Elon Musk Says DOGE Aims to Finish $1 Trillion in Cuts by End of May
Dana Hull and Jennifer A. Dlouhy – March 27, 2025
(Bloomberg) — Elon Musk, the billionaire running President Donald Trump’s federal cost cutting effort, said he plans to slash $1 trillion in government spending by the end of May.
Musk, in an interview Thursday with Fox News’ Bret Baier, said he believes that his Department of Government Efficiency can find that level of cost savings within 130 days from the start of Trump’s term, which began on Jan. 20.
That presents an ambitious goal that would require slashing more than half of the $1.8 trillion the US spent on non-defense discretionary programs in 2024.
“I think we will accomplish most of the work required to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars within that time frame,” Musk said on Baier’s show Special Report.
Musk is a special government employee, a classification for temporary federal workers who are only supposed to work 130 days out of the year in their roles.
Musk said he wants to cut 15% of the government’s annual spending — which amounted to $6.75 trillion in fiscal year 2024. That’s a reduction of about $1 trillion. Musk says he is confident he can slash that amount “without affecting any of the critical government services.”
The interview came days after Trump said that he expected to be “satisfied” with DOGE’s cuts in the coming month or two. The president has also said DOGE’s overhauls are not “necessarily a very popular thing to do,” an acknowledgment of the political risk associated with Musk’s plans for wide-ranging cuts.
Much of the federal government’s spending is on mandatory programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, where there is little leeway to make cuts. Musk has said, without citing evidence, that those programs are overrun with fraud and waste.
DOGE has deployed at least 10 staffers to the Social Security Administration to identify waste. But the data does not support claims of widespread fraud: from 2015 through 2022, Social Security estimated that it made almost $72 billion in improper payments — less than 1% of benefits paid, according to an inspector general report last year.
The Fox interview marked the first time that many of the key people working with DOGE have spoken publicly about their work. Steve Davis, a longtime Musk aide, was identified by Baier as the DOGE chief operating officer. Joe Gebbia, the billionaire who co-founded Airbnb and is on Tesla Inc.’s board of directors, also joined the interview.
So far, the accounting from Musk’s own team has shown they are still far from the $1 trillion mark. The DOGE website, which has been plagued with errors and overstatements, lists about $22 billion in contract savings. They claim about $130 billion in overall cost reductions, which aren’t itemized.
Musk’s DOGE has also spearheaded a wave of federal government layoffs that agencies have begun implementing in recent weeks.
Musk sought to downplay the job cuts, saying that “almost no one’s gotten fired.”
Agencies in recent weeks have announced a spate of workforce reductions. Earlier Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would cut 10,000 jobs. Earlier this month, the Education Department said it was cutting half of its employees and the Small Business Administration is eliminating 43% of its workforce. The Department of Veterans Affairs said it would terminate 80,000 workers and the Treasury Department said in a court filing that large-scale cuts are planned.
DOGE has faced a series of legal setbacks as judges have halted some of their cuts. Musk’s team has also been blocked from accessing some systems and databases, including at the Social Security Administration.
The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
Jeffrey Goldberg – March 24, 2025
The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen.
I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.
This is going to require some explaining.
The story technically begins shortly after the Hamas invasion of southern Israel, in October 2023. The Houthis—an Iran-backed terrorist organization whose motto is “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam”—soon launched attacks on Israel and on international shipping, creating havoc for global trade. Throughout 2024, the Biden administration was ineffective in countering these Houthi attacks; the incoming Trump administration promised a tougher response.
This is where Pete Hegseth and I come in.
On Tuesday, March 11, I received a connection request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz. Signal is an open-source encrypted messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text-messaging services are capable of delivering. I assumed that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump’s national security adviser. I did not assume, however, that the request was from the actual Michael Waltz. I have met him in the past, and though I didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me, I did think it somewhat unusual, given the Trump administration’s contentious relationship with journalists—and Trump’s periodic fixation on me specifically. It immediately crossed my mind that someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me. It is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors to try to induce journalists to share information that could be used against them.
I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual national security adviser, and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine, or Iran, or some other important matter.
Two days later—Thursday—at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the “Houthi PC small group.”
A message to the group, from “Michael Waltz,” read as follows: “Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.”
The message continued, “Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.”
The term principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.
One minute later, a person identified only as “MAR”—the secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio—wrote, “Mike Needham for State,” apparently designating the current counselor of the State Department as his representative. At that same moment, a Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, “Andy baker for VP.” One minute after that, “TG” (presumably Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, or someone masquerading as her) wrote, “Joe Kent for DNI.” Nine minutes later, “Scott B”—apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or someone spoofing his identity, wrote, “Dan Katz for Treasury.” At 4:53 p.m., a user called “Pete Hegseth” wrote, “Dan Caldwell for DoD.” And at 6:34 p.m., “Brian” wrote “Brian McCormack for NSC.” One more person responded: “John Ratcliffe” wrote at 5:24 p.m. with the name of a CIA official to be included in the group. I am not publishing that name, because that person is an active intelligence officer.
