(WASHINGTON) — As Tesla’s bottom line continues to slide downward, Elon Musk on Tuesday received maybe an unsurprising endorsement from a potential new owner of one of his EVs: President Donald Trump.
Musk, joined by his 4-year-old son X, delivered five Tesla models, including a Cybertruck, to the White House Tuesday afternoon, just hours after Trump, who does not currently drive, vowed to buy one to support Musk.
“I just want people to know that you can’t be penalized for being a patriot,” Trump told reporters during a photo op with the cars and Musk. “People should be going wild, and they love the product.”
The president got into the seat of one the cars and claimed that he was going to buy one of the cars and leave it at the White House for his staff to use.
“I’m going to let people at the place use it, and they are all excited about that I’m not allowed to use it,” he said.
Trump’s announcement came as Tesla has been taking a massive hit over the last two months, including recent protests and slumping sales overseas.
Stock in the company has dropped every week since Musk went to Washington, wiping out more than $700 billion in market value. And Musk’s personal net worth has dropped $148 billion since Inauguration Day, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index.
“This means a lot, and also thank everyone out there who is supporting Tesla,” Musk said.
Trump previously criticized EVs, claiming that they are too costly, inefficient and not in demand.
However, he admitted in August on the campaign trail that he had to change his tune after Musk endorsed his candidacy.
“I’m for electric cars. I have to be because Elon endorsed me very strongly,” he told a crowd at a rally.
However, since taking office Trump has vowed to end federal incentives for EV purchases and signed an executive order that undid President Joe Biden’s goal to have half of all cars sold in 2030 be an EV.
It is an unspoken rule that current and former presidents aren’t allowed to drive on open roads.
(WASHINGTON) — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told food industry leaders in a closed-door meeting on Monday that he wants them to remove artificial color additives from their products by the end of his time in office, according to a memo describing the meeting, which was obtained by ABC News.
At the Washington gathering, which included the CEOs of Kellogg’s, Smucker’s and General Mills, Kennedy said it is a top priority of the Trump administration to rid America’s food of the artificial dyes, wrote Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group, who penned the memo.
Hockstad addressed the memo to “Consumer Brands Member CEOs.”
“The Secretary made clear his intention to take action unless the industry is willing to be proactive with solutions,” Hockstad wrote.
Kennedy has long championed removing artificial coloring from America’s food, and the effort has become a pillar of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
In January, the Food and Drug Administration revoked its authorization of one type of red food dye — Red No. 3. The dye is known to cause cancer in laboratory animals but was allowed to be used by manufacturers for years because scientists didn’t believe it raised cancer risk in humans at the level typically consumed.
The FDA, under then-President Joe Biden, acted after longtime pressure by consumer advocates.
But a different type, Red No. 40, remains on the market and hasn’t been studied by the FDA in more than 20 years. FDA and health officials said there is no evidence though that it is harmful, and food manufacturers said they need to be able to rely on ingredients generally recognized as safe.
In the memo, Hockstad said her association will work with HHS leaders about removing “roadblocks” so food companies can help meet Kennedy’s goal.
“We will be working with your teams to gain as much alignment as possible about how we move forward and ensure the industry is positioned in the best possible way as we navigate next steps forward,” she wrote. “But to underscore, decision time is imminent.”
A spokeswoman for the Consumer Brands Association confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which was first reported by Bloomberg, but did not provide further comment.
The spokeswoman provided ABC News with a copy of a thank-you letter Hockstad sent Kennedy after the meeting.
“The industry is committed to delivering safe, affordable and convenient product choices to consumers,” she wrote. “We will engage with you and the administration on solutions to improve transparency, ensure ingredient evaluations are grounded in a science and risk-based process and increase healthier options for consumers.”
Vani Hari, an activist and founder of Food Babe and Truvani who delivered 400,000 petition signatures to the Michigan headquarters for Kellogg’s last year asking the company to remove artificial food dyes, applauded Kennedy.
“I have been working on this issue for over a decade and I am thrilled Secretary Kennedy laid out an ultimatum,” Hari told ABC News in a statement.
“These food companies have already reformulated their products without dyes in so many countries, now it’s time for them to do the same in America. Americans deserve the same safer foods other countries get,” she continued.
(WASHINGTON) — Then-candidate Donald Trump, at a campaign rally last August as the 2024 race for the White House was heating up, made a promise to voters to quickly bring economic relief if elected.
