Fauci said in his opening statement that he was acting on the advice of his attorney in refusing to answer questions during the hearing, which had been called by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., through a subpoena requiring Fauci to testify under oath.

Paul, who has repeatedly accused Fauci of misleading Congress during previous testimony, said the committee will vote next week on whether to hold the former National Institutes of Health official in contempt for refusing to answer lawmakers’ questions.

The hearing marked the latest chapter in a yearslong political dispute over the origins of COVID-19, federal pandemic policies and the conduct of public health officials during the global health emergency.

Hearing Focuses on Constitutional Rights and Prior Testimony

During the nearly three-hour hearing, Republican senators questioned Fauci about previous statements concerning the origins of COVID-19, federal research funding and pandemic-related policies.

Fauci declined to respond, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment protections.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimony that could incriminate themselves in criminal proceedings.

Democratic senators defended Fauci during the hearing, arguing that his decision to invoke the constitutional protection was lawful and that the proceedings were politically motivated.

Fauci has consistently denied allegations that he knowingly misled Congress.

He said he believed the hearing was intended to pressure him into making statements that could be used to support calls for criminal prosecution.

Contempt Vote Planned

Paul announced that the committee intends to vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress because of his refusal to answer questions.

He did not specify whether he would seek a criminal contempt referral to the U.S. Department of Justice or pursue another enforcement mechanism.

Earlier in 2025, former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a presidential pardon. During the hearing, lawmakers discussed questions surrounding the legal implications of that pardon and Fauci’s continued reliance on Fifth Amendment protections.

Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, was removed from the hearing after attempting to speak without being recognized by the committee chair.

Schertler later criticized the decision, calling the proceeding unfair and rejecting the allegations against Fauci.

Pandemic Origins Remain a Central Dispute

Questions about the origins of COVID-19 and federally funded research remained central to Republican lawmakers’ questioning.

Paul and other Republicans have argued that Fauci was not truthful about whether National Institutes of Health-funded research in China could have contributed to the emergence of the coronavirus.

Fauci has repeatedly rejected those allegations.

He has said he supports continued investigation into multiple possible origins of the virus while maintaining that available scientific evidence more strongly supports a natural origin than a laboratory-related explanation.

The hearing also revisited questions about gain-of-function research conducted at laboratories in Wuhan, China.

The NIH previously awarded grants to EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit organization that collaborated with a laboratory in Wuhan studying bat coronaviruses.

Fauci has previously said he was referring to a specific scientific definition of gain-of-function research involving enhanced risks when testifying before Congress. He has also maintained that the NIH-funded experiments cited by critics could not have produced the virus responsible for the pandemic.

According to the supplied material, a Republican-led congressional subcommittee that investigated the origins of COVID-19 in 2024 found no evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing.

Political Debate Continues

The hearing reflected continuing divisions over the federal government’s handling of the pandemic.

Ahead of the hearing, Paul released more than 1,000 pages from Fauci’s personal pandemic diary, arguing the documents revealed differences between Fauci’s private views and his public statements.

According to the supplied material, portions of the diary had previously appeared in Fauci’s 2024 memoir and earlier public interviews.

Supporters of Fauci argued that allegations against him have not been supported by credible evidence.

More than 150 infectious disease specialists and other scientists signed a public letter before the hearing defending Fauci and stating that no credible evidence had been produced to substantiate the accusations against him.

Fauci served as a senior public health adviser under seven U.S. presidents and became one of the most recognizable public health officials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has also received death threats related to his public role during the health crisis.

The committee’s planned contempt vote is expected to determine the next congressional step in the continuing dispute over Fauci’s refusal to answer questions under oath.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

The post Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment During Contentious Senate COVID-19 Hearing appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Fauci appeared before lawmakers after being subpoenaed by Sen. Rand Paul, who has repeatedly sought testimony from the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) regarding his role in pandemic decision-making and federal support for coronavirus research.

By invoking the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, Fauci declined to answer senators’ questions throughout the hearing. The move also avoided the possibility of perjury allegations arising from his testimony, though it is expected to further deepen longstanding political divisions over the government’s handling of the pandemic.

In his opening statement, Fauci said Paul had an “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution.”

“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this Committee is to prompt me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,'” Fauci said, adding that he invoked the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his attorney.

Hearing Focuses on COVID-19 Origins and Research Funding

Paul argued that Fauci approved research involving virus mutations and later attempted to conceal his role in funding decisions.