The principals had apparently assembled. In all, 18 individuals were listed as members of this group, including various National Security Council officials; Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and someone identified only as “S M,” which I took to stand for Stephen Miller. I appeared on my own screen only as “JG.”
That was the end of the Thursday text chain.
After receiving the Waltz text related to the “Houthi PC small group,” I consulted a number of colleagues. We discussed the possibility that these texts were part of a disinformation campaign, initiated by either a foreign intelligence service or, more likely, a media-gadfly organization, the sort of group that attempts to place journalists in embarrassing positions, and sometimes succeeds. I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans. I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor in chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior U.S. officials, up to and including the vice president.
The next day, things got even stranger.
At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, “Michael Waltz” texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) “State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.”
At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled “JD Vance” responded at 8:16: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.” (Vance was indeed in Michigan that day.) The Vance account goes on to state, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
The Vance account then goes on to make a noteworthy statement, considering that the vice president has not deviated publicly from Trump’s position on virtually any issue. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
A person identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) wrote at 8:22, “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”
Then, at 8:26 a.m., a message landed in my Signal app from the user “John Ratcliffe.” The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.
At 8:27, a message arrived from the “Pete Hegseth” account. “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
The Hegseth message goes on to state, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC”—operations security. “I welcome other thoughts.”
A few minutes later, the “Michael Waltz” account posted a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”
The account identified as “JD Vance” addressed a message at 8:45 to @Pete Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)
The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
At this point, the previously silent “S M” joined the conversation. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
A screenshot from the Signal group shows debate over the president’s views ahead of the attack.
That message from “S M”—presumably President Trump’s confidant Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff, or someone playing Stephen Miller—effectively shut down the conversation. The last text of the day came from “Pete Hegseth,” who wrote at 9:46 a.m., “Agree.”
After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude. The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive.
It was the next morning, Saturday, March 15, when this story became truly bizarre.
At 11:44 a.m., the account labeled “Pete Hegseth” posted in Signal a “TEAM UPDATE.” I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts. The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.
The only person to reply to the update from Hegseth was the person identified as the vice president. “I will say a prayer for victory,” Vance wrote. (Two other users subsequently added prayer emoji.)
According to the lengthy Hegseth text, the first detonations in Yemen would be felt two hours hence, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time. So I waited in my car in a supermarket parking lot. If this Signal chat was real, I reasoned, Houthi targets would soon be bombed. At about 1:55, I checked X and searched Yemen. Explosions were then being heard across Sanaa, the capital city.
I went back to the Signal channel. At 1:48, “Michael Waltz” had provided the group an update. Again, I won’t quote from this text, except to note that he described the operation as an “amazing job.” A few minutes later, “John Ratcliffe” wrote, “A good start.” Not long after, Waltz responded with three emoji: a fist, an American flag, and fire. Others soon joined in, including “MAR,” who wrote, “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” and “Susie Wiles,” who texted, “Kudos to all – most particularly those in theater and CENTCOM! Really great. God bless.” “Steve Witkoff” responded with five emoji: two hands-praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. “TG” responded, “Great work and effects!” The after-action discussion included assessments of damage done, including the likely death of a specific individual. The Houthi-run Yemeni health ministry reported that at least 53 people were killed in the strikes, a number that has not been independently verified.
A screenshot from the Signal group shows reactions to the strikes.
On Sunday, Waltz appeared on ABC’s This Week and contrasted the strikes with the Biden administration’s more hesitant approach. “These were not kind of pinprick, back-and-forth—what ultimately proved to be feckless attacks,” he said. “This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out.”
The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real. Having come to this realization, one that seemed nearly impossible only hours before, I removed myself from the Signal group, understanding that this would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael Waltz,” that I had left. No one in the chat had seemed to notice that I was there. And I received no subsequent questions about why I left—or, more to the point, who I was.
Earlier today, I emailed Waltz and sent him a message on his Signal account. I also wrote to Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard, and other officials. In an email, I outlined some of my questions: Is the “Houthi PC small group” a genuine Signal thread? Did they know that I was included in this group? Was I (on the off chance) included on purpose? If not, who did they think I was? Did anyone realize who I was when I was added, or when I removed myself from the group? Do senior Trump-administration officials use Signal regularly for sensitive discussions? Do the officials believe that the use of such a channel could endanger American personnel?
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” Hughes wrote. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,” he said. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”
I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of “national defense” information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Hegseth, Ratcliffe, and other Cabinet-level officials presumably would have the authority to declassify information, and several of the national-security lawyers noted that the hypothetical officials on the Signal chain might claim that they had declassified the information they shared. But this argument rings hollow, they cautioned, because Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing information of such a sensitive nature, regardless of whether it has been stamped “top secret” or not.
