You may think of Donald Trump as a reckless arsonist of federal bureaucracy, but you can’t say the big guy isn’t willing to spend some government dollars when it’s for a good cause. For instance, the Atlantic reports this morning that the Trump Department of Transportation allotted more than $2 million for celebrity defense attorney Alex Spiro to investigate whether DEI policies have been causing planes to crash. (The apparent answer: They haven’t been. But hey, at least now we know!) Happy Thursday.
by William Kristol
In his eulogy for Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s Mark Antony famously—and, of course, disingenuously—claims that he came “to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
Is it time for Democrats to praise Elon Musk? Should the big-tent, anti-Trump coalition welcome him in? Should Democrats—who need allies where they can get them—be quoting Musk, even if disingenuously, as a reliable oracle on public policy?
No.
I understand that it’s hard to resist the temptation. Musk is out there attacking the Republican reconciliation bill as a “disgusting abomination.” He’s threatening to use his money to help “fire” Republicans who go along with it.
And so some Democrats are eager to welcome Musk to the fold. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) previously told The Bulwark that he believes Democrats should bring Musk back into the tent. At the very least, Politico suggests, Musk’s heel turn against Trump is “complicating the Democratic party’s portrayal of him as a chainsaw-wielding, bureaucracy-breaking villain.”
The trouble is that Musk really is a chainsaw-wielding, bureaucracy-breaking villain. He’s done immeasurable damage to our government. He may be gone from Washington, but, to return to Mark Antony’s speech, the evil Musk has done lives on after him. And more broadly he’s a thoroughgoing enemy of liberal democracy, a backer and promoter of authoritarian parties ranging from Trump’s GOP to Germany’s AfD.
One might forgive all this, at least temporarily, if Musk were a popular figure who could help move the public in the right direction at this important moment. But the American people don’t like Elon Musk. Polls show him with an average approval rating of 40 percent favorable to 54 percent unfavorable.
So why embrace him? It may well be enjoyable (if not productive) for Democrats to try and sow division within the MAGA ranks. Certainly, Musk’s opposition to the budget bill can be used politically in targeted ways to make life more difficult for some Republican senators and congressmen in their states and districts.
But Musk won’t help Democrats with swing voters in marginal districts or competitive states. And he’s little help as a national messenger.
For one thing, if you want to criticize the Republican bill because it increases the debt, you don’t need Musk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is directed by Phill Swagel, a respected economist who served in a Republican administration. The CBO released its analysis of the House bill yesterday. It shows that the Republican bill adds $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. And this is actual analysis, not a billionaire’s hissy fit.
I know voters may not care much about the CBO. But at least voters don’t actively dislike it.
And the budget bill’s increase to our debt isn’t the most important argument against it. The U.S. government currently has some $29 trillion in public debt. The CBO has forecast that, because of current policies and demographics, the debt will grow by another $20 trillion over the next decade. The Republican bill’s add-on of another $2.4 trillion isn’t good—but it’s not a big part of the problem.
What is big is that the CBO analysis also shows that the bill’s changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act will result in nearly 11 million Americans losing their health insurance. That’s real, that’s tangible, and that’s well worth focusing on politically. And it’s also easy to explain that the Republican bill fits into a broader assault on Americans’ health care by the Trump administration, including the gutting of NIH and of biomedical research. Elon Musk has been part of that assault.
The reconciliation bill is a political opportunity for Democrats. But the allure of featuring Musk as a key voice in the fight is at best a distraction—at worst, it’s a trap.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy can be a useful friend. But sometimes the enemy of your enemy is just another jackass.
by Adrian Carrasquillo
Reps. Dan Goldman and Bennie Thompson have written Kristi Noem and acting ICE director Todd Lyons, demanding explanations for recent actions of the Department of Homeland Security, including the decision to mask ICE agents.
“Over the past week, we have witnessed federal agents lying in wait outside courtrooms, detaining individuals as they leave their hearings upon the expectation that their immigration proceedings—often including asylum applications—have been dismissed upon the government’s request,” reads the letter, exclusively obtained by The Bulwark.
Signed by more than 85 Democrats, the letter asks what written guidance DHS has issued about agents wearing masks during enforcement operations; what specific guidance DHS has issued regarding the dismissal of ongoing court cases; how many individuals have been detained nationwide following court-case dismissals since May 1, 2025; whether detainees seeking asylum were receiving credible fear screenings; and whether immigration judges are being tracked for how they handle these cases.
