Group of people standing in line, holding American flags

What Is An American?

Democratic Party

illegal immigrants

Immigration

Maria Salazar

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Republicans

Theodore Roosevelt

Republicans Just Launched An Open Revolt Against Trump’s Deportation Operation

amnesty

Border

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

A poll from Reuters/Ipsos conducted this week showed that a large majority of Americans believe the federal government is hiding information on the Jeffrey Epstein case, as President Donald Trump calls those continuing to focus on the case &#8220;pretty bad people.&#8221;
The <a href="https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-TRUMP/EPSTEIN-POLL/zjvqoexxgvx/">poll</a>, which surveyed 1,027 U.S. adults and ran on Tuesday and Wednesday, found that 69% of respondents said that the federal government is covering up details about Epstein&#8217;s alleged client list. Only 6% said there was no cover-up, and 25% said they were unsure or did not answer. The survey results also showed that around two-thirds of Republicans believe the government is hiding something about Epstein&#8217;s supposed clients.
On Epstein&#8217;s death, 60% of Americans said the federal government is hiding information from the public, including 55% of Republicans.
Trump has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-epstein-story-is-kept-alive-by-pretty-bad-people-including-fake-news?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Trump+Says+Epstein+Story+Is+Kept+Alive+By+%E2%80%98Pretty+Bad+People%2C+Including+Fake+News%E2%80%99">asked</a> about the case multiple times this week, and on Wednesday, he lashed out at his &#8220;past supporters&#8221; who he says have fallen for a &#8220;hoax&#8221; pushed by Democrats.
&#8220;Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this &#8216;bulls***&#8217; hook, line, and sinker,&#8221; he wrote on Truth Social. &#8220;They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years.&#8221; He added that he no longer wants the support of those who continue to focus on the Epstein case.
In a press gaggle on Tuesday night, Trump told reporters, “I don’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It’s pretty boring stuff. It’s sordid, but it’s boring, and I don’t understand why it keeps going. I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going.”
The Trump administration&#8217;s handling of the case has sparked controversy among the president&#8217;s base as Republicans and Democrats gear up for the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats have already <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-put-previous-misgivings-hit-trump-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna218608">latched</a> onto the issue to attack Trump, voting in the House to release the Epstein files, a move that Republicans <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-gop-rejects-claims-of-blocking-epstein-files-a-misunderstanding">called</a> a political stunt and a power grab.
Among all of the issues respondents were asked about in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, Trump scored the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-faces-backlash-69-believe-epstein-details-concealed-reutersipsos-poll-2025-07-17/">worst</a> on his handling of the Epstein case, with just 17% of Americans approving of the job his administration has done on the issue. Thirty-five percent of Republicans said they approved of Trump&#8217;s handling of the Epstein case compared to 30% who disapproved. The rest of the Republicans polled either said they were unsure or didn&#8217;t answer the question.
Conservatives have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-pam-bondi-botched-epstein-rollout-eight-ways-from-sunday">blasted</a> Attorney General Pam Bondi&#8217;s handling of the Epstein case after the Department of Justice said last week that it did not find evidence of a client list existing and concluded that Epstein committed suicide in his jail cell in 2019. Bondi said in February that she had the client list sitting on her desk, but months later, she clarified that she meant that she was reviewing the Epstein files.
FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino were also reportedly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bondi-or-bongino-bongino-wont-remain-at-fbi-if-bondi-keeps-job-source-says">frustrated</a> with Bondi&#8217;s handling of the case, and Bongino considered resigning if Bondi remained in her position. Trump said that Bondi did &#8220;very well&#8221; handling the Epstein case, and is also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hes-in-good-shape-trump-speaks-with-bongino-after-flare-up-with-bondi">continuing</a> to back Patel and Bongino as the White House attempts to smooth things over. Bongino has not resigned, and Trump said on Sunday that he&#8217;s &#8220;in good shape.&#8221; Bongino&#8217;s official X account, which is usually active, has not <a href="https://x.com/FBIDDBongino/with_replies">posted</a> since last Wednesday.
Some right-wing political commentators and Republican lawmakers have urged the administration to be more transparent with the details surrounding the Epstein case. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/15/politics/epstein-files-trump-bondi">said</a> earlier this week that he&#8217;s &#8220;for transparency&#8221; on the issue.
“It’s a very delicate subject. We should put everything out there and let the people decide it,” Johnson said.

Donald Trump and Pam Bondi

More Than Two-Thirds Of Americans Believe Government Is Hiding Details On Epstein Case: Poll

