Breaking
Your Income Partners
Author

admin

Browsing
Politics

Hegseth, Signal questions dog Waltz as potentially perilous UN ambassador confirmation hearings loom

The same day that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz exited his job at the White House, President Donald Trump announced a new job offer for the former Florida congressman: United Nations ambassador. 

But there are some hurdles Waltz must clear first before the New York job is his — including undergoing a Senate confirmation process amid scrutiny after the Atlantic magazine exposed a Signal group chat that his team had set up to discuss strikes against the Houthis in March. 

And receiving full support from the slim Republican majority in the Senate isn’t guaranteed, and not all Republicans got on board backing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Vice President JD Vance ultimately cast the tie-breaking vote securing Hegseth’s nomination. 

Democrats appear hungry to use Waltz’s nomination as a forum to air grievances against other foreign policy leaders in the Trump administration — particularly Hegseth. 

 

Still, Waltz’snomination to represent the U.S. at the U.N. will likely attract support from establishment Republicans in the Senate who weren’t on board with Hegseth in the Pentagon, given that the ideological divide between these Republicans and Waltz is much smaller than it was in Hegseth’s case, according to one Florida GOP source.

‘He’s been able to thread the needle really, really well between traditional conservative foreign policy voices and the more populist America First policy voices,’ the Florida GOP source said of Waltz.

HEAT ON WALTZ

Waltz, who previously represented Florida’s 6th congressional district, is a retired Army National Guard colonel and former Green Beret who served four deployments to Afghanistan and earned four Bronze Stars — the fourth-highest military combat award, issued for heroic service against an armed enemy. 

While Waltz and Hegseth both were embroiled in the Signal chat discussing strike plans against the Houthis, Hegseth has attracted more of the heat, at least publicly, stemming from the incident. Democrats have called for Hegseth’s resignation as a result of the chat, but staffers at the White House — including Waltz — have openly backed Hegseth and shut down reports that the administration is seeking his replacement. 

But Waltz could get his turn attracting the ire of lawmakers as Democrats find an opportunity to openly grill him in front of the Senate, amid displeasure with Trump’s foreign policy and national security agenda. 

‘The second hundred days of national security under President Trump will apparently be just as chaotic as the first hundred,’ Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a statement to Fox News Digital about Waltz’s departure from the White House. 

‘President Trump’s consistent hirings, firings and upheaval sap morale from our warfighters and intelligence officers, degrade our military readiness, and leave us less prepared to respond to threats from our adversaries,’ Coons said. ‘American citizens at home and around the world are less safe because of President Trump’s non-existent national security strategy.’

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., also took aim at Waltz — although she labeled Hegseth the worst offender affiliated with ‘Signalgate.’  

‘Took them long enough. Mike Waltz knowingly made an unclassified chain to discuss classified matters,’ Duckworth said in a Thursday X post ahead of Waltz’s U.N. ambassador nomination. ‘But of all the idiots in that chat, Hegseth is the biggest security risk of all—he leaked the info that put our troops in greater danger. Fire and investigate them all.’

In addition to the Signal chat, Waltz’s exit from the White House was tied to several other issues. For example, Axios reports that Waltz treated White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles like ‘staff,’ and his disrespect rubbed her the wrong way. 

‘He treated her like staff and didn’t realize he’s the staff, she’s the embodiment of the president,’ a White House official told Axios. ‘Susie is a deeply loyal person and the disrespect was made all the worse because it was disloyal.’

Waltz reportedly discussed different roles he could take on following his stint at the White House with Wiles, according to CBS News. Waltz was reportedly offered jobs, including the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, but ultimately settled on U.N. ambassador. 

A spokesperson for the National Security Council did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. 

NEXT STEPS

With Waltz out as national security advisor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will temporarily step into that role. 

While Trump originally nominated Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., to represent the U.S. at the U.N., he rescinded her nomination in March, citing that the House could not afford to lose another Republican seat. 

Stefanik’s nomination lagged in the Senate in comparison to other U.N. ambassador nominees, including Trump’s first U.N. ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. The Senate confirmed Haley in January, just after Trump’s first inauguration. 

While the exact timeline for a potential confirmation vote in the Senate is unclear, the first hurdle that Waltz must clear is a confirmation vote out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although it is uncertain when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will schedule the nomination hearing for Waltz and the subsequent vote, the committee said his nomination is a ‘priority.’ 