There was another potential problem: Waltz set some of the messages in the Signal group to disappear after one week, and some after four. That raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law: Text messages about official acts are considered records that should be preserved.
“Under the records laws applicable to the White House and federal agencies, all government employees are prohibited from using electronic-messaging applications such as Signal for official business, unless those messages are promptly forwarded or copied to an official government account,” Jason R. Baron, a professor at the University of Maryland and the former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told Harris.
“Intentional violations of these requirements are a basis for disciplinary action. Additionally, agencies such as the Department of Defense restrict electronic messaging containing classified information to classified government networks and/or networks with government-approved encrypted features,” Baron said.
Several former U.S. officials told Harris and me that they had used Signal to share unclassified information and to discuss routine matters, particularly when traveling overseas without access to U.S. government systems. But they knew never to share classified or sensitive information on the app, because their phones could have been hacked by a foreign intelligence service, which would have been able to read the messages on the devices. It is worth noting that Donald Trump, as a candidate for president (and as president), repeatedly and vociferously demanded that Hillary Clinton be imprisoned for using a private email server for official business when she was secretary of state. (It is also worth noting that Trump was indicted in 2023 for mishandling classified documents, but the charges were dropped after his election.)
Waltz and the other Cabinet-level officials were already potentially violating government policy and the law simply by texting one another about the operation. But when Waltz added a journalist—presumably by mistake—to his principals committee, he created new security and legal issues. Now the group was transmitting information to someone not authorized to receive it. That is the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional, and even if the recipient of the leak did not actually believe it was a leak until Yemen came under American attack.
All along, members of the Signal group were aware of the need for secrecy and operations security. In his text detailing aspects of the forthcoming attack on Houthi targets, Hegseth wrote to the group—which, at the time, included me—“We are currently clean on OPSEC.”
67,000 white South Africans have expressed interest in Trump’s plan to give them refugee status
Gerald Imray – March 20, 2025
FILE – White South Africans demonstrate in support of U.S. President Donald Trump in front of the U.S. embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, Feb. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay, File)FILE – White South Africans demonstrate in support of U.S. President Donald Trump in front of the U.S. embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, Feb. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay, File)President Donald Trump waves from the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Monday, March 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)
CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — The United States Embassy in South Africa said Thursday it received a list of nearly 70,000 people interested in refugee status in the U.S. under President Donald Trump’s plan to relocate members of a white minority group he claims are victims of racial discrimination by their Black-led government.
The list was given to the embassy by the South African Chamber of Commerce in the U.S., which said it became a point of contact for white South Africans asking about the program announced by the Trump administration last month. The chamber said the list does not constitute official applications.
Trump issued an executive order on Feb. 7 cutting U.S. funding to South Africa and citing “government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.”
Trump’s executive order specifically referred to Afrikaners, a white minority group who are descendants of mainly Dutch and French colonial settlers who first came to South Africa in the 17th century. The order directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to prioritize humanitarian relief to Afrikaners who are victims of “unjust racial discrimination” and resettle them in the U.S. under the refugee program.
There are approximately 2.7 million Afrikaners in South Africa, which has a population of 62 million. Trump’s decision to offer some white South Africans refugee status went against his larger policy to halt the U.S. refugee resettlement program.
The South African government has said that Trump’s allegations that it is targeting Afrikaners through a land expropriation law are inaccurate and largely driven by misinformation. Trump has posted on his Truth Social platform that Afrikaners were having their farmland seized, when no land has been taken under the new law.
The executive order also criticized South Africa’s foreign policy, specifically its decision to accuse Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in a case at the United Nations’ top court. The Trump administration has accused South Africa of supporting the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran and taking an anti-American stance. The U.S. has also expelled the South African ambassador, accusing him of being anti-America and anti-Trump.
An official at the U.S. Embassy in the South African capital, Pretoria, confirmed receipt of the list of names from the South African Chamber of Commerce in the U.S. but gave no more detail.
Neil Diamond, the president of the chamber, said the list contains 67,042 names. Most were people between 25 and 45 years old and have children.
He told the Newzroom Afrika television channel that his organization had been inundated with requests for more information since Trump’s order and had contacted the State Department and the embassy in Pretoria “to indicate that we would like them to make a channel available for South Africans that would like to get more information and register for refugee status.”
“That cannot be the responsibility of the chamber,” he said.
Diamond said only U.S. authorities could officially register applications for resettlement in the U.S. The U.S. Embassy in South Africa said it is awaiting further instructions on the implementation of Trump’s order.
Leak Reveals Trump’s Full Bonkers Plan for the Kennedy Center
Leigh Kimmins – March 19, 2025
JIM WATSON / Getty Images
President Donald Trump wants to introduce non-woke musicals like “Cats,” honor dead stars from sports to business and even renovate the Kennedy Center, according to a leaked board meeting recording.