Dan Bongino

Democrats

General

Jeffrey Epstein

kash patel

Pam Bondi

Politics

Poll

Trump Administration

Democrats expecting another &#8220;blue wave&#8221; in 2026 should &#8220;hold the phone,&#8221; CNN&#8217;s chief data analyst warned this week, revealing that the party&#8217;s generic ballot advantage has collapsed to less than half of what it was before their historic midterm victories in 2006 and 2018.
CNN data guru Harry Enten delivered the “reality check” to Democrats in a Wednesday CNN segment, noting their current two-point lead pales in comparison to the seven-point advantage they held at this stage before previous wave elections.
“Their lead is less than half, less than half of where it was in either 2017 or 2005 in July of those years – the year before the midterm election,” Enten said, noting that democrats had a generic ballot lead of 7 points in both the 2005 and 2017 midterms, respectively, compared to just 2 points in the leadup to 2026.
The data paints a drastically different picture than what many Democrats might hope for heading into the midterms.
&#8220;Yes, Donald Trump may be unpopular, but Democrats have not come anywhere close to sealing the deal at this particular point,&#8221; Enten told CNN host John Berman, adding that Republicans are &#8220;still very much in the game&#8221; for control of Congress.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Reality check: Dems are way behind their 2006 &amp; 2018 pace on the generic ballot at this point in the cycle.
Ahead by only 2 pt vs. 7 pt in 2006/2018 cycles.
Seat-by-seat analysis actually reveals more GOP pickup opportunities than Dems! Very much unlike 2006 &amp; 2018 at this pt. <a href="https://t.co/CRgXukTjz6">pic.twitter.com/CRgXukTjz6</a>
&mdash; (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1945492536836993510?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Enten noted this election cycle more closely resembles 2024 than either of the previous Democratic wave years, telling viewers expecting a Democratic sweep to &#8220;hold the phone.&#8221;
&#8220;At this particular point, this election cycle looks a lot more like 2024 than it does than either 2018 or 2006,&#8221; Enten said based on recent polling from Ipsos and other organizations.
The CNN data guru notes that the Cook Political Report&#8217;s seat-by-seat analysis actually reveals more pickup opportunities for Republicans than Democrats, at a projected net gain of +12 for the GOP.
In July 2017, Cook projected a net gain of +33 for democrats, and they ended up picking up 41 House seats during the 2018 midterms of Trump’s first term.
Midterm elections have historically served as a referendum on the party controlling the White House, and in only one instance in the past half century has the president’s party both held the House going in and managed to keep it: the 2002 midterms, following the 9/11 attacks.
The 2024 election, which Enten cited as most similar to current trends, saw Republicans maintain their House majority, with Democrats netting just a single seat — a stark contrast to the 31 and 41 House seats Democrats captured in the 2006 and 2018 wave elections.

119th Congress Begins Its Term On Capitol Hill

CNN Data Chief Shatters ‘Blue Wave’ Hype: Democrats’ 2026 Lead ‘Less Than Half’ Of Past Midterms

