Politics

(WASHINGTON) —  Elon Musk took another shot at Peter Navarro on Tuesday over tariffs, calling President Donald Trump’s top adviser on trade and manufacturing a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.”

Musk, a senior Trump adviser who had promoted Trump’s agenda, has been critical of Navarro, one of the architects of Trump’s tariff policy who has made the rounds in media defending the sweeping tariffs the president imposed last week that sent world markets plunging.

Musk’s insults Tuesday came after Navarro called the Tesla CEO a “car assembler” rather than a “manufacturer,” claiming that key components of his Teslas come from overseas.

That prompted Musk to respond.

“Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false,” he posted on X.

He claimed in a second post, “Tesla has the most American-made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks,” and tagged Navarro’s handle in the post.

Asked about the feud at Tuesday’s White House press briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed it as “boys will be boys.”

“No, look, these are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs. Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue,” Leavitt said. “And you guys should all be very grateful that we have the most transparent administration in history.”

Musk threw shade at Navarro early Saturday morning over his Harvard education.

After a social media user posted a clip defending Navarro’s explanation of the White House’s tariffs, pointing out his PhD in economics from Harvard, Musk responded, “A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing. Results in the ego/brains>>1 problem.”

In an interview on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” Navarro responded to Musk’s posts, saying, “Elon, when he’s in his DOGE lane, is great, but we understand what’s going on here. Elon sells cars. He’s simply protecting his own interests.”

“There’s no rift here,” he added. “Look, Elon, he’s got X, he’s got a big microphone. We don’t mind him saying whatever he wants. But, just, the American people need to understand that we understand what that’s all about, and it’s fine.”

Musk said he offered Trump advice on tariffs when he spoke via live stream in Washington to the Italy’s League Congress Conference in Florence on Saturday.

Musk expressed his hope for the U.S. and Europe to create “a very close, stronger partnership” and reach a “zero-tariff” policy soon.

“I hope it is agreed that both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America,” Musk said.

“And also more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America if they wish, if they wish to work in Europe or wish to work in America, they should be allowed to do so, in my view. So that has certainly been my advice to the president,” he continued.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The State Department has moved to squeeze lifesaving foreign aid dramatically for countries around the world, according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The latest cuts include the termination of all remaining U.S. Agency for International Development contracts supporting the delivery of food, water and medicine to populations in Afghanistan and Yemen, the cancellation of the largest World Food Programme (WFP) contract for Somalia, and the termination of several awards that funded the delivery of critical assistance in Syria and Lebanon, three officials told ABC News.

Jordan, Haiti, Gaza, Niger, Palau and Papua New Guinea, as well as several other countries and major aid groups, also saw significant lifesaving aid contracts terminated in recent days, they added.

The latest round of cuts to aid totals over $1.3 billion, according to OneAID, a grassroots advocacy group made up of former and current USAID experts and partners.

It also marks an apparent reversal for the State Department, which previously granted exemptions for the funding to continue after the Trump administration’s sweeping reduction in U.S. foreign aid prompted widespread backlash.

The WFP confirmed on Monday that the U.S. government had informed the organization that funding for emergency food assistance in 14 countries had been terminated.

“If implemented, this could amount to a death sentence for millions of people facing extreme hunger and starvation,” the WFP said in a statement. “We are in contact with the US administration to seek clarification and to urge for continued support for these life-saving programmes.”

ABC News reached out to the State Department for comment on the cuts but did not receive a response.

It’s unclear what motivated the latest round of funding cancellations, but one official said they were ordered by Jeremy Lewin, the USAID deputy administrator for policy who previously worked with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to dismantle the agency.

The official also said many of the programs hit by the latest cuts were recently granted hiring privileges or had spending modifications to their contracts approved by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

These special permissions were viewed as an indication that State Department leadership viewed the work as essential for fulfilling its mission of delivering “core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance” amid the Trump administration’s review of all foreign aid spending.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump ordered all a freeze on all foreign assistance for 90 days, leading to a flurry of stop-work orders and hiring freezes affecting a broad range of humanitarian aid work.

