GET THE APP
Tuesday, July 1, 2025

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

May 15, 2025
Immigration
Lawfare

Once Again, Amy Coney Barrett is Helping the Far-Left.

PULSE POINTS:

❓What Happened: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with her liberal colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, and pressed Solicitor General John Sauer over the Trump White House’s position on whether there are instances when lower federal courts can issue nationwide actions blocking executive branch actions.

👥 Who’s Involved: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Elena Kagan, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

📍 Where & When: U.S. Supreme Court, on Thursday, May 15, 2025, during oral arguments in a landmark birthright citizenship case.

💬 Key Quote: Justice Barrett asked Sauer, “Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?”

⚠️ Impact: The case involves challenges to injunctions against President Donald J. Trump’s executive order on ending birthright citizenship, potentially affecting nationwide legal precedents.

IN FULL:

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General John Sauer during oral arguments on Thursday as the Court reviewed a series of cases challenging injunctions against President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. The cases—Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey—center on whether nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts were appropriate in blocking the executive order.

The justices debated the procedural and legal frameworks surrounding the matter, with liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioning Sauer on how the Court could rule on the issue without allowing nationwide injunctions. Kagan, during the session, asked Sauer to assume the executive order was “dead wrong” and explain how the judiciary could address the matter efficiently: “And, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions, but I think that the question that this case presents is… it’s quite clear that the EO is illegal; how does one get to that result, in what time frame on your set of rules without the possibility of a nationwide injunction?”

“On this case and on many similar cases, the appropriate way to do it is for there to be multiple lower courts considering it, the appropriate percolation that goes to the lower courts, and then ultimately this court decides the merits in a nationwide binding precedent,” Sauer replied, arguing: “You have a complete inversion of that through the nationwide injunctions with a district court.”

At this point, Justice Barrett intervened and, in an exasperated tone, pressed Sauer: “Are you really going to answer Justice Kagan by saying there’s no way to do this expeditiously?” Barrett went on to push Sauer on whether forming a class of individual plaintiffs could resolve the matter more quickly. President Trump’s Solicitor General said that class certification could expedite the process, though he noted it had not been briefed in the lower courts.

Justice Barrett’s line of questioning marks the latest instance of the Trump-appointed jurist siding with the high court’s leftist faction over her more conservative colleagues. Notably, Barrett is among the bloc of justices that have upheld several injunctions against President Trump’s actions to remove illegal immigrants from the United States.

By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
More From The Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

4 minutes ago
Politics

The USAID ‘NGO Industrial Complex’ Is Officially Over.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will cease implementing foreign assistance programs, with the State Department taking over such efforts under the Trump administration.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Trump administration, and USAID.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Announcement made Tuesday; changes effective July 1.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end.” – Marco Rubio

🎯IMPACT: Over 80 percent of USAID programs will be cut, with 5,200 of 6,200 programs canceled.

IN FULL

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will no longer implement foreign assistance programs, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Tuesday. Beginning July 1, the State Department will take over such programs under the Trump administration’s directive to prioritize America’s national interests.

Rubio stated that USAID has failed to meet development objectives for decades, often worsening instability and fostering anti-American sentiment. “Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War,” Rubio remarked, adding: “This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end.”

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently conducted a review of USAID’s operations, leading to the cancellation of over 80 percent of its programs. Rubio revealed that approximately 5,200 of USAID’s 6,200 programs will be terminated. Controversial funding decisions, such as a $1.5 million program to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in Serbia and a $70,000 “DEI musical” in Ireland, contributed to the agency’s scrutiny.

Critics of the decision include Democrats and activists, with actress Charlize Theron voicing strong opposition. Theron claimed that foreign aid cuts have brought HIV and AIDS programs in South Africa to a halt, describing the situation as “absolutely heartbreaking.” She also criticized U.S. immigration policies and alleged a rollback of women’s and LGBTQ rights, stating, “Here in Los Angeles, in the U.S. and across the globe, we are moving backwards fast.” It is unclear whether Theron was voicing support for the violent, pro-illegal immigration riots in Los Angeles or just opposition to several large-scale U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the city.