2026 Midterms

Congress

Elections

Harry Enten

Media

News

Polls

In every single criminal trial in this country, whether the crime is petty theft or murder or anything in between, there are very clear standards that deal with video evidence. In particular, if the government wants to introduce video evidence, they have to provide all of the available footage that they have. It&#8217;s a pretty intuitive concept. So if someone robs a convenience store, and the police recover surveillance tapes from the store, then they need to turn those tapes over to the defense. The prosecution can&#8217;t modify the tapes in any way. They can&#8217;t splice different tapes together. They certainly can&#8217;t delete anything. They have to provide the raw, unedited footage to the defense team. And on top of that, they have to verify that the tapes are authentic, and that they haven&#8217;t been tampered with, by establishing a sworn chain of custody. This is about as basic as it gets. Every judge in the country  — even Ketanji Brown Jackson — can grasp this very straightforward concept. You can easily get a case thrown out of traffic court if they won&#8217;t give you all of the relevant footage they have.
On the other hand, when it comes to the single most-watched sex trafficking case in the history of the United States, this rule apparently does not apply. You can forget about &#8220;chain of custody.&#8221; And you can forget about obtaining raw footage as well. Instead, in the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the DOJ produced a video that was clearly manipulated. As we&#8217;ve discussed previously, WIRED Magazine <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-fbis-jeffrey-epstein-prison-video-had-nearly-3-minutes-cut-out/">found</a> that the footage from outside Epstein&#8217;s jail cell — which the DOJ claimed was &#8220;raw&#8221; footage — had actually been edited and saved multiple times back in May of this year. Specifically, &#8220;the file was assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website.&#8221; Additionally, viewers noticed that there was a glitch when the timer in the footage moved from 11:58 to 11:59 p.m.; it seemed to jump ahead to midnight.
None of this was initially explained or disclosed by the DOJ, which again, referred to the footage as &#8220;raw.&#8221; Of course, the reason that the DOJ claimed the footage was &#8220;raw&#8221; is that they understand, as most people do, that any edits — for any reason — would immediately raise a lot of questions. There should be no need to save the file multiple times, or to combine clips. They could&#8217;ve just posted everything they had, and let the public sort it out. But the DOJ didn&#8217;t do that. It&#8217;s possible they were hoping that no one would look at the metadata, or study the videos closely.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1624-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
If that was the plan, it didn&#8217;t last very long. After the footage was posted, and Wired Magazine noticed the problem, Pam Bondi had to come up with a justification for all of the discrepancies. What she said, ultimately, is that the security system in the jail resets every night for around a minute. Therefore, we were told, there was nothing nefarious about the missing footage. It&#8217;s just a fact of life that, in one of the most secure prisons in the country, we can&#8217;t design a camera system that stays online 24/7. That&#8217;s beyond our capacity. We can land a man on the moon, but we can&#8217;t prevent the cameras from shutting down every night, just long enough to maybe allow someone to get murdered. We also can&#8217;t make sure there&#8217;s more than one functioning camera in the vicinity of this cell block.
Already, this was an unsatisfactory explanation. The DOJ didn&#8217;t actually provide proof that the system needs to go offline for a minute every night. Bondi just claimed it was normal, and we were all supposed to accept it. She also didn&#8217;t say anything whatsoever about why the footage needed to be edited in the first place. Again, this wouldn&#8217;t fly in traffic court. And it definitely doesn&#8217;t pass muster when we&#8217;re talking about Jeffrey Epstein, who had the potential to implicate the most powerful people in the world.
And yet — somehow — the story just got much, much worse for Bondi and the DOJ. It turns out that, even after they were exposed for hiding relevant information from the public about this tape, they still haven&#8217;t come forward with the full story. So it falls on WIRED Magazine, a small internet publication, to fill in even more details. Here&#8217;s what they <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-fbis-jeffrey-epstein-prison-video-had-nearly-3-minutes-cut-out/">reported</a> the other day: &#8220;Newly uncovered metadata reveals that nearly three minutes of footage were cut from what the US Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation described as &#8216;full raw&#8217; surveillance video from the only functioning camera near Jeffrey Epstein’s prison cell the night before he was found dead. &#8230; Further analysis shows that one of the source clips was approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds longer than the segment included in the final video, indicating that footage appears to have been trimmed before release. It’s unclear what, if anything, the minutes cut from the first clip showed.&#8221;
Before we read on further in the article, there&#8217;s simply no way to justify this. It doesn&#8217;t matter if the extra 2 minutes and 53 seconds were irrelevant. It doesn&#8217;t matter if those extra 2 minutes and 53 seconds were duplicated in another video file. In this case, and in every other case, the duty of the government is to be transparent. It&#8217;s not to save people a very small amount of time when they&#8217;re watching an hour&#8217;s worth of video footage. Any government that&#8217;s functioning properly would understand this calculation immediately. Just give people all of the information you have.
The article continues: &#8220;The nearly three-minute discrepancy may be related to the widely reported one-minute gap—between 11:58:58 pm and 12:00:00 am—that attorney general Pam Bondi has attributed to a nightly system reset. The metadata confirms that the first video file, which showed footage from August 9, 2019, continued for several minutes beyond what appears in the final version of the video and was trimmed to the 11:58:58 pm mark, right before the jump to midnight. The cut to the first clip doesn’t necessarily mean that there is additional time unaccounted for—the second clip picks up at midnight, which suggests the two would overlap—nor does it prove that the missing minute was cut from the video.&#8221; Close quote.
In other words, we can&#8217;t say definitively what&#8217;s in the three minutes of footage that were cut. It&#8217;s possible there&#8217;s nothing of interest. But there&#8217;s one way that the government could provide some more clarity. They could simply dump all of the files on the DOJ&#8217;s website, without any editing whatsoever. At the moment, no one in the Trump administration can come up with a coherent justification for why this hasn&#8217;t been done. They also can&#8217;t explain why they haven&#8217;t released &#8220;Phase 2&#8221; of the Epstein files &#8212; or the &#8220;truckload&#8221; of &#8220;documents&#8221; that Pam Bondi said the DOJ had recovered in the last few months from the Southern District of New York. She says there are graphic depictions of children on the videos that she can&#8217;t release, but she hasn&#8217;t said anything at all about any of the &#8220;documents,&#8221; beyond telling us that they&#8217;re not important. Nor has she unsealed the search warrants or financial disclosures in the case.
Instead of getting any transparency here, the Trump administration is continuing to tell us that these materials are &#8220;boring&#8221; and that we shouldn&#8217;t care about them. Here&#8217;s how the president put it yesterday:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨TRUMP: &quot;I don&#39;t understand why my supporters are so interested in Epstein. He&#39;s been dead for a long time. He was never a big factor. I don&#39;t understand the fascination&#8230;it&#39;s pretty boring stuff. I think only pretty bad people want to keep that going.&quot;<a href="https://t.co/Ca4gWS80Cs">pic.twitter.com/Ca4gWS80Cs</a>
&mdash; Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) <a href="https://twitter.com/AutismCapital/status/1945272429661634863?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Look, I know some people are annoyed at me for harping on this and criticizing the president, who in many other ways is doing a fantastic job. But I happen to believe that bringing sex predators to justice is extremely important. And I just can’t accept being blatantly gaslit by people in power, even if they’re people I otherwise support. In fact, ESPECIALLY if they’re people I otherwise support. So I must say that this answer from Trump is just simply awful. First, there&#8217;s the personal attack on anyone who asks questions, saying they&#8217;re &#8220;bad people.&#8221; That&#8217;s always a winning argument. If you want to convince millions of skeptical people that their leaders are lying to them about their behavior, then the best approach is to mock them. Works every time. Then there&#8217;s the implication that the Epstein files are &#8220;boring.&#8221; Well, in that case, release everything. Bore us to death. Then the story&#8217;s over, and everyone can go on with their lives. The 9/11 report was something like 600 pages. Parts of that document were boring. Almost no one actually read the entire thing. But it was still very important that the 9/11 report was written.