“Instead of an apology, you have for years avoided responsibility,” Paul said during his opening remarks.

Before the hearing, Paul released more than 1,000 pages from Fauci’s personal diary covering the pandemic years. In posts on X, Paul said the entries revealed differences between Fauci’s private writings and his public statements during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Some of the diary material, including notes reflecting uncertainty during the first weeks of the pandemic as scientists sought to understand the newly identified coronavirus, had previously appeared in Fauci’s 2024 memoir and in earlier public interviews.

The hearing also examined whether research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in China contributed to the emergence of COVID-19.

Republican lawmakers continued to question whether NIH-funded grants supported research commonly described as gain-of-function experiments at a laboratory in Wuhan.

The NIH provided grants over several years to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which collaborated with a Chinese laboratory studying bat coronaviruses. Fauci has consistently maintained that the work did not meet the definition of especially risky gain-of-function research capable of producing SARS-CoV-2, saying it would have been “molecularly impossible” for those experiments to create the virus responsible for the pandemic.

Democrats Call the Hearing Partisan

Sen. Gary Peters, the committee’s ranking Democrat, characterized the hearing as a partisan effort that revisited past disputes rather than addressing current national security priorities.

President Donald Trump also commented before the hearing, writing on social media that he had stopped relying on Fauci during the pandemic because he believed Fauci had made poor decisions on mask guidance, shutdowns and other public health measures.

Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, rejected Paul’s allegations, calling them “false and disgraceful” and saying all available legal options would be considered.

Earlier in the week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the department had provided Fauci’s diary entries—created on a government computer—to the Senate committee.

Kennedy also said he believed Fauci could face potential perjury exposure if he testified falsely, despite having received a preemptive pardon from then-President Joe Biden.

Scientists Defend Fauci’s Record

More than 150 infectious disease specialists and other scientists signed a public letter supporting Fauci before the hearing, saying no credible evidence had been presented to substantiate allegations of wrongdoing and urging Congress to end what they described as politically motivated investigations.

Many researchers continue to conclude that the virus most likely emerged naturally before spreading to humans, while laboratory-origin hypotheses remain the subject of scientific study and political debate.

A Republican-led House subcommittee that examined the issue in 2024 did not find evidence linking Fauci to misconduct.

Fauci has consistently said he remains open to evaluating both natural-origin and laboratory-leak hypotheses while maintaining that the available scientific evidence more strongly supports a natural spillover event, similar to previous coronavirus outbreaks including SARS and MERS.

Separately, the Trump administration last year paused certain federally funded gain-of-function research projects. On Tuesday, the administration announced new oversight rules governing such research.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

The post Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment at Republican-Led Senate COVID-19 Hearing appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, repeatedly acknowledged that the 2020 election results were certified for Biden but declined to directly answer whether Biden defeated Trump.

The exchanges dominated much of Clayton’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, underscoring continuing partisan divisions over Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and prompting questions from Democrats about how Clayton would safeguard the independence of the U.S. intelligence community.

Democrats Press Clayton on the 2020 Election

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff was among several Democratic lawmakers who repeatedly asked Clayton whether Biden won the 2020 election. Clayton responded that he had already answered the question by noting that the election results had been certified.

“I’ve answered it,” Clayton told Ossoff after declining several opportunities to directly acknowledge Biden’s victory.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said he was disappointed with Clayton’s testimony despite previously supporting Trump’s decision to nominate him. Warner said Democrats remain concerned that intelligence agencies could face political pressure on election-related matters if Clayton is confirmed.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer later described Clayton’s performance as “abysmal,” suggesting it diminished prospects for Democratic support during the confirmation process.

Although Clayton continues to enjoy broad Republican backing, the hearing may complicate efforts to secure bipartisan cooperation for a quicker Senate confirmation.

Nominee Highlights Intelligence Leadership Priorities

In his opening statement, Clayton emphasized experience gained through previous government service and said effective intelligence leadership requires sound judgment, integrity and cooperation across federal agencies.

He pledged that, if confirmed, he would uphold those principles while serving as the nation’s top intelligence official.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, defended Clayton’s nomination, describing him as a public official known for “morality, decency and integrity.” Cotton expressed hope the nomination would ultimately receive bipartisan support.

The committee is expected to vote on Clayton’s nomination next week.

Questions Extend to Tulsi Gabbard and Election Investigations

Democrats also questioned Clayton about former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s visit to a Georgia election office during an FBI search connected to the 2020 election.

