What lit a fire under billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk this midterm cycle?

He’s given more than $445 million to Republican candidates and causes this year, making him the single biggest disclosed donor in the 2026 midterms — and the biggest single donor in a midterm cycle ever.

According to the most recent data, he’s given:

REPUBLICAN CAVALRY ARRIVES FOR KEN PAXTON AS BIG-BUCKS TEXAS OFFENSIVE OPENS CASH FLOODGATES

• An estimated $189 million to support Ken Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas.
• $10 million to the Republican Governors Association campaign fund, including funds for the gubernatorial race in New York State.
• At least $5 million to the GOP PAC MAGA Inc., which is building a strong ground game in key races in both the House and Senate.

SENATE CONTROL IS A COIN FLIP — AND DEMOCRATS’ PATH RUNS THROUGH TRUMP COUNTRY

All this makes the $288 million Musk gave to help elect President Donald Trump and Republicans in 2024 look miserly.

Why so much more? Because Musk realizes that keeping the Republican majority in Congress has become crucial to America’s secure and prosperous future.

On his social media platform, Musk shared a post last week agreeing that Democrats "must lose" the midterms. Critics claim he’s doing this because he fears investigations by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The truth is, he understands what it takes to build a strong America, and what threatens to tear it down.

He’s not alone. He’s been joined by other tech and financial billionaires who are spending tens of millions to protect America’s future from the Democrats.

WARREN GETS DEFENSIVE WHEN PRESSED ON DEMOCRATS ACCEPTING BILLIONAIRE DONATIONS

Tech entrepreneurs and venture capital giants Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz are major contributors to Trump’s MAGA, Inc.

Citadel’s Ken Griffin has spent at least $40 million to support Republican candidates.

Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman and his wife Christine have put up almost $32 million to Republican-affiliated political organizations and Super PACs this election cycle.

It’s not just tech billionaires who’ve opened their wallets to the GOP. Uline founders Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein have reportedly put up $124 million for their own Restoration of America PAC, and roofing company ABC Supply Chairman Diane Hendricks has given $25 million to MAGA, Inc.

'DARK MONEY’ GROUP ACCUSED OF 'SCHEME' TO TIP ELECTION IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRATS, MANIPULATE GOP VOTERS

In 2025, we saw the denizens of America’s high-tech sector — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and key Google executives — paying out millions for Trump’s inauguration festivities. Bezos, Cook, Zuckerberg and OpenAI’s Sam Altman even attended the inauguration in person — as did Elon Musk.

What did they understand about Trump and the GOP that the media didn’t?

This midterm cycle, according to The Washington Post, total Republican-leaning mega-donors have contributed $1.7 billion this cycle with Musk leading the way, compared to $832 million from Democratic-leaning givers.

Critics dismiss these donors as superrich oligarchs and robber barons trying to protect their ill-gotten money. Critics are wrong, tragically wrong. The truth is, the key stewards of our private sector economy are taking bold action to protect America’s future.

That’s because they see two possible paths to the future, and only two. One makes America strong, prosperous and secure, with tax cuts, investment, energy dominance and a strong, unequaled military.

One deals finally with the Iran that has destabilized the Middle East, and killed thousands around the world, including American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, for four decades.

One sees the need to cut what the GAO says could be as much as $500 billion of fraud from the federal budget — the cause that rallied Elon Musk to the DOGE agenda in the first place.

One sees American AI dominance as key to protecting our freedom.

One sees restoring America’s manufacturing and industrial base, as key to protecting prosperity.

All that stands on one side. On the other is a party that makes unsustainable policy promises like "Medicare for All."

A party that will give back the uncontrolled government spending spree that drove cumulative inflation up 21% during the Biden years.

A party cradled in corruption, waste and fraud, as exposed first by DOGE and now by Vice President JD Vance’s anti-fraud task force.

A party that has consistently presented weakness and prevarication to America’s foes, whether it’s Iran or China or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Finally, a party that threatens to mobilize the same radical forces that have turned the streets of France and European cities into battlegrounds.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The choice is clear to Elon Musk, and our private sector’s best and brightest founders and entrepreneurs. Those 77 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2024, now face the same choice. It is either to return to the voting booth in order to protect America’s safe and prosperous future or hand Congress over to those who want to bring back a bankrupt and discredited past.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The choice seems easy. It will be America’s tragedy, and ours, if we don’t take it together.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ARTHUR HERMAN

There is still over an hour before the protagonist appears, but the line already wraps around the block. Dozens of people wait patiently for their turn to see the man who has become the great hope of the Democratic left wing. When he begins to speak, pandemonium breaks out: “My name is Abdul El‑Sayed and I am going to be your next senator in Washington.” Over the next hour, the hundreds gathered in this venue will applaud, laugh, and cheer every word from the mouth of the new star of American politics, who has already made a fitted black T‑shirt and jeans his trademark look. We are in Lansing, Michigan’s capital, where one of the most gripping battles of the midterm elections — just over two weeks away — is being fought.