It&#8217;s extremely confusing, to put it mildly, to see the president of the United States take the opposite position. He says he doesn&#8217;t understand why people care about Jeffrey Epstein, as if it&#8217;s some kind of moral failing on our part. Yes, why would anyone care about some of the most powerful people on the planet spending time on a sex trafficker&#8217;s private island? Who could possibly be concerned about the possibility that a cabal of pedophiles and perverts is running entire countries and major corporations?
This is where the comparison to RussiaGate comes in, and it&#8217;s probably the worst part of the answer you just heard. RussiaGate was a disaster for this country precisely because we didn&#8217;t get the whole story. RussiaGate was premised on lies and distortions, at every stage. If Donald Trump made a joke at a rally, the media interpreted it as a coded message to Putin. They pretended he had a secret computer in Trump Tower that was communicating with Moscow. They said there was a &#8220;pee tape.&#8221; They claimed Russian hackers were being housed at a non-existent Russian consulate in Miami. They claimed Trump had weakened the GOP&#8217;s platform on Russia, even though the opposite was true. When Hunter Biden dropped his laptop off at a repair store, full of incriminating evidence about Joe Biden&#8217;s influence peddling operation, the media blamed that on Russia too. And on and on. RussiaGate was an utter fraud. And to the extent it was successful, it worked because the media (and the Obama administration) repeatedly lied to us. They didn&#8217;t give us information. Instead, they lied to our faces for the better part of a decade.
With Epstein, we want the opposite response from the media and the government. We want total transparency. At the end of his answer, Trump talks about filtering the documents so that we only obtain &#8220;credible&#8221; information. But that&#8217;s not the job of the government. Their job is to give us whatever information they can. Once they start assessing &#8220;credibility,&#8221; they give themselves a license to hide incriminating information. And there&#8217;s no reason to grant the government that license — no matter which political party is in charge.
That&#8217;s what makes the Democrats&#8217; sudden interest in the Epstein files so galling and intolerable. They&#8217;re obviously turning this into a dumb partisan issue, when it isn&#8217;t one. We talked about this a bit yesterday. All of a sudden, after years of complete disinterest in the entire topic, Democrats are suddenly clamoring for the release of the Epstein files — or at least, they&#8217;re publicly pretending to want the Epstein files to be released. <a href="https://x.com/adamkinzinger/status/1945107151300526218?s=46">Here&#8217;s</a> Adam Kinzinger, for example. He&#8217;s essentially a Democrat at this point: &#8220;EVERY, and i mean EVERY Republican incumbent or candidate or even anyone THINKING about running as a Republican for even dog catcher needs asked over and over and over about Epstein.&#8221;
This is a guy who spent his only significant time in Congress — the only time people knew who he was — screeching hysterically about elderly women and a &#8220;Q Shaman&#8221; walking around the Capitol Building on January 6th. That was the issue he claimed to care about. But no one actually cared about January 6th, so the whole plan backfired. So now that he&#8217;s out of office, he&#8217;s demanding that everyone talk about Epstein — an issue he didn&#8217;t seem to care about until this week.
It&#8217;s not hard to see what&#8217;s going on here. Neither party — Democrat or Republican — wants to see the full, unredacted release of the Epstein files. At a minimum, we can assume that top donors of both parties are implicated in some way. So they both want to neutralize this whole issue as quickly as they can. For Democrats, that means turning the Epstein files into yet another partisan football. They&#8217;re going to make performative efforts to get the files released, even though they know it&#8217;ll never work. For example, here&#8217;s Axios&#8217; <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/07/15/epstein-house-democrats-republicans-trump-doj">reporting</a> from yesterday: &#8220;House Republicans on Tuesday voted down another Democratic procedural maneuver aimed at forcing the Justice Department to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. &#8230; Democrats&#8217; procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP&#8217;s legislative agenda for the day in favor of the bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it. &#8230; It came after Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote.&#8221;
Specifically, that &#8220;broader cryptocurrency vote&#8221; involved legislation that could&#8217;ve paved the way for a &#8220;central bank digital currency,&#8221; as well as restrictions on cryptocurrency ownership. Whatever you think of this bill — although it seems to be a pretty terrible idea — the fact remains that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Jeffrey Epstein. So Democrats are using this whole issue to play very transparent political games. That’s how seriously they take child sex trafficking.
But ultimately, if we&#8217;re being honest, the problem here goes back to the White House. They&#8217;ve given the Democrats this opening by bungling the situation so badly. The Trump administration seems mystified (or is acting that way) by the anger from the base. But the Epstein scandal isn’t happening in a vacuum. We haven’t seen any high profile or powerful people held accountable for their crimes. No one’s even been fired, let alone arrested, for allowing an assassin to almost kill Trump last year. Trump was elected in 2016 on a promise to “lock her up.” So when do we start locking people up? Trump himself has spent 10 years calling out many different crimes and scandals. Just this past weekend, he was talking again about the rigged election in 2020. Why hasn’t anyone been arrested or charged for any of this? What about the people who lied about the COVID shot? What about the people who funded the BLM riots in 2020? What about the cabal of unelected bureaucrats who were using Joe Biden&#8217;s autopen to sign pardons and executive orders, effectively seizing control of the federal government?
The New York Times just <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/13/us/politics/biden-pardon-autopen-trump.html">uncovered</a> emails from Biden officials in which they made executive decisions to sign certain documents: &#8220;Mr. Zients hit &#8216;reply all&#8217; and wrote, &#8216;I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons.'&#8221; That&#8217;s a reference to Jeff Zients, the White House chief of staff. That&#8217;s a sentence that no government official &#8212; other than the president &#8212; should ever write. The chief of staff does not have the authority to use the president&#8217;s signature to pardon people. But that&#8217;s exactly what happened.
That&#8217;s not to say that digital signatures shouldn&#8217;t be allowed. Various outlets, including NBC News, have tried to claim that conservatives are attacking the idea of digital signatures. But that&#8217;s not the case. If Joe Biden had said, &#8220;Use my autopen to approve these pardons,&#8221; there would be no story. But that&#8217;s not what happened. Instead, a bunch of aides got together, said they &#8220;heard&#8221; Joe Biden authorize certain things. And then, solely based on their claims about what Joe Biden wanted, they used his signature.
Republicans are saying this is a major scandal. I agree that it is. So then who will be held responsible? Who will be punished? Republicans are constantly “investigating” things. But nobody is ever punished at the end of it. Meanwhile, Democrats spent the last four years prosecuting Trump and throwing conservative activists and political advisers in prison. And now, even after the majority of Americans voted for transparency and justice, we&#8217;re not anywhere close to getting it.
That&#8217;s not going to work. It&#8217;s not what any Republican voted for in the last election. We want to see accountability. We want to know that even the rich and powerful will pay for their crimes. It hasn’t happened. And for a lot of people, understandably so, this Epstein stuff is the last straw. Give us the information you&#8217;ve been promising. Give us the information we&#8217;re entitled to. If you refuse to do that — if you insist on insulting us instead — then we&#8217;re facing a much worse outcome than Democrat control of Congress in less than two years. We&#8217;re also facing a total collapse of legitimacy in our country. You can only deny reality for so long before people decide they&#8217;ve had enough. And whatever donors or intelligence assets are being protected here, they&#8217;re not that important. They&#8217;re not worth risking a revolt. So give us the &#8220;boring&#8221; Epstein files. Publish all of the &#8220;uninteresting&#8221; footage you clipped out of those videos from Epstein&#8217;s cell block, for reasons that no one has bothered to explain. Otherwise, in the absence of transparency, people will come to their own conclusions. And when they do, whether you&#8217;re a Republican or a Democrat, you won&#8217;t like what happens next.