Despite the criticism, the Trump administration has maintained that the changes will ensure foreign funding aligns with American interests, emphasizing greater accountability and efficiency under the State Department’s oversight.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

50 minutes ago
Economy

Media Concedes: Trump’s Tariffs Boost Government Revenue and Don’t Hurt Consumers.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Despite corporate media claims, President Donald J. Trump’s tariff policies appear to be working as the White House has stated, increasing government tax revenue with minimal impact on domestic consumer prices.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, U.S. corporations, foreign producers, American consumers,  conservatives, and critics of the administration’s tariff policies.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Ongoing debate in 2025, with tariffs implemented in February and April.

🎯IMPACT: Tariffs have generated over $121 billion in revenue without increasing consumer prices, challenging critics’ negative predictions.

IN FULL

The corporate media is being forced to admit that President Donald J. Trump’s tariff policies are working, with the U.S. collecting over $121 billion in tariff revenue, little evidence that the trade duties are impacting domestic consumers, and inflation continuing to cool. For weeks leading up to the April 2 ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, so-called experts insisted that Trump’s imposition of import levies would reignite inflation. However, as The National Pulse has repeatedly pointed out, tariffs have traditionally had deflationary effects, and under Trump, inflation has continued to cool.

Contrary to establishment predictions, consumer prices have not risen, leaving opponents scrambling to explain the data. Some still forecast a belated economic disaster, while others acknowledge the potential for tariffs to help pay down the national debt over time. Misconceptions about tariffs persist, with many believing they are a tax on foreign producers.

In reality, tariffs are taxes on companies sourcing goods internationally from targeted nations. These companies face a choice: adapt by sourcing from the U.S. or non-targeted countries to keep costs low, or find alternative ways to absorb the expenses. Raising prices is often a last resort, as consumers can easily cut back on non-essential goods.

Critics, including some Democrats and conservatives, had predicted sharp price increases as corporations passed tariff costs onto consumers. However, inflation data, such as the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), has remained relatively stable, contradicting these forecasts. Some attribute this to “front-loading” of imports before tariffs took effect, but that explanation fails to account for sustained stability months after implementation.

At the current pace, tariffs could generate approximately $300 billion in revenue by year-end and $1.2 trillion over four years. While this revenue won’t offset all debt spending, it provides an alternative to tax hikes on the public. If inflation concerns remain overstated, tariffs could become a long-term strategy for economic growth and debt reduction.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

2 hours ago
William Upton
Breaking

BREAKING: Senate Passes ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ After Vance Breaks Tie.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The United States Senate has passed the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after embarking on the longest amendment vote-a-rama in American history. Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast the tiebreaking vote, following two previous tiebreaking votes on amendments to the bill.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, Donald J. Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and the House of Representatives.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate version of the reconciliation bill was adopted on Tuesday, July 1, 2025.

🎯IMPACT: The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ now heads back to the House for final approval, though the version passed by the Senate could face headwinds among House Republicans.

IN FULL

The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ passed the United States Senate on Tuesday, July 1, after an over 24-hour period of amendments being offered on the legislation, called a ‘vote-a-rama’—the longest to occur in American history. Senate Republicans were able to adopt the budget reconciliation bill, which implements most of President Donald J. Trump’s domestic policy agenda, after Vice President J.D. Vance, acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, cast three tiebreaking votes, on the bill as a whole and two amendments to it. Notably, the budget reconciliation process circumvents the Senate filibuster, meaning only 51 votes were needed.

Three Senate Republicans—Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Susan Collins (R-ME)—voted against the bill. The three joined all 47 Senate Democrats in opposition.

Now that the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ has passed the Senate, it will head back to the House of Representatives, where lawmakers will need to consider the changes made to the legislation by the upper chamber. Already, some House conservatives are voicing concerns over changes made by the Senate, although House Republican leadership has expressed confidence that they will be able to secure a vote on final passage and have the bill on President Donald J. Trump’s desk for the July 4 holiday.