“Starting on Day 1, we will end inflation and make America affordable again,” he said at a rally in Montana, where he told supporters: “This election is about saving our economy.”
A week later, he made a show of displaying cartons of eggs, bacon, milk and other grocery products outside his New Jersey golf course as he railed against the Biden administration’s policies.
“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down,” Trump said at the time.
Trump started to change his tune not long after his victory, however, saying in an interview with Time magazine, published in December, that bringing down food costs will be “very hard.”
Now, seven weeks into his administration, Trump is declining to rule out the possibility of a recession and is warning of short-term “disturbance” for American families from his tariff policies.
During his first major speech to Congress and the nation since his inauguration, Trump last week defended his imposition of steep levies on key U.S. trading partners like Canada, China and Mexico.
“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again. And it’s happening, and it will happen rather quickly. There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that. It won’t be much,” he said.
Since then, his back-and-forth on tariffs for Canada and Mexico roiled the stock market, with the S&P 500 recording its worst week since last September.
During an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures,” Trump was asked if he is expecting a recession this year after the Atlanta Federal Reserve projected negative GDP growth for the first quarter of 2025.
“I hate to predict things like that,” Trump responded. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing, and there are always periods of, it takes a little time. It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.”
He was pressed on his hesitation to strike down the possibility later Sunday as he spoke with reporters on Air Force One.
“I’ll tell you what, of course you hesitate. Who knows? All I know is this: We’re going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs, and we’re going to become so rich, you’re not going to know where to spend all that money,” he said. “I’m telling you, you just watch. We’re going to have jobs. We’re going to have open factories. It’s going to be great.”
Stock losses continued Monday and Tuesday after Trump’s comments. More tariffs are being implemented against steel and aluminum products on Wednesday, and Trump’s pledging to move forward with “reciprocal” tariffs starting on April 2.
The White House on Tuesday also declined to rule out a recession, as officials sought to cast the market turmoil as a “snapshot of a moment in time” before Trump’s policies bear their intended impact.
“We are in a period of economic transition,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters when asked directly if she could reassure Americans there wouldn’t be a downturn.
Leavitt blamed the Biden administration for what she said was an “economic disaster” left to Trump — despite Biden overseeing a soft economic landing — and pointed to other indicators she said were positive signs for Americans, including a boost in manufacturing jobs last month and reports of companies looking to expand operations in America.
“The American people, CEOs, and people on Wall Street and on Main Street should bet on this president,” Leavitt told reporters. “He is a dealmaker. He is a businessman and he’s doing what’s right for our country.”
(WASHINGTON) — A top official leading the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney said she was fired from her post one day after refusing to recommend that actor Mel Gibson’s access to firearms be restored, according to a new interview and a statement provided to ABC News on Tuesday.
In an interview with the New York Times, pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer said the request to add Gibson’s name to a memo of people who should have their gun rights restored came at the last minute, after attorneys for Gibson had written directly to senior DOJ officials citing a recent special appointment he had received from President Donald Trump.
After she refused, Oyer said she received a call from a senior official in Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office who repeatedly pressed her to reconsider, citing Gibson’s close personal relationship with Trump.
On Friday, Oyer posted on LinkedIn a termination letter from Blanche, which did not include any justification for her firing.
“Unfortunately, experienced professionals throughout the Department are afraid to voice their opinions because dissent is being punished,” Oyer said in a statement to ABC News. “Decisions are being made based on relationships and loyalty, not based on facts or expertise or sound analysis, which is very alarming given what is at stake is our public safety.”
A DOJ official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, disputed Oyer’s account, telling ABC News the spat over Gibson’s gun rights was not a factor in removal.
Gibson’s access to guns is prohibited due to a 2011 “no contest” plea he entered to a misdemeanor charge of battering his former girlfriend.
Oyer, who has led the Office of the Pardon Attorney since 2022, told the New York Times she was recently put on a working group tasked with assembling a list of candidates who could have their gun rights restored. After assembling a list that was then circulated to Blanche’s office, she was instructed to add Gibson’s name, a development that she said was troubling.
“Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter that, in my view, is not something that I could recommend lightly because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms,” Oyer said.
It is not clear whether the recommendation will move forward now that Oyer has been removed. Gibson notably was seen just this weekend alongside FBI Director Kash Patel attending a UFC fight in Las Vegas.