Jeffrey Epstein Mug Shot

Yelling At Us Over The Epstein Files Only Means That We’ll Keep Talking About The Epstein Files

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Sunday outlined a roadmap for congressional Republicans over the next years and a half, following their successful passage of the &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; championed by President Donald Trump.
During an <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6375610110112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> on &#8220;Sunday Morning Futures&#8221; with Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo, Johnson said Republicans have a &#8220;responsibility of fixing every metric of public policy&#8221; that the Democrats &#8220;destroyed&#8221; over the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. The speaker also contended that members of his party are &#8220;implementing a playbook&#8221; designed to take advantage of the GOP controlling the House, Senate, and White House using the budget reconciliation process that allows them to bypass the filibuster.
&#8220;So, the &#8216;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8217; was the first big step in that. But we have multiple steps ahead of us. We have long planned for at least two, possibly three reconciliation bills, one in the fall and one next spring that would continue to allow us to do this on a partisan basis, where we only need Republican votes and we don&#8217;t have to drag Democrats along. They are in no appetite to fix any of the mess. We have to do it ourselves. So yes, that&#8217;s next,&#8221; Johnson said.
He added, &#8220;In addition to that, we will continue to get the country back on a path to fiscal responsibility by rescissions packages that will come from the White House that we’ll enact, and claw back spending and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, in the multiple reconciliation packages, and in appropriating at lower levels of funding. All these things will be done while we&#8217;re codifying more of President Trump&#8217;s executive orders. He&#8217;s been very busy. We will be as well. We have a lot more work ahead of us.&#8221;
Congress passed the final version of the &#8220;One Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; which aims to fulfill many of Trump’s spending and tax-cut goals of his second term, by narrow margins. It did so without the support of any Democrats and a couple of GOP holdouts who begrudged its cuts to Medicaid and raised concerns about the debt. Within the legislation&#8217;s hundreds of pages, Johnson said, were provisions that already cemented dozens of the president&#8217;s executive orders.
&#8220;Almost 30 of them were included in the &#8216;Big, Beautiful Bill.&#8217; So that was a lawmaking exercise; the president has now signed them into law and they&#8217;re codified. So it&#8217;s not a temporary thing, they&#8217;ll be permanent in the law. And we&#8217;ve done a number, about 15 or 20 additional executive orders that we&#8217;ve already codified in the House. We&#8217;ll continue that process. We wanted to get as many of them as we could into the reconciliation package because we knew that we were certain that that would actually be signed into law and it wouldn&#8217;t just be a feel-good exercise,&#8221; Johnson said.
He continued, &#8220;So more of that will continue going forward. The president&#8217;s been one of the most prolific, I think arguably the most successful president in the first six months of this term than any previous president. Look how many things have been accomplished. A lot of it has been done through executive order, so Congress has its role to play now as well.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Speaker Johnson Joins Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w7MG26LVEAc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

Speaker Johnson Maps Out Republican ‘Playbook’ After ‘Big, Beautiful’ Victory

Mike Johnson

U.S.