The center in Washington, D.C. has become the frontline of Trump’s effort to erode what he sees as “woke” culture built by the Democratic Party, and Trump intends to alter it by rolling out sweeping changes, according to audio of a private meeting obtained by the New York Times.
The president started this process by parachuting himself in as the center’s chairman in February. He has since gutted the board and installed loyalists to help him in his quest.
Trump leads a board meeting with (L-R) Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, President of The Kennedy Center Board of Trustees Richard Grenell and Interim Vice Chair Jennifer Fischer. / Chip Somodevilla / Getty ImagesMore
At his first board meeting Monday as chairman, Trump laid out his plans for the future of the cultural hub. He says that he would like the center to go “slightly more conservative” in terms of the stars that it honors, according to the recordings.
The Kennedy Center Honors, an annual awards ceremony at the site, will be re-designed in his image to push back against the influence on the event from “radical left lunatics.”
Traditionally, only those in the performing arts sphere are recognized with gongs, but Trump thinks figures in sports, politics and business could also be honored.
He even reportedly name-checked casino mogul Steve Wynn as a potential recipient. He is a major Republican donor and husband of Trump-appointed board member Andrea Hissom Wynn.
Luciano Pavarotti, Elvis Presley and Babe Ruth are some names Trump also threw around. Agreeable board members also mentioned Celine Dion, Sylvester Stallone, Johnny Mathis and Andrea Bocelli.
But who to present this new-look honors bash? Well, the self-described “king of ratings,” of course.
“Believe me, I don’t want to do it, I don’t want to do it,” Trump demurred in the recording, even though he was the one who put himself forward as host. “I have enough publicity. They’ll say, ‘Trump wants to be the host.’ I don’t want to. But I want this thing to be successful.”
He said the previous hosts were “always terrible.” Queen Latifah hosted last year.
He then described himself as “the king of ratings,” adding: “Whether we like it or not, the king of ratings.” Indeed, he looked like a king as he addressed the press from above as he stood in the presidential box earlier on Monday.
One might also expect Broadway shows of a certain vintage to become the new norm. Trump mused about Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Cats” and “Phantom of the Opera.”
After a board member asked if there were any new productions that were not “totally woke,” a Trump center lackey said there would be a partial split from the union representing actors, Actors’ Equity.
This “opens us up for a whole bunch of more options as well as a lot more money” the unidentified board member added.
Structurally, the Kennedy Center is in “tremendous disrepair,” Trump said later on. He announced that “the whole place needs work,” including the main hall, and that he will ask Congress to pay to help “bring it back.”
The exterior of the John F. Kennedy Center of the Performing Arts building is lit up in multiple colors in advance of the annual Kennedy Center Honors on Dec. 1, 2024. / J. David Ake / Getty Images
“They never covered the I-beam,” he said of the exposed structural girder that was left uncovered as a stylistic point. He added: “I think the I-beams should be covered with some incredible stone — probably marble, but marble’s a bad outdoor stone, but looks better than granite. But it should be covered. And we’ll do that. We’ll add that in. But it’s not a small job.”
He also suggested that the center should build a band shell on the Potomac River.
Trump then blasted the center’s 2019 expansion that added a series of spaces for rehearsals and performances. He dismissed the gardens, classrooms and cafe that were built as part of the privately-funded work as “nonsense” and “crazy rooms.”
“Think of it, they got $250 million,” he said. “I’m trying to figure out where they spent it. Somebody made a lot of money, that I can tell you.”
And, true to form, he managed to squeeze in a jibe at political rival and former president, Joe Biden. “I had no idea how big it was, because I just walked the whole place,” he said after a full tour of the site. “Believe me, Biden couldn’t have done it. He would not have been able to walk the place.”
DOGE and Musk’s USAID shutdown probably violated the U.S. Constitution
Mashable – March 19, 2025
Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways
In an 68-page opinion filed in the Maryland District Court on Tuesday, judge Theodore Chuang granted a preliminary injunction preventing DOGE from further dismantling USAID. A vital foreign aid organisation, USAID offered humanitarian assistance to other countries on behalf of the U.S. government, including disaster and poverty relief. Unfortunately, billionaire Musk apparently considered such spending wasteful, shutting down USAID, reportedly reducing a workforce of over 10,000 to 611, and abruptly cutting off billions in foreign aid shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
The temporary injunction doesn’t restore USAID to what it was prior to DOGE’s intervention. However, it does mean that DOGE cannot fire any more USAID employees, end its contracts or grants, or shut down its offices and IT systems. The court further ordered DOGE to reinstate all current USAID employees’ access to their email, payments, security, and other electronic systems, as well as restore deleted emails.
Why was DOGE shutting down USAID potentially unconstitutional?
