Trump Lashes Out at Fox News Over Devastating New Poll

Donald Trump slammed a Fox News poll Thursday on Truth Social, accusing the network’s pollsters of being “always wrong and negative.”

“The Crooked FoxNews Polls got the Election WRONG, I won by much more than they said I would, and have been biased against me for years,” Trump wrote, referring to the 2020 election, which Fox correctly said that he lost. “It’s why MAGA HATES FoxNews, even though their anchors are GREAT.”

“I hate FAKE pollsters, one of the Worst, but Fox will never change their discredited pollster!” he added.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that a majority of voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance by an eight-point margin. The poll, regarded as one of the best in the industry, found that a majority of voters are still feeling pessimistic about the state of the economy. 

Just Tuesday, the Federal Reserve forecasted higher inflation as business owners and consumers start to feel the impact of the president’s sweeping tariffs. On inflation specifically, Trump’s job approval is underwater by 30 points, with just 34 percent of voters approving of his performance on the price-level.

When it comes to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” congressional Republicans’ sprawling package of tax cuts and health care “reforms” that the president has put his full weight behind, the poll found Americans oppose the measure by a large margin. According to the poll, nearly three in four independents oppose the measure, as do the vast majority of Democrats. 

The majority of voters across the spectrum disapprove of the president’s job on immigration and foreign policy, as his response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and a collapse in diplomatic negotiations with Iran has dominated headlines.  

Elon Musk thinks White House presidential personnel director Sergio Gor is a “snake.” Gor, who is responsible for picking the approximately 4,000 executive branch staff members, reportedly made sure Musk’s good friend Jared Isaacman got his nomination to lead NASA rescinded.

“He is a snake,” Musk commented on Wednesday under an article describing the lack of vetting that Gor, who vets Trump’s staff, had gone through himself. The rivalry between these two men allegedly started in March when Musk, who was more involved with DOGE at the time, admonished Gor for not filling the Trump administration’s staff quickly enough, “humiliating” him in a Cabinet meeting. Isaacman lost his nomination shortly after, something that infuriated the world’s richest man.

There is obviously still bad blood between Musk and the Trump administration, and comments like these from Musk help illuminate just how and why the beef started. Musk’s flurry of tweets against Trump—claiming he’s in the Epstein files and attacking his One Big Beautiful Bill Act—were directly influenced by the spat between Musk and Gor.

A federal judge just destroyed the Trump administration’s attacks on undocumented immigrants’ habeas corpus rights by upholding a 21-day notice requirement for potential deportees. 

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee to the bench in Pennsylvania, ruled that the government could not provide detainees with only seven days to challenge their removal or seek asylum after receiving a deportation order. 

In a 15-page ruling that blocked the expedited deportation of a Venezuelan man, Haines provided a detailed hypothetical to demonstrate exactly why seven days would be insufficient for a detainee to have sufficient time to be heard by a court. 

“Assume that detainee John Doe … receives notice on June 1, 2026 at 12:00 P.M., that he is subject to removal under the [Alien Enemies Act] and the Proclamation. His only recourse is to file with the Judiciary in habeas,” she wrote. 

“Assume that John Doe then begins drafting, through whatever means are available to him, a habeas petition.… Halfway through drafting his petition (or while waiting for a callback from his attorney, or while still looking for one), on June 4 2026, at 5:00 P.M., he is placed on a plane which will arrive in Northern District of Texas” the same day, Haines wrote.  

“He has no opportunity to take his partially drafted petition with him or call his attorney (or find an attorney) before he is transferred,” she wrote. 

Haines imagined that the detainee might take a day to acclimate to his surroundings or find the means to continue working on his petition or hear back from his attorney—and by that time, around noon on June 6, 2026, “he stands to be removed from the country in just two days.”

“Might there not be a significant risk that this individual will not reach the judiciary before his seven days have run their course, meaning that he would be removed without any hearing whatsoever? Might not his movements from one facility to another, his quest to draft a petition, and/or his search for word from an attorney take even longer than the timeframes that the Court has just described?” Haines wrote.

“The Court cannot help but answer those questions in the affirmative,” she concluded. 

In May, Haines upheld Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and his declaration that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was mounting an “incursion” into the United States. In her ruling, though, she rejected the administration’s goal to curb due process for those targeted by the AEA. With the Department of Homeland Security pushed to provide detainees with only 12 to 24 hours, she called for the administration to abide by a three-weeks notice. 

The Federal Reserve is forecasting aggressive stagflation for the remainder of 2025.

Inflation is expected to go up to 3 percent, GDP growth is expected to fall by 1.4 percent, and unemployment will rise to 4.5 percent, the Fed announced Wednesday.