U.S. House of Representatives

As we celebrate July 4, it’s important to go back a few weeks and recall what happened on June 14. On that day, we saw one portion of our country take time to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of our nation’s army, and a different portion protest what they seem to believe is a rising monarchy in our nation’s capital.
Now, there have always been differences of opinion among Americans. It’s one of the characteristics of a functional democracy. Over the past five years, however, we have experienced a fundamental division in our nation that must be confronted.
About 30 years ago, Jerry Porras and Jim Collins wrote a book called “Built to Last,” chronicling their research on organizations that thrive and survive over long periods of time. One of the most important durability-inducing elements they cite is the adherence to a small set of core values, inviolable traits that define the principles and behaviors around which the company’s founders built the organization. To reject or violate those values is to advocate for the organization’s demise.
While a country is not synonymous with a company, I am convinced that the same concept can be applied to a nation that wants to thrive and survive. I’m also convinced that a difficult conversation about America’s core values is long overdue.
It’s worth noting that core values are not the drivel that some companies produce using marketing jargon and wordsmithing to come up with a list of sugary, generic adjectives that will be palatable to just about everyone. Core values are the authentic principles that underlie the character of an organization — or a nation — over time.
For the better part of the past 50 years, the U.S. has been struggling with an increasing sense of confusion around its core values. Recently, however, that confusion has morphed into a serious and dangerous division, calling to mind Abraham Lincoln’s reference to the words of Christ, reminding Americans that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
More and more people, like me, are concerned that our country will not be able to stand if we remain so divided. We cannot continue to go forward simply agreeing to disagree, or worse, not even acknowledge our disagreements and allow ourselves to be torn apart. It’s time that we, as a nation, face and answer a few basic questions before it’s too late.
What are those questions, the ones that underlie our values? Here are the most obvious ones.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a></h3>
Are we founded upon Judeo-Christian values and dependent on God’s providence, or are we a nation that is essentially agnostic, removing faith in God from public life, education, and the military? It can’t be both.
Do we believe in freedom of speech, press, and religion, or are we willing to allow elected and unelected influencers to determine what are and are not acceptable words and beliefs? Again, these are incompatible.
Do we believe in a limited central government, or do we prefer a powerful, singular federal provider of rules and services? Pick one.
In light of these questions, I see two ways to move forward.
First, we can go back and honestly embrace the core principles that the founders believed would hold us together and keep us united, and then recommit to those principles, without apology. It’s as simple, and sometimes difficult, as that.
Or, second, we can dismiss the ideals of our founders and decide, after 249 years, to create a new country. We can roll the dice and bet that we can conceive of a better model than Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and the others did.
What we can’t do, and what we’ve been doing for too long, is avoid these questions and let our core principles, and an entire nation, die a slow death as we drift further and further apart while the media, academia, and creative judges determine what America really is. We are a democracy, still, and we must choose our own path, or it will be chosen for us.
Now, there are many differences between companies and countries, not the least of which is the inability of countries to “fire” their own citizens, or even simply facilitate their departure. An organization’s CEO, on the other hand, can say to employees who don’t want to adhere to its core values that it’s time for them to work somewhere else. A nation cannot do that, and rightly so. However, if that nation wants to survive, it also cannot overly accommodate or apologize to those who oppose its values.
It’s worth noting that this challenge we face today existed at the very beginning of our nation, though to a lesser extent. Even then, there were those who had sided with the British or who would have preferred a monarchy, perhaps one led by George Washington. They were not all forced to leave the country, but they were required to come to terms with the principles of this experimental nation if they wanted to stay.
So, if we decide to recommit to our founders’ ideals — and I’m certainly in favor of that path — then we must politely and unequivocally say to citizens who dislike the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any foundational aspect of American life: “You don’t have to believe what we believe, practice any particular faith, or even celebrate the freedoms upon which we are founded. You don’t. But you do have to make peace with the reality of our core values and ideals, which are based on those things. Or you can make plans to live somewhere better suited to your preferences.” 
That is neither intolerant nor snarky; it is clear. And clarity is kind.
We must stop allowing people to pretend that the nation’s values are something other than they are, because there is nothing kind about that.
It&#8217;s ironic that the nations in the world today that have the most intolerant and unkind values are the ones that won’t even let people opt out and leave. Just look at North Korea and Cuba, though there are others. This is, of course, absurd.
But for a free nation like ours to bend over backward to accommodate those who hate what we stand for is equally absurd. So let’s make a decision so that we can reverse the trend toward divisiveness and disunity, and get back to rebuilding a nation around the values that have served us for 250 years.
* * *
Patrick Lencioni is one of the founders of The Table Group and is the pioneer of the organizational health movement. He is the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/stores/Patrick-M.-Lencioni/author/B001ILFMB2?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&amp;qid=1751571498&amp;sr=8-2&amp;isDramIntegrated=true&amp;shoppingPortalEnabled=true&amp;ccs_id=3de65105-8f38-4be0-90f1-d7c66bb8daa2">author of 13 books</a>, which have sold over 10 million copies and been translated into more than 30 languages.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Fireworks on the Fourth of July, Washington, D.C.