Lawmakers noted that Trump administration officials have offered differing explanations for Gabbard’s involvement in the visit, which appeared unrelated to her intelligence responsibilities.

Clayton declined to evaluate whether Gabbard’s participation was appropriate or explain how he would have handled a similar situation. He said he had not been aware of the visit until preparing for the hearing before later clarifying that it had not previously been on his mind.

Warner responded that the explanation “strains credibility.”

Democrats also asked whether Clayton had any involvement in Trump’s planned primetime address on elections after the president suggested he could revisit long-discredited claims surrounding the 2020 election. Clayton said he played no role in preparing the speech.

Senators Raise Press Freedom Concerns

Beyond election-related issues, senators questioned Clayton about decisions made during his tenure as U.S. attorney in Manhattan.

Democrats raised concerns over subpoenas issued to four New York Times journalists following reporting on security issues involving a Qatari-gifted Air Force One aircraft. The Committee to Protect Journalists has criticized the subpoenas as an escalation of pressure on independent media organizations.

Clayton declined to discuss details of the investigation or whether he communicated with the White House before the subpoenas were issued, citing restrictions on discussing ongoing matters. He said he remained confident in procedures intended to protect press freedom.

Lawmakers also reviewed Clayton’s record overseeing terrorism, espionage, securities fraud and public corruption prosecutions. During his tenure, prosecutors facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while also overseeing criminal charges against former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking allegations.

Confirmation Could Influence Surveillance Debate

Clayton’s confirmation could also affect negotiations over renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expired in June after renewal legislation stalled in the Senate.

Some Democrats withheld support for the measure while Bill Pulte served as acting Director of National Intelligence following Gabbard’s departure. Republicans had hoped to install Clayton before Pulte assumed the interim role, but Trump’s decision to delay the nomination allowed Pulte to serve temporarily.

Even if Congress advances new surveillance legislation, uncertainty remains over whether Trump would sign it. When announcing the delay of Clayton’s nomination in June, Trump said he would oppose renewing Section 702 unless Congress also approved legislation requiring proof of citizenship for all voters, a proposal that currently lacks sufficient support in the Senate.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

The post Trump Intelligence Nominee Jay Clayton Faces Democratic Scrutiny at Senate Confirmation Hearing appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released the journals after subpoenaing Fauci to testify before the committee’s hearing on Wednesday as part of its investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

The journals span from December 2019, shortly before the United States declared a public health emergency, through December 2022, when Fauci retired after nearly four decades as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Journal Entries Document Early Uncertainty Over COVID-19 Origins

Several journal entries describe the uncertainty that surrounded the origins of the coronavirus during the earliest months of the pandemic.

In January 2020, Fauci wrote that the seafood market in Wuhan appeared to have amplified transmission rather than serving as the virus’s original source, while suggesting the virus likely crossed from animals to humans elsewhere.

About a week later, Fauci recorded that several infectious disease experts participating in a conference call believed the virus might not have emerged through natural transmission.

As public debate intensified, Fauci revisited the issue in a May 26, 2021, journal entry. He wrote that he continued to believe natural animal-to-human transmission remained the most likely explanation but acknowledged that certainty was impossible and supported a comprehensive investigation into the virus’s origins.

Paul argued that the journal entries differed from Fauci’s public statements during the pandemic, contending they reflected greater private uncertainty than his public messaging suggested.

The origins of COVID-19 remain disputed.

Many scientists continue to conclude that available evidence is consistent with the virus emerging naturally before spreading to humans through an intermediate animal host associated with a market in Wuhan, China.

At the same time, the FBI has assessed that a laboratory-related incident in Wuhan is the most likely explanation. In January 2025, the CIA released a separate assessment favoring the laboratory-leak hypothesis while stating that its conclusion was made with low confidence.

Fauci Describes Changing Relationship With Trump

Much of the journal chronicles Fauci’s interactions with President Donald Trump, senior White House officials and the media during the pandemic.

Early entries describe generally cooperative exchanges despite public perceptions that the two men were increasingly at odds.

Writing in May 2020, Fauci said he believed Trump remained supportive of him even as Fauci became one of the nation’s most visible public health officials. He also noted that a widely circulated photograph interpreted as showing him reacting negatively during a White House briefing did not reflect what he intended.

Other entries describe disagreements over public messaging and pandemic policy.