Seguir leyendo

© Paul Sancya (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

As the Trump administration's short-lived Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project implemented its plan to downsize the federal workforce, there was much wailing from the liberal institutions in Washington, D.C.

Federal employee unions filed lawsuits to block the effort. NPR ran profiles of federal workers who, for the first time, faced the prospect of potentially not having absolute job security forever. The Brookings Institution wondered how many jobs the federal government could shed before it crashes.

The answer: plenty. The Trump administration has cut more than 10 percent of the federal workforce, and the government hasn't crashed. Indeed, it hasn't even shrunk—if you're counting by dollars spent instead of people employed.

In a new article for City Journal, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Judge Glock highlights the tremendous gap between the dire predictions about DOGE's cuts and the reality that has emerged, more than a year after DOGE was shut down. Despite having only a modest impact on spending, Glock writes, DOGE "had a massive impact on the federal civil service."

This is true—to a point, more on that in a moment—and notable. Aside from a modest downsizing in the 1990s, the number of people employed by the federal government has been steadily growing for decades. Reversing that trend is one of the few genuinely libertarian accomplishments by the Trump administration.

The cuts to the federal workforce prove that "DOGE worked," argues Glock.

Well, hold on.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy (who departed the DOGE project before Trump's inauguration and is now running for governor of Ohio) set some very ambitious goals after being appointed DOGE co-chairs in late 2024. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal in November 2024 where they promised "we won't just write reports or cut ribbons. We'll cut costs."

Musk repeatedly attached some rather absurd numbers to that promise. He said DOGE would cut $1 trillion or even $2 trillion in federal spending. In the end, it didn't come close. By DOGE's own (questionable) accounting, it cut $170 billion. Meanwhile, overall federal spending has increased in each of Trump's first two years in office, and the budget deficit has widened as well.

Yes, Musk and Ramaswamy also said they would reduce the federal workforce. But that was presented as a natural consequence of cutting spending, not as the primary goal.

Think about it like this. If I spent months promising my friends and family that I would lose 50 pounds on a new diet, and then didn't lose any weight, would it be fair to say the diet worked?

What if I reduced the number of donuts I eat every day, but still didn't lose any weight? Sure, that might be good for my health in some way—just like reducing unnecessary workers in the federal government is good for America's fiscal health—but it certainly wouldn't mean I had achieved the goal of losing weight.

Finally, even the claim that DOGE cut the federal workforce requires an asterisk. As Glock also notes in his report, the decline in federal workers has been offset by an increase in federal contractors.

It's not a one-for-one trade, of course. The new contractors are overwhelmingly concentrated in places like the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon, while the cuts mostly targeted other areas, like the Department of Health and Human Services.

"Most of that increase came from the buildup in homeland-security and defense contracting, including purchases such as surveillance aircraft and tanks, rather than substitutes for government workers," Glock writes. "DOGE achieved real contract savings, but these were more than offset by higher spending elsewhere, reflecting a shift in priorities rather than an overall reduction in contracting."

So, the government is eating fewer donuts but more pizza.

There might be libertarian reasons to prefer contractors over government employees. They are less likely to hold those jobs for life, for one. But there's nothing inherently good about a government policy that cuts jobs in some areas just to create more room in the budget for poorly trained immigration enforcement agents and defense contractors. That may even be a negative outcome for liberty.

In the end, the DOGE project looks less like a meaningful attempt at cutting government spending or employment levels and more like a way to purge parts of the federal workforce likely to get in Trump's way during his second term. "As long as [Trump's] larger commitment is to extending his power rather than rolling back power itself, you shouldn't expect the government to stop growing," as Reason's Jesse Walker wrote last year in comparing DOGE to President Richard Nixon's attempted purge of the civil service.

Did DOGE work? Only if you grade it on a pretty dramatic curve.

Yes, it proved that a president can slash bureaucratic jobs—particularly the bloated managerial and administrative types—without doing much damage to the government's core responsibilities. That's a lesson future administrations should remember.

Maybe, someday, a president will try applying the same logic to government spending too.

The post DOGE Worked? Only If You Grade on a Curve. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On a recent episode of the Bulwark podcast, journalist Ron Brownstein described the election as a contest between “the wave versus the wall.” The wave being voter anger and President Donald Trump’s plummeting popularity. The wall being structural impediments to voters’ voices, such as gerrymanders and the Republican Party’s stark spending advantage. Now we know […]

The post Don’t let Musk and the billionaires buy America’s elections appeared first on Asia Times.

The US is currently experiencing its largest ever recorded outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a disease caused by infection with the Cyclospora parasite. The disease is typically acquired via fecal-contaminated food or drink, and can cause explosive diarrhea and severe, lingering stomach cramps. Those who contract it generally have a terrible time. Experts have yet to conclusively identify the source of the outbreak, which continues unabated. Recent tests implicating Taylor Farms have been withdrawn as false positives, though Taylor Farms’ lettuce remains a primary suspect in the ongoing investigation. 

After presiding over the COVID-19 crisis, one might imagine a presidential administration would be eager to prevent another public health catastrophe from occurring under its watch. The Trump Administration, however, has taken pains to weaken the resilience of the already limited and chronically underfunded public health infrastructure in the US. As a result, this latest outbreak is unfolding in a system that is even more diminished and underresourced than it was in 2020.

After presiding over the COVID-19 crisis, one might imagine a presidential administration would be eager to prevent another public health catastrophe from occurring under its watch. The Trump Administration, however, has taken pains to weaken the resilience of the already limited and chronically underfunded public health infrastructure in the US.

First, it is worth noting that fecal contamination can happen when farm workers are not given adequate bathroom breaks. Rather than protecting farm workers, however, the Trump administration has made it harder for them to challenge unsafe conditions. In June 2025, the Labor Department suspended enforcement of a rule that expressly protected H-2A agricultural guestworkers from retaliation for filing workplace safety complaints or consulting with worker advocates. The administration subsequently proposed rescinding those protections altogether. 

Another example of the second Trump administration’s handiwork is their changes to the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, or FoodNet. FoodNet is useful because it conducts active surveillance of foodborne diseases. Rather than waiting for private laboratories to send results, FoodNet staff regularly inquire about new disease cases and conduct audits to ensure cases are not missed. This proactive, standardized approach helps public health officials identify more cases earlier than systems that wait for reports to move passively up the chain. FoodNet is a joint program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the state health departments where the sites are located. There are FoodNet surveillance sites in ten states, covering 62.6 million people (Figure 1). 

Figure 1

FoodNet previously tracked cases of cyclosporiasis. In July of 2025, however, the Trump administration made FoodNet’s reporting of cyclosporiasis optional, mandating FoodNet tracking only for salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. The administration justified the change as a way to conserve resources and avoid duplication, conflating FoodNet’s active surveillance with more passive surveillance systems such as the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). The CDC’s own surveillance manual notes that active surveillance systems have been shown to increase reporting. Other empirical research has yielded similar results, with one study finding that the rate of disease reporting doubled when active surveillance practices were used, and that the disease reports themselves were more likely to be complete than those obtained through passive reporting structures.

Unfortunately, FoodNet’s reach was already limited, covering only about 16 percent of the US population. The CDC maintains that FoodNet is not intended to detect individual outbreaks, and is geared more toward measuring disease burden over time. Rather than expanding it to make it more useful for monitoring active outbreaks, however, the Trump administration significantly weakened the program by reducing the number of diseases it was required to track, undermining even its utility as a historical dataset. This will also make it difficult to determine whether foodborne illness increased under their watch.

The changes to FoodNet did not occur in a vacuum. In February 2025, the administration eliminated the USDA’s National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, which was working on best-practice guidelines to combat foodborne illnesses shortly before its dissolution. In April 2025, federal workforce cuts forced the suspension of the Food Emergency Response Network proficiency testing program, which ensured that the network’s 170 food-testing laboratories could produce quality results during an emergency. The Trump Administration also downsized the CDC’s parasite surveillance team from eleven to just three. Zooming out, important institutions have been hollowed out: the USDA has shed 24,000 workers (an almost 27 percent reduction), the CDC has lost nearly 3,000 (roughly a quarter of its workforce), and the FDA is down more than 4,000 (almost a fifth of its workforce).

Many of these cuts were initiated at the direction of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. DOGE’s handiwork should certainly allow for more efficient spread of diseases like cyclosporiasis. Given the cost of such outbreaks, however, the more economically sensible path would have been to invest in public health rather than shortchanging it. In any case, there is no evidence that the Trump administration slashed programs based on some careful cost-benefit analysis. Instead, the cuts appear to be part of the administration’s reckless and shortsighted pattern of hollowing out the federal government’s ability to serve the public. 

Cyclospora is exactly the kind of pathogen for which timely, comprehensive surveillance matters. The incubation period for cyclosporiasis is 2 to 14 days after exposure, making it difficult to track because people often struggle to remember exactly what they ate during that period. Active surveillance is better equipped to compensate for this, however, because it both picks up more cases and collects more complete records. This enables officials to identify clusters sooner despite shaky recollections from individual patients. Making active surveillance optional removed an important source of systematic, standardized data just before a major surge that has proved difficult to characterize and trace.

In public health, it is important to have robust systems in place before a crisis occurs. An outbreak that can be contained in its early stages may become difficult or impossible to control once it spreads. Yet these systems often become victims of their own success. Successful prevention means that the public never sees the disasters that were averted and may underestimate the scale of the danger those systems were designed to contain. The Trump administration appears to have doubled down on this terrible inclination, and people are paying for it with their bowels.