Supporters of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAid) rally on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Credit: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The case was brought by 26 USAID employees and contractors, some of whom the court noted had been stranded overseas without vital security software or funds for basic living expenses when DOGE shut down USAID’s systems. In his ruling, Chuang agreed with the plaintiffs’ assessment that Musk and DOGE violated the U.S. Constitution on more than one occasion, finding that their case was likely to succeed.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause was breached because Musk operated as an Officer of the United States without being appointed as such. The defense refuted this, claiming that Musk was merely acting in an advisory capacity, and wasn’t the one actually calling the shots. Chuang found this unconvincing.
“To deny [this claim] solely on the basis that, on paper, Musk has no formal legal authority relating to the decisions at issue, even if he is actually exercising significant authority on governmental matters, would open the door to an end-run about the Appointments Clause,” wrote Chuang.
“Musk’s public statements and posts on X, in which he has stated on multiple occasions that DOGE will take action, and such action occurred shortly thereafter, demonstrate that he has firm control over DOGE…. [T]he present record supports the conclusion that Musk, without having been duly appointed as an Officer of the United States, exercised significant authority reserved for an Officer…”
The plaintiffs further argued that Musk and DOGE breached the separation of powers because USAID is a federal agency that can only be created or abolished by Congress. As such, DOGE’s shutdown of USAID allegedly exceeded the authority of the executive branch to encroach upon the legislative branch. Chuang also considered this argument strong.
“Congress has made clear through statute its express will that USAID be an independent agency, and that it not be abolished or substantially reorganized without congressional approval,” said Chuang. “[Musk and DOGE’s] present actions to dismantle USAID violate the Separation of Powers because they contravene congressional authority relating to the establishment of an agency.”
Trump’s bluntness powered a White House comeback. Now his words are getting him in trouble in court
Chris Megerian and Lindsay Whitehurst – March 19, 2025
President Donald Trump greets Ireland’s Prime Minister Micheál Martin as he arrives at the West Wing of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, March 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)Elon Musk flashes his t-shirt that reads “DOGE” to the media as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk speak to reporters near a red Model S Tesla vehicle on the South Lawn of the White House Tuesday, March 11, 2025, in Washington. (Pool via AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s shoot-from-the-lip style kept Americans on the edge of their seats during last year’s campaign. But now that he’s speaking as a president and not as a candidate, his words are being used against him in court in the blizzard of litigation challenging his agenda.
The spontaneity is complicating his administration’s legal positions. Nowhere has this been clearer than in cases involving his adviser Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, the driving force in his efforts to downsize and overhaul the federal government.
The latest example came earlier this week when U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that Musk had likely violated the Constitution by dismantling the United States Agency for International Development.
The lawsuit turned on the question of whether the billionaire entrepreneur had overstepped his authority. Justice Department lawyers and White House officials insist that Musk is merely a presidential adviser, not the actual leader of DOGE.
But Trump has said otherwise — in speeches, interviews and public remarks — and Chuang quoted him extensively in his decision.
Trump most notably boasted of creating DOGE during his prime-time address to a joint session of Congress and said it was “headed by Elon Musk.” Republicans gave Musk a standing ovation, and he saluted from the gallery above the House chamber.
“Trump’s words were essential, central and indispensable,” said Norm Eisen, one of the lawyers for USAID employees who filed the lawsuit. “His admissions took what would have been a tough case and made it into a straightforward one.”
The looseness with words is a shift from predecessors like Democratic President Barack Obama, who used to say that he was careful because anything he said could send troops marching or markets tumbling.
Trump has no such feeling of restraint, and neither do other members of his Republican administration such as Musk.
Chuang, who is based in Maryland and was nominated by Obama, also cited social media posts from Musk, who writes frequently on X, the platform that he owns.
For example, Musk posted “we spent the weekend feeding USAID to the woodchipper” on Feb. 3. The agency was being brought to a standstill at that time, with staff furloughed, spending halted and headquarters shut down.
“Musk’s public statements and posts … suggest that he has the ability to cause DOGE to act,” Chuang wrote in his ruling.
Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary at the White House, said Trump was fulfilling his campaign promise “to make the federal government more efficient and accountable to taxpayers.”
“Rogue bureaucrats and activist judges attempting to undermine this effort are only subverting the will of the American people and their obstructionist efforts will fail,” he said.
Anthony Coley, who led public affairs at the Justice Department during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, said statements involving civil litigation were always coordinated between his office and the West Wing.
“The words could be used to support what we’re doing or undermine what we’re doing,” he said. “It’s a carefully choreographed effort to make sure there was no daylight between what was said in the court of public opinion and what could ultimately play out in the court of law.”
In comparison to how things were done in the past, Coley said, Trump has a “ready-fire-aim approach of doing business.”
Trump doesn’t usually let legal disputes force him to turn down the volume. During a criminal investigation over his decision to keep classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after leaving the White House in 2021, Trump spoke extensively about the case in an interview with Fox News.