‘The committee has been working at a historically fast pace and this nomination will be a priority moving forward,’ a GOP staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told Fox News Digital. 

The 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly is scheduled for September 9, so there are a few months for Waltz’s confirmation to play out, the Florida GOP source said. That means that Waltz could take a few months off, start the confirmation process in June or July and wrap up his confirmation by September at the latest, the source said. 

‘He’s got plenty of time. So, this isn’t a looming fight that’s going to happen next week,’ the Florida GOP source said. ‘This is going to play out probably in June or July, which by then, people are going to forget about the Signalgate stuff, or at the very, very least, they’re going to forget about Mike Waltz’s role in it.’ 

But there are a few Republican wildcards in the Senate who have voted against several of Trump’s nominees, most prominently Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who voted against Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer.  

A spokesperson for McConnell did not respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Other Republicans who have opposed Trump nominees include Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, both of whomvoted against Hegseth, as well as Sens. Ted Budd of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, both of whom voted against Chavez-DeRemer. 

Aside from former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., whom Trump initially nominated to serve as attorney general, Trump’s entire cabinet has been approved. Gaetz withdrew his nomination amid a House Ethics Committee investigation into sexual misconduct and drug-use allegations. 

Despite opposition from Democrats, and possibly a few Republicans, it appears unlikely that any fire that Waltz will face will sink his nomination. 

‘The reality of it is, the president can lose three votes in the Senate, and the vice president can still vote to break a tie,’ the Florida GOP source said. ‘There’s no way he’s probably going to lose three votes.’

Meanwhile, other Republicans have openly stated they endorse Waltz’s nomination, including Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Risch, R-Idaho, who lauded Trump’s decision to nominate Waltz for the role. 

‘Great choices. America is safer and stronger under President Trump and his national security team,’ Risch said in a Thursday X post. ‘I thank Mike Waltz for his service as NSA, and look forward to taking up his nomination in our committee.’ 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also posted on X on Friday that Waltz would be confirmed ‘for sure.’ 

Vance also voiced support for Waltz and billed the nomination as a ‘promotion,’ pushing back on any suggestions that Waltz’s removal amounted to a firing. 

‘Donald Trump has fired a lot of people,’ Vance said in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier Thursday. ‘He doesn’t give them Senate-confirmed appointments afterward. What he thinks is that Mike Waltz is going to better serve the administration, most importantly, the American people in that role.’

Fox News’ Charles Creitz contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
World

Australia votes in national election seen as latest test of global anti-Trump sentiment

Australians will cast their final votes Saturday in a national election campaign dominated by cost-of-living concerns that’s being closely watched abroad for signs of a Donald Trump-inspired swing against conservative candidates.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the Labor Party is facing off against Peter Dutton’s center-right Liberal Party, which is promising to get the country “back on track” after three years in opposition.

Pre-election opinion polls firmed in Labor’s favor, but Australia’s preferential voting system and the declining dominance of the two major parties makes it difficult to predict who’ll make up the 150-member House of Representatives.

Observers will be examining the results for signs of blowback against Australia’s conservative candidates from US President Trump’s whirlwind 100 days in office – after comparisons were drawn between Dutton’s policy offerings and those of the US leader.

Another center-left prime minister, Mark Carney of Canada – which like Australia is a G20 and Commonwealth nation, as well as US ally – recently scored an election win widely chalked up to anti-Trump sentiment.

In Australia, almost half of the 18 million registered voters cast their ballots before election day, and the remainder are expected to attend voting centers to comply with compulsory voting laws, with the threat of fines for no-shows.

Polling centers on election day often resemble a series of small community fairs, taking advantage of the guaranteed flow of customers by selling what’s known as “democracy sausages” – a sausage, sauce, and maybe onions, on a slice of white bread.

The tradition began decades ago but in recent years has become more organized with an online map built by volunteers showing where voters can find a ballot box with a barbecue.

“Everybody has to show up to vote. As long as you’re showing up anyway, why not connect with the community through the fair-like atmosphere of a sausage sizzle and whatever other fundraisers are available on the day,” said Alex Dawson from the Democracy Sausage Team.

International influence

Over the last five weeks, the two major parties have been locked in a battle for votes, using the promise of tax cuts, rebates and other relief measures aimed at easing a cost-of-living crisis.

Australian elections tend to focus on domestic issues – housing, health and the economy – but this one has been influenced by international events.

Albanese called the election in late March, just before Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, sending global markets into a tailspin.

As with almost all other US allies, Australia was not spared from the tariffs, something Albanese criticized as “against the spirit of our two nations’ enduring friendship.”

On the campaign trail, the incumbent government has presented itself as a steady pair of hands as the initial hit to stocks broadened into fears of an impending global recession. Now, Labor says the Australian economy is turning the corner, pointing to a recent fall in inflation to 2.9%, the lowest since December 2021.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports Labor candidate for Braddon Anne Urquhart during a visit Devonport, Australia, on May 2.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports Labor candidate for Braddon Anne Urquhart during a visit Devonport, Australia, on May 2.
Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images
Opposition leader Peter Dutton visits Agfest in the electorate of Lyons, in Carrick, Australia, on May 1.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton visits Agfest in the electorate of Lyons, in Carrick, Australia, on May 1.
Dan Peled/Getty Images

Dutton has placed the blame for inflationary pressures firmly on the Labor government, routinely questioning whether voters feel “better off than they were three years ago.”

Both parties say they’ll make it easier for first-time buyers to get a house, by either cutting the size of the minimum deposit, or offering tax deductions on mortgage repayments – both measures analysts say will likely drive house prices higher.

Pitch to young voters

This year, for the first time, younger voters will outnumber older demographics and analysts expect them to extend the decline of the two-party system with more votes for minor parties and independents.

A fierce competition for young voters has played out on social media, making this election “drastically different” from those of the past, said Andrea Carson, a professor of political communication at La Trobe University in Melbourne.

“Instagram and TikTok (are) really taking over some of the space that was occupied by Facebook,” Carson said.

However, the lack of any regulation requiring truth in political advertising has allowed political parties, as well as third-party campaigners, to say whatever they like about their rivals.

Many electorates, such as the hotly contested Wentworth in Sydney’s east, have seen a deluge of flyers and signs pushing personal attacks against candidates. The Australian Electoral Commission stated in April that it “cannot, and has never been able to, regulate truth.”

Commentators will be watching this year to see if more seats go to so-called Teal candidates, independents backed by funds raised through campaign group Climate 200.

The Teals were the talk of the last election three years ago, when Australians turfed out the Liberal-National Coalition after nine years of rule, in a vote dubbed Australia’s “climate election.” This year, 35 are competing as independents with a shared goal of promoting integrity, gender equality and greater climate action.

In 2022, the new Labor government committed to net-zero targets and immediately began the work of driving carbon emissions down in a country which derives a significant portion of its wealth from extracting fossil fuels.

However, despite escalating the rollout of new renewable projects, it’s been criticized for also approving new coal and gas projects.

The Liberal Party’s response to the country’s energy demands has been to propose a shift to nuclear power, with a plan to build seven nuclear power stations in the coming decades, funded by taxpayers.

This time around, there has been no promise of bolder climate action from Labor, even as activists have ambushed leaders on the campaign trail.

“When will you listen to young people?” one protester yelled at Albanese on April 8 at a press conference to announce more funding for mental healthcare.

For the candidates who’ve worked for weeks to push their message through the noise of competing election campaigns, Saturday could turn into a long, tense evening.

The last polls close at 6 p.m. on the west coast (6 a.m. ET) and a result is expected within hours – if one of the major parties receives enough votes to win a coveted majority.

Voters are also electing 40 of 76 seats in the upper house (Senate), replacing senators who are at the end of their six-year term.

This post appeared first on cnn.com
Keep Reading
Investing

Ontario Tables Sweeping Bill to Restrict Foreign Access to Critical Minerals

Ontario has introduced legislation aimed at tightening control over the province’s mining and energy sectors by limiting foreign involvement, fast-tracking resource development and scaling back species-at-risk protections.

The Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025, also known as Bill 5, was announced at the Toronto Stock Exchange on April 17 by Premier Doug Ford and Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce.

According to the government, the new bill is designed to “safeguard Ontario’s critical minerals, secure the province’s energy infrastructure, and reduce regulatory bottlenecks that hamper development.”

“With President Trump taking direct aim at our economy, it cannot be business as usual,” Ford declared during the announcement, referring to recent US moves to prioritize domestic supply chains for critical resources.

The proposed law would grant the Ontario government sweeping new powers over the mining sector.

