Turns Out, Elon Musk Isn’t Leaving Trump’s Side Just Yet

Elon Musk isn’t done with the federal government after all.

Days after the tech billionaire confirmed on X that his time as a special government employee had come to a close, the vice president revealed that the administration isn’t ready to let Musk go.

“I think there’s an effort by the media to sort of say the Elon era is over, and I think that’s actually totally wrong,” JD Vance told Newsmax in an interview released late Thursday.

“Now, he has, obviously, a day job, and he’s got to go back to his day job to run his companies, but the DOGE effort will continue, [and] Elon will continue to be an important adviser for both me and the president,” Vance continued. “And most importantly, the job of making the government more efficient, of not wasting people’s money, that has to continue. I think it’s one of the most important mandates that we got from the American people, and we will keep on executing on that mandate.”

And Donald Trump similarly appears to be trying to extend Musk’s time in office. In a Truth Social post Thursday, the president announced that he would be holding a press conference with Musk the following day, calling him “terrific.”

“This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way,” Trump wrote.

It’s no secret that Musk had been a decidedly unpopular figure in the White House weeks before he refocused his attention on his struggling electric car brand. In the few short months that Musk ran DOGE, reports emerged that practically everyone in the White House hated him. He had stomped on the toes of Trump’s Cabinet, failing to consult them before paring down federal agencies technically under their control. He got into a screaming match with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Earlier this week, Musk whined that DOGE had become a “whipping boy” for the administration’s failures. He interfered in a deal over an AI datacenter in the United Arab Emirates to try to get his company xAI a piece of the pie, and he told CBS that Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” was actually a bad idea.

But there are plenty of reasons why Trump and co. might want to keep the world’s richest man in their pocket.

Musk was Trump’s top financial backer in the 2024 election, spending at least $250 million in the final months of the president’s campaign after Trump was shot in July. Musk had also promised to funnel funds toward other Republicans, declaring in the wake of the November election that his super PACs would “play a significant role in primaries.” In the following months, Musk threatened to use his money to fund primary challengers to Republicans who opposed Trump’s agenda and to go after Democrats, and that he would be preparing “for the midterms and any intermediate elections, as well as looking at elections at the district attorney level.”

The week after Trump returned from the Middle East trip, however, Musk announced at the Qatar Economic Forum that he had “done enough” political spending.

“I think in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk said.

Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestine activist detained by the Trump administration and threatened with deportation, thinks that government officials coordinated with anti-Palestinian groups and organizations to target him.

Zeteo News reports that Khalil and his legal team from the Center of Constitutional Rights filed a Freedom of Information Act request with several government agencies to “document and expose the reported collaboration between federal officials and private, anti-Palestinian organizations who have identified, doxxed, and reported him and others for purposes of securing the deportation of student activists advocating on behalf of Palestinian human rights.”

In their request, Khalil’s lawyers say that his arrest, as well as that of other pro-Palestine activists, shows patterns that indicate the government is working with outside groups who are working together to target such activists. These groups, which include the pro-Israel academic blacklist Canary Mission and far-right Betar USA, publicly take credit every time one of these arrests are announced.

As early as January, Betar, a Revisionist Zionist organization that has been labeled “extremist” by the Anti Defamation League was recommending foreign students and teachers to the Trump administration for deportation because they protested against Israel. Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student at Columbia University who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at what he thought was a U.S. citizenship interview, was also on Betar’s list.

According to Zeteo, the FOIA request cites several examples of Betar and other organizations creating profiles for Khalil and attacking him on social media. Activists from these organizations, such as Betar head Ross Glick, reportedly met with Senator John Fetterman and the office of Senator Ted Cruz to discuss deportation efforts.

Fetterman denied working with Betar, telling Zeteo that “I do not support private organizations coming up with deportation lists, and in any event, I would never participate or assist in that.” The State Department, on the other hand, didn’t deny working with such organizations.

“Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information when considering visa revocations about possible ineligibilities,” a department spokesperson told Zeteo.

If the Trump administration is taking deportation recommendations from extremist, anti–free speech organizations like Betar and Canary Mission, it is violating the First Amendment to the Constitution in its immigration policies. But Trump and his associates have already shown the public that they don’t care about such freedoms for the people they oppose, let alone the law.

After the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, met with Donald Trump at the White House Thursday, the bank took the unprecedented step of releasing a statement asserting its independence.