A representative for Gibson did not respond to a request for comment.
(WASHINGTON) — As nearly a dozen House Republicans remain undecided, Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday urged House Republicans to get on board and support the GOP-led government funding bill, according to several members leaving the 40-minute-long closed-door meeting.
The spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, is slated for a vote in the House Tuesday afternoon, and Vance told Republicans that the bill forces Democrats to take a tough vote, members told ABC News.
Vance also emphasized the importance of not shutting the government down, members said to ABC News.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
Despite the uphill climb, GOP leaders expressed confidence that they’ll get the bill across the finish line — even as Democrats remain united in opposition.
“No, we will have the votes. We’re going to pass the CR,” Johnson said at the GOP leadership news conference. “We could do it on our own.”
Majority Leader Scalise told ABC News’ Jay O’Brien that he’s confident the bill will pass, arguing Vance’s message will “pull people even further.”
“Well, on a big vote like this, you always have members that wait until the very end and then they’re going to vote yes, and I’m feeling very confident we’re going to get this bill passed,” Scalise said.
Missouri Rep. Eric Burlison raised concerns with the language in the bill, but added he will ultimately support the measure because he trusts President Donald Trump.
“Donald Trump, I mean, he is the difference maker. I would never support this language but, I do trust Donald Trump,” Burlison said.
Trump has played an outsize role this time around — the first shutdown threat of his second term — practically begging Republicans to support the measure. The president even placed phone calls on Monday to some lawmakers who are on the fence in an attempt to shore up the votes, according to a White House official.
“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.
Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”
On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, after the congressman said he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.
“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”
Asked if he agreed with the president’s promise to primary Massie, Johnson said he will “vehemently disagree” with Trump.
“Look, I am in the incumbent protection program here, that’s what I do as speaker of the House,” he joked before adding, “Thomas and I have had disagreements, but I consider Thomas Massie a friend. He’s a thoughtful guy. I guess he’ll tell you he’s doing what he thinks is right on this, I just vehemently disagree with his position. I’ll leave it at that.”
Across the aisle, House Democrats appear poised to stick together in opposition of the GOP-led government funding bill.
“We cannot support this bill,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said walking into a conference meeting Tuesday morning.
“House Republicans put a partisan measure on the floor this week. It will gut veterans’ health care. It will enable Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue to cut the federal government. House Democrats are voting no,” Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar later added.
While Johnson has at times benefited from Democrats crossing party lines to push bills through, as of now, it doesn’t look like he’ll get a life raft from them.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Marcy Kaptur, who represent Trump-backed districts, said they aren’t going to be voting for the funding bill, arguing there weren’t many incentives in the bill to garner their support.
“I haven’t met one yet,” Rep. Kaptur said when asked if she knew of any Democrats that would support the bill. “But perhaps there’s someone out there, but I’m unaware of it.”
The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.
While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.
The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.
It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025, and Speaker Mike Johnson is projecting confidence that Republicans have the votes to pass the bill.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
Johnson, at a news conference with House Republican leadership on Tuesday morning, claimed he had the votes ahead of Tuesday afternoon’s vote.
As he railed against Democrats for their opposition to the measure, Johnson was asked by a reporter if that implied he doesn’t have the support among his own caucus.
“No, we’ll have the votes. We’re going to pass the CR. We can do it on our own,” Johnson contended.
President Donald Trump has played an outsize role this time around — the first shutdown threat of his second term — practically begging Republicans to support the measure. The president even placed phone calls on Monday to some lawmakers who are on the fence in an attempt to shore up the votes, according to a White House official.
“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.
Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”
Vice President JD Vance is also lobbying House Republicans. On Tuesday morning, he attended a closed-door meeting with the caucus, but did not respond to question including what his message is to members on the funding bill.
On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, after the congressman said he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.
“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”
Asked if he agreed with the president’s promise to primary Massie, Johnson said he will “vehemently disagree” with Trump.
“Look, I am in the incumbent protection program here, that’s what I do as speaker of the House,” he joked before adding, “Thomas and I have had disagreements, but I consider Thomas Massie a friend. He’s a thoughtful guy. I guess he’ll tell you he’s doing what he thinks is right on this, I just vehemently disagree with his position. I’ll leave it at that.”
Across the aisle, Democratic leaders are urging their caucus to vote against the measure.