These would include the ability to suspend or revoke mining claims, deny transfers or leases and limit access to Ontario’s Mining Lands Administration System — particularly for entities linked to “hostile foreign regimes.”

It would also allow the government to restrict foreign participation in the province’s energy sector.

“In today’s changing world, we need to be clear-eyed about the risks from those who want to exploit our resource bounty,” Lecce said in an April 25 press release that covers the legislation. “That is why it is essential that Ontario is protecting our critical minerals and energy sector from getting into the wrong hands.”

Kevin Holland, member of provincial parliament for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, added that the measures are especially significant for Northern Ontario, where the economy is deeply tied to resource extraction.

“Ontario is taking important actions to protect our mining and energy assets during this volatile time,” he said.

Rolling back environmental protections

According to the provincial government, the legislation is partially a response to concerns raised in a 2021 national security report in which Canada’s natural resources are identified as a strategic vulnerability.

However, the proposed legislation has sparked sharp criticism from environmental advocates who warn that Bill 5 undermines Ontario’s Endangered Species Act. It would be replaced with a much narrower Species Conservation Act that redefines what constitutes a species’ habitat.

Under current law, a habitat includes all areas a species needs to live, migrate and reproduce. The new definition reduces this to “a dwelling place, such as a den, nest or other similar place,” plus the immediate surrounding area.

Critics argue that this change all but guarantees habitat loss for vulnerable species.

“The definition of habitat is so narrow that what it means is less habitat than the species has now,” Laura Bowman, a lawyer with the environmental law charity Ecojustice, told CBC. “And less habitat than the species has now, for a species already in decline, virtually ensures extirpation or extinction,” she added

The bill would also eliminate the requirement for recovery strategies once a species is declared at risk — a key mechanism under the current law that sets out steps to restore populations to sustainable levels.

The legislation is part of Ontario’s push to accelerate development in the Ring of Fire, a mineral-rich region in the province’s far north. The Ford government has long touted the area’s potential to supply key inputs like nickel, lithium and chromite for electric vehicles and clean technologies. According to the government, Bill 5 will “cut red tape and streamline approvals” to jumpstart projects that are currently mired in lengthy environmental and consultation processes — often involving Indigenous communities whose territories overlap with planned developments.

Despite the growing need for secure critical minerals supply chains, the decision to pair national security rhetoric with the rollback of environmental protections is likely to ignite political and legal challenges in the months ahead.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com
Keep Reading
Investing

Deep-Sea Crisis: Can the ISA Regain Control of the Deep Ocean?

The world’s oceans are increasingly becoming an important new frontier in the geopolitical and economic race for critical minerals, with countries fast-tracking plans for deep-sea mining.

Meanwhile, the global body tasked with regulating such activities is struggling to keep pace.

As sovereign states ramp up efforts to access seabed resources crucial for clean energy and defense technologies, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) finds itself sidelined — raising alarms among environmentalists and nations alike.

Stoking these tensions, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month with the aim of expediting deep-sea mineral extraction in both national and international waters.

The directive, which calls for faster permitting and exploration, bypasses multilateral negotiations at the ISA and uses a 1980 domestic statute — the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act — to justify the unilateral action.

The order “establishes the US as a global leader in seabed mineral exploration and development both within and beyond national jurisdiction,’ signaling Washington’s intent to secure independence from Chinese mineral supply chains.

But the move has drawn fierce criticism from multiple fronts.

“The US authorization … violates international law and harms the overall interests of the international community,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun. Such sentiments echo concerns that unilateral actions could unravel decades of work toward collective seabed governance under the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea.

At the heart of the dispute lies the ISA, the UN agency responsible for regulating mining in international waters.

Though it has issued over 30 exploratory permits, it has yet to finalize rules for commercial extraction. That regulatory vacuum has encouraged countries to approach the issue alone and in accordance with their own different agendas.

Norway reverses course on deep-sea mining

In January 2024, Norway became the first country to approve commercial-scale deep-sea mining within its own exclusive economic zone, greenlighting exploration across 280,000 square kilometers — an area larger than the UK.

The move, passed through parliament despite strong domestic and international opposition, is part of the country’s bid to secure metals like cobalt, scandium and lithium for green technologies.