It is expected that the House Rules Committee will move to take up the budget reconciliation bill immediately, with House leaders indicating a final vote could be held as soon as Wednesday. However, with the vote for adoption having taken longer than anticipated in the Senate, this could push the House vote back to Thursday.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

2 hours ago
Jack Montgomery
News

Another Food Corp Is Ditching Synthetic Dyes Amid ‘MAHA’ Push.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Synthetic dyes will be removed from all Hershey’s snacks by the end of 2027, amid a push by the Trump administration and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to ‘Make America Healthy Again.’

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Hershey Co., Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), state lawmakers in Texas and West Virginia.

📍WHEN & WHERE: United States, changes take effect between 2027 and 2028.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.” – Hershey spokesman

🎯IMPACT: The removal of synthetic dyes by major food companies reflects growing pressure from the Trump administration, state governments, and consumers.

IN FULL

Hershey Co. will remove synthetic dyes from its snack products by the end of 2027, citing growing legislative pressure at the state level. The company said it aims to preempt regulations and ensure customer trust by voluntarily shifting away from artificial colorants in its chocolate, candy, and popcorn brands.

“There is a patchwork of state regulations emerging that is creating confusion and will ultimately increase consumer costs,” a Hershey spokesman said. “Removing these colors is a natural next step in our program to ensure consumers have options to fit their lifestyle while maintaining trust and confidence in our products.”

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has prioritized the removal of “poisonous” artificial dyes from U.S. foods, with an initial focus on encouraging voluntary removal and supporting state-level action. This includes a West Virginia law that will ban the sale of dyed foods starting in 2028 and a Texas law signed by Governor Greg Abbott (R) requiring warning labels on synthetic dye products beginning in 2027.

Hershey joins other major food corporations, such as Nestlé SA, Conagra Brands Inc., Kraft Heinz Co., and General Mills Inc., which have committed to removing dyes from their American product lines.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

2 hours ago
Crime
Immigration

Trump Orders Revocation of Naturalized Criminals’ U.S. Citizenship.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a directive urging U.S. Attorneys to prioritize the denaturalization of foreign-born criminals to address crime and national security threats.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, and U.S. Attorneys.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The memo was issued in June 2025 and applies nationwide.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.’” – Brett Shumate

🎯IMPACT: The directive aims to deport migrants who pose a threat to national security, combat financial fraud, and target those involved in crimes such as human trafficking and gang activity, even if they have acquired U.S. citizenship.

IN FULL

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a memo directing U.S. Attorneys to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to combat crime and protect national security. The memo, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, outlines categories of individuals who should be targeted for denaturalization, including those tied to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export of sensitive goods and technology.

Shumate emphasized the importance of these proceedings in a written statement, noting, “The benefits of civil denaturalization include the government’s ability to revoke the citizenship of individuals who engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses; to remove naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States; and to prevent convicted terrorists from returning to U.S. soil or traveling internationally on a U.S. passport.”

The memo also directs U.S. Attorneys to pursue cases against migrants who committed financial fraud against the United States, including Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan fraud and Medicare/Medicaid fraud, as well as those involved in violent crimes, human trafficking, and sex offenses. It further calls for action against migrants with criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels.

Two days after the memo was issued, the Justice Department announced it had successfully secured the denaturalization of a convicted distributor of child sexual abuse material.

Shumate has instructed the Civil Division of the Justice Department to “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.”

Image by Steve Fernie.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

3 hours ago
News
Politics

Trump Brands NYC’s Mamdani ‘Terrible,’ ‘A True Communist.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump criticized far-left New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) for refusing to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani, New York City residents.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job. I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: Trump’s remarks highlight concerns about Mamdani’s political ideology and its implications for New York City.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump blasted New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) after the Queens assemblyman refused to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.” The phrase is often used to support violent Palestinian action against Israelis and Jews generally, including terrorism.

“Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job,” Trump told reporters Tuesday morning. “I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route. I think they’re crazy. We will have a communist in the for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it’s crazy.”

Mamdani, a Ugandan-born Muslim from the extreme “Twelver” sect of Shia Islam, won the Democratic Party’s primary for New York City mayor in June. During an interview on Sunday, Mamdani stated he didn’t want to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” because he didn’t want to “police language.”

“I think he’s terrible. He’s a communist,” Trump reiterated on Tuesday. The native New Yorker added that the “last thing we need is a communist. I said, there will never be socialism in the United States… I think it’s bad news.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

4 hours ago
William Upton
Politics

Senate GOP Fails to Restore Medicaid Cuts for Illegals to ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans failed to restore a provision barring illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after it was thrown out by the Senate Parliamentarian.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and President Donald J. Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ‘vote-a-rama’ on amendments to the budget reconciliation bill began on June 30 and was ongoing on the morning of July 1.

🎯IMPACT: The removal of key provisions found in the House of the legislation could push lawmakers in the lower chamber to either outright oppose or demand amendments to the Senate bill once it is passed. This could jeopardize the chances of passage or delay adoption of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ beyond President Trump’s July 4 deadline.

IN FULL

Senate Republicans failed to re-add a measure preventing illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ during the longest ‘vote-a-rama’ in American political history. The measure was rejected with 56 Senators in favor and 44 opposed. Typically, the amendment would have needed only 51 votes to be adopted. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provision violated the Byrd Rule, which raises the vote threshold to 60 votes to break a filibuster.

The removal of the measure has angered conservatives who saw the provision as a key component of the budget reconciliation legislation. Notably, a number of policies that were adopted in the House version of the bill have been stripped in the Senate by the Parliamentarian.

While the core of the legislation remains intact, including the implementation of President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign promises of no tax on tips, no tax on social security income, no tax on overtime income, and making permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts—other provisions that prevented Medicaid funds from being used for the gender transition of minors and the clawback of funding for Planned Parenthood were stripped by the Parliamenarian. Consequently, the more watered-down Senate legislation could be seen as unpalatable in the House.

Some “moderate” House Republicans are already balking at the Senate bill’s larger direct cuts to Medicaid. If they’re joined in opposition by conservative House Republicans, it may be difficult to find a path to bring both sides back to supporting the legislation, jeopardizing its final passage.

President Trump has said he wants to sign the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ into law on July 4, though as of the time of publication, the reconciliation legislation is still stuck in the Senate, so lawmakers on Capitol Hill are running quickly out of time.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

4 hours ago
Breaking

Musk Crashes Out Again, Tweets ‘Bannon’s Going Back to Prison!’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk publicly claimed that Stephen K. Bannon is returning to prison “for a long time.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Elon Musk and Stephen K. Bannon.

📍WHEN & WHERE: July 1, 2025, on Musk’s official X (Twitter) account.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” – Elon Musk

🎯IMPACT: The tweet reignited tensions between America First allies and Musk, with supporters accusing him of cheerleading political persecution.

IN FULL

Elon Musk took to his X account Monday morning with a terse statement: “Bannon is going back to prison. This time for a long time.” The post, viewed over 90,000 times within an hour, marks one of Musk’s most politically loaded comments to date, immediately following a very public humiliation by President Donald J. Trump on Monday night.

The statement was unprompted and offered no legal citations or context, leading many to speculate whether Musk had inside knowledge or was merely amplifying baseless rumors. Bannon, a longtime Trump advisor and WarRoom host, previously served months at FCI Danbury following the unconstitutional, partisan committee investigation into January 6, 2021.

Supporters of Bannon and the broader MAGA movement quickly fired back at Musk online, accusing him of weaponizing his platform to mock political prisoners.

While Musk has often aligned himself with anti-establishment rhetoric, his post signals a growing rift between him and prominent America First figures. The timing also raises questions, given Musk’s recent interactions with federal agencies over Tesla and SpaceX operations.