According to Fauci’s journals, Trump privately expressed concern that pandemic restrictions were inflicting trillions of dollars in economic losses before announcing Operation Warp Speed. Fauci also wrote that he opposed Trump’s suggestion that officials avoid wearing masks during the event.

As the pandemic continued, Fauci described growing frustration with some White House briefings and criticized several public statements made by Trump regarding COVID-19 data.

Senate Disputes With Rand Paul Continued Throughout the Pandemic

The journals also document Fauci’s repeated confrontations with Paul during congressional hearings.

In April 2021, Fauci wrote that Paul was among those attempting to connect him to research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He also recorded concerns raised by adviser David Morens that efforts were underway to damage his reputation.

Morens has since been indicted on federal charges alleging he conspired to conceal communications related to pandemic research grants.

After Fauci’s emails became public in 2021, he wrote that the correspondence demonstrated he had remained respectful toward Trump throughout the public health emergency despite continuing political criticism.

The journals also recount Fauci’s Senate testimony in July 2021, when he and Paul sharply disagreed over whether National Institutes of Health-funded research related to the Wuhan laboratory constituted gain-of-function research.

Paul accused Fauci of providing false testimony to Congress. Fauci maintained that the research cited by the senator did not meet the accepted definition of gain-of-function research.

In an October 2021 journal entry, Fauci wrote that Paul “continues his assault on me,” reflecting the prolonged political and scientific disagreements that became a defining feature of congressional oversight during the pandemic.

CBS News reported that it contacted both Fauci and the White House for comment. Paul’s office did not respond to questions regarding how the senator obtained the journals.

This report is based on reporting by CBS News.

The post Fauci Journals Reveal Early COVID-19 Doubts Ahead of Senate Origins Hearing appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The bipartisan measure passed 308-117. It would establish permanent daylight saving time nationwide while allowing states to opt out if their legislatures act before the law takes effect. The bill now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain.

Supporters said the change would provide more evening daylight, benefiting families, businesses and outdoor recreation. Critics argued it would leave many Americans beginning winter mornings in darkness, raising concerns about school commutes and public safety.

Supporters Call for Ending Clock Changes

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Florida Republican who backed the legislation, said Americans are ready to “ditch the switch” by ending the practice of changing clocks twice each year.

He argued that a permanent schedule would reduce disruptions while extending daylight into the evening, providing benefits for families and local businesses. Bilirakis also said the change would support Florida’s tourism-driven economy.

Before the vote, the White House endorsed the Sunshine Protection Act, calling it a common-sense reform with broad public support. The administration said presidential advisers would recommend that the president sign the measure if it reaches the White House.

Critics Cite Winter Morning Risks

Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill warned that permanent daylight saving time would produce darker winter mornings, increasing risks for children traveling to school and commuters heading to work before sunrise.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania said millions of Americans would begin their winter days in darkness, with sunrise occurring after many had already left home.

Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said he supports permanent daylight saving time in principle but questioned whether Congress should prioritize the issue while many Americans continue to face rising housing, grocery, utility and healthcare costs.

Poll Shows Public Support

Public opinion has generally favored keeping daylight saving time year-round.

According to a 2025 poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 56% of U.S. adults said they would choose permanent daylight saving time if required to adopt a single nationwide system. About four in 10 preferred permanent standard time, which provides more morning daylight but earlier sunsets.

Senate Faces Familiar Debate

Congress has debated daylight saving time for decades. The practice was first adopted as a wartime measure in 1942.

The Senate passed similar legislation four years ago, but the proposal stalled in the House.

Whether the latest bill advances remains uncertain. Although it cleared the House with bipartisan support, senators have yet to indicate whether they will take up the measure before lawmakers adjourn for the year.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Daylight Saving Time | House of Representatives | Sunshine Protection Act | Senate | White House | Clock Changes | Public Opinion

The post House Approves Bill to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a social media post before the deadline to act on the legislation, Trump said he would not sign the housing bill because the Senate had not passed the SAVE America Act, legislation that would require proof of citizenship for all voters.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” Trump wrote.

Under the Constitution, a bill approved by Congress becomes law if a president neither signs nor vetoes it within the prescribed period while Congress remains in session. Trump had until Friday to decide whether to sign the measure, veto it, or allow it to take effect without his signature.

White House Protest Centers on Election Legislation

Trump’s decision links a bipartisan housing measure to a separate legislative effort focused on election rules, underscoring his administration’s emphasis on voter identification legislation even as Congress had already approved the housing package with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The president had already delayed action on the measure more than a week earlier, canceling a planned signing ceremony after announcing he would withhold his approval until lawmakers acted on the SAVE America Act.

