDP report in June will be a critical indicator, not just for economists but for the broader public and political leadership heading into the second half of the year.

As the nation waits for further economic updates, the first quarter’s data is a reminder of how interconnected global trade, domestic policy, and consumer behavior truly are—and how quickly shifts in one area can ripple across the entire economy.

The White House is preparing to send a series of proposed rescissions to Capitol Hill, using a process that enables the cancellation of previously approved spending. This move is aimed at reinforcing some of the spending cuts outlined in the Deficit-Offset Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. According to a spokesperson from the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed package includes a $1.1 billion reduction from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the agency responsible for funding NPR and PBS. In addition, it outlines an $8.3 billion cut in foreign aid expenditures.

Elon Musk, the high-profile entrepreneur and political donor, has recently reflected on his time engaging with the government, revealing a more subdued and realistic tone. Describing his frustrations with bureaucracy, Musk remarked, “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized. I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Musk also disclosed that he plans to reduce his political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he stated, suggesting a pullback from his earlier, more active political engagement.

Previously, Musk had been highly motivated by the prospect of reshaping the political landscape in Washington. He had contributed over $250 million to support President Donald Trump’s campaign. Musk also participated in campaign rallies and wore campaign-themed hats at White House events. He frequently warned about excessive government spending, which he described as a fundamental crisis. Throughout this period, Musk consistently expressed strong support for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump responded with praise of his own, calling Musk “a truly great American.” When Tesla experienced a downturn in sales, Trump demonstrated his loyalty by transforming the White House driveway into a temporary display area for Tesla vehicles, signaling his support.

Despite Musk’s waning involvement with the administration, it’s uncertain whether his recent critiques will significantly influence the ongoing legislative discussions. During the post-election transition period, when Musk’s influence was peaking, he played a role in stirring opposition to a proposed spending package. This occurred at a time when the nation was teetering on the edge of a government shutdown.

His latest remarks may serve to galvanize Republicans who are calling for even steeper spending reductions. One notable reaction came from Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who shared a Fox News article about Musk’s comments. He added his own opinion on the bill’s prospects, stating that there was “still time to fix it.”

Lee further emphasized the need for a tougher stance in the Senate version of the bill. “The Senate version will be more aggressive,” he asserted. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

When the House of Representatives recently voted on the measure, only two Republican lawmakers—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against it. Their dissent was noteworthy, especially in light of Musk’s public statements.

Davidson acknowledged Musk’s comments on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office has issued a preliminary analysis of the bill’s fiscal implications. According to their estimates, the bill’s tax provisions would raise federal deficits by approximately $3.8 trillion over the next ten years. In contrast, the spending reductions affecting Medicaid, food assistance programs, and other services are projected to save just over $1 trillion during the same timeframe.

Despite this imbalance, House Republican leaders argue that the bill could still be fiscally sound if it stimulates enough economic growth. They claim that improved economic performance might render the legislation either neutral or even beneficial in terms of deficit reduction. However, this optimistic assessment is not universally shared.

Independent analysts remain skeptical of those projections. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the legislation would actually increase the national debt by $3 trillion over the next decade, including interest costs.

This debate comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the federal government’s fiscal discipline. The combination of growing deficits and competing priorities has forced lawmakers into difficult conversations about what to fund and what to cut. The White House’s rescission package is an effort to show seriousness about reducing spending, even if the broader legislative path remains uncertain.

Elon Musk is stepping down from his government position as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, where he had led efforts to trim and restructure the federal bureaucracy. His resignation, announced on Wednesday evening, brings to a close a contentious chapter marked by significant layoffs, agency reductions, and legal battles. Despite bold ambitions, Musk struggled to adjust to the political climate in Washington and ultimately achieved far less than he had initially hoped.

Initially, Musk had aimed to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but he gradually scaled back his goal—first to $1 trillion, and then to $150 billion—as he faced mounting opposition. The billionaire entrepreneur grew increasingly disillusioned with the resistance he encountered, often finding himself at odds with senior figures in Trump’s administration. These internal conflicts emerged as Musk tried to restructure various departments, drawing significant political criticism in the process.

Although Musk’s advisory role was always intended to be short-term, he had lately been indicating a shift in focus back to his businesses, including electric car manufacturer Tesla and aerospace firm SpaceX. Yet officials within the administration remained vague about the precise timing of his departure. The public only learned of it when Musk made an abrupt announcement on X, his social media platform.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk posted. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

An unnamed White House official later confirmed Musk’s departure.