“We will have a relatively long period of exploration and mapping activity to close the knowledge gap on the environmental impact,” Walter Sognnes, co-founder of Loke Marine Minerals, a Norwegian company focused on deep-sea exploration, told the BBC in an interview at the time the news was announced

However, environmentalists argued that the plan undermined Norway’s own standards.

“The Norwegian government always highlighted that they want to implement the highest environmental standards,” said Martin Webeler of the Environmental Justice Foundation.

“That is hypocritical whilst you are throwing away all the scientific advice.”

The Norway Institute of Marine Research also criticized the government’s decision, saying the existing environmental impact assessment was based on limited data and not representative of the vast areas opened for mining. It called for an additional five to 10 years of research before proceeding.

Against that backdrop, Norway reversed course, suspending its deep-sea mining plans at the end of 2024 following mounting political and environmental pressure.

The first licensing round, originally set for 2025, was blocked after the Socialist Left Party threatened to withhold support for the government’s budget unless the initiative was halted.

India eyes Clarion-Clipperton zone, Pacific Islands at crossroads

For its part, India has announced plans to ramp up its presence in the Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton zone, one of the world’s most mineral-rich deep-sea regions. Although the ISA has already granted India two exploration contracts, the country has opted to hold off on operations as regulations remain in flux.

M. Ravichandran, secretary of the country’s Ministry of Earth Sciences, said the country is seeking to apply to the UN-backed ISA next year to focus on exploring the zone.

Meanwhile, the resource-rich Pacific Islands are emerging as battlegrounds in this high-stakes race.

Kiribati, a small island nation with jurisdiction over 75,000 square kilometers of prospective seabed, is reportedly in talks with China after a previous deal with Canada’s The Metals Company (NASDAQ:TMC) collapsed late last year.

In a statement dated March 17, the Kiribati government called discussions with Chinese ambassador Zhou Limin “an exciting opportunity” to explore its deep-sea resources.

But critics say such moves by smaller nations are often driven by economic desperation and can lead to exploitative outcomes. This tension is familiar in Papua New Guinea, where the failure of the Nautilus Minerals project left environmental damage and financial losses in its wake.

Some Pacific nations are now calling for a global moratorium on seabed mining, citing concerns about the unknown risks to ecosystems and the climate.

Patchwork governance, fragmented oversight

The race toward seabed mining is exposing a critical flaw in global governance: fragmentation. The ISA, which was supposed to provide a unified framework, is losing relevance as more countries chart independent courses.

“The harm caused by deep-sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom,” Jeff Watters, vice president for external affairs at the Ocean Conservancy, told the Guardian.

A study by the Natural History Museum and the UK’s National Oceanography Center analyzing a 1970s test site concludes that some sediment dwellers were able to recover, but larger animals dependent on polymetallic nodules did not return — likely because the nodules, which take millions of years to form, were destroyed.

Despite these warnings, the Metals Company continues to push forward. It has said it plans to mine by the year’s end, pending US government approval, as CEO Gerard Barron remains unfazed by the backlash.

“Here there’s zero flora,” Barron told the BBC in a January 2024 interview. “If we measure the amount of fauna… in the form of biomass, there is around 10g per square metre. That compares with more than 30kg of biomass where the world is pushing more nickel extraction, which is our equatorial rainforests.”

Beyond environmental concerns, the deep-sea mining surge is reshaping geopolitical dynamics. China, which dominates global production and processing of rare earths, has long used its position as leverage in trade disputes. In response to US tariffs, Beijing recently introduced new export controls on rare earths — further intensifying the mineral arms race.

Trump’s executive order makes clear that seabed mining is now viewed as a national security imperative.

“It’s not just drill, baby, drill. It’s mine, baby, mine,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum at a recent conference. “We will literally be at the mercy of others that are controlling our supply chains,” he warned.

But this approach risks setting a dangerous precedent. If powerful nations begin issuing their own licenses outside multilateral systems, others are likely to follow suit. The result could be a patchwork of conflicting claims and reduced protections, particularly for vulnerable maritime nations.

With the ISA still developing a mining code and more countries rejecting its pace, the world faces a dilemma: how to balance the urgent demand for critical minerals with the equally pressing need to preserve fragile marine ecosystems.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

Keep reading…Show less
This post appeared first on investingnews.com
Keep Reading
Investing

John Rubino: Gold on “Epic Run” as Chaos Unfolds, What About Silver?

John Rubino, who writes a newsletter on Substack, explains the factors behind gold’s ‘epic run,’ pointing to underlying elements like Basel III and BRICS demand, as well as current events.

He believes gold has the wind at its back, although silver might be the better buy right now.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
Keep Reading
Business

Data center boom in world’s largest market isn’t slowing down, Dominion Energy says

Data center demand is not slowing down in the world’s largest market centered in northern Virginia, executives at Dominion Energy said Thursday.

Dominion provides electricity in Loudoun County, nicknamed “Data Center Alley” because it hosts the largest cluster of data centers in the world. The utility works closely with the Big Tech companies that are investing tens of billions of dollars in data centers as they train artificial intelligence models.

“We have not observed any evidence of slowing demand from data center customers across our service area,” Dominion’s chief financial officer, Steven Ridge, told analysts on the company’s first-quarter earnings call.

Wall Street has speculated that the tech sector might pull back investment in data centers as President Donald Trump’s tariffs make it more difficult to source parts and raise the risk of a recession. The emergence of China’s DeepSeek AI lab sparked a sell-off of power stocks earlier this year as investors worried that its model is more energy efficient.

Dominion has 40 gigawatts of data center capacity in various stages of contracting, Ridge said. Data center customers have not paused spending on new projects in Dominion’s service area and they have not shown any concerns about economic uncertainty, Dominion CEO Robert Blue said.

“We’re seeing continued appetite for additional data center capacity in our service territory,” Blue said. “They want to go fast, they always want to go fast. That’s their business, that’s always been their business. We’ve been effective at serving them thus far. I don’t see any reason why that’s going to change in the future,” he said.

Executives with Amazon and Nvidia said last week at an energy conference in Oklahoma City that data center demand is not slowing. Dominion shares rose about 1% in Thursday trading as the utility maintained its full-year operating earnings guidance of $3.28 to $3.52 per share.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS
Keep Reading
Business

Tesla denies report it’s looking to replace Elon Musk

Shares of Tesla were flat in premarket trading Thursday after the EV maker denied a Wall Street Journal report that its board was searching for a replacement for chief executive Elon Musk.

The report, citing comments from sources familiar with the discussions, said that Tesla’s board members reached out to several executive search firms to work on a formal process for finding the company’s next CEO. Shares of Tesla fell as much as 3% in overnight trading on trading platform Robinhood following the news, before paring losses.

Tesla chair Robyn Denholm wrote on the social media platform X that the report was “absolutely false.”

“Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla Board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company,” she wrote.

Elon Musk gulf of america red hat smile happy
Elon Musk during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Wednesday.Evan Vucci / AP

“This is absolutely false (and this was communicated to the media before the report was published). The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead.”

It comes after a sharp drop in the electric vehicle giant’s sales and profits, with its top and bottom lines missing estimates in the first quarter. Musk has admitted that his involvement with the Trump administration could be hurting the automaker’s stock price.

The mega-billionaire said on a Tesla earnings call last week that he plans to spend just a “day or two per week” running the so-called Department of Government Efficiency beginning in May.

Tesla’s total revenue slipped 9% year-on-year to hit $19.34 billion in the January-March quarter. This falls short of the $21.11 billion forecast by analysts, LSEG data shows.

Revenue from its automotive segment declined 20% year-on-year to $14 billion, as the company needed to update lines at its four vehicle factories to start making a refreshed version of its popular Model Y SUV. Tesla also attributed the decline to lower average selling prices and sales incentives as a drag on revenue and profit.

Its net income plunged 71% to $409 million, or 12 cents a share, from $1.39 billion or 41 cents a year ago.

Since the start of the year, its shares have plunged over 30%.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS
Keep Reading
Politics

Ex-Pelosi aide accuses Hakeem Jeffries of ‘squandering’ anti-Trump opportunities in stunning rebuke

A former top advisor to ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., is not meeting the moment in the current Trump era.

‘Trump is just giving us all this incredible red meat. I mean, I’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s like the biggest gift any party has been given by the opposition, and we’re just squandering it, to a degree,’ former Pelosi advisor Ashley Etienne told Politico’s Deep Dive podcast. 

Etienne helped Pelosi oversee Democrats’ messaging during President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. She also previously worked for former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.

She said Jeffries was ‘doing well’ in many areas and said she had ‘a tremendous amount of respect’ for the New York Democrat but signaled that he was missing opportunities on anti-Trump messaging.

‘He gave a speech this morning. I don’t have any talking points in my phone about what he said. And I’m going to be doing TV and this interview all day. That’s a failure,’ Etienne said.

‘How do you get to discipline if you’re not telling people what the hell you want them to say? At least emphatically, at least tonally.’

Jeffries’ allies pushed back against that characterization, pointing out that intraparty friction was taking attention away from Trump’s low poll numbers and Republicans’ policies.

‘Donald Trump’s approval ratings are plummeting, and he’s bringing House Republicans down with him. Extreme MAGA Republicans have been forced to delay their plans to advance Trump’s centerpiece legislative priority due to intense backlash against their scheme to enact the largest cuts in history to Medicaid and food assistance. Let’s keep the main thing, the main thing,’ Jeffries spokesperson Christiana Stephenson told Fox News Digital.

Just Friday morning, Jeffries released a statement hammering House Republicans for having to delay part of their legislative work to advance Trump’s agenda.

But Etienne’s comments are a notable rebuke from a former senior Democratic leadership aide to one of the party’s most powerful current officials, which comes after months of Democrats being plagued by infighting over messaging woes.

Etienne noted that Democrats had scored several wins on the messaging front, like having ‘successfully demonized Elon Musk’ and Sen. Cory Booker’s recent record-breaking filibuster speech.

But she singled out liberals’ protests during Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress as an ’embarrassing’ setback for the party and Jeffries.

‘If you look at the headlines post-the speech, even during the speech, it was more about Democrats and Democrats protesting rather than what Trump was actually saying. And in those kind of moments, you don’t want to become the story. You want Trump to be the story,’ Etienne said.

‘And I also thought it was a problem for Mr. Jeffries. I mean, it really says a lot about how people value his leadership. He asked for no protest. And what did they do? They protest 50 different ways.’

Both Pelosi and Jeffries’ offices told Politico that the latter often seeks the former’s input, and Jeffries’ spokesperson pushed back on Politico’s reporting that House Democratic leaders were seeking to move past Pelosi and that Jeffries was not doing enough to help Democratic groups with messaging. 

One of those groups, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), pushed back on the assertion they were not hearing enough from Jeffries.

PCCC sent out a press release that read, ‘Today, in a POLITICO article we are not interested in dwelling on, a former Pelosi staffer attacked Hakeem Jeffries. PCCC co-founder Adam Green said, ‘We hear more from Jeffries than we ever heard from Pelosi.’’

Meanwhile, a House Democratic aide told Fox News Digital that Jeffries held ‘multiple calls’ previewing his earlier speech on Trump’s first 100 days in office, as well as talking points ’emphasizing the Leader’s message that President Trump’s first 100 days have been a disaster for the American people.’

Stephenson, Jeffries’ spokesperson, also posted on X of Politico’s report, ‘Can anyone tell me how grandstanding like this is anything other than a gift to Republicans?’

But House Republicans’ elections arm was quick to pounce on the discord as well.

‘Hakeem Jeffries is the so-called leader of a team that doesn’t fear him, doesn’t follow him, and now, doesn’t even pretend to respect him,’ National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement. 

And Democratic strategist Julian Epstein, a former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee, criticized Jeffries’ leadership but said that Trump was not Democrats’ main problem.

‘He’s not a particularly effective speaker, gives no sense of direction or purpose, seems intent on not offending anyone, and has a leadership style that seems extremely passive,’ Epstein said.

‘The Democrats in the House just seem like a big blob that goes wherever gravity takes them, and right now gravity is taking them to the hard protest left. But no matter who the leader is, if the Democrats are selling a product that voters don’t like, it won’t matter.’

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
Politics

House Freedom Caucus embraces Trump budget proposal ‘paradigm shift’

The House Freedom Caucus described President Donald Trump’s budget proposal as ‘a paradigm shift,’ and members of the conservative group expressed support for the president’s plan.

‘This is how you break the Swamp. Passing MAGA Republican priorities in reconciliation with Republican votes — ending Democrats’s leverage against the President in appropriations to fund the Left’s wasteful, woke and weaponized bureaucracy. The FY26 budget is a paradigm shift,’ the Freedom Caucus declared in a post on X.

The president is seeking to decrease non-defense discretionary spending and boost funding for defense.

Trump ‘is proposing base non-defense discretionary budget authority (of) $163 billion, 22.6 percent below current-year spending, while still protecting funding for homeland security, veterans, seniors, law enforcement, and infrastructure,’ Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought indicated in a message to Senate Committee on Appropriations Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

‘For Defense spending, the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal, a portion of these increases — at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress — would be provided through reconciliation, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission,’ he explained.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, has expressed support for the president’s proposal.

‘This budget re-aligns federal spending to the priorities of the people: a secure nation, making America healthy again, a Justice Department combatting crime and not weaponized against the people, and common sense,’ the congressman declared in a statement.

GOP hopes to move toward

‘Combined with our joint efforts to rescind other wasteful spending and deliver a reconciliation bill that will extend and expand the Trump tax cuts while reforming Medicaid and other programs to reduce deficits, we are poised to deliver prosperity, freedom, and strength to the American people,’ he said.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., another member of the House Freedom Caucus, referred to Trump’s proposal as ‘a game-changing budget,’ in a post on X, asserting it ‘is exactly what Republicans were elected to deliver: securing the homeland, cutting the federal government, and crippling the deep state.’

Freedom Caucus member Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., described the president’s budget as ‘a bold step toward fiscal responsibility.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading
Politics

Top Senate Armed Services Republican says Trump OMB’s budget ‘shreds to the bone’ military capabilities

The Senate’s top Armed Services Republican eviscerated President Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shortly after the White House released details of its government funding proposal for fiscal year 2026. 

‘President Trump successfully campaigned on a Peace Through Strength agenda, but his advisers at the Office of Management and Budget were apparently not listening,’ Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said in a statement. 

‘The Big, Beautiful Reconciliation Bill was always meant to change fundamentally the direction of the Pentagon on programs like Golden Dome, border support, and unmanned capabilities – not to paper over OMB’s intent to shred to the bone our military capabilities and our support to service members.

House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers echoed Wicker’s complaints. 

‘I am very concerned the requested base budget for defense does not reflect a realistic path to building the military capability we need to achieve President Trump’s Peace Through Strength agenda,’ the Alabama Republican said in a statement.

‘I look forward to working with the President and the Senate to achieve real growth in the defense budget and put America on track to realize the President’s goal of investing five percent of GDP on defense for NATO countries.’

The Trump OMB’s ‘skinny budget,’ released on Friday, proposes cuts to non-defense funding by $163 billion but increases defense funding from $893 billion to $1.01 trillion – a 13% increase. That includes $892.6 billion in discretionary spending, but will be supplemented by $119.3 billion in mandatory spending that is expected to be passed in the upcoming reconciliation bill. 

Senior officials told Fox News the Trump administration needed to get creative to get a $1 trillion-plus budget over the finish line: Republican majorities have historically been forced to offer one-to-one increases in non-defense spending to secure increases in defense spending. 

However, by keeping discretionary defense spending at $892.6 billion, the same level as fiscal year 2025, the budget that would be presented to Democrats would essentially reflect an unchanged defense discretionary budget with a smaller non-defense discretionary budget of about $557 billion – a 22.6% decrease.

The White House and congressional Republicans would then pursue the reset of the defense spending through the budget reconciliation process that is linked to the tax cut package.

But Wicker isn’t satisfied. 

‘OMB is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget. It is requesting a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms. This budget would decrease President Trump’s military options and his negotiating leverage,’ he said. 

‘I have said for months that reconciliation defense spending does not replace the need for real growth in the military’s base budget.’

OMB Director Russ Vought said in a post on X: ‘The President wants to increase defense spending to $1 trillion, a 13% increase to keep our country secure. This budget provides that level while ensuring that only Republican-votes are needed by using reconciliation to secure those increases without Democrats insisting on increasing wasteful government.’

To account for spending decreases across government, all departments were asked to provide recommended budget cuts except for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Transportation, which were excluded to protect veterans’ services as well as NASA and space exploration programs.

Congress will have to hammer out its own budget plan – which could take months – with the White House’s framework as a suggestion. 

Both Wicker and Rogers have long aimed to grow U.S. defense spending to 5% of the GDP, up from around 3.5 percent. 

The Mississippi senator suggested he would ignore the OMB guidelines and work to achieve ‘real growth’ within the defense budget. 

Fox Business’ Edward Lawrence and Eric Revell contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
Keep Reading