Can We Still Agree On America’s Core Values? A Nation Divided On Independence Day

Books

Founding Fathers

Leftists

Liberals

United States

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

Courts

First Amendment

Free Speech

Supreme Court

Tim Scott

President Trump Delivers Address To Nation On Iran Military Operation

Trump Bombed Iran. What’s Next?

Conservatives

Iran

Iran Nuclear

Israel

JD Vance

Middle East

President Trump

Republicans clobbered Democrats for the fifth consecutive year in last night&#8217;s Congressional Baseball Game. Rep. August Pfluger, the Republican Study Committee Chairman, who clinched his second <a href="https://pfluger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=610" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MVP</a> title, joined Crain &amp; Company before the game to share his thoughts on why the GOP has won every game since 2022.
&#8220;What I&#8217;d say to America is, forget about baseball, take the uniforms off, just stand us side by side: who do you want leading the country? I&#8217;ll leave that up to America to decide. Not that baseball is an indicator of legislating, but it kind of is.&#8221;
&#8220;My district cares that I can represent them legislatively. But they really care if I can play baseball,&#8221; Pfluger added.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/are-republicans-better-athletes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: REP. AUGUST PFLUGER JOINS CRAIN AND COMPANY TO TALK CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME</a>
Pfluger, who was a <a href="https://sanangelolive.com/news/sports/2023-06-14/congressmen-pfluger-pitch-congressional-baseball-game-wednesday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high school</a> quarterback and catcher, has played for the GOP since 2022, pitching for them in 2023. He noted how seriously he and his teammates take the game, describing intense, early-morning practices.
&#8220;We practice at least 25 times, and by the way, we&#8217;re not practicing at 8:00 a.m. It&#8217;s a 5:45 start time,&#8221; Pfluger said. &#8220;We&#8217;re out there throwing, we come back, we&#8217;re icing the shoulder a little bit, in my case, and then we go to work at 7:30, 8:00.&#8221;
The Congressional Baseball Game has been <a href="https://www.congressionalbaseball.org/history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">played</a> intermittently since 1909. While Democrats dominated at first, Republicans have won 46 games compared to the Democrats’ 42. Funds from the game go towards various charities. This year’s game <a href="https://www.congressionalbaseball.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">benefited</a> the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington, the Tim Johnson Memorial Scholarship, and Nationals Philanthropies.
&#8220;You&#8217;ve got the Republicans vs. the Democrats, which to me just seems like a bloodbath,&#8221; Crain &amp; Co. co-host Jake Crain told Pfluger. Asked by Crain &amp; Co. co-host David Cone just &#8220;how intense&#8221; the game really is, Pfluger was unequivocal.
&#8220;It is intense&#8230;when we get out there on the field, we&#8217;re trying to win,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is not bipartisan,&#8221; Pfluger said. &#8220;This is a real baseball game.&#8221;
&#8220;The Dems can&#8217;t get a dub if you handed it to them on a plate right now! Nobody buries them deeper than those guys,&#8221; Jake Crain noted.
Last night&#8217;s game also marked the return to the field of Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), who made history as one of the few players to get an out-of-the-park home run in the 2021 game. Steube missed the past few Congressional Baseball Games due to an injury.
&#8220;This has been the best interview I&#8217;ve done in five years,&#8221; Pfluger told the Crain &amp; Co. boys. &#8220;Thank you for letting me talk about sports.&#8221;

Congressional Baseball Game 2025

WATCH: Rep. Pfluger Tells Crain & Co. Why The GOP Always Wins The Congressional Baseball Game

Baseball

Crain and Co

President Donald Trump revoked California&#8217;s electric vehicle mandates, which have been adopted by nearly a dozen other states nationwide.
The president signed three congressional resolutions on Thursday, putting an end to California&#8217;s ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The California mandate was adopted by 11 other states, representing one-third of the auto market in the United States.
&#8220;We officially rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating the California electric vehicle mandate once and for all,&#8221; Trump said at the White House. &#8220;They said it couldn&#8217;t be done, but boy, it had us tied up in knots for years. And they passed these crazy rules in California &#8230; the automakers didn&#8217;t know what to do.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;We officially rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating the California electric vehicle mandate ONCE AND FOR ALL.&quot; 🔥 <a href="https://t.co/zOVvF5DKyF">pic.twitter.com/zOVvF5DKyF</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1933185013962404156?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The move, made possible by Trump signing resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, was celebrated by a group representing major automakers, including GM, Stellantis, Toyota, Hyundai, and Volkswagen, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-sign-resolutions-nixing-californias-ev-rules-sources-2025-06-10/">reported</a>.
&#8220;The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,&#8221; said Alliance for Automotive Innovation CEO John Bozzella. &#8220;In reality, meeting the mandates would require diverting finite capital from the EV transition to purchase compliance credits from Tesla.&#8221;
U.S. automaker GM added in a statement, “We appreciate the actions taken by President Trump to sign H.J. Res. 88 into law and help align emissions standards with today’s market realities. We have long advocated for one national standard that will allow us to stay competitive, continue to invest in U.S. innovation, and offer customer choice across the broadest lineup of gas-powered and electric vehicles.”
One of the resolutions signed by Trump repeals a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waiver that was granted under the Biden administration and greenlit California&#8217;s mandate for at least 80% of new vehicles to be electric by 2035, according to Reuters. Trump will sign another resolution approved by the Republican-controlled Congress to rescind a 2023 EPA approval for California to require automakers to produce more zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. The third resolution eliminates the state&#8217;s low-nitrogen oxide regulation targeting heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles.
Republicans and auto companies have pushed for the EV regulations to be addressed. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-gears-up-stop-california-2035-gas-vehicle-sales-ban">said</a> last month that the EPA&#8217;s waivers allowed California “to dictate emissions standards for the whole country – effectively imposing a nationwide electric vehicle mandate.” In May, the GOP-led House voted to pass a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval for the EV mandate with the support of 35 Democrats. The Congressional Review Act allowed the Senate to bypass a filibuster to undo the EV regulations, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-votes-undo-biden-era-waiver-california-enabling-gas-car-ban">reported</a>.
In their vote, Senate Republicans were <a href="https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1925590423944257939">joined</a> by Michigan Democrat Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who said she has &#8220;a special responsibility to stand up for the more than one million Michiganders whose livelihoods depend on the U.S. auto industry.”
Trump signaled his support for ending California&#8217;s EV mandate while on the 2024 campaign trail.
“When I’m president, no state in America will be permitted to ban gas-powered cars or trucks, and I guarantee it,” Trump told his supporters at a rally in Saginaw, Michigan.
California Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta <a href="https://x.com/AGRobBonta/status/1925624592481026347">said</a> his state would sue over Trump&#8217;s move &#8220;to protect California’s longstanding authority to maintain clean vehicle standards.&#8221;
&#8220;President Trump may be playing partisan games with lives and good-paying jobs on the line—but California won’t back down,&#8221; Bonta added.

Trump Slashes California’s ‘Crazy’ Far-Reaching EV Mandates

California

electric vehicles

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) dismissed Elon Musk&#8217;s argument that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party would have lost to the Democrats in 2024 if not for his contributions on behalf of the GOP.
As the feud between Musk and Trump rages on, Johnson acknowledged in an interview with CNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Squawk Box&#8221; on Friday that Musk had a &#8220;big&#8221; role in the GOP&#8217;s 2024 election success, but added that Trump &#8220;is the one responsible&#8221; for defeating the Democrats.
&#8220;Elon was a big contributor in the last election, but this was a whole team effort,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that.&#8221;
The speaker added that he, along with &#8220;all of our House Republicans,&#8221; worked tirelessly to deliver the House for the GOP in 2024.
&#8220;We all worked hard,&#8221; Johnson said, adding, &#8220;I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in over 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five-and-a-half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Watch CNBC&#039;s full interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_TuaIzFT6oM?start=750&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Johnson said he still respects Musk, calling him a &#8220;friend&#8221; and crediting him for his role in the &#8220;DOGE effort.&#8221; The speaker added that disagreements over policy shouldn&#8217;t become &#8220;personal.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t tell my friend Elon, I don&#8217;t argue with him about how to build rockets. I wish he wouldn&#8217;t argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,&#8221; Johnson said.
After Trump told reporters on Thursday that he was &#8220;very disappointed&#8221; with Musk over his criticism of the &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; the president added that he “would have won Pennsylvania regardless of Elon.” Musk quickly shot back on social media, writing, &#8220;Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.&#8221;
“Such ingratitude,” he added.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Musk donated nearly $300 million to Republican causes in the 2024 election and was one of Trump&#8217;s biggest supporters, appearing with him on stage at some of his rallies. Trump rewarded Musk with a senior adviser role in the White House, and Musk spearheaded the effort to cut waste and spending in the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency project. The billionaire entrepreneur became a constant companion of the president, often appearing with him in the Oval Office and traveling with him to sporting events, and in February, Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887889037354008729">said</a> he loved Trump &#8220;as much as a straight man can love another man.&#8221;
But on Thursday, after Trump&#8217;s criticism of Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO quickly ratcheted up the tension, firing off numerous social media posts blasting the president and eventually <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-goes-after-trump-over-epstein-files-time-to-drop-the-really-big-bomb">accusing</a> Trump of refusing to release the Epstein Files because he is implicated in them.
Between posts going after Trump, Musk also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-floats-creating-a-new-political-party-amid-fallout-with-trump?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Musk+Floats+Creating+%E2%80%98A+New+Political+Party%E2%80%99+Amid+Fallout+With+Trump">suggested</a> starting a new political party &#8220;that actually represents the 80% in the middle.&#8221; Last month, Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ive-done-enough-musk-says-he-will-spend-a-lot-less-on-future-political-campaigns">said</a> that he was “going to do a lot less in the future” in regards to campaign donations, but left the door open to jump back into the political world if he sees &#8220;a reason to do political spending in the future.&#8221;

Elon Musk/Mike Johnson

Speaker Johnson Dismisses Musk’s Claim That He Won 2024 Election For Trump

CNBC

Elon Musk

Menu