Musk’s resignation followed closely on the heels of a CBS interview snippet in which he criticized a central piece of Trump’s legislative agenda. In the interview, Musk said he was “disappointed” with what Trump had dubbed his “big beautiful bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation combining tax cuts with stricter immigration enforcement.

Calling the measure a “massive spending bill,” Musk argued that it undermined the objectives of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency he led. “I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk remarked. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”

Responding from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump defended his legislative initiative by pointing to the delicate negotiations involved. “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” the president said, suggesting the bill was still subject to change. “We’re going to see what happens. It’s got a way to go.”

The legislation had already passed the House and was being debated in the Senate. Musk’s critiques have found support among some Republicans. “I sympathize with Elon being discouraged,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin during an appearance at the Milwaukee Press Club. Johnson noted he was “pretty confident” that enough opposition existed to “slow this process down until the president, our leadership, gets serious” about reducing spending. He added that no amount of pressure from Trump would sway him from that stance.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged the Senate to avoid major amendments to the bill, emphasizing that House Republicans had achieved a “very delicate balance” that could be destabilized by significant changes. Since the House will need to vote again if the Senate alters the legislation, any shifts risk derailing the fragile consensus.

On the day Musk stepped down, Speaker Johnson thanked him for his service and affirmed that the House would continue pushing for further spending reductions. “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings,” Johnson stated.

To support DOGE’s fiscal objectives, the White House is preparing a set of proposed rescissions—moves to cancel previously authorized expenditures—that will be sent to Congress. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the rescission package will target $1.1 billion from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign aid.

Musk has admitted that his foray into government work was more challenging than he had imagined. “The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told The Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

Recently, Musk also indicated he would be cutting back on political contributions. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said.

Initially, Musk had been invigorated by the chance to overhaul Washington. After contributing at least $250 million to Trump’s campaign, he wore campaign hats in the White House, held rallies, and framed excessive government spending as a crisis. He frequently expressed admiration for Trump. “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk declared in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump reciprocated Musk’s praise, calling him “a truly great American.” At one point, when Tesla’s sales were dipping, Musk even displayed his cars in the White House driveway to emphasize the administration’s support.

With Musk now exiting the administration, it remains uncertain what influence his recent criticisms will have on ongoing legislative debates. During his more influential period, Musk helped rally opposition to a spending bill when the government faced a potential shutdown. His latest remarks could inspire Republicans pushing for more aggressive cuts.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah reposted a Fox News article featuring Musk’s CBS interview and added his own commentary, stating there was “still time to fix it.” He said, “The Senate version will be more aggressive. It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two Republican representatives—Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted against the bill during the House vote last week. Davidson acknowledged Musk’s critique on social media. “Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” Davidson wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

Preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill’s tax elements would raise federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over ten years, while spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps would save just over $1 trillion during the same period.

House Republican leaders insist that the resulting economic growth would counteract the bill’s deficit impact. However, independent analysts are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the bill would add $3 trillion—including interest—to the national debt over the next decade.

From the start of his second term, Donald Trump has pursued a presidency defined not only by sharp rhetoric and personal grievances but by an expansive attempt to consolidate power in the White House. What often appears to be a chaotic stream of attacks against universities, celebrities, corporations, and courts may in fact reflect a unified strategy: to weaken, if not fully dismantle, the system of checks and balances that has defined American governance since the Constitution’s founding.

In recent months, Trump has attacked a range of institutions and individuals—from attempting to block Harvard from enrolling international students to targeting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift online, and pressuring companies like Walmart and Apple over their trade policy positions. On the surface, this might seem like political improvisation. But many legal scholars and political scientists argue that Trump’s actions aim to erode the very foundations of constitutional governance.

According to these experts, Trump’s second term differs from previous presidencies not just in degree but in kind. While past presidents have tested the boundaries of executive authority, Trump’s efforts appear to combine multiple unprecedented moves—sidelining Congress, challenging judicial rulings, asserting sweeping executive control, and using federal power to penalize perceived enemies in civil society.

Paul Pierson, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the “sheer level of aggression and the speed at which [the administration has] moved” is without precedent. “They are engaging in a whole range of behaviors that I think are clearly breaking through conventional understandings of what the law says, and of what the Constitution says,” Pierson remarked.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute also acknowledges that Trump is advancing the most sweeping vision of presidential authority since Woodrow Wilson. However, Levin predicts that this effort could provoke a counter-reaction, particularly from the Supreme Court, which may seek to reassert limits on presidential power. “The reaction that Trump’s excessive assertiveness will draw from the Court will backfire against the executive branch in the long run,” Levin wrote.