“It is not something we could ever support. House Democrats will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday.
The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.
While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.
The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.
It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.
In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.
Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.
“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.
Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”
On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, following the congressman saying he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.
“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic “NO” vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”
Across the aisle, Democratic leaders are urging their caucus to vote against the measure.
“It is not something we could ever support. House Democrats will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday.
The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.
While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ healthcare, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.
The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.
It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report
(WASHINGTON) — Before a judge halted the takeover in February, President Donald Trump’s administration was planning to fire the overwhelming majority of employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and then fulfill the agency’s legal obligations with a skeleton crew, a top CFPB official testified on Monday.
During a lengthy court hearing on Monday, CFPB’s Chief Operating Officer Adam Martinez gave a full sworn account of the chaos and confusion that has consumed the federal agency that was set up to protect the public from unfair corporate practices ever since the Department of Government Efficiency and Trump administration officials moved to dismantle it.
His testimony provided a window into what is happening internally as DOGE spearheads Trump’s mandate to slash the federal government.
“Absent the temporary restraining order, the majority of the CFPB employees would have been terminated?” a lawyer representing the plaintiffs asked Martinez.
“The majority, yes,” Martinez said, adding the remaining employees would have been fired in later phases of the takeover.
Throughout his six-hour testimony, Martinez described the back-and-forth that played out in recent weeks among acting CFPB Director Russ Vought, DOGE, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget. Officials toggled between halting and partially reinstating the agency’s work as they hastily slashed it and then scrambled to put pieces back in place to comply with law – in some cases losing key data and services along the way.
“I was having a hard time processing what was happening,” Martinez said, describing the early days of DOGE’s takeover of CFPB.
“So is it fair to say that there’s thought going into it, but only after? It’s like, shoot first and ask questions later?” Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked, after Martinez described how the agency was forced to cancel numerous critical contracts but rescinded some of those terminations soon after. Martinez agreed.
The hearing also shed light on the unique relationship between DOGE representatives and career civil servants, with Martinez frequently calling DOGE representatives the newly installed leaders of the CFPB.
“I don’t understand, why are you using them with leadership to refer to DOGE unless you had been told that DOGE was now your leadership,” asked Judge Jackson.
“They were designated as senior advisers, ma’am,” Martinez said.
“Senior leaders of the CFPB,” Judge Jackson asked.
“Correct,” Martinez said.
Martinez recalled everything from DOGE representatives’ first arrival at CFPB’s office in the first week of February — and the acting director’s email ordering CFPB employees to stop working — to the immediate chaos that ensued, as well as efforts by him and other career officials at CFPB to figure out what has been terminated and how to reinstate critical functions of the agency.
“There were a couple of high-priority issues that would have been devastating had it stopped,” Martinez said at one point.
“I was very, very concerned about the Consumer Response Center going down,” Martinez said, explaining potential backlash that could occur if those systems halted. He said he eventually coordinated a discussion between the head of that unit and DOGE’s representatives to “help them understand why his program was so important.”
On March 2, after much confusion and frustration as to what type of work CFPB was authorized to perform, OMB’s General Counsel Mark Paoletta, who has been representing Vought, eventually sent a letter directing CFPB employees to perform statutorily required duties.
But even after some units were told to return to work, they continued experiencing challenges — including loss of personnel and access to files of those who have left, according to accounts showcased during the hearing.
Jackson acknowledged the extraordinary situation workers at CFPB are facing, and she asked a series of questions to the witness.
“Would you say that sending out an order that says ‘Do no work’ is typical?” Judge Jackson asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that canceling all the contracts before the analysis as to whether these are duplicative, worthwhile, not worthwhile, is typical?” the judge also asked.
“No,” Martinez again responded.
“Would you say that firing all probationary employees and two-year employees from the get-go is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
“Would you say that trying to implement a brief without notice before the new director is even put in place, is typical?” the judge continued.
“No,” Martinez again replied.
“And would you say putting the rest of the employees on administrative leave with an order to do no work is typical?” the judge asked.
“No,” Martinez responded.
Jackson is considering issuing a preliminary injunction to effectively halt the breakdown of the CFPB, which she temporarily stopped last week. During Monday’s hearing, Martinez was grilled about emails that he had produced wherein he discussed carrying out the mass terminations despite the court’s order.