Join Pulse+ to comment below and receive exclusive email analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

4 hours ago
Breaking

Trump Blasts Musk: Without Subsidy, He’d Be Back in Africa… DOGE Might Have to Eat Elon.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Trump slammed Elon Musk over electric vehicle subsidies in a Truth Social post.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald J. Trump and Elon Musk.

📍WHEN & WHERE: July 2025, on Trump’s Truth Social account.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: The post revives Trump’s criticism of EV mandates and questions Musk’s business sustainability without federal support.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump posted a fiery message on Truth Social targeting tech mogul Elon Musk and the Biden government’s electric vehicle mandates. Trump emphasized that opposition to the EV push has been a longstanding component of his political platform, describing the federal mandate as “ridiculous.”

“Electric cars are fine,” Trump said, “but not everyone should be forced to own one.” He accused Musk of benefiting from what may be the largest subsidies ever awarded to a private individual and suggested the SpaceX and Tesla CEO’s ventures would collapse without government handouts.

The former president even said Musk might have to “close up shop and head back home to South Africa” in the absence of subsidies, calling into question the viability of Musk’s business empire without taxpayer backing.

Trump sarcastically proposed, “Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard look at this?”—a reference that likely alludes to either the Department of Government Efficiency, set up under Musk, which delivered almost no savings in comparison to Musk’s original promise of $2 trillion.

In reality, DOGE likely saved around two days of taxpayer spending a year, with some estimates claiming the department and its actions have actually cost the taxpayer due to severances involved with termination packages.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Trump even went so far as to say “we’ll have to look at” deporting the South African billionaire, adding, “DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?”

The backhander from Trump came less than a day after Musk appeared to endorse a critic of Trump ally and potential next UK Prime Minister, Nigel Farage.

Musk, who once called for Farage to be deposed as head of the Reform UK party, backed a new movement by British Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, another anti-Farage figure who tried to have the Brexit champion removed as party leader. Musk and Lowe’s efforts inevitably failed.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

5 hours ago
Data

Here’s Where Americans Currently Stand on Auditing the 2020 Election.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Nearly half of likely voters support President Trump’s call for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Rasmussen Reports, and 1,134 likely U.S. voters surveyed nationwide.

📍WHEN & WHERE: June 22–24, 2025; United States (nationwide survey).

💬KEY QUOTE: “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: Public opinion remains deeply divided, with support for a special prosecutor tracking along party, gender, age, and income lines.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump’s demand for a special prosecutor to probe the 2020 election fraud claims is receiving strong public backing. Rasmussen Reports found that 48 percent of likely U.S. voters favor such an investigation, including 32 percent who “strongly support” the idea. Meanwhile, 47 percent remain opposed—36 percent “strongly.”

The former president posted to Truth Social on June 20, declaring, “The 2020 election was a total fraud! The evidence is massive and overwhelming!” Forty-three percent of voters agreed with Trump’s statement, while 51 percent disagreed. Among the supporters of Trump’s fraud claim, support for appointing a special prosecutor jumped to 86 percent.

As always, the partisan divide is stark. Two-thirds of Republicans agree the 2020 contest was fraudulent, while 67 percent of Democrats reject that characterization. Among unaffiliated voters, 34 percent agree and 61 percent disagree. Support for appointing a special prosecutor includes 71 percent of Republicans, 35 percent of Democrats, and 38 percent of independents.

The survey, conducted June 22–24 with 1,134 likely voters, carries a 3-point margin of error and a 95 percent confidence level. The poll also found that 48 percent believe cheating likely influenced the outcome of the 2020 election, with 32 percent saying it is “very likely.” Forty-four percent say cheating was unlikely, including 33 percent who say it was “not at all likely.”

Demographic breakdowns showed notable trends: men are more supportive of an investigation than women; younger voters lean in favor of a special prosecutor, while those over 50 strongly disagree with Trump’s fraud accusation. Hispanics show the strongest support among minorities, and mid-income earners ($50K–$100K) are most skeptical of the election results.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad