Simmering Tensions Between Trump and Musk Boil Over

Don’t worry. It’s just the leader of the free world and the wealthiest man on the planet. Wall Street Journal: Long-simmering tensions between President Trump and Elon Musk burst into the open on Thursday, as the two men traded barbs and insults, signaling the rupturing of a relationship that had been one of the most consequential in modern American politics. Trump, publicly addressing Musk’s latest attacks on his signature tax bill for the first time, said he was disappointed in his former White House adviser and suggested the Tesla CEO was suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.” Musk, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help get Trump re-elected, shot back in real time on social media that Trump was ungrateful and wouldn’t be sitting in the Oval Office without his support (Wall Street Journal). Trump is staying focused on his signature piece of legislation: I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. (X). Charlie Kirk: President Trump built this movement over 10 years. His supporters are NOT going anywhere. I hope Elon and Trump reconcile and do so privately. It would be good for the country and the world if they do (Kirk).

Unanimous Decision From Supreme Court: Discrimination Is Discrimination

No matter who is doing it. It was a remarkable day at the Supreme Court, but the release of decisions was drowned out by the lively events of the day. The Supreme Court case here was Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The issue at hand is plaintiff’s claim that her LGBTQ boss was looking past her to promote her LGBTQ colleague. The court held—unanimously—that Title VII (prohibiting  “discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin”) does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group. Stated differently: The fact that the plaintiff is straight can’t be used against her. In sum—in the closing words of the Court’s opinion: We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority-group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for application of the proper prima facie standard (Supreme Court).  Ed Morrissey: let’s dispense with the term “reverse discrimination.” It’s an oxymoron. These are cases of discrimination, full stop. If someone’s sexual preferences are the basis for employment decisions, that violates Title VII, and the same is true for ethnicity, sex, religion, and so on. Discrimination is discrimination, and the very notion that certain classes of people within those categories have a higher evidentiary standard than others is itself discriminatory. The text makes that clear even to Justice Jackson: “As a textual matter, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful ‘to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’ …  By establishing the same protections for every “individual”—without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone (Hot Air).

Unanimous Decision: Catholic Charity Wrongfully Denied Religious Exemptions

A unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor. The court found that Wisconsin wrongfully denied Catholic Charities Bureau religious exemptions because their organization was not, “‘operated primarily for religious purposes’ because they neither engage in proselytization nor serve only Catholics in their charitable work.” John Burch of Alliance Defending Freedom: Government has no business second-guessing the way a faith organization lives out its ministry. When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it unconstitutionally entangles church and state—at the expense of ministries that live out their faith, at least in part, through serving their communities (ADF). Justice Thomas, from his concurring opinion: church and state are “two rightful authorities,” each supreme in its own sphere. This concept has deep roots in the history of Western civilization. Jesus famously said to render “unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. From antiquity onward, many Christians have interpreted this statement to mean that church and state are distinct, and that each has a legitimate claim to authority within its sphere (Supreme Court).

Unanimous Decision: Gun Manufacturers Are Not Liable for Crimes of Mexican Drug Cartels

The court summarizes the issue at hand: the Government of Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. The basic theory of its suit is that the defendants failed to exercise “reasonable care” to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, and so are responsible for the harms arising there from the weapons’ misuse (Supreme Court). Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms: Based on the questions during oral arguments I had a feeling that Mexico was going to lose this case, but it’s stunning to see a unanimous Court rule against them, not to mention one of the members of the Court’s progressive wing write the majority opinion. Justice Jackson’s concurrence is also a surprisingly strong condemnation of the attempts by the gun control lobby to impose new laws through litigation instead of legislation, and I’m pleasantly shocked to see her stance spelled out in no uncertain terms. The case is now remanded back to the lower courts, where it should be dismissed outright. Personally, I’m hoping that Smith & Wesson and the other defendants next move will be to seek attorneys fees from the Mexican government. Mexico tried to sue them for $10 billion, but it’s the Mexican government who should have to cough up cold hard cash to pay for the companies’ defense against this junk lawsuit (Bearing Arms).

“An Outbreak of Unity at the Supreme Court”

That headline from the New York Sun captures it well: The story from the Supreme Court that most catches our attention today is the case that could be called Unity v. Division. It pits those who argue that America is hopelessly divided against the sunny partisans of finding our way to agreement. This came into view this morning when the Supreme Court decided no fewer than five cases in which all nine justices were unanimous. No dissents, quarrels, or tears. Bravo, we say. Brava. Bravi. We understand that the run of unanimous cases this morning might be a flash in the pan. It strikes us, though, as a newsworthy moment in a country that seems intent on pulling itself apart ….  We understand that this outburst of unanimity isn’t the biggest story in the world…. Yet at a time when the nation’s political rifts seem to be more dire than usual, the court’s justices are managing to find common ground (New York Sun).

Hamas Feeling the Heat: Alternate Palestinian Militia Armed

And protecting the food distribution centers in Gaza . The leader is Yasser Abu Shabab:  a 32-year-old Rafah native of Bedouin descent, has quickly emerged as one of the most talked-about—and controversial—figures in the shifting power landscape of the Gaza Strip. Once imprisoned by Hamas for alleged criminal activity, he has reemerged at the helm of a local militia reportedly backed by Israel in its covert effort to undermine Hamas rule. According to senior Israeli security officials, Abu-Shabab’s group is the most prominent among several armed factions in Gaza now receiving indirect Israeli support. The strategy, led by the Shin Bet internal security agency, is part of a broader move to reduce IDF casualties while weakening Hamas through targeted strikes, infrastructure destruction, and alternative governance models. For now, Abu-Shabab continues to present himself as a local solution to a local crisis—a man who claims to be stepping into a vacuum of power and responsibility. Whether he becomes a legitimate political player or a cautionary tale remains to be seen (YNET). Wall Street Journal: “Israel’s aim is to create a local, loyalist and parallel force,” said Hasan Abu Hanieh, an expert on Islamic groups based in Amman, Jordan. “But for such a force to gain public acceptance, it would require some form of legitimacy” … Michael Milstein, a former head of Palestinian affairs for Israeli military intelligence, said the plan has low chances of working because of Abu Shabab’s background as a looter and his lack of any broad support within Gaza. “I’m quite sure Hamas is going to smash them,” he said. “The likelihood of this little emirate to succeed is very low” (Wall Street Journal). It’s risky, but Israel is reaching for an indigenous power source outside of Hamas

Germany-Israel Finishing Largest-Ever Defense Deal Between the Two Nations

For the Arrow 3 defense system—giving protection against ICBMs. Israel Hayom: Just months before the completion of the largest defense deal ever signed between Israel and a foreign country, Israel and Germany have begun preparations for the delivery of the Arrow 3 air defense system to the German military (Israel Hayom). The Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was in Berlin, meeting with his counterpart Johann Wadephul. After a number of criticisms of Israel Wadephul made it clear: Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas and other enemies, and that “therefore Germany will of course continue to support Israel with arms deliveries, that was never in doubt.”Wadephul also said that recognizing a Palestinian state now would send “the wrong signal,” adding that negotiations between Israel and Palestine must conclude before a Palestinian state is recognized (DW). A number of keen observers are concerned about where the new Chancellor Merz is headed in relations with Israel: Germany’s new conservative leader is executing a sharp turnaround in Israel policy—one that challenges the nation’s postwar consensus and professed historical responsibility…. What makes Mr. Merz’s remarks striking isn’t their content alone, but their tone and absoluteness—language previously confined to anti-Israel circles on the far left, who met Mr. Merz’s words with approval (Wall Street Journal).

Dutch Conservative Geert Wilders: “If Jerusalem falls, Athens, Paris or Amsterdam are next”

Wilders—and the Party for Freedom he founded—has been ringing the alarm on unchecked immigration for decades. He sees clearly the civilizational issues at stake: The Israel Defense Forces is “fighting our battle,” Wilders snapped at opposition leader Frans Timmermans (Labor Party/GreenLeft), who had accused him of cozying up to the “far right” Israeli government. “The fact that our mothers in the West can sleep peacefully is because the mothers of Israeli soldiers lie awake, wondering whether their child will come home alive from a battle fought in the name of freedom,” said the politician. “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and it has to fight the terror of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad…. Naturally, in war, there are casualties. I regret every death, I regret every child, every mother, every innocent civilian who dies in conflict. But I still believe—and I am proud of this—that Israel must fight,” he said (JNS). Benjamin Netanyahu: Thank you Geert Wilders! You are a true friend of Israel! (Netanyahu). Related: Wilders Party for Freedom just pulled out of the coalition government, forcing a new election. The coalition members would not advance strict immigration measures:  “I signed up to the strictest asylum policy, not the downfall of The Netherlands” (Politico). It’s all very interesting backdrop to the Hague’s hosting of NATO later this month (NATO).

Is Israelgate the New Russiagate?

As America and the world look at the bleak prospects of a nuclear-armed and apocalyptic Iran, the increasingly vocal number of voices on the right who downplay that concern are getting called out. Lee Smith: … most significant among these foes are those who are ostensibly in Trump’s own camp. “It’s clear that now is the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran,” (Tucker)  Carlson tweeted in April. “We can’t afford it. Thousands of Americans would die. We’d lose the war that follows. Nothing would be more destructive to our country. And yet we’re closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons.” …  The idea that Netanyahu and Israel are the cause of America’s Middle Eastern wars is a paranoid fantasy. Accordingly, Carlson’s template for