Tag: #maga
Musk Blowup's Fallout: Trump Allies Keep Turning On Each Other

Musk Blowup's Fallout: Trump Allies Keep Turning On Each Other

President Donald Trump's public falling out with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is now prompting additional infighting in MAGA circles between some of Trump's most high-profile supporters.

Semafor reported Monday that "War Room" podcast host Steve Bannon – who was White House chief strategist in the first Trump administration – is now setting his sights on venture capitalist and second Trump administration AI czar David Sacks (who is close to Musk and co-hosts the popular "All In" podcast). The MAGA pundit mentioned Sacks on a recent episode of his podcast, and accused him of exploiting his relationship to Trump to further his own goals.

"You’re dangerous," Bannon said of Sacks and his co-hosts. "It’s all about you, not the country."

However, Trump administration spokesperson Harrison Fields said that Sacks was "deeply committed to advancing the president's vision" on cryptocurrency and AI issues, and credited the billionaire Trump donor with being "a trusted ally and early supporter of President Trump."

While the White House defended Sacks himself, an unnamed source told Semafor that the administration was indeed having ongoing conversations "regarding the future of some of these big names that came to the federal government in that wave of Elon [Musk] coming here." The source also teased the possibility of some of Musk's hires being let go, calling it a "mutual separation" between the tech billionaire's team and the administration.

Whether Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which has spent the first several months of 2025 slashing the federal workforce across multiple agencies – remains in place is also an open question. Some DOGE staffers reportedly have been texting each other wondering if their own jobs will be next on the chopping block. Semafor's source also said that while the work itself of reducing the federal workforce may continue, Trump may rebrand it.

“Maybe we don’t call it DOGE,” the source said. “The mission is what we want to stay focused on.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Vance Invented A 'Fact' About Harvard To Make Himself Really Mad

Vance Invented A 'Fact' About Harvard To Make Himself Really Mad

Vice President JD Vance is either secretly Charles Xavier and can read the mind of every Harvard University employee, or he is making shit up again in order to push a MAGA talking point.

The self-proclaimed hillbilly boldly compared Harvard University to North Korea at the American Compass anniversary gala Tuesday, claiming that “at least 90—probably 95 percent” of Harvard’s faculty voted for Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

"But if you ask yourself—a foreign election, a foreign country's election, you say 80% of the people voted for one candidate. You would say, 'Oh, that's kind of weird,’ right? That's like, not a super healthy democracy,” he babbled.

“If you said, 'Oh, 95 percent of people voted for one party's candidate,' you would say, 'That's North Korea,” right, Vance said. “That is impossible in a true place of free exchange for that to happen."

If you’re wondering how Vance acquired these completely made-up voting statistics and decided to draw these connections, you are not alone. Even Fox News noted that the vice president made the claim “without evidence.”

Then again, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just released an official government report citing fabricated sources, so it’s not unheard of for people in the Trump administration to pull data from thin air.

As for our eye-lined darling, using made-up information to push his longtime vendetta against higher education is just another example of his awkward attempts at being a relatable human.

When Vance was penning thoughts for conservative website National Review, he used vague sources he referred to as “friends” he knew to justify his narrative of the “college trap.”

And when the highly hypocritical Yale Law School grad is not dogging on Harvard, he is struggling to form sentences while interacting with workers at a donut shop to show voters that he, too, is a normal everyday guy who does normal, everyday things.

Then again, Vance can’t even keep his own family or sports fans on his side—so his historic unpopularity makes a lot of sense.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Trump rally, Tulsa

Suddenly, MAGA Is Feeling Doubt About Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

With House Republicans narrowly passing President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which is designed to blow up the national debt, cut taxes for the rich, and partially pay for that by gutting programs for the poor and working class—you’d think MAGA conservatives would be cheering. But many of them aren’t.

Let’s back up.

Trump defied historic voting patterns in 2024 by winning voters making under $50,000 a year, 50 percent to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris’ 48 percent. He tied her among voters making over $50,000, at 49 percent. And when the threshold was raised to $100,000, the income divide got starker: Trump won the under-$100K crowd, 51 to 47 percent, while Harris won the over-$100K vote, 51 to 47 percent.

