Elon Musk, during a video call on Thursday at the World Governments Summit in Dubai, UAE, called for the United States to “delete entire agencies” from the federal government, pushing for drastic spending cuts and a restructuring of national priorities under President Donald Trump.
Musk, who was speaking remotely, painted a broad picture of his view on the Trump administration's goals, interweaving topics of “thermonuclear warfare” and the risks posed by artificial intelligence. He criticized what he saw as the dominance of bureaucracy over democratic governance.
“I think we do need to delete entire agencies, rather than just leaving a few behind,” Musk continued. “If we don’t remove the roots of the weed, it’s easy for it to grow back.”
Although Musk has appeared at the summit before, this time his comments carried more weight, as he now holds significant control over certain government functions, especially with Trump’s endorsement, after taking charge of the Department of Government Efficiency. His role has involved sidelining long-term government officials, gaining access to sensitive data, and prompting legal debates about presidential power limits.
In his remarks, Musk also expressed an isolationist stance regarding U.S. influence in the Middle East, especially given the ongoing legacy of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Musk emphasized that under Trump, the U.S. has become “less interested in interfering with the affairs of other countries,” suggesting that the U.S. had sometimes been overly aggressive in international affairs. Speaking to the UAE audience, Musk noted, “There are times the United States has been kind of pushy in international affairs, which may resonate with some members of the audience,” acknowledging the UAE's autocratic governance.
On domestic matters, Musk touched on the Trump administration's push to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, linking it to the potential risks of AI. He joked, “If hypothetically, AI is designed for DEI, you know, diversity at all costs, it could decide that there’s too many men in power and execute them.”
Regarding AI, Musk revealed that X’s new AI chatbot, Grok 3, would be ready in about two weeks, calling it “kind of scary.” He also criticized Sam Altman’s leadership at OpenAI, comparing it to a nonprofit dedicated to saving the Amazon rainforest that becomes a lumber company. Musk recently made a $97.4 billion bid to take over OpenAI, and a court filing on his behalf stated that he would withdraw the offer if OpenAI proceeds with its plan to become a for-profit entity.
Musk also shared plans for a new “Dubai Loop” project as part of his work with the Boring Company, which has been digging tunnels in Las Vegas to accelerate transit. According to a later statement from Dubai’s crown prince, Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, Dubai and the Boring Company would explore the development of a 17-kilometer (10.5-mile) underground network with 11 stations capable of transporting over 20,000 passengers per hour. No financial terms were disclosed.
A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.
It’s happened with Trump’s attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.
Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.
Although Democrats may be encouraged by the initial round of judicial resistance, the legal battles are only beginning. Lawsuits that originated in more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., could find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent.
“What’s constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision,” said Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland public policy professor.
Roughly three dozens lawsuits have already been filed, including by FBI agents who fear they’re being purged for political reasons and families who are concerned about new limitations on healthcare for transgender youth.
The spotlight on the judiciary is brighter because the Republican-controlled Congress has essentially abdicated its role of serving as a check on the presidency. Lawmakers from Trump’s party have acceded to his demands to unilaterally cut spending and fire government watchdogs without proper notice.
That leaves only the courts as a potential guardrail on the president’s ambitions.
In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which was intended to prevent the children of parents who are in the country illegally from being automatically considered Americans.
Coughenour described birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment, as “a fundamental constitutional right” and he assailed Trump in scathing terms.
“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” said the judge, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
“There are moments in the world’s history where people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?’” Coughenour added. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”
The judge had previously called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” when issuing a temporary ruling.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said then. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”
Also on Thursday in Boston, U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. paused Trump’s plan to encourage federal workers to resign by offering them paid leave.
O’Toole, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1995, did not express an opinion on the deferred resignation program, which is commonly described as a buyout. He scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon to consider arguments.
“We continue to believe this program violates the law, and we will continue to aggressively defend our members’ rights,” American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.
The White House said at least 40,000 federal workers have already agreed to quit in return for being paid until Sept. 30.
“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
It’s unclear which legal battles will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices can choose what cases to consider. But Trump has nominated three out of nine members, and the court has taken an expansive view of presidential power.
China announced retaliatory tariffs on select American imports and an antitrust investigation into Google on Tuesday, just minutes after a sweeping levy on Chinese products imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump took effect.
American tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico were also set to go into effect Tuesday before Trump agreed to a 30-day pause as the two countries acted to address his concerns about border security and drug trafficking. Trump planned to talk with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the next few days.
This isn’t the first round of tit-for-tat actions between the two countries. China and the U.S. engaged in an escalating trade war in 2018 when Trump repeatedly raised tariffs on Chinese goods and China responded each time.
This time, analysts said, China is much better prepared, announcing a slew of measures that go beyond tariffs and cut across different sectors of the U.S. economy. The government is also more wary of upsetting its own fragile and heavily trade-dependent economy.
“It’s aiming for finding measures that maximize the impact and also minimize the risk that the Chinese economy may face,” said Gary Ng, a senior economist at Natixis Corporate and Investment Banking in Hong Kong. “At the same time ... China is trying to increase its bargaining chips.”
John Gong, a professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, called the response a “measured” one. “I don’t think they want the trade war escalating,” he said. “And they see this example from Canada and Mexico and probably they are hoping for the same thing.”
China said it would implement a 15% tariff on coal and liquefied natural gas products as well as a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery and large-engine cars imported from the U.S. The tariffs would take effect next Monday.
“The U.S.’s unilateral tariff increase seriously violates the rules of the World Trade Organization,” the State Council Tariff Commission said in a statement. “It is not only unhelpful in solving its own problems, but also damages normal economic and trade cooperation between China and the U.S.”
The impact on U.S. exports may be limited. Though the U.S. is the biggest exporter of liquid natural gas globally, it does not export much to China. In 2023, the U.S. exported 173,247 million cubic feet of LNG to China, about 2.3% of its total natural gas exports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
China imported only about 700,000 cars overall last year, and the leading importers are from Europe and Japan, said Bill Russo, the founder of the Automobility Limited consultancy in Shanghai.
The response from China appears calculated and measured, said Stephen Dover, chief market strategist and head of the Franklin Templeton Institute, a financial research firm. However, he said, the world is bracing for further impact.
President Donald Trump signed the first bill of his new administration on Wednesday—a piece of legislation bearing the name of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student whose tragic death galvanized supporters during his White House campaign.
Trump expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support that marked this inaugural legislative effort since his January 20 inauguration. The law, known as the Laken Riley Act, mandates that federal officials detain unauthorized immigrants accused of crimes ranging from theft to acts of violence. The measure garnered support in both the House and Senate, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) present at the signing ceremony at the White House.
Laken Riley’s story lends a poignant note to the act. At 22, while running on February 22, 2024, Riley—a student at Augusta University College of Nursing—was fatally attacked by Jose Antonio Ibarra. Prosecutors detailed that during a struggle, Ibarra killed Riley, later choosing to waive his right to a jury trial. A judge, acting as the sole arbiter in the case, found Ibarra guilty of murder and other related crimes, sentencing him to life without parole.
In the fallout from her death, Trump and other Republicans have pointed fingers at former President Joe Biden. They contend that Ibarra, who had been arrested for illegal entry near El Paso, Texas in September 2022 amid a surge in migration, was released to pursue his case in immigration court—a decision they argue indirectly paved the way for the tragedy. “If this act had been the law of the land, he never would have had the opportunity to kill her,” stated Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican from Georgia.
Laken Riley’s name has also surfaced in broader discussions on immigration policy. Biden referenced her during his last State of the Union address when addressing border security, a moment further amplified when U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately urged, “Say her name!”
Under the Laken Riley Act, any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or offenses resulting in injury or death must be detained. “If you come into this country illegally and you commit a crime, you should not be free to roam the streets of this nation,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who was instrumental in shepherding the bill through the Senate.
Moreover, the act empowers state attorneys general to sue the federal government for any harm caused by shortcomings or decisions in immigration enforcement—whether that’s releasing migrants from custody or neglecting to detain those with deportation orders. This aspect of the legislation provides states with a measure of control over immigration policy, reflecting ongoing disputes with executive decisions during both the Trump and Biden administrations.
In essence, the Laken Riley Act stands as both a tribute to a young life lost too soon and a firm policy stance on immigration, encapsulating a significant moment in the current political landscape.
by legalnewspost.comA federal appeals panel in Richmond, Virginia, heard arguments Monday regarding the unresolved North Carolina Supreme Court election, focusing on jurisdictional issues over whether federal or state courts should decide the fate of approximately 66,000 disputed ballots.
The case involves Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs, who currently leads Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast. Griffin’s attorneys argue that their client would likely win if ballots they claim were cast by ineligible voters are removed from the count. However, the State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s request last month to disqualify those votes.
The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated for 90 minutes, questioning attorneys on whether Griffin’s ballot challenge should remain in state court or be heard in federal court. As of now, legal challenges are ongoing in both court systems, creating an unusual situation in one of the nation’s most closely watched judicial elections.
The ballots in question were cast by voters whose registration records reportedly lacked either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number, which state law has required since 2004.
If Griffin prevails, it would expand the conservative majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court from 5-2 to 6-1. Riggs remains on the court while the legal battle continues. The appeals panel has not indicated when it will issue a ruling.