“You said that, in some ways, the delay was a blessing, because it gave you more time to figure out how to accomplish this wide-scale termination, right?” a lawyer asked.
“Yes,” Martinez said.
“And so you conveyed things like, there really isn’t going to be a CFPB now, right?” the lawyer continued.
“When you’re ripping out a number of people and functions, yes,” Martinez said.
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, called Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly a “traitor” in a post on X after Kelly posted that he had visited Ukraine over the weekend.
Kelly, in a thread on X Sunday night, posted photos of his visit to Ukraine and wrote that “Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin.”
In a reply to the thread, Musk responded, “You are a traitor.”
Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut, responded in a separate post on X.
“Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do,” wrote Kelly, whose recent trip marked his third visit to Ukraine since 2023.
The comments from Musk, one of President Donald Trump’s closest advisers, comes weeks after an explosive meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office that devolved into a shouting match. During the stunning exchange, Trump and Vice President JD Vance rebuked Zelenskyy for his handling of the war, falsely blaming the Ukrainian leader for a conflict that began when Russia’s Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion.
After the meeting, Zelenskyy left without signing an agreement that would have given the U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources, which the country had hoped would ensure the continued flow of U.S. military support as it battles Russia.
Trump’s administration has embarked on a dramatic pivot away from the “ironclad” backing of Ukraine practiced by former President Joe Biden’s administration. Trump has falsely blamed Ukraine for starting the war with Russia, called Zelenskyy a “dictator” and frozen military aid and intelligence support in a bid to force Ukraine into making concessions to Russia.
“If we abandon our ally Ukraine, we will be viewed by other countries including our other allies as untrustworthy and in the future we shouldn’t expect their help,” Kelly posted to X.
Kelly and Musk have feuded in the past. When Musk attacked Danish astronaut Andreas Mogensen last month, calling him “an idiot,” Kelly and his brother Scott Kelly, also an astronaut, pushed back.
“Hey @ElonMusk, when you finally get the nerve to climb into a rocket ship, come talk to the three of us,” Kelly wrote.
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats want to force President Donald Trump’s administration to rehire veterans who were laid off as part of large-scale efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reshape the federal government and its workforce, according to information exclusive to ABC News.
Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Andy Kim of New Jersey plan to introduce the Protect Veteran Jobs Act in the Senate on Monday. The bill would compel the Trump administration to reinstate veterans impacted by recent mass layoffs, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by ABC News.
It would also require the Trump administration to provide a quarterly report to Congress on the number of veterans removed from the federal workforce — and the justification for their firing.
“Veterans who choose to continue their service to our country in the federal workforce deserve our utmost gratitude, but instead this Administration has kicked thousands of our heroes to the curb and left them without a paycheck,” Duckworth said in a statement. “The message of our bill is simple: Give our heroes their jobs back. If Republicans really care about our Veterans, they should stop enabling Trump and Musk’s chaos and support our legislation.”
In the coming weeks of floor activity and ahead of government funding votes, Democrats hope to get Republicans on the record over layoffs impacting a reliably Republican — and Trump-supporting — group of voters.
The party also attempted to draw attention to the firings by inviting veterans who lost their government jobs to Trump’s joint address to Congress on March 3.
Veterans make up roughly 30% of the federal workforce of more than 2 million civilian government employees, according to September data from the Office of Personnel Management.
Roughly 75,000 federal workers have accepted offers for deferred buyouts, and another roughly 20,000 government employees have been fired in the first months of Trump’s second term.
The Trump administration has not said how many veterans have been impacted by the cuts, though Democrats have estimated that several thousand veterans have been fired across the administration.
OPM has since directed some agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to rehire veteran workers and to exempt veterans and military spouses from other workforce policy changes.
But many veterans have still lost their jobs in recent weeks.
“You spend 10 years trying to defend your country in terms of honesty, integrity and justice, and then you come back and get copy-and-pasted the same email as 10,000 other people about your performance,” Andrew Lennox, a fired Department of Veterans Affairs worker who served as a Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, told ABC News.
Lennox was one of the veterans who attended Trump’s joint address to Congress last week. He was a guest of Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who delivered the Democratic rebuttal to the speech.
The Department of Veterans Affairs also plans to cut up to 80,000 workers from the agency, which has drawn some criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.
Democratic Rep. Derek Tran of California has introduced similar legislation in the House.