The letter comes after Goldman reportedly confronted masked ICE agents in a Manhattan building where immigration hearings are held, a building shared by his office. Asked why they were wearing masks to detain immigrants, one agent told the congressman, “Because it’s cold.” The agent then walked away when Goldman asked him if he would testify to that under oath. Another agent admitted to wearing a mask “so that they are not caught on video.”
Goldman, who called the agents’ actions “Gestapo-like behavior,” told The Bulwark he coauthored the letter to the Trump administration in part because of his concerns over agents wearing masks.
“I was a federal prosecutor for ten years and worked with numerous immigration officers who have had to confront and arrest violent criminals—far more dangerous than immigrants showing up to routine court appearances,” he said. “None of them ever wore masks to hide their faces. These fear tactics aren’t about the safety of well-trained and armed federal law enforcement officers but are instead designed to intimidate and terrorize immigrants.”
The letter comes as White House senior aide Stephen Miller reportedly berated and threatened to fire senior ICE officials if they didn’t ramp up interior enforcement actions. Yesterday, ICE made more than 2,200 immigration arrests—the most ever in a single day—with hundreds detained at court hearings or scheduled check-in appointments.
These new tactics—using migrants’ compliance with the immigration system as a means of rounding them up more handily—recently led to an outcry after a Bronx high school student named Dylan was detained.
The letter from Goldman and Thompson, who is the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, states that Dylan entered the United States lawfully in 2024, enrolled in public school, had employment authorization, and had no criminal record at the time of his detainment.
“It is clear that ICE is now targeting immigrants with no criminal history, many of whom are asylum seekers, parolees admitted through lawful processes, and students like Dylan—a 20-year-old Bronx high schooler who was detained after attending his court hearing alone and without a lawyer,” the letter said.
-
What to Make of The Middle East… On Shield of the Republic, ELIOT COHEN and ERIC EDELMAN discuss the situation in Gaza and the difficulty of discerning a political objective in Israeli military operations. They also talk about Israeli policy in Syria, which may be self-defeating, and its potential impact on how Netanyahu responds to what may be a Trump Iran deal that looks an awful lot like President Obama’s.
-
How to Tyranny-Proof America’s Future… Now’s the time to start debating the reforms needed to prevent future presidential abuses like Trump’s, argues PATRICK EDDINGTON.
-
Slashing CISA Is a Gift to Our Adversaries… Trump is making America more vulnerable to cyberattack, explains GEN. MARK HERTLING.
-
MAGA is Imploding in Real Time… On The Next Level, TIM, SARAH, and JVL discuss the Musk/Trump breakup that’s ricocheting across MAGA, how the primaries for New Jersey governor and New York City mayor could shape the future of both parties, and Curtis Yarvin’s dangerous influence.
THROWBACK THURSDAY: CNN reports on President Trump’s decision last night to play a deep track for the real fans:
President Trump signed a proclamation Wednesday evening to ban travel from several countries to the US, citing security risks.
The ban will fully restrict entry of nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan; Myanmar, also known as Burma; Chad; Republic of the Congo; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Haiti; Iran; Libya; Somalia; Sudan; and Yemen. People from seven countries will have partial restriction: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
The proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves US national interests.
Trump reportedly decided to move forward with the ban as a result of the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, this weekend—although the perpetrator is an Egyptian national, and Egypt is not on the list. Also notable: The Trump administration is restricting travel from Afghanistan on grounds that the country represents a national security threat at the same time it ends temporary protective status for Afghan nationals in the United States on grounds that they can return home because the country is no longer a national security threat.
In the early days of Trump’s first term, his OG travel ban targeting a number of Muslim-majority countries was one of the first “Wait, can he do that?” moments that helped us realize how far off the old map we were going to get. (After a few rebukes by the Supreme Court, he eventually got a modified travel ban in place.) Today, this wouldn’t crack the top ten of wild policy decisions since inauguration day. What’s that old saw about frogs in a pot?
I’M SURE IT’S FINE: Per the Wall Street Journal, headlines that make you go hmmmm:
Some economists are beginning to question the accuracy of recent U.S. inflation data after the federal government said staffing shortages hampered its ability to conduct a massive monthly survey.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the office that publishes the inflation rate, told outside economists this week that a hiring freeze at the agency was forcing the survey to cut back on the number of businesses where it checks prices. In last month’s inflation report, which examined prices in April, government statisticians had to use a less precise method for guessing price changes more extensively than they did in the past.
The starve-the-government mentality behind both DOGE and the federal hiring freeze was simple: Just start turning things off and, if anything breaks, go back and fix it. Sometimes, however, things don’t break right away—they just get steadily worse and less reliable.
Great Job William Kristol & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.