Longtime defense lawyers were startled because defendants are usually encouraged to keep mum while facing an indictment. But the situation panned out for Trump. His legal team delayed the case, and the special counsel’s office dropped the charges after Trump won the election last November — presidents can’t be prosecuted while in office.
DOGE has been the focus of nearly two dozen lawsuits. It’s often prevailed so far in cases involving access to government data, where several plaintiffs have struggled to convince judges to block the organization’s actions.
But it’s also run into challenges, such as a lawsuit over whether DOGE must comply with public records requests. The Trump administration asserted in court that DOGE is part of the White House, meaning it’s exempt.
Judge Christopher Cooper, also nominated by Obama, disagreed, siding with a government watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
“Musk and the President’s public statements indicate that USDS” — the original acronym for the organization that was renamed as DOGE — “is in fact exercising substantial independent authority,” wrote Cooper, who is based in Washington.
Cooper concluded that DOGE can “identify and terminate federal employees, federal programs, and federal contracts. Doing any of those three things would appear to require substantial independent authority; to do all three surely does.”
He ordered DOGE to start responding to requests about the team’s role in mass firings and disruptions to federal programs. The administration unsuccessfully asked the judge to reconsider, saying the judge “fundamentally misapprehended” the agency’s structure.
The cases are still in their early stages, and the novel legal questions they’re raising will take time for the courts to consider, said Michael Fragoso, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
“What Elon does on Twitter is not necessarily what DOGE does,” he said. “My hope would be courts take the time to sift between those two.”
Just because Musk claims credit online for deep agency cuts, that doesn’t necessarily translate to DOGE having authority in the eyes of the law, Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell argued in a recent debate on the issue.
DOGE is recommending changes, he said, but it’s the agency heads who are actually putting them into effect.
Not even our fallen at Arlington National Cemetery escape Trump’s DEI hate | Opinion
EJ Montini, Arizona Republic – March 18, 2025
It turns out that even the dead must suffer idiotic consequences from Donald Trump’s derangement over any hint of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Worse still, the edicts coming from the White House are now dishonoring the heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
The military news website Task & Purpose reported that “the cemetery’s public website has scrubbed dozens of pages on gravesites and educational materials that include histories of prominent Black, Hispanic and female service members buried in the cemetery, along with educational material on dozens of Medal of Honor recipients and maps of prominent gravesites of Marine Corps veterans and other services.”
Flags are placed at headstones to honor individuals laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.
Cemetery officials said it was done to comply with anti-DEI orders from Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
Dishonoring Black, Hispanic and female heroes over DEI
The article noted that links to three lists of Black, Hispanic and female service members buried at the cemetery were removed, as well as documents from an education section.
It added that a section talking about Black soldiers in World War II originally saying they had “served their country and fought for racial justice” was altered to say only that cemetery memorials “honor their dedication and service.”
Lesson plans available for teachers covering topics that included Women’s History and Medal of Honor recipients were removed.
An Army spokesperson at Arlington told Task & Purpose, “The Army has taken immediate steps to comply with all executive orders related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) personnel, programs, and policies.
“The Army will continue to review its personnel, policies, and programs to ensure it remains in compliance with law and presidential orders. Social media and web pages were removed, archived, or changed to avoid noncompliance with executive orders.”
Actually, Arlington is the most egalitarian place in America
I’m not sure there is anything at Arlington that could indicate any form of “noncompliance with executive orders” having to do with DEI.
The suggestion that such a thing is possible makes me sick. It should make us all sick.
It is the most egalitarian community in America. There is nothing in the open expanses or tree-covered hills of the cemetery’s 639 acres distinguishing those resting there by way of race or gender or ethnicity.
Only row after row after row of silent heroes, more than 400,000 of them, each of their graves marked by a simple white marble headstone.
EJ Montini is a columnist for the Arizona Republic.
Proposed Trump policy could force thousands of citizens applying for Social Security benefits to verify their identities in person
Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez – March 18, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump (left) and Elon Musk speak in the White House on March 14, 2025.
Trump’s Social Security Administration proposed a major change that could force thousands of people every week to show up at a shrinking list of field offices before they can receive benefits.
In an effort to combat fraud, the SSA has suggested that citizens applying for Social Security or disability benefits over the phone would also need to, for the first time, verify their identities using an online program called “internet ID proofing,” according to an internal memo viewed by the Washington Post.
If they can’t verify their identity online, they will have to file paperwork at their nearest field office, according to the memo sent last week by Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations Doris Diaz to Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek.
The memo acknowledged the potential change could force an estimated 75,000 to 85,000 people per week to seek out field offices to confirm their identities and could lead to “increased challenges for vulnerable populations,” “longer wait times and processing time,” and “increased demand for office appointments,” the memo read, according to the Post.