Since then, the Trump administration has moved to cancel some $60 billion worth of foreign aid grants and contracts, but senior officials like Rubio have promised that the most essential assistance would continue.

“This is not about getting rid of aid. This is about restructuring how we’re going to do aid,” Rubio said last month.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The IRS and Department of Homeland Security have reached a data-sharing agreement to support the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda, according to a court filing late Monday night.

Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would submit names and addresses of immigrants living in the United States without legal status who have final removal orders, which would be used to check against IRS taxpayer records.

“As laid out in the MOU, DHS can legally request return information relating to individuals under criminal investigation, and the IRS must provide it,” the court filing said. The actual memorandum of understanding was filed in court and said the agencies are exercising this authority under the president’s executive order.

“Each request will attest that [redacted] information will only be used by officers and employees of ICE solely for the preparation for judicial or administrative proceedings or investigation that may lead to such proceedings,” the MOU said.

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed the MOU and said the basis is legal.

“The Internal Revenue Service and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement have entered into a memorandum of understanding to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement’s efforts to combat illegal immigration,” the Treasury spokesperson said.

“The bases for this MOU are founded in longstanding authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals,” the spokesperson added. “After four years of Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump’s highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people.”

The MOU, according to a Treasury Department official, creates guardrails for the agencies to follow in carrying it out.

Consistent with IRS privacy protection laws, specifically Internal Revenue Code Section 6103, the Treasury Department is committed to protecting the taxpayer data of lawfully abiding persons, the official said.

However, Section 6103 has a criminal exemption. This exemption obligates the IRS to assist law enforcement in the pursuit of criminals and will be used against any migrant who has overstayed for more than 90 days as part of the carveout.

Veterans of the IRS have raised concerns about the unprecedented use of tax data and the use of exceptions to the strict laws governing its use, some of which are meant to help law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Section 6103 requires that the IRS keep individual taxpayer information confidential with certain limited exceptions, including with law enforcement agencies “for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws” with approval from a court, according to the agency’s website.

Current and former agency officials also said they worry the new policy could affect tax collections and discourage immigrants without legal status who are working from paying taxes for a variety of reasons.

The IRS has allowed immigrants without legal status to file income tax returns with individual tax numbers. These migrants contributed $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes using borrowed or fraudulent Social Security numbers, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The court filings were filed in a case attempting to stop the MOU from being signed.

A senior DHS official said that under the Trump administration, “the government is finally doing what it should have all along: sharing information across the federal government to solve problems.”

“Biden not only allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood into our country — he lost them due to incompetence and improper processing,” a DHS official said. “Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist so we can neutralize them, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, as well as identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can move forward with the termination of 16,000 probationary federal workers across six agencies and departments, rescinding a lower court order that they be reinstated as litigation challenging the layoffs continues.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid mixed messaging from top White House officials, President Donald Trump was asked directly on Monday whether his sweeping tariffs are negotiable or here to stay.

“They can both be true,” Trump responded. “There can be permanent tariffs and there can also be negotiations because there are things that we need beyond tariffs.”

For days, from Trump on down, administration officials have offered conflicting statements on whether countries can do anything to save themselves from the tariffs, which include a universal 10% tariff implemented over the weekend and what they claimed were more targeted “reciprocal” tariffs to take effect on Wednesday.

On Monday alone, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shared he was tasked with negotiating with Japan while White House trade advisor Peter Navarro penned an editorial that the new policies are “not a negotiation.”

Bessent posted on social media that following a “very constructive phone discussion” with Japanese officials, Trump instructed him and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to “open negotiations to implement the President’s vision for the new Golden Age of Global Trade.”

Navarro wrote in the Financial Times that Trump wouldn’t be backing down from his “reciprocal” tariffs on nations the administration’s deemed the worst offenders in trade relations.

“This is about fairness, and no one can argue with that. This is not a negotiation,” Navarro wrote. “For the US, it is a national emergency triggered by trade deficits caused by a rigged system. President Trump is always willing to listen. But to those world leaders who, after decades of cheating, are suddenly offering to lower tariffs — know this: that’s just the beginning.”

When Trump announced the sweeping tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, he justified them as a response to a “national emergency” caused by trade deficits and unfair practices with global partners.

Since then, markets at home and abroad slumped. Foreign leaders recoiled, with some — like China — taking retaliatory action against the United States. Economists increased their odds of a recession this year.

Officials were pressed to justify the action on Sunday morning news shows, where again the confused messaging was apparent. Trump spent the weekend golfing as fallout from his tariff policy continued.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” said tariffs were going to “stay in place for days and weeks” and that “this is the policy.”

Meanwhile, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, on ABC News’ “This Week,” boasted that 50 countries had reached out to the White House to negotiate tariffs.

Trump on Monday said they’re open to “fair deals” with foreign leaders that put “America first” — but that tariffs would stay in place in the meantime.

“We’re going to get fair deals and good deals with every country. And if we don’t, we’re going to have nothing to do with them. They’re not going to be allowed to participate in the United States,” he said.

ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce asked Trump on Monday if he’d be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiation.

“Well, we’re not looking at that,” Trump responded. “We have many, many, countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us, and they’re going to be fair deals. And in certain cases, they’re going to be paying substantial tariffs.”

A rumor of a possible 90-day tariff pause that circulated on Monday caused stocks to briefly spike into green territory before going back into the red when the White House denied the report.

Trump said in the Oval Office that he doesn’t “mind going through it,” seemingly a nod to the criticism and volatility of the market because he believes it’s worth it at the end of the day.

“So, it’s got to be very interesting,” he said. “It’s the only chance our country will have to reset the table because no other president would be willing to do what I’m doing or to even go through it. Now, I don’t mind going through it because I see a beautiful picture at the end.”

ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention in the case of a Maryland man the government — by its own admission — removed to El Salvador by mistake and now must return by 11:59 p.m. on Monday under a lower court’s order.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the filing that a federal court cannot order a president to engage in foreign diplomacy, which he says is implicitly involved in any potential return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration alleges is a gang member.

“The Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists, including by effectuating their removal,” Sauer writes. “And this order sets the United States up for failure. The United States cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline that vastly complicates the give-and-take of foreign-relations negotiations.”

The appeal to the Supreme Court came Monday morning, just before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that Garcia must be returned by 11:59 p.m. on Monday

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block the order to return Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having protected legal status.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

Xinis had ruled on Friday that Garcia must be returned to the U.S.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block a federal judge’s order to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having protected legal status.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

Xinis had ruled on Saturday that the man must be returned to the U.S.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As fallout continues from President Donald Trump’s destabilizing tariff policy on virtually all U.S. trading partners, some Republican senators are warning about the risks for American families.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and ardent Trump supporter, made headlines when he spoke out — first on Fox News last week and in recent days on his podcast “Verdict.”

“Tariffs are a tax on consumers, and I’m not a fan of jacking up taxes on American consumers, so my hope is these tariffs are short-lived, and they serve as leverage to lower tariffs across the globe,” Cruz told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow.

Cruz reiterated that point on his podcast, saying it would be a win if the administration used the policy as leverage to quickly negotiate down tariffs imposed by other nations but if it stays in place long term it could increase inflation, hurt job growth and possibly put the U.S. into a recession — the latter of which would result in a “bloodbath” for the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm election.

“If we’re in a scenario 30 days from now, 60 days from now, 90 days from now with massive American tariffs and massive tariffs on American goods in every other country on Earth, it’s a terrible outcome,” he said on Friday.

Trump officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Agriculture Secretary Broke Rollins, were confronted with his comments during Sunday morning news shows. They largely sidestepped the comments as they projected optimism about the policy’s long term impact.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, voiced similar concerns as Cruz.

“Tariffs are taxes and Americans are paying the price,” Paul wrote on X last week.

Paul also spoke on the Senate floor criticizing Trump’s argument that the tariffs are necessary because of what he claimed was a “national emergency” regarding trade deficits. Paul said Congress needed to reassert its constitutional power to regulate tariffs and foreign trade.

“I am a Republican. I am a supporter of Donald Trump,” Paul said. “But this is a bipartisan problem. I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t want to live under emergency rule. I don’t want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power.”

“One person can make a mistake and guess what — tariffs are a terrible mistake,” Paul said.

“Tariffs are like whiskey: A little whiskey, under the right circumstances, can be refreshing — but too much whiskey, under the wrong circumstances, can make you drunk as a goat,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said last week.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, introduced a bill last week that would require Congress to approve any new tariffs. Grassley teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell on the legislation.

Cantwell said on CBS News “Face the Nation” on Sunday that seven Republicans were on board with the bill. Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told CBS he was “beginning support” for a similar measure in the House.

But the legislation faces an uphill battle, as it would need significant Republican support in both chambers to pass and Speaker Mike Johnson opposes the the idea.

And so far, there are limited signs of any widespread cracks in overall support for Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso, a member of Republican leadership, said on Sunday that he believed Trump’s actions on tariffs were constitutional.

“So, in terms of the tariffs, I believe they’re a tool, and I think we have to go after China,” Barrasso said on CBS. “They have been abusing us for years, and I believe the President is on firm constitutional grounds.”

House and Senate lawmakers are returning to Washington on Monday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A group of business groups and conservative lawyers are preparing a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, arguing he does not have the legal authority to impose them.

Sources familiar with the effort say they are preparing to file the challenge in the coming weeks, possibly as soon as this Friday.

One prominent legal figure close to Trump told ABC News there is “a very good chance” the U.S. Supreme Court would find Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.

The issue is this: Congress, not the president, has the power to impose taxes and regulate trade. In imposing these tariffs, President Trump cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the the president power to regulate international commerce in the event of a national emergency.

But the IEEPA — which specifically cites the power to impose sanctions and seize foreign assets — does not mention tariffs. And, even if one argues the right to impose tariffs is implied, it’s not clear what “national emergency” could justify the imposition of global tariffs.

“There is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are not legal or constitutional,” a prominent conservative lawyer close to President Trump told ABC News. “Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions a president can take in response to the declaration of a nation emergency.”

The lawyer adds: “And when you combine that with the fact that Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] clearly gives Congress the power to impose duties — tariffs — I think those two things in combination raise a very, very serious legal question.”

Another conservative lawyer familiar with the expected legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs predicted the Supreme Court would rule 9-0 against the administration if it reaches the high court.

A lawsuit has already been filed against the 20% sanctions Trump imposed on China earlier this year. The White House cited the IEEPA in imposing those tariffs as well, and the president said they were in response to China’s failure to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

The suit was filed in a federal court in Florida last week by The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal, on behalf of a Florida-based paper company called Simplified.

Trump’s tariffs are the first time a president has attempted to impose global tariffs by citing the IEEPA. The steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed on China during his first term where narrower and done under a different congressional authorization. But that act doesn’t specifically give the president the authority to impose tariffs — and it’s not clear what the emergency is that would justify his actions under the law.

Tariffs have never previously been imposed under the emergency power Trump is using here. The tariffs he imposed in his first term (and President Joe Biden’s tariffs, too) were imposed citing different congressional authorizations.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A contract to inspect low-income and other assisted housing for gas leaks, faulty smoke detectors and other life-threatening deficiencies was terminated by the Trump administration in February as part of its cost-cutting efforts, according to a Department of Government Efficiency database, potentially leaving thousands of vulnerable Americans in harm’s way.

Tom Feehan, a veteran home inspector who lost work as part of the termination, told ABC News that these legally required inspections frequently uncover painted-over ceiling sprinklers, defective gas ranges and any number of home-related liabilities that can pose a danger to occupants.

“By not doing [the inspections], we’re not catching those,” Feehan said. “So those are not being repaired, and it’s putting people at risk.”

Last year, the contractor, Project Solutions Inc., in its third year of working with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, was assigned to inspect roughly 6,200 public housing and multifamily properties across the country over the course of 12 months. In addition to flagging dangerous conditions, the inspections ensure that tenants have hot and cold water, safe electrical outlets, and working heating and cooling systems, experts said.

A HUD official told ABC News that the contract was for “software modification,” despite Project Solutions identifying the contract as being for inspection services. The HUD official declined to elaborate on the reason behind the contract’s termination.

The sudden termination threatens thousands of inspections, according to Robin Miller, a contract manager at Project Solutions, including those at roughly 250 “priority” properties, where inspections were already delayed or significant deficiencies were found during previous inspections.

Project Solution’s contract termination was among more than 7,000 federal contracts canceled by DOGE and posted to the agency’s “Wall of Receipts” web page in recent weeks. The DOGE site claimed that terminating the inspection contract would return $285 million to taxpayers.

But Miller, the Project Solutions official, said that figure was inflated because it was based on a high estimated ceiling value that wasn’t reflective of what the contract would actually cost. According to federal spending records, HUD had only awarded Project Solutions roughly $29 million so far.

Experts said it was unclear how housing officials planned to carry out the outstanding inspections.

HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett said in a statement that “HUD is reviewing all contracts for efficiency and effectiveness to accomplish good government goals,” and that “certain contracts were found not to accomplish HUD’s mission with economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.”

Industry experts said that the inspections, which are required by law, will likely fall to other contractors at a similar price. But arranging those inspections will take time, experts said, and delaying inspections compounds the risks for tenants.

“We’re helping low-income people and we’re helping senior citizens maintain a safe, livable environment,” Feehan said. “And with not getting these inspections done on time, it’s hurting them.”

Another HUD-certified inspector based in Illinois, who asked that their name not be used so they could speak freely about their field of work, told ABC News that one of the properties that was scheduled to be inspected until the Project Solutions contract was canceled was a 24-unit multifamily property that had received far below the “failing” score, meaning significant deficiencies were found during its previous inspection and the property needed more frequent inspections. The property was already past due its Dec. 13, 2024, inspection date, and its inspection has yet to be rescheduled, the inspector said.

Project Solutions was one of at least three contractors that were hired to inspect HUD-insured and assisted properties under the agency’s Real Estate Assessment Center program, which is aimed at “improving housing quality by performing accurate, credible, and reliable assessments” of its properties.

“I 100% agree that all governments, all organizations, businesses, even personal family units, should routinely review budget and spending habits and cut things out that are not necessary,” the Illinois inspector said. “Get rid of the fraud, waste abuse — but you have to be responsible about it.”

“If it wasn’t for DOGE, we’d still be doing the contract. That’s my opinion,” Feehan said. “DOGE is trying to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse. I didn’t see where there was waste fraud and abuse with PSI.”

Alia Trindle, co-director of political strategy at housing advocacy group Right to the City Alliance, stressed that many HUD-funded buildings have been in dire shape for decades due to past funding cuts. She said for some properties, tenants and advocates have had to organize to push for basic repairs after years of neglect.

“Working-class and poor communities have to contend with substandard and neglected housing that could have devastating long-term health consequences for those that live there, from mold to pest to a lack of access to basic utilities like water and heat,” Trindle said.

“So regular inspections, whether done by HUD or HUD-affiliated groups or by municipalities, are critical to ensuring that those who are responsible for this housing stock do the bare minimum to maintain them,” she said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.