The statement said that the Fed has an independent, nonpartisan role using economic data to set monetary policy.

“Chair Powell did not discuss his expectations for monetary policy, except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook,” the statement said regarding Powell’s meeting with Trump.

The Fed added that Powell told Trump that he and other officials “will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective, and non-political analysis.”

Such a statement is rare from the Fed, which normally remains tight-lipped. Trump has made no secret of his displeasure with Powell for not cutting interest rates at the president’s request, and at one point Trump threatened to fire Powell to get his way. Trump later tempered his threat, but not without spooking international markets and worrying investors.

Powell also has been honest about the negative economic effects on Trump’s tariffs, prompting the president to level insults at Powell from his Truth Social account. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t dispute the Fed’s statement Thursday, but noted that Trump “did say that the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering rates.”

Powell’s statement suggests that Trump challenged the Fed’s authority during their meeting. Did Trump revive his threat to fire Powell? What will the president do if Powell stands his ground on interest rates? With Trump being dealt two major setbacks over his tariffs in the past 24 hours, he might get impatient and angry.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt just cannot seem to grasp the whole “checks and balances” part of the U.S. Constitution.

During a press briefing Thursday, Leavitt railed against the recent ruling of a little-known federal court that found Donald Trump had exceeded his legal authority by imposing sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries, based on vague claims of “national emergencies.” In a separate ruling, another federal judge also found that Trump could not collect tariffs on any of his orders.

“The courts should have no role here. There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process. America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,” Leavitt said.

But the first decision was made by the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has nationwide jurisdiction over civil cases arising from international trade. The three-judge panel ruled that Trump had wrongly invoked the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which allows him to respond to national emergencies, to justify sweeping retaliatory tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, and dozens more countries.

Shortly after the briefing, the Trump administration was granted a temporary stay of the trade court ruling while the government appeals. Leavitt also asked the Supreme Court to step in on behalf of the president. In the meantime, Trump officials have set out to downplay the impact of the rulings, which could potentially upend ongoing negotiations with other countries.

Leavitt has repeatedly claimed that federal judges have no jurisdiction over the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy matters, rendering them powerless to rule against his illegal deportation policies. Earlier this week, Trump asked the Supreme Court to back up the administration’s efforts to remove immigrants to countries where they did not originate, after a federal judge ruled that he couldn’t deport individuals to South Sudan if they weren’t from there. Leavitt has also railed against the judge who paused Trump’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

Donald Trump is a big fan of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and turns a blind eye to his administration’s myriad human rights violations and increasing authoritarianism, in exchange for El Salvador’s accepting deportees of any nationality.

But why does Bukele also have a fan in Democratic Representative Vicente Gonzalez?

The Texas moderate is the lone House Democrat to have met with Bukele while visiting El Salvador, and toured the country’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, where immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia was once held and where Venezuelan immigrants removed from the United States are currently detained. Other Democrats, including Senator Chris Van Hollen, were unable to visit the prison or meet with Bukele on their visits to the country.

“El Salvador is crucial in helping the United States curb the flow of irregular migration and is an important ally in the western hemisphere,” Gonzalez said in a press release after his visit.

Gonzalez’s district voted for Trump in 2024 and is 90 percent Hispanic, and also happens to be on America’s southern border. Gonzales has praised Bukele, claiming that the Salvadoran leader has created a model for Latin America with his crackdown on gangs in the country.

“I think it’s undeniable what he’s done has been spectacular, in terms of bringing security to over 98 percent of the population that lived in turmoil for over a generation,” Gonzalez told Politico Magazine. “He clean[ed] up the most dangerous country in the world and turn[ed] it into the safest in the hemisphere.”

Along with former Representative Matt Gaetz, Gonzalez is a founding member of the El Salvador Caucus in Congress, and now is only one of two Democrats in the pro-Bukele organization, along with Representative Lou Correa. That may be due to the fact that Bukele has trolled and mocked other Democrats on social media, who have criticized the Trump administration’s deal with El Salvador.

That doesn’t seem to matter to Gonzalez, who thinks “Democrats … shouldn’t shy from building a diplomatic relationship with the country of El Salvador,” despite the fact that human rights activists in the country have been arrested and journalists have been forced to flee. Perhaps Gonzalez should ask himself how he’d feel if Trump acted like the Salvadoran autocrat.