The change would disproportionately affect older populations who may not be internet savvy, and those with disabilities. Claimants seeking a field office will also have fewer to choose from, as more than 40 of 1,200 are estimated to close, the New York Timesreported, citing advocacy group Social Security Works. The list of offices slated to close is based on an unreliable list released by DOGE, according to Social Security Works. Elon Musk’s DOGE has also said it will cut 7,000 of the SSA’s 57,000 employees.
The White House and the Social Security Administration did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.
The SSA previously considered scrapping telephone service for claims, the Post reported, but backtracked after a report by the outlet. Regardless, the SSA said claimants looking to change their bank account information will now need to do so either online or in-person and could no longer do so over the phone.
Almost every transaction at a field office requires an appointment that already takes months to realize, according to the Post.
The White House has repeatedly said it will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits, and has said any changes are to cut back on fraud. A July 2024 report from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general estimated that between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2022, the SSA sent out $8.6 trillion in disbursements. Fewer than 1% of the disbursements, or $71.8 billion worth, were improper payments, according to the report.
Acting Social Security Commissioner Dudek said for phone calls, the agency is “exploring ways to implement AI—in a safe, governed manner in accordance with” guidance from the Office of Management and Budget “to streamline and improve call resolution,” according to a Tuesday memo obtained by NBC News.
Dudek mentioned in the memo that the agency has been frequently mentioned in the media, which has been stressing out employees.
“Over the past month, this agency has seen an unprecedented level of media coverage, some of it true and deserved, while some has not been factual and painted the agency in a very negative light,” he wrote. “I know this has been stressful for you and has caused disruption in your life. Personally, I have made some mistakes, which makes me human like you. I promise you this, I will continue to make mistakes, but I will learn from them. My decisions will always be with the best intentions for this agency, the people we serve, and you.”
Elon Musk’s war on Social Security unmasks the GOP’s true disdain for retirees
Amanda Marcotte – March 18, 2025
Elon Musk Patrick Pleul/picture alliance via Getty Images
“Social Security is not being touched,” Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga tried to assuage his panicked Michigan constituents earlier this month. The congressman may be misinformed or simply lying. Either way, his words were not true. Social Security is facing an all-out assault from Elon Musk‘s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) — and voters know it.
“We worked our entire life,” one panicked retiree declared at Huizenga’s most recent town hall, held via teleconference. “But we can’t get any help because we can’t get through to anybody.” The former teacher was featured in an Associated Press report from the weekend detailing how angry and frightened Social Security recipients are storming town halls, begging their congressional representatives to stop Musk’s misnamed DOGE from taking away their benefits. Donald Trump won this part of the state with over 60% of the vote, but now voters are begging their Republican representative to save them from the consequences of their electoral choices.
As the New York Times reported Monday, Musk’s DOGE “has taken its chain saw to the agency’s operations,” trying to institute mass layoffs and office closures, which “could create gaping holes in the agency’s infrastructure, destabilizing the program.” There have even been efforts to destroy the phone service that allows beneficiaries to call the Social Security Administration for help. On Monday, Popular Info released a leaked memo from Trump’s management to Social Security workers, detailing how the administration is well aware that the planned cuts will dramatically increase “demand for office appointments” — even as Musk is shutting down offices, making those appointments even harder to secure. The result, according to Trump’s own appointees, will be “service disruption,” and “delayed processing” of payments to retirees.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
Musk loves to play word games when defending his assault on a program that helps keep millions of elderly and disabled people from falling into poverty. He insists he’s merely trying to attack “waste and fraud” in the program, falsely claiming that $700 billion a year can be categorized this way. (Reality-based assessments show that it’s likely less than 1% of that figure for the entire federal government, not just Social Security.) To justify this outright disinformation, Musk has insisted that “millions of people” getting Social Security checks are “definitely dead,” calling them “vampires” and declaring “tax dollars are being stolen.”Advertisement
It’s not true, and we can call this a lie, because Musk has repeatedly been told the retirees he calls “definitely dead” are very much alive. He refuses to back down or admit he was wrong. Instead, he disparages Social Security altogether. “Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” he declared on Joe Rogan’s show earlier this month. Musk has long obsessed over the idea that low birthrates and the subsequent aging population are “the biggest danger civilization faces by far.” While he tends to emphasize the “more babies” part of the equation to fix this alleged problem, it’s not much of a leap to see that “fewer old people” would also get the job done. Musk is savvy enough to know better than to say this about the U.S., but he’s been happy to say it of France, denouncing the nation for having a retirement age of 62, only three years short of the U.S. He complains these retirement ages were “set when life spans were much shorter” and it’s “impossible for a small number of workers to support a massive number of retirees.”
Musk frames retired people in parasitical terms, not seeing them as those who have paid their dues and have earned their reward. In light of that, when he speaks of “waste” in Social Security, he’s hinting at this broader view that retired people are inherently illegitimate. While he couches language like “vampire” and “fraud” in false claims that he’s talking about illegal payments, the accumulated impact of his rhetoric is to demonize elderly people as a useless burden on society. When the end goal is “efficiency,” it’s easy to get to this view that retired people are an “inefficiency” and “redundancy” that should no longer be funded.