That flipped the old partisan narrative. In general, Republicans were the party of the working class, and Democrats the party of those with more money.

While culture-war hysteria around transgender people and immigrants drove much of Trump’s support, his promise to lower prices “on Day 1” clearly resonated with economically desperate voters. Exit polls back this up. He won 76 percent of those who had faced “severe hardship” from inflation in the previous year, and 52 percent of those who’d faced “moderate hardship.” Meanwhile, Harris dominated among those who said they’d faced “no hardship,” winning 78 percent of them.

As former Daily Kos reporter Kerry Eleveld once said in our old podcast, “Democrats are the party of voters who don’t have to look at prices when grocery shopping.”

That’s why we see so many variations of “this isn’t what we voted for” in all these “Leopards Ate Faces” stories. Yes, we could scream, “IT WAS ALL THERE IN PROJECT 2025!” But let’s be honest: Most voters aren’t policy wonks. For those doing price math in the grocery aisle, politics isn’t a priority. Trump’s promise may have been absurd, but it was simple and seductive.

But falling for those lies has a cost. On the economic front, Trump and the Republican Party are governing like they always have—for the ultrawealthy, connected, and powerful, at the direct expense of their own voters. As I’ve written repeatedly, it’s like Trump is trying to hurt his base.

Early Thursday morning, House Republicans voted to gut Medicaid, which disproportionately helps rural Americans. Their tax cuts for billionaires effectively raise taxes on low-income voters—i.e., their core voters in last year’s election. MarketWatch, reporting on a University of Pennsylvania analysis of a close-to-final draft of the GOP tax bill, noted:

  • The top 0.1 percent of households would rake in over $390,000 in after-tax income.
  • The top 1 percent would gain $44,190.
  • Households making $51,000 to $92,999 a year would get an additional $815.
  • The lowest-income households, though, will see their after-tax income shrink by $940.

Yes, that voter making under $50,000, they get to deal with Trump’s price-raising tariffs and a tax hike.

On Reddit’s r/conservative subreddit, the reactions to the House passing the bill were surprisingly muted.

Some echoed traditional deficit concerns, such as the commenter who noted, “Conservatives are supposed to want less government spending and less debt. This bill will add trillions of dollars of debt over the next 10 years. We're not even kind of moving in the right direction.”

But a surprising number took umbrage at the gutting of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

One top commenter the subreddit—i.e., not a troll—wrote, “I'm all for cutting waste fraud and abuse on Medicaid and SNAP, but … I think if the medicaid/SNAP changes go through as is, GOP will get mauled in the mid-terms.”

Another top commenter noted, “[I]t's not that I like high taxes, it's that I think high taxes on the lower, middle, and upper-middle-class are much more damaging than high taxes on the ultra-rich. It's both about keeping taxes low on most people, and about preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny number of people. It's also frustrating because Trump has repeatedly spoken out in favor of such tax hikes on the richest taxpayers as a way of making budgets and tax breaks work.”

This commenter also called the Medicaid provisions “cruel,” and on SNAP, they said, “[I]t's going to deny benefits to some people we would probably prefer have them. for example the people who are going to be hit hardest are the people who live in areas where jobs are scarce, who have difficult lives with a lot of barriers to getting anything done, and who have other life responsibilities like caring for family members or doing something else important in their community that they don't get paid for.”

If only there was a party that worked to protect such people …

All over social media, Trump voters are realizing they’re the ones being labeled as “fraud and waste.” Like this gem on Threads:

Again, we can point to Project 2025—the Heritage Foundation’s agenda for a second Trump administration—and note how it promised to gut SNAP and Medicaid. Yes, we warned them. But pointing fingers now isn’t useful.

What is useful? Turning this betrayal into motivation.

No, we won’t win over all Trump voters. Many are too far gone. It’s a cult.

But we don’t need all of them. We don’t even need most. We just need a small shift.

In Pennsylvania, Trump won last year by 120,266 votes. In Michigan, it was 80,103. And in Wisconsin, 29,397. Altogether, that makes for just 229,766 votes in an election where 155,512,532 were cast—or just 0.15 percent of all ballots. That’s how small of a shift we’re talking about, though obviously, the bigger the better.

I can’t recall ever seeing a party so eagerly swing a baseball bat at its own voters—many of them new to the Republican coalition.

The pain is real. And yes, most of us are impacted in some way. But if we can turn that pain into political clarity for even a slice of those voters, we can begin to reverse the damage—and take back our future.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Drill Baby Drill? How 'MAGA Brain' May Kill US Energy Independence

Drill Baby Drill? How 'MAGA Brain' May Kill US Energy Independence

Does anyone remember “Drill, baby, drill?” What with all the tumult over Donald Trump’s disastrous trade war, many have forgotten that energy production played a big role in his second inaugural address. He claimed that we were facing a “national energy emergency,” and that he would bring prices down and make America rich by releasing the “liquid gold under our feet.”

There was, in fact, no energy emergency. One thing you always find Trump and MAGA in general doing is assuming that the real world must look the way their prejudices say it should look. Squishy liberals who believe in rule of law were in charge last year, so America must have been in the grip of a terrifying crime wave — even though the homicide rate in 2024 was close to a 65-year low:


Source: Jeff Asher

Similarly, the Biden administration was full of woke environmentalists who believe in the global warming hoax, so they must have crippled energy production — even though America in the Biden years was, for the first time in generations, producing more energy than it consumed:

When I wrote about this at the time, I suggested that Trump was suffering from "MAGA brain,"

the belief that the only way you can get results is by being tough and nasty, avoiding anything that might be considered woke. Thus, to achieve energy independence, we must put aside worries about pollution and climate change while blocking clean energy.

So administrations that care about climate change and the environment in general must be crippling the energy sector. Biden may have presided over record oil production and growing energy exports, but we’ll just say that we have an energy emergency anyway.

You can probably guess what’s coming next. There appears to be a real chance that America will lose its newly reacquired energy independence. And if it does, we know who will be responsible: Trump himself.

To see why, we need to look at the factors responsible for America’s return to energy self-sufficiency.

One of these is fracking — extracting oil and gas embedded in shale by fracturing that shale with high-pressure liquids. Yes, there are serious environmental issues involved both in the fracking process and in the fact that more fossil fuel production adds to greenhouse gas emissions. But while the Biden administration took climate change seriously, that didn’t stop oil and gas production from rising on its watch.

The other factor was the incredible rise of renewable energy. Not that long ago wind and solar power were widely seen as silly, hippy-dippy conceits. Now they’re major contributors to energy supply:


Data source: US Energy Information Administration

In the case of shale, it’s all about prices. Drilling new shale wells is expensive. In fact, Trump’s vision of drastically lower oil prices never made any sense, because any large drop in oil prices would make new shale wells unprofitable. And since production from any given shale well drops quickly over time, anything that caused new drilling to fall substantially would quickly translate into declining oil production.

How low would prices have to go to shrink the U.S. oil industry? Recently the Dallas Fed did a survey which suggested that drilling in many major fields would stop if the price per barrel fell below the low 60s:

And that was before Trump’s tariffs raised costs, so the critical price is probably higher now. And guess what: oil prices right now are at a level where we can expect production to fall. Here are oil futures:

Why did oil get cheap? Look at the sudden drop on April 2, a.k.a. Liberation Day, when Trump first announced extreme tariffs. It’s obvious that oil prices are down thanks to pessimism about the global economy, which in turn is tied to Trump’s trade war. And by the way, that war is by no means over. A new analysis by the Yale Budget Lab finds that the damaging effects of Trump’s tariffs are only modestly mitigated by his surrender to China.

And as for renewables: Trump hates them, wind power in particular. He offers crazy justifications for that hatred — did you hear about his claim that offshore wind farms kill whales? — but it’s pretty clear that he has been nursing an irrational grudge ever since he was unable to stop a Scottish wind farm that he thought ruined the view from a golf course he owns.

Oh, and I’m pretty sure that MAGA types in general dislike renewable energy because they don’t consider it manly.

So what will be the economy-boosting effects of drill, baby, drill? Nil, baby, nil.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, where he now posts almost every day.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman Substack.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World