This report comes as the Trump administration weighs further aiding Israel in its war on Iran, a move that could seriously destabilize the region and multiple economies, including our own. There’s also Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which is expected to add $2.8 trillion to the deficit and reward tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations while slashing Medicaid and other social welfare programs.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell took to the podium on Wednesday to reaffirm what he’s been saying for months: This economic downturn is a direct result of President Trump’s tariffs.

“Increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity. The effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a onetime shift in the price level. It’s also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent,” Powell said. “Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the tariff effects, on how long it takes for them to pass through fully into prices, and ultimately, on keeping long-term inflation expectations well-anchored.”

The Fed has refused to cut interest rates as a result of the projected stagflation. Trump has yet to comment on the Fed’s report.

Donald Trump claimed to have intelligence Wednesday … but he doesn’t seem to know what he has intelligence about.

As tensions continue to build in the Middle East following Israel’s brutal strikes against Iran, the U.S. president took a break from the Situation Room to host an entirely unnecessary flag-raising ceremony on two newly erected flagpoles at the White House. While standing with members of his family, Trump halfheartedly responded to a question from the press, revealing just how little he knows about the situation in Iran.

“Do you have any intelligence that Iran is targeting—” asked one reporter.

“I have intelligence,” Trump said, grinning.

He continued speaking inaudibly as the reporter finished her question: “that Iran is targeting any U.S. assets?”

“We’re doing very well, thank you,” Trump replied, before dismissing the press.

Trump’s director of national intelligence was left scrambling this week after the president said he “didn’t care” about his own government’s assessment that Iran was still years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon because he thinks “they were very close to having it.” Intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard ultimately opted to lie and say that she and the president were in total agreement—despite saying the exact opposite just a few months ago.

Trump is simply parroting rhetoric from the Israeli government, which has repeatedly touted Iran’s nascent nuclear capabilities as a justification for its sweeping military operation there. The U.S. president has given Israel the green light to continue its assault on Iran, leaving the door open for further U.S. military intervention.

Two officials familiar with Trump’s ongoing discussions about getting involved in Iran told CNN that the president was warming up to the idea of using U.S. military assets in the Middle East. The U.S. has already sent two aircraft carriers to the region.

Senator Josh Hawley has added his name to the short list of Republicans in Congress voicing their opposition to Trump’s current and potential further support of Israel’s war on Iran.

“Josh Hawley, who spoke to Trump last night, told me he ‘would not’ be comfortable if the US took offensive action against Iran,” CNN’s Manu Raju posted on X on Wednesday.

“I don’t want us fighting a war. I don’t want another Mideast war.... I’m a little concerned about our sudden military buildup in the region,” Hawley told Raju. “I think Trump’s message to them is if you don’t [give up nukes], you’re on your own with Israel. I think all that’s fine. It’s a very different thing though for us to then say, but we are going to offensively … go strike Iran or insert ourselves into the conflict?”

“Trump’s offering [Iran] an off-ramp. Take the off-ramp,” he continued. “If not, you’re going to be on your own with Israel, but I don’t think there’s a need for the United States to affirmatively insert ourselves.”

There is a growing split between traditional war hawk neocons and MAGA Republicans grasping on to the last dregs of Trump’s promises of “America First” and an end to endless wars. But whether Hawley’s concern will turn into a serious attempt to stop Trump’s current trajectory remains to be seen.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth clumsily dodged a question about where he’d draw the line on the use of federal forces against protesters.

During a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, Senator Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, pressed Hegseth on whether he would carry out an order from the president “to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs.”

“Senator, as I’ve said before, of course I reject the premise of your question,” Hegseth replied. “And the characterization that I would be given or are given unlawful orders, it’s all meant as an attempt to smear the commander in chief, and I won’t fall for it.”

Hirono pointed out that the question was anything but hypothetical: “Considering that the president, in his first term, actually ordered such a thing, it’s not a premise that you can reject,” she replied.

During the widespread protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Donald Trump had been enraged at the demonstrators and reportedly inquired to his Cabinet whether they could “just shoot them in the legs or something?” Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the president’s startling inquiry “a suggestion and a formal question.”

Hirono said that Trump might do the same to quell other protests, such as those in Los Angeles opposing sweeping immigration raids. “I think you would just follow what the president wants you to do,” she surmised.

Hirono also directly asked Hegseth whether he would remove federal forces from Los Angeles if a court ordered him to do so. Last week, he’d pushed back on the idea that “local judges” (read: federal judges) could interfere with the president’s plans.

“If a court says this deployment of troops into our cities is not legal, would you follow that court’s order?” Hirono asked.