Others aren’t so sure. With the Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, many analysts question whether it will truly rein in Trump’s efforts to expand his authority—raising concerns that America’s constitutional balance might be in serious jeopardy.

A Multi-Front Assault on Constitutional Boundaries

Unlike past presidents who typically challenged one branch of government at a time, Trump’s second term has been marked by a comprehensive campaign to sideline all constitutional constraints simultaneously.

He has marginalized Congress by undermining agencies established by statute, asserting the right to withhold funds Congress has authorized, and bypassing the legislative process to enact major policies—such as on tariffs and immigration—via emergency declarations. He’s refused to enforce laws he dislikes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American firms from bribing foreign officials.

Within the executive branch, Trump has centralized control through purges of civil servants, inspectors general, and independent regulators—blurring the boundaries between independent oversight and presidential authority. These actions have simultaneously weakened the authority Congress originally built into those agencies to shield them from political interference.

Trump has also challenged judicial authority. He’s resisted federal court orders, such as restoring federal funds and complying with rulings on immigration enforcement. One case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported immigrant the administration admitted was wrongly removed, yet Trump’s government showed little effort to obey the court’s directive to facilitate his return.

Federalism, too, has been under pressure. Trump’s administration has sought to override blue states by enforcing conservative cultural policies nationwide. He’s pursued controversial arrests of local officials, including a judge in Wisconsin and a mayor in New Jersey. Though charges against the Newark mayor were dropped, a new case was filed against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver—another sign of Trump’s willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

Even more extraordinary is Trump’s assault on civil society. His administration has targeted law firms with Democratic ties, withheld research funds from universities over ideological disagreements, and tried to revoke their tax-exempt status. Trump has even ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and critics from his first term. Courts have already rejected some of these actions as unconstitutional.

Eric Schickler, co-author of Partisan Nation, says Trump’s strategy to deter other actors from performing their core roles is unprecedented in its scope. “This ability to just deter other actors from exercising their core rights and responsibilities at this kind of scope is something we haven’t had before,” Schickler said.

Yet for many of Trump’s supporters, this aggressive centralization of authority is precisely the point. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key architect of Trump’s governance philosophy, argues that the expansion of presidential power is necessary to undo decades of liberal influence. He contends that bureaucrats and federal agencies have usurped too much authority from elected officials, and the presidency must be “unshackled” to correct that.

Trump put it more bluntly in his first term when he said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Warnings Echo from the Founding Era

In a nod to American revolutionary tradition, Trump earlier this year signed a proclamation honoring Patrick Henry’s famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. However, he omitted a lesser-known but prescient warning from Henry, issued 13 years later when debating the Constitution’s ratification.

Henry feared that the presidency could become a tool for authoritarianism. “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!” Henry warned. His concerns about the potential for executive abuse were echoed by other Founders, even those who supported the Constitution.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, argued that the Constitution’s design would prevent tyranny by dividing power across institutions and levels of government. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote. Madison believed this system, bolstered by federalism, would safeguard individual liberty through what he called a “double security.”

Despite the Constitution’s flaws—most egregiously its original accommodation of slavery—the separation of powers functioned relatively well for over two centuries, Pierson and Schickler argue. The diffusion of authority helped prevent any single individual or group from consolidating power.

But the system has weakened in recent decades, as growing polarization and nationalized political identities have eroded the commitment of officeholders to their institutional roles. Instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress, courts, or states, many officials now align themselves primarily with their political party. This shift has reduced the likelihood that members of a president’s party will challenge overreach, enabling figures like Trump to push boundaries further than ever before.

A Fragile System Faces an Uncertain Future

Will Trump’s second term mark a turning point in American constitutional history—one in which presidential power overwhelms the traditional system of checks and balances?

That question is no longer academic. Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People, notes that past challenges to civil liberties—from John Adams to Richard Nixon—have often triggered successful public resistance. But even he expresses doubt that such outcomes are guaranteed in today’s polarized climate. “We have these past victories to draw on,” Brettschneider said. “But we shouldn’t be naïve: The system is fragile. We just don’t know if American democracy will survive.”

Yuval Levin remains somewhat more optimistic. He sees the Supreme Court as the last likely counterweight to Trump’s ambitions. While he acknowledges that Congress is unlikely to resist, he believes the Court will ultimately differentiate between a president’s authority over the executive branch and overreach into other branches and civil society.

“So this court will simultaneously strengthen the president’s command of the executive branch,” Levin predicts, “and restrain the president’s attempts to violate the separation of powers.”

Still, even that vision suggests a presidency transformed—and a constitutional system facing a stress test unlike any in modern times.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to one of its lowest points in his second term, according to a new Reuters and Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. This marks a significant shift in public sentiment, as Trump has frequently pointed to strong poll numbers during his presidency to bolster his political standing.

Since his inauguration in January, the polling group has consistently tracked Trump’s approval ratings. These numbers serve as a barometer of public perception and are often cited by the president at campaign rallies and press events. Trump has routinely highlighted favorable polling data throughout his political career to showcase his popularity and leadership.

The importance of these numbers goes beyond mere perception. Falling approval ratings can impact a president’s influence, especially in a deeply divided political climate. Trump, who returned to the White House in January with relatively strong approval, has seen those numbers erode amid controversial policy decisions. One significant factor was his announcement of sweeping tariffs, which drew criticism and may have contributed to the decline in support. Though Trump later announced a 90-day delay on the majority of the tariffs, the initial backlash appears to have left a mark on public opinion.

A continued dip in approval could potentially weaken Trump’s political leverage and reduce the Republican Party’s prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. In a political landscape already marked by division and intense scrutiny, approval ratings remain a crucial indicator of electoral momentum.

The Reuters and Ipsos poll, conducted between May 16 and May 18 among 1,024 U.S. adults, found that Trump’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent. This is the same level he reached in earlier polls from April 21 and April 27. Just one week ago, the same polling group had him at 44 percent. The margin of error for this latest survey is plus or minus 3 percent.

When it comes to specific issues, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The president’s approval rating on the economy sits at 39 percent, while 53 percent of respondents expressed disapproval. On employment and jobs, Trump received a 41 percent approval rating compared to a 49 percent disapproval rate. These figures suggest that concerns about the economy and job market may be driving some of the negative sentiment among voters.

However, not all polls show the same trend. A separate survey conducted by InsiderAdvantage between May 17 and May 19 among 1,000 likely voters painted a more optimistic picture for Trump. That poll found that 55 percent approved of the job he is doing, while 44 percent disapproved. With a similar margin of error of 3 percent, the InsiderAdvantage poll indicates a net approval rating of 11 points. This marks a significant improvement from early May, when the same polling organization found Trump’s net approval rating at just 2 points, with 46 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval.

The uptick in the InsiderAdvantage numbers may be tied to Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, which appeared to boost his standing among voters. Such trips often allow presidents to demonstrate leadership on the global stage, which can translate into short-term approval boosts.

Political analyst Craig Agranoff commented on the fluctuating numbers in a text message to Newsweek on Tuesday. He said, “His approval rating dipping to 42% in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a troubling trend for his administration, particularly as it aligns with growing public unease over economic policies like tariffs and concerns about governance amid understaffed agencies.”

Agranoff continued, “Given the consistent downward trajectory we’ve seen in recent polls, with disapproval climbing to around 51%, this negative trend could persist unless there’s a significant policy win or shift in public perception. A president typically becomes concerned with low approval ratings when they fall below 40% for a sustained period, as this erodes political capital, weakens legislative leverage, and risks alienating key voter groups; especially independents and moderates, who have shown notable disapproval in recent data.”

He concluded by saying, “For Trump, the challenge will be addressing these economic and credibility concerns swiftly to reverse the slide.”

On social media, the response to the poll numbers has also been swift and pointed. The account Republicans Against Trump posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, “NEW: Donald Trump’s approval rating drops to 42%, per Reuters/Ipsos poll, down two points since early May. Still way too high.”

Despite the varying results between different polls, the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings remains a focal point for both political allies and critics. These numbers are reported regularly across a range of media outlets and pollsters, giving the public and political analysts alike a window into the president’s current standing.

Ultimately, polling data serves as both a reflection of and influence on the political landscape. While approval ratings can shift quickly in response to national or global events, sustained downward trends are often more telling. For President Trump, managing these numbers may prove essential not only to his current influence but also to his party’s fortunes in the next major election cycle. Whether the decline in the Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a lasting issue or a temporary dip remains to be seen. But the stakes, both political and legislative, are high.

As new polling continues to emerge, Trump’s team will likely watch the results closely and consider strategic adjustments. Whether through policy changes, messaging shifts, or public appearances aimed at boosting confidence, the pressure is on to regain ground before the midterm campaigns ramp up. Until then, the conversation surrounding Trump’s approval rating is unlikely to fade from the national spotlight.