Musk hinted at this during his Rogan interview, complaining, “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit.” While insisting “you should care about other people,” he made it clear this was rear-covering nonsense. His larger point was that empathy is “civilizational suicidal” and “the empathy response” is “a bug in Western civilization.” The larger interview painted a picture of a man full of contempt for other people, with all their needs and subjective experiences, when he would rather they be compliant automatons who fulfill his demands without resistance. He fantasized about replacing people with “artificial intelligence” and robots, even talking up the incel-inflected dream of replacing women with sex robots.
Musk and his fellow techno-fascists often cast themselves as the saviors of “civilization,” but that rhetoric is only there to put an ennobling gloss on a deeply sociopathic view: that human beings exist to serve the system, and not that the system is there to serve humanity. In this case, the system is capitalism, which has taken on a near-religious status to Silicon Valley’s billionaire elite. It’s an attitude that’s inherently eugenicist, measuring people’s value solely in terms of whether they can be utilized to make more money for the already-wealthy investor class. It’s why Musk has no respect for federal workers whose labor is centered around helping people, not profits. And it’s certainly not a worldview that has space for retirees, people who, by definition, are out of the paid labor market.
Causing people who have earned their Social Security to lose benefits doesn’t look like an unintended consequence of “efficiency.” It’s becoming clear that it is Musk’s end goal.
For So Many Children, This Is What Reading Feels Like
By James Robinson – March 16, 2025
CreditCredit…
Mr. Robinson is a video producer for Times Opinion and the author of the forthcoming memoir “Whale Eyes,” from which this article is adapted.
When you’re a struggling reader, there’s no amount of motivation that can power you through the sludge of an opening paragraph. Because no matter how intrigued you may be by the topic, when you get to around here, the words begin to fa l t e r.
T h e s e n t e n c e s s l o w d o w n.
Y o u ha ve t o co n cen trat e s o h a r d t o e n s u r e t h a tyo u ca n r em em ber th e b eg inn i n g o f th e sen t e n ce b y t h et i m e
y o um a k e i t t o t h e en d.
And you wonder: What would it be like to make it to the bottom of an article?
Your mind twists around a question: How is it possible that some people can do this so easily? Yet you can’t.
It’s a visceral experience. Of frustration. And raw insecurity.
It feels like the words have given up on you.
It’s tempting to skip to a short paragraph. You should be able to make your way through that. But without context, even a short paragraph doesn’t make sense; you’re confused.
How is it that so many people use these forms to gain a grasp of the world? When you can hardly grasp each word.
I know this experience of reading because for much of my childhood it was my own. For me, the cause was alternating exotropia. I see out of one eye at a time, and every few seconds the words jump back and forth on the page. For others it is dyslexia or ADHD, or simply a lack of resources.
Since the onset of the Covid pandemic, America’s reading scores have plummeted. Students at the top are still succeeding. But a record percentage of eighth graders failed to meet even the lowest “basic” benchmark.
These students are soon to be victims of America’s great reading absurdity: Precisely at the moment when reading scores have reached an all-time low, the Trump administration and the Republican Party are stripping away the protections and resources that help children who struggle to read.
On the federal level, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has already taken an ax to critical research initiatives. This includes canceling Education Department contracts with organizations such as the Regional Educational Laboratories, one of which played a major role in the “Mississippi Miracle,” helping the state jump from 49th to 29th in fourth-grade reading scores between 2013 and 2019. (The department has said it will enter into new contracts.) On Tuesday, more than 1,300 Education Department workers were fired, including almost half of the office responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination protections for students with disabilities.
At the state level, school voucher programs are siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars away from public school systems into private schools, which are not required to offer the same level of support to disabled students.
Meanwhile, 17 states sued the Department of Health and Human Services last year in response to updated Biden administration regulations, asking the courts to declare Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the bedrock of disability rights legislation in the United States — unconstitutional. The suit poses a threat to the roughly 1.6 million children in America who depend on the law for accommodations like assistive technology and modifications to testing procedures. (While many of the attorneys general on the lawsuit have since said they are not seeking to overturn Section 504 entirely, some legal experts are skeptical.)
Collectively, these measures amount to an attack on those struggling to read — those who, at this point, would not be able to identify the position of this article, its core argument, or what is at stake.
F o r ast r u ggli ng r e ade r, r ea c hin g t h e b ot tom o f the pa ge ca n fe el like a dre am.
You wonder if there will ever be a time when your eyes reach this point on the page and you’ll carry with you an understanding of all the words stacked above.
For decades, Republicans and Democrats have agreed that no matter where you grew up or how your brain sees and processes these shapes, our public school system should help you to understand the words on this page. Reading is a basic right.
But as long as our answer to low scores is to slash support for struggling readers, we risk turning this right into a privilege.