According to the report, the voter ID proposal does not currently have enough Republican support in the Senate to secure passage.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, had encouraged Trump to sign the legislation after it was delivered to the White House.

Johnson told reporters he hoped the president would approve the bill but acknowledged that it would become law regardless. He also said he understood Trump’s effort to emphasize the elections legislation as his top priority.

Housing Measure Targets Affordability Challenges

The newly enacted 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act represents one of the broadest federal housing initiatives in decades and is intended to reduce housing costs while encouraging additional residential construction.

The legislation seeks to ease federal housing regulations, streamline environmental reviews, accelerate homebuilding projects and limit corporate purchases of single-family homes.

Earlier this year, White House economists estimated that the United States faces a shortage of approximately 10 million homes. The administration said the legislation could help reduce part of that deficit.

Despite those goals, Trump dismissed the measure as “a yawn” and “so unimportant” compared with legislation addressing voter eligibility requirements.

The bill does not address every factor contributing to housing affordability, including shortages of construction workers, rising insurance costs and wage growth that has not kept pace with housing expenses. However, it has received backing from housing advocates and the real estate industry.

Bipartisan Congressional Support

The legislation advanced through Congress with broad bipartisan backing.

The Senate approved the bill by an 85-5 vote, while the House passed it 358-32.

Trump’s decision not to sign the measure nevertheless drew criticism from Democrats, who argued that the move shifted attention away from housing affordability.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on X that Trump’s priorities favored expanding his own political influence over addressing costs facing American families.

The housing market remains a significant affordability challenge across the United States. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median existing-home sales price reached a record $440,600 in June, up 1.8% from a year earlier and the highest level since the organization began tracking the data in 1999.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Housing Policy | Congress | Voter ID | Executive Branch | Housing Affordability | Senate | Federal Legislation

The post Trump Allows Bipartisan Housing Bill to Become Law Without Signature Amid Voter ID Standoff appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Senator Jinggoy Estrada was taken into custody after the special Sandiganbayan anti-graft court issued a new arrest order tied to allegations that he received more than 570 million pesos ($9.3 million) from flood-control contracts, according to court actions and reporting by the Associated Press. The arrest comes at a politically sensitive moment as rival factions compete for influence in the upper chamber of Congress.

The latest charge carries no right to bail under Philippine law. Estrada had previously surrendered after an earlier arrest warrant linked to a graft case and was temporarily released after posting bail.

Estrada, 63, has denied wrongdoing. Allegations against him stem largely from claims made by a former public works engineer who accused him of receiving kickbacks connected to flood-control projects. Independent findings on the accusations have not yet been made by the court.

Corruption Allegations Expand

Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla confirmed that authorities took Estrada into custody at the Senate complex and stated that neither the senator nor other defendants would receive special treatment.

Former Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan was also arrested separately in connection with the case, according to officials cited during the proceedings. The broader investigation has implicated several lawmakers and government officials in alleged irregularities involving flood-control projects across the country.

The allegations have drawn particular attention because the Philippines remains highly vulnerable to severe flooding and typhoons, making infrastructure spending a politically sensitive issue.

Political Divisions Deepen

Estrada suggested the legal actions against him were politically motivated and linked to his alignment with former President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Sara Duterte.

The senator told reporters before his arrest that he would not allow political pressure to influence his decisions and said he intended to defend himself through legal channels. His claims have not been independently verified, and government authorities have not publicly confirmed any political motivation behind the prosecution.

The case unfolds as relations remain strained between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte, whose alliance fractured after the 2022 election. The political rivalry has increasingly shaped debates inside the Senate and broader national politics.

Senate Balance Faces New Pressure

Estrada’s detention could have broader consequences for the Senate’s internal balance of power.

According to the Associated Press, another senator, Ronald dela Rosa, has also been sidelined by legal troubles after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant linked to alleged crimes against humanity connected to the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign. Dela Rosa has denied wrongdoing.

With two members of the 24-seat Senate facing major legal challenges, the developments could affect legislative dynamics during a period of heightened political uncertainty.

Long Shadow of Corruption Cases

Estrada’s arrest also revives attention on the political legacy of his family.

The senator is the son of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada, who was previously detained and later convicted in a separate corruption case before receiving a presidential pardon. Jinggoy Estrada has also faced corruption-related investigations in the past and has consistently denied criminal conduct.