Hegseth said that the issue was still pending, before doubling down on his statement attacking the courts. “I don’t believe district courts should be determining national security policy. When it goes to the Supreme Court, we’ll see,” he said.

“I take it that you don’t consider district court decisions to be legitimate,” Hirono summarized.

This has become a common defense for lawlessness by the Trump administration, which has argued that the courts have no place in challenging practically any aspect of the president’s agenda, from deportations to tariffs. As desperate as members of the Trump administration are to dismiss federal judges as so-called “local,” the courts remain a crucial pillar in the country’s checks and balances as set out in the U.S. Constitution.

Team Trump clearly hopes to send every decision up the pipeline to the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which more regularly sides with Trump.

On Tuesday, an appeals court seemed inclined to allow Trump’s federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles, according to The New York Times.

President Trump took time on Wednesday to reaffirm his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wars.

“I said, ‘Keep going.’ What do I say?” Trump said when asked about his recent conversations with Netanyahu. “I speak to him every day. He’s a good man … been very unfairly treated by his country, I think. Very unfairly.”

“Have you given him any indication that you may seek to aid them more than you have already?” a reporter asked.

“No.”

At this point in the Israel-Iran conflict, the U.S. has offered Israel intelligence and helped shoot Iranian missiles out of the air. Trump has also left the door open for further U.S. military intervention, a development that would make Netanyahu’s job that much easier.

Trump doesn’t seem willing to budge on his support for Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran under the guise of some potential nuclear threat, even as many in his own base oppose it in the name of “America First.” If anything, this war offers Netanyahu some temporary reprieve from attention on his genocide in Gaza.

If Trump believes Netanyahu is being treated unfairly even as he commits genocide in Gaza and provokes all-out war with Iran, all while failing to both eliminate Hamas and free all the Israeli hostages, then Trump is even more blindly committed to the prime minister than initially feared.

President Trump is reportedly furious with Tulsi Gabbard after the director of national intelligence posted a professionally produced, three-minute-long X video last week referencing past nuclear disasters. Gabbard’s post went mostly unnoticed at the time, but now seems like a clear rebuke of U.S. support for Israel’s war on Iran.

“As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” Gabbard says in the video as ominous music swells in the background. “And perhaps it’s because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won’t have access to. So it’s up to us, the people, to speak up and demand an end to this madness. We must reject this path to nuclear war and work toward a world where no one has to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust.”

The president was apparently not a fan of Gabbard’s unauthorized rebuke of the direction his administration was leaning on Israel, as multiple war hawks visited Trump just days before Gabbard posted the video.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump stated on Tuesday when asked about Gabbard’s video on Air Force One. “I think they were very close to having a weapon.”

“I don’t think he dislikes Tulsi as a person.… But certainly the video made him not super hot on her … and he doesn’t like it when people are off message,” a senior administration official told Politico.

The beef between Trump and Gabbard shows that the MAGA split between blind military support for Israel versus “America First” anti-interventionists, like Gabbard, is much more than just an online spat. There is a real ideological schism on display with regard to Trump’s deference to Israel’s wars, and even die-hard Trump supporters have begun raising their voices against another endless war in the Middle East—something Trump promised to stop during his campaign.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave a scathing dissent of the Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary teenagers.

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” Sotomayor wrote of the decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which was 6–3 along ideological lines.

Sotomayor asserted that “intermediate” judicial scrutiny was called for in making any decision where “the rights of ‘discrete and insular minorities’ are at stake.”

“The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, inexplicably declaring it must uphold Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical treatment so long as ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts’ might justify it,” she wrote.

She added, “Thus, the majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review. By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”

Tennessee passed its ban on gender-affirming care in 2022, but the law was blocked in court before it could go into effect on July 1 the following year. Presiding Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, noted at the time that the defendants’ case for banning gender-affirming treatments was based entirely on the testimony of one doctor “who seems never to have treated an individual for gender dysphoria.”

But there is ample evidence, Richardson noted, that gender-affirming care “lowers rates of depression, suicide, and additional mental health issues” faced by trans and nonbinary minors.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the equal protections clause did “not resolve” the disagreements over “fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.” This decision set a new precedent for reviewing bans and other restrictive laws under the lowest standard of judicial review—meaning such laws will more likely be upheld.

Roberts argued that Tennessee’s ban on hormone blockers to treat so-called “gender dysphoria” did not constitute discrimination, because it would not permit them to be prescribed to any sex for that purpose—which is, of course, still blatant discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s latest decision, which will undoubtedly endanger the lives of transgender and nonbinary people across the country, comes as the Trump administration has announced that it plans to shutter the suicide and crisis hotline specifically for LGBTQ+ youth within the next 30 days.

This story has been updated.