Trump Vows to Pardon Elon Musk

President Donald Trump suggested Monday that he was open to pardoning Elon Musk.

During a pretaped interview on the New York Post’s Pod Force One, host Miranda Devine asked Trump about concerns that Democrats were plotting to arrest Musk, seize his factories, and nationalize SpaceX. (Of course, no Democratic lawmaker or candidate has actually called for any of that.)

“It won’t happen. It’s talk. But if it is talk, we’ll have to protect them,” Trump said.

Devine asked whether Trump would consider preemptively pardoning Musk and other allies who’d worked for his administration.

“Well, that’s what [Joe] Biden did. He gave everybody a pardon,” Trump said, referring to members of a committee who investigated the deadly January 6 riot.

“I would if I needed to, sure. I would not even think about it. I’d do it, I did it for J6,” he added.

If Democrats win back one or both chambers of Congress, they have signaled they plan to investigate Musk’s shady leadership of the defunct Department of Government Efficiency, his companies’ lucrative contracts with the federal government, and his alleged role in cutting Ukraine’s Starlink access, perhaps on behalf of his close friend Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Musk has used his proximity to Trump to boost his many businesses in foreign countries. In some cases, the administration even pressured foreign governments into approving his products. Musk was also the biggest individual winner when Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs, sending Tesla stock shooting up 23 percent. Just because their plan didn’t work perfectly—and Musk ended up losing twice as much as he cut in government spending—doesn’t mean it wasn’t still corrupt.

Two staffers on Republican Mike Rogers’s Senate campaign are registered foreign agents for the state of Israel—including the campaign spokesperson who facilitated his Sunday press conference with Democratic Representative Haley Stevens.

Drop Site News reported Sunday that Abigail Ronson, a former Mike Johnson staffer and now Rogers campaign spokesperson, registered as a foreign agent for Israel back in May. The Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA, recognizes a foreign agent as someone who “within the United States (1) engages in ‘political activities’ on behalf of a foreign principal; (2) acts as a foreign principal’s public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee, or political consultant; (3) solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of a foreign principal; or (4) represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the U.S. government.”

Ronson announced the news Sunday that Stevens, the failed Democratic Senate nominee for Michigan, was at church with Rogers. She also facilitated the press conference in which Stevens endorsed Rogers despite earlier telling fellow Democrats she would support the party’s nominee, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed.

Ronson is connected to Rogers’s campaign through campaign strategy firm Convergence Media, and is subcontracted with the Havas Media Group, one of the primary vessels for pro-Israel ads and initiatives. Her FARA registration specifically states that she will offer “strategic communications, planning, and media services in support of Havas’ engagement by the State of Israel to develop and execute a nationwide campaign in the United States to combat anti-semitism.” Knowing that, it isn’t shocking to see her front and center in the midst of one of the most stunning political betrayals ever—especially given that it was centered around a debate over support for Israel and AIPAC’s election influence.

Another registered foreign agent for Israel, Jason Stokes, is also part of Rogers’s campaign through Convergence and Havas. Stokes registered as a foreign agent in October 2025 due to his work with Havas, Drop Site reported, and has written many of Rogers’s press releases.

President Trump is already casting doubt on the Alaska Senate election and said he’d consider redoing the race if incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses.

On the New York Post’s Pod Force One podcast, released Monday, Miranda Devine asked Trump if he’d consider “redoing” the election if the contest was close. Trump said he thought the presence of third-party candidate Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. on the state ballot “was a criminal act” and he’d have to consult his lawyers about redoing the results.

“He even looks like Dan Sullivan. They go out and seek somebody with the name Dan Sullivan, they find a guy, but his middle initial is J, and he tries to have it changed to S, because that’s the real Dan Sullivan is Daniel S., and then they say, ‘We knew nothing about it,’” Trump said, attacking Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Trump claims that all of these Democrats plotted “election fraud at the highest level” in order to win the seat. Last week, Alaska Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy seemed to agree, refusing to commit to certifying the state’s election results if Peltola wins.

“If we conclude that there were things that should not have happened, that are illegal, we will act on that,” Dunleavy said. “That may in fact impact whether somebody is seated in the U.S. Senate.”

That’s a disturbing prospect for Alaska voters, and it in fact overstates the impact of having two people of the same name on the ballot. Alaska has ranked-choice voting, which would minimize the risk of Republican voters picking the wrong candidate since they could rank both Sullivans.

Republicans have also attempted similar gambits in other elections. In Washington state in 2024, Democrat Bob Ferguson had to contend with two other Bob Fergusons for state attorney general, and ended up winning after they dropped out of the race. And it’s not clear that any laws were broken: Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is a legal Alaska resident, and his candidacy has survived court challenges.

The Trump administration’s hyperpoliticized military environment apparently has thousands of active-duty military members looking toward the exit.

A survey by Common Defense Civic Engagement, a grassroots veterans organization, found that 53 percent of active-duty service members want to leave because their service is becoming more politicized.

Another 45 percent of polled respondents shared that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s policy changes and the ensuing instability had made them consider leaving their stations sooner rather than later.

The poll also found that 67 percent of active-duty respondents felt that the recent policy decisions affecting America’s military branches were being made for political gain rather than mission readiness.

“Veterans know what real leadership looks like: You take care of the people under your command and you keep politics out of the mission,” Jose Vasquez, a U.S. Army veteran and the executive director of Common Defense, told Military.com. “Right now, nearly eight in 10 veterans and military families say they’re being left behind, and active duty troops are telling us that politicization is pushing them toward the exit. That’s not a talking point; it’s a readiness crisis.”

The survey, which was conducted in September and released in October, reported that 50 percent of respondents disapproved of Donald Trump’s job as commander in chief. Those polled felt similarly about Hegseth, who received a 45 percent approval rating and a 50 percent disapproval rating.

The backlash was not as severe for uniformed senior military officials: 56 percent of polled military respondents said they approved of their commanders, while 27 percent reported said they did not approve of them.

Yet the potential personal divestment from America’s military branches could not come at a worse time, as tensions continue to rise between Washington and Iran. Trump disclosed Saturday that he had a “very good talk” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he still plans to “take care of” one or two more targets in Iran, one of which involves a suspected nuclear site.

“We’ve had such a victory, and we’ll put it away very soon, one way or the other,” Trump said. “Either they’ll make a deal, or we’ll just end it.… The job we’ve done is amazing.”

President Donald Trump slammed his former personal lawyer Alina Habba Mildon’s pay-to-pardon scheme.

Speaking to reporters at a Mar-a-Lago Halloween Party Saturday, Trump gave a surprising rebuke of Mildon reportedly receiving a $50 million contract to secure a pardon for a billionaire family.

“I thought it was terrible. I told her, I said, ‘I don’t want her paid.’ I thought we had somebody speak to the people that did it, and she used her relationship to do that,” Trump said. “And it was far too much. You know, it’s one thing for a person to get paid legal fees, or whatever, she’s a lawyer—

“I thought it was totally obnoxious and outrageous, and it’s not acceptable, not acceptable—at all,” he said.

Mildon inked the lucrative deal with a company started by the daughter of Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan national who was looking for a presidential pardon. The New York Times reported last week that Trump was angered by the size of Mildon’s contract, and said that she should donate some of that money to his presidential library or another entity related to him.

Speaking to reporters Saturday, he claimed that she wasn’t the one he was expecting a donation from. “No, not her. I expect maybe the people—I don’t know, if anybody wants to make it,” Trump said, leaving the door open for anyone to fill his pockets.

It appears that Trump is less mad about the size of the payout than he is about the fact that he wasn’t cut in on the deal to begin with. I mean, he’s already openly admitted that he’s served up a pardon in return for political support.