Court proceedings in the latest case are expected to continue as prosecutors pursue the plunder allegations and related corruption charges.

Details surrounding the full scope of the evidence and the eventual trial schedule remain unclear.

The post Philippine Senator Arrested on Non-Bailable Plunder Charge Amid Deepening Political Turmoil appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post Senate Advances Iran Conflict Limits Bill After Cassidy Reverses Position appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON – Elon Musk is stepping down from his role as a top adviser to President Donald Trump, ending a turbulent stint marked by an ambitious push to cut federal government spending and overhaul bureaucracy.

Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, led the Department of Government Efficiency (nicknamed DOGE) — a special government unit focused on rooting out waste and streamlining agencies. But despite his high-profile efforts, Musk struggled to navigate Washington’s complex political landscape and faced strong resistance from both politicians and bureaucrats.

From $2 Trillion to $150 Billion: Musk’s Spending Cut Goals Shrink

Originally aiming to slash $2 trillion from the federal budget, Musk had to dramatically scale back his target, eventually settling on $150 billion. Frustrated by roadblocks and political blowback, he frequently clashed with other Trump officials who resisted his shake-up plans.

His departure was announced suddenly via a post on X (formerly Twitter), where Musk wrote:
“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

A White House official confirmed the move but didn’t provide further details on the timing.

Political Pushback and Mixed Reactions to Trump’s Spending Bill

Musk’s exit came just a day after he openly criticized a major piece of Trump’s legislative agenda—a large tax and immigration bill the president has dubbed the “big beautiful bill.” Musk called the legislation a “massive spending bill” that increases the deficit and undermines his department’s efforts.

“I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful, but I don’t know if it could be both,” Musk told CBS News.

Trump responded from the Oval Office, acknowledging the bill’s political compromises:
“I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it. We’re going to see what happens. It’s got a way to go.”

Republicans recently passed the bill in the House, and it’s currently under debate in the Senate. Some GOP lawmakers share Musk’s concerns. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said he sympathizes with Musk’s discouragement and expects the bill’s progress to slow unless leadership gets serious about spending cuts.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson urged senators to avoid major changes, emphasizing that the House’s version reflects a “very delicate balance.” He also thanked Musk for his work and promised more efforts to cut spending, saying “the House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings.”

The Legacy of DOGE and Ongoing Spending Battles

The White House plans to send proposed rescissions—essentially budget cancellations—to Congress, including $1.1 billion from public broadcasting (which funds NPR and PBS) and $8.3 billion in foreign aid, to lock in some of DOGE’s cuts.

Musk’s experience in government left him somewhat chastened. In an interview with The Washington Post, he admitted the federal bureaucracy is far worse than he expected and called improving it an “uphill battle.”

He also hinted he’s dialing back his political involvement: “I think I’ve done enough.”

From Trump Booster to Frustrated Reformer

Musk entered the Trump orbit energized, donating at least $250 million to the campaign and enthusiastically supporting the president. He even held campaign rallies and publicly praised Trump, saying in February, “The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy. Frankly, I love him.”

Trump, in turn, lauded Musk as “a truly great American” and supported Tesla when its sales slipped, even using the White House driveway as a Tesla showroom.

What’s Next? The Future of Spending Cuts Without Musk

Though Musk is leaving, his critiques could fuel opposition to the spending bill among Republicans. Senator Mike Lee of Utah reposted Musk’s interview and vowed a tougher Senate version:
“The Senate version will be more aggressive. It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two House Republicans voted against the bill, but some, like Rep. Warren Davidson, hope the Senate can do better:
“Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment.”

The Numbers Behind the Bill

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the tax changes will add $3.8 trillion to deficits over 10 years, while cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps will reduce spending by just over $1 trillion in the same period.

House GOP leaders argue that economic growth spurred by the bill will balance the budget, but watchdog groups are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects the bill would add $3 trillion to the national debt, including interest, over the next decade.

Bottom Line

Elon Musk’s brief but headline-grabbing role in the Trump administration showed the challenge of shaking up government spending in Washington. Despite his star power and bold ambitions, entrenched political realities and fierce opposition ultimately limited his impact. Now, as he steps away, the battle over the nation’s budget continues — with or without the billionaire’s direct involvement.

Source: AP News – Elon Musk is leaving the Trump administration after leading effort to slash federal government

The post Elon Musk Leaves Trump Team After Struggling to Cut Government Spending appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.