❓What Happened: Tesla saw its shares fall eight percent on Thursday after Elon Musk authored a series of erratic posts on X critical of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through Congress, while claiming credit for Republican victories in the 2024 election.
👥 Who’s Involved: Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla.
📍 Where & When: Musk made the posts on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
⚠️ Impact: A political falling out between Trump and Musk could pose significant problems for the Tesla chief’s business interests, with his prior support for the America First leader having already alienated many liberals.
IN FULL:
Tesla shares plunged eight percent Thursday afternoon as the electric vehicle company’s CEO, Elon Musk, authored a series of erratic posts on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), attacking President Donald J. Trump and taking credit for his 2024 election victory. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
In another bizarre post, Musk appears to assert that he should have reviewed the reconciliation bill before it was voted on. Responding to Trump’s assertion that the former DOGE leader was keyed in on the critical details of the bill, Musk wrote: “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”
After leaving his role as an advisor in the Trump White House and frontman for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May, Musk almost immediately began attacking the budget reconciliation bill enacting much of Trump’s agenda that is currently moving through Congress. The attacks drew a response from President Trump on Thursday, with the America First leader telling press in the Oval Office, “I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot.” Trump noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but predicted, accurately, that he was “sure that’ll be next.”
Musk has repeatedly claimed the bill will drastically increase deficits, plunging the federal government further into debt. However, the Trump White House argues that it actually achieves substantial spending cuts, which, when combined with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda, will reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
In one of his posts, Musk, 53, threatened Republicans, “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”
❓What Happened: Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre faced harsh criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders following her announcement of leaving the Democratic Party to register as an independent.
👥 Who’s Involved: Karine Jean-Pierre and anonymous Biden staffers.
📍 Where & When: Washington, D.C.; the backlash followed Jean-Pierre’s announcement on Wednesday and new book release in June 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “She was one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” said an anonymous former Biden official.
⚠️ Impact: The public fallout highlights internal tensions within the Biden government and raises questions about loyalty and competence among senior officials.
IN FULL:
Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre became the target of sharp criticism from anonymous Biden government insiders just one day after announcing her departure from the Democratic Party. Jean-Pierre, who served as the public face of the Biden White House for over two years, revealed in her new book, Independent, that she had registered as an independent, citing a need for Americans to “free ourselves of boxes” and think more strategically about the nation’s challenges.
However, the former Biden White House Press Secretary’s decision to ditch the Democratic Party is already drawing ire from her former colleagues, with some viewing the move as a betrayal. A number of former Biden government staffers are anonymously slamming Jean-Pierre in the media, with one former official describing her as “one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I’ve ever worked with,” adding that she struggled to manage her team and deliver coherent policy messages.
Another former communications official criticized Jean-Pierre’s decision to position herself as an outsider despite enjoying the perks of close proximity to power during her time in the administration. “The hubris of thinking you can position yourself as an outsider… is as breathtaking as it is desperate,” the unnamed official said, suggesting the move was primarily a “cash grab” tied to her book release.
Additional anonymous sources revealed frustrations within the White House about the amount of effort spent “coddling” Jean-Pierre compared to focusing on substantive issues. Critics claimed she frequently experienced “meltdowns” when confronted with unexpected questions during interviews. The swift and public nature of the criticism underscores ongoing tensions among the former Biden government staff, as no significant voices have come forward to defend Jean-Pierre amid the backlash.
Notably, Jean-Pierre played a key role in defending President Biden’s cognitive fitness, despite internal concerns about his performance during public appearances, including a debate with President Donald J. Trump. Jean-Pierre had publicly vouched for Biden’s mental acuity, calling him “as sharp as ever” at the time.
❓What Happened: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says its analysis of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” finds the legislation introduces historic fiscal reforms, achieving $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings and reducing the deficit by $1.407 trillion. This analysis contradicts a fiscal score released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that claims the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Director Russ Vought, Elon Musk, and the U.S. Congress.
📍 Where & When: The OMB’s top-line numbers were revealed by the agency’s director, Russ Vought, on Wednesday, June 4, after the CBO released its updated fiscal score earlier in the day.
💬 Key Quote: “Even the partisan CBO admits the deficit will be slashed by at least $500 billion over the next ten years,” the Trump White House said in a fact sheet.
⚠️ Impact: According to the Trump White House, the bill enacts permanent savings, extends tax cuts, allocates funds for border security, and sets the stage for further deficit reductions of $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been revealed to deliver unprecedented fiscal reforms, achieving nearly $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data acknowledged by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This figure marks the highest level of mandatory savings in U.S. history, surpassing reductions achieved by similar reconciliation bills in 2005, 1997, 1993, and 1990 when adjusted for inflation.
Russ Vought, the director of the OMB, notes that the budget reconciliation bill enacts permanent changes to the law, ensuring that these savings extend far into the future. While critics, including Elon Musk, have claimed the bill increases spending and adds to the deficit, Vought argues these assertions have been countered by the facts.
“OMB just reviewed the new CBO score of the One Big Beautiful bill. It confirms what we knew about the bill at House passage. The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO’s one big gimmick–not using a realistic current policy baseline,” Vought wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, adding: “It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.”
Vought and others in the Trump administration argue that the CBO’s projections of higher deficits are based on the assumption that President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts will expire. This assumption, they contend, creates a false policy baseline and warps the bill’s true fiscal impact. Additionally, the Trump White House notes that the CBO itself forecasts that President Trump’s tariffs will reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Further, the White House officials state that when the legislation’s economic effects are factored in along with tariff revenue and deregulation, the overall impact will be a total deficit reduction of $6.6 trillion over the next ten years.
The analysis contradicts claims by former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, Elon Musk, who slammed the bill on Tuesday, calling it a “disgusting abomination” and accusing lawmakers of saddling Americans with unsustainable debt. Musk’s turn against the Trump White House has set Republicans on Capitol Hill on the defensive just as the reconciliation legislation begins to work its way through the Senate.
❓What Happened: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is set to evaluate the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate rules under the Byrd Rule.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
📍 Where & When: U.S. Senate, June 2025.
⚠️ Impact: Key provisions of Trump’s bill, including those limiting federal court powers and restricting Medicaid funds for abortion clinics, could be struck down, potentially weakening the legislation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump‘s budgetreconciliation bill, which implements and funds a large part of the America First leader’s second-term agenda, is beginning to work its way through the United States Senate. However, the legislation, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will face its most perilous test from one of the Senate’s non-elected officials—Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
Serving as the Senate Parliamentarian since 2o12, MacDonough will be tasked with evaluating a bevy of points-of-order raised by Senate Democrats and other opponents of the bill, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). These points of order will challenge the legislation’s key provisions on several factors that could disqualify their inclusion, including whether the provision reduces non-discretionary (mandatory) spending, increases the deficit after the 10-year budget window, or if a policy provision is nongermine to the budget change.
The budget reconciliation process gives the Senate Parliamentarian tremendous power over legislation, despite being an unelected official. While the presiding officer of the Senate—technically the Vice President, but in practice usually the Senate Majority Leader—can override any ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, such instances are beyond rare. The most notable occurrence was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller attempted to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian regarding Senate procedural rules. This led both the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate to hold an emergency meeting, create a compromise ruling, and circumvent Rockefeller so as to avoid setting any concrete precedent of the presiding officer actually overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.
WHO IS MACDONOUGH?
Senate Parliamentarians are almost always selected from the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure continuity. The office itself was only created in 1935. The current Senator, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012, when she was elevated to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Despite being appointed by Reid, MacDonough has been critical of the late Nevada Democrat’s 2013 decision to use a procedural maneuver to alter Senate rules and use the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for lower federal court nominations. MacDonough, along with Republican Senators at the time, warned that setting the precedent could later be used to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations—a prediction which came to pass in 2017.
MacDonough has received high praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle but has repeatedly drawn the ire of progressive Democrats by ruling against some of their more far-reaching policy changes that they’ve tried to include in past reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings on former President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan—a reconciliation bill—saw House progressives, including Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), demand that MacDonough be fired. Notably, MacDonough ruled against the inclusion of a $15 an hour minimum wage provision, and most significantly, determined that the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the legislation violated the Byrd Rule, stating, “changing the law to clear the way to (Legal Permanent Resident) status is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”
OVERRULE OR FIRE?
While Senate Republicans currently insist they will not resort to extreme measures should McDonough rule against provisions in the reconciliation bill, they’ve already used a procedural move last month to prevent the Senate Parliamentarian from ruling on a separate piece of legislation. In May, the Senate overturned California’s electric vehicle mandates using a series of procedural votes and then an expedited final vote under the Congressional Review Act, effectively ending the debate and holding a final vote before the Senate Parliamentarian could rule on the matter. While this end-around maneuver worked for a single subject and relatively uncomplicated measure, such a procedural move will not work with the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Regarding the reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has insisted, “We’re not going there,” when asked whether he or any other Republican acting as the presiding chair would overrule determinations made by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule. In essence, the Senate Republicans appear to be signaling that they will not overturn past precedent nor use any controversial procedural measures to reduce McDonough’s role in the process.
However, two wrinkles could change the current state of affairs. Namely, the constitutional presiding officer of the United States Senate is actually Vice President J.D. Vance. Should Vance decide to arrive at the Senate and assume his constitutional role, there is not much Sen. Thune or other members can do to prevent him from overruling the Senate Parliamentarian, outside of holding a vote to override the Vice President’s decision. This scenario would be similar to the 1975 legislative involving then-Vice President Rockefeller.
Secondly, if MacDonough’s rulings are seen by Sen. Thune or the Senate Republicans as a whole as being too far afield, we could see a situation like 2001 when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove over a series of rulings against Republicans on reconciliation and other budget measures. While Thune might not be willing to overrule MacDonough directly, should the Senate Parliamentarian act too partisan with her Byrd Rule determinations, the Senate Majority Leader is well within his right to fire her.
❓What Happened: Alan Dershowitz has released a new book, The Preventive State, which he calls his “magnum opus,” addressing the balance between liberty and security in preventive actions by the state.
👥 Who’s Involved: Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, known for defending high-profile clients and controversial cases.
📍 Where & When: Released in 2025, the book reflects his 60-year career and lifetime of legal scholarship.
💬 Key Quote: “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles,” Dershowitz said.
⚠️ Impact: Dershowitz hopes the book will influence legislators and courts but fears it may face neglect due to his defense of Donald J. Trump, which he says has led to professional and social ostracism.
IN FULL:
Alan Dershowitz, one of America’s most renowned legal scholars, has released what he describes as his career-defining work, The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. The book, which he calls his “magnum opus,” seeks to address the complex trade-offs between liberty and security in preventive state actions.
Dershowitz, who became the youngest tenured professor at Harvard Law School at age 28, has spent decades exploring the concept of prevention in law, a term he says he first coined in the 1960s. Speaking with the New York Post, Dershowitz stated, “There’s no free lunch, and every time we act to prevent great harms, we take away a little liberty. The key is to make the trade-off based on principles.”
The book delves into contentious issues, such as pretrial detentions, deportations, and public health mandates, aiming to establish a jurisprudence that errs on the side of liberty while giving due weight to security concerns. “Why do we deport people? To prevent them from committing crimes. Why do we lock people up pending trial? To prevent them from fleeing or committing crimes,” Dershowitz explained.
Despite the book’s significance, Dershowitz fears it may be overlooked due to his defense of President Donald J. Trump during his first impeachment trial. Once a celebrated figure in liberal circles, Dershowitz has faced professional and social ostracism since taking on Trump’s case. Institutions like The New York Times, which previously reviewed many of his 57 books, have declined to cover his latest work.
Dershowitz’s defense of Trump has also led to personal fallout, including strained relationships with former colleagues and friends. He revealed that venues such as the 92nd Street Y and his synagogue on Martha’s Vineyard have barred him from speaking, prompting him to establish a new congregation.
At 86, Dershowitz hopes The Preventive State will influence lawmakers and courts, stating, “If I’m going to be remembered 50 years from now, it’s going to be because of this book.”
❓What Happened: Gina Jones, a Democrat running for Mayor of San Antonio, is being accused of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to Hispanic voters. Jones’s mother is of Filipino origin, and her father is white.
👥 Who’s Involved: Gina Jones, her Republican opponent Rolando Pablos, and campaign representatives on both sides.
📍 Where & When: San Antonio, Texas, during the mayoral race leading up to the June 7, 2025, election.
💬 Key Quote: “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” said Rolando Pablos in a campaign ad.
⚠️ Impact: The controversy has intensified the race, with Republicans alleging pandering and Democrats calling the criticisms racist.
IN FULL:
San Antonio’s mayoral race has taken a contentious turn as Reupublican candidate Rolando Pablos is accusing his Democratic rival, Gina Jones, of using her mother’s maiden name, Ortiz, to appeal to the city’s Hispanic voters. Jones, who is of Filipino descent, began using the name in 2017 during her first congressional campaign, a move seen by many as politically motivated and an inappropriate attempt to appeal to racial affinity with a key voting demographic.
Pablos, born in Mexico and a former Texas Secretary of State, is currently airing a campaign ad ahead of the June 7 mayoral election, stating, “Gina Jones was Gina Jones until she wasn’t,” accusing Jones of adopting the Ortiz name strategically to garner Hispanic support. San Antonio, the seventh-largest city in the U.S., is home to nearly one million Hispanic residents, making the demographic a significant voting bloc.
Jones’s campaign has pushed back, asserting that “Ortiz” is her legal middle name and reflects her heritage. Campaign consultant Mary Kate Hull explained, “It’s tradition for Filipino children to take their mother’s maiden name as their middle name.” Hull also noted that Ortiz Jones has embraced her heritage more as an adult.
Despite the Jones campaign’s claims, her high school yearbook lists her name as Gina Maria Jones, as does the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she served as a national security fellow from 2016 to 2017. Pablos’ campaign says Jones is just pandering, stating, “At home in Washington, D.C., she goes by Gina Jones. While pandering for votes in Texas, she’s Gina Ortiz Jones.”
Notably, Jones herself claims the allegations that she changed her middle name to Ortiz to appeal to Hispanic voters are motivated by racism. “Do you not think it’s racist?” she has said in response to the Pablos campaign’s claims. Jordan Abelson, Jones’ campaign manager, goes further, arguing: “Antagonizing someone on their race is the definition of racism.”
Jones has twice run unsuccessfully for Congress, losing races to Will Hurd in 2018 and Tony Gonzales in 2020.
❓What Happened: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the U.S. Navy to rename the oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk, originally named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old runaway boy while he was in his thirties.
👥 Who’s Involved: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and the late Harvey Milk.
📍 Where & When: The renaming order was issued at the start of Pride Month in June of 2025, affecting a ship named in 2016 during a San Francisco ceremony.
⚠️ Impact: The decision has sparked criticism from Democratic leaders, but draws attention to Milk’s controversial relationship with underage boy JackGalenMcKinley.
IN FULL:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed the U.S. Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship named in honor of the late gay rights activist and politician. The order, issued at the start of Pride Month, was revealed through a memorandum issued by the Department of Defense (DoD).
The USNS Harvey Milk was named in 2016 during a ceremony in San Francisco. Milk, a Navy veteran, became the first openly gay elected official in California in 1977, serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors before being assassinated in 1978. However, Milk also had a sexual relationship with an underage runaway, Jack Galen McKinley, while he was in his thirties, which has led many conservatives to challenge the status he has been awarded as a civil rights hero.
This renaming initiative is reportedly part of Hegseth’s broader efforts to “reestablish the warrior culture” within the military. Since assuming his role, Hegseth has worked to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, aiming to restore what he refers to as the “warrior ethos.”
In addition to the USNS Harvey Milk, other ships on a Navy renaming recommendation list include the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USNS Harriet Tubman, USNS Dolores Huerta, USNS Lucy Stone, USNS Cesar Chavez, and USNS Medgar Evers.
The decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic leaders. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) condemned the move, stating, “The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also expressed outrage, calling the renaming “disgusting, blatant discrimination—and during Pride Month to boot.” He added that Milk “served the U.S. Navy and his country honorably, and he was assassinated while serving the public and fighting for LGBTQ+ rights.”
Schumer did not reference Milk’s unlawful relations with McKinley.
❓What Happened: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) admitted she did not read President Donald J. Trump’s budget reconciliation bill before voting for it and would have opposed it had she known about an AI-related provision. The Georgia Republican also appears not to understand the purpose of the ban on state-level AI regulation, a provision likely intended to prevent Democrat state lawmakers in California from setting regulatory standards for the whole country.
👥 Who’s Involved: Marjorie Taylor Greene, President Trump, national Democratic lawmakers, including Eric Swalwell, Ted Lieu, Mark Pocan, Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA), and the California state legislature.
📍 Where & When: U.S. House of Representatives; Greene’s admission was posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday, June 3, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,” Greene wrote on X.
⚠️ Impact: Critics contend that the AI provision would block states from regulating AI systems for a decade, potentially nullifying existing state laws. However, Greene also seems unaware that the provision is actually an assertion of federal authority over AI regulation, meant to effectively prevent far-left state-level Democrats in California from dictating AI regulatory policy for the whole country.
IN FULL:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has acknowledged that she did not thoroughly read President Donald J. Trump‘s tax and spending bill, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), before voting in favor of it. Greene admitted she was unaware of a provision in the bill that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) systems for 10 years.
Posting on X, Greene wrote, “Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”
The AI provision, added just two days before the markup, would prohibit state and local governments from enacting laws or regulations targeting AI models, facial recognition systems, and other automated decision tools. While critics make over-the-top claims that the provision removes safeguards or is an infringement on state rights, the section appears more aimed at preventing California from setting AI regulatory standards for the entire country.
Most technology companies working on AI development are either located in California or have a nexus to the state, meaning far-left Democrats in Sacramento can enact regulation directly on most of the industry. Additionally, as has happened with other industries, when California passes sweeping regulatory standards, companies in that sector will often change their policies nationwide to comply with California law rather than creating policies and adjusting consumer or user experiences for Californians alone. Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has already signed several new laws regulating AI.
Under the former Biden government, the lack of federal intervention allowed California to set emissions standards for the automotive industry and regulations on electric vehicles. The provision that Greene didn’t read in Trump’s budget reconciliation bill would prevent the very situation that the Trump White House had to correct by intervening against California on emissions standards.
Notably, Democratic lawmakers, who unanimously opposed the bill, responded sharply to Greene’s admission. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) posted, “You have one job. To. Read. The. F***ing. Bill.” Similarly, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) noted that he had read the provision and cited it as a reason for his opposition, advising, “PRO TIP: It’s helpful to read stuff before voting on it.”
As it is currently written, the AI provision is unlikely to survive the Byrd Rule in the U.S. Senate, though some lawmakers say they are working to alter the section to be Byrd Rule compliant.
❓What Happened: Geert Wilders, leader of the populist Freedom Party (PVV), withdrew his party from the governing coalition in the Netherlands, collapsing the government.
👥 Who’s Involved: Geert Wilders (PVV), Prime Minister Dick Schoof, center-right VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz, Deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer of the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB).
📍 Where & When: Netherlands, coalition collapsed after less than a year in office, starting July 2024.
💬 Key Quote: “No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition,” said Geert Wilders on X.
⚠️ Impact: Snap elections are expected, with asylum and immigration likely to dominate campaigns.
IN FULL:
The Dutch governing coalition has collapsed after populist leader Geert Wilders withdrew his Freedom Party (PVV) over disagreements on immigration policy. The coalition, which had been in power for less than a year, fell apart following Wilders’ demand for stricter asylum measures, including freezing applications and limiting chain migration, a.k.a “family reunification.”
Prime Minister Dick Schoof reportedly made a last-minute appeal to coalition leaders on Tuesday morning, but the meeting ended after just one minute when Wilders walked out. Wilders later posted on X, “No signature for our asylum plans. PVV leaves the coalition.”
The coalition, formed in July 2024 after lengthy negotiations, included Wilders’ PVV, the notionally conservative but largely liberal VVD, the upstart Farmers‘ Citizen Movement (BBB), and the marginally center-right New Social Contract.
VVD leader Dilan Yesilgoz called Wilders’s decision “super irresponsible,” while Deputy Prime Minister Mona Keijzer of the BBB accused Wilders of “betraying the Netherlands.” However, with PVV being the most successful party in the last Dutch election, many will argue it was incumbent on Wilders’s coalition partners to defer to him on his key issues of asylum and immigration.
The fallout has sparked speculation about snap elections, which could occur this autumn. Analysts suggest that Wilders will likely center his campaign on immigration issues. Wilders and the PVV came first in last year’s national elections, and polling suggests that the PVV remains ahead.
Prime Minister Schoof is expected to offer the cabinet’s resignation to King Willem-Alexander. While Schoof could attempt to lead a minority government, forming alliances with left-wing opposition parties is seen as unlikely. Leftist Labour-Green alliance leader Frans Timmermans, a former top European Union (EU) official, has already called for fresh elections.
❓What Happened: Polling by CNN revealed the Republican and Democratic parties are now nearly tied in being seen as the “party of the middle class.”
👥 Who’s Involved: The poll surveyed 2,028 American adults and was conducted by SSRS for CNN.
📍 Where & When: Conducted between May 5 and May 26, 2023, across the United States.
💬 Key Quote: CNN’s Harry Enten stated, “This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else. They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more.”
⚠️ Impact: The Democratic Party’s historic lead in this area has narrowed significantly, with more Americans now associating the Republican Party with leadership, change, and effectiveness under President Donald J. Trump.
IN FULL:
A new poll shows that Americans increasingly see the Republicans under President Donald J. Trump as best representing the middle class. The survey, conducted between May 5 and May 26, found that 34 percent of respondents identified the Democratic Party as the “party of the middle class,” while 32 percent said the same of the Republican Party. The poll surveyed 2,028 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 2.7 percent.
The findings reveal a dramatic shift from past decades. In 1989, the Democratic Party held a 23-point lead over Republicans in being seen as the party of the middle class. CNN Analyst Harry Enten commented on the results, saying, “This, I think, speaks to Democratic ills more than anything else. They have traditionally been the party of the middle class. No more. Donald Trump and the Republican Party have taken that mantle away.”
The poll also highlighted Americans’ broader perceptions of the two major parties. Forty percent of respondents said the Republican Party is the party of “strong leaders,” compared to just 16 percent who said the same for the Democrats. When asked which party represents “change,” 32 percent pointed to the GOP, while 25 percent chose the Democrats. On the question of which party “can get things done,” 36 percent favored the Republicans, compared to 19 percent for the Democrats.
President Trump and the MAGA movement have shifted U.S. politics significantly, with traditional Democrat groups like Latinos voting more and more for Trump and Trump-backed candidates. Florida’s Miami-Dade, once a bastion of Democratic support, is now majority Republican, largely thanks to shifting voting patterns among Latinos.
show less
PULSE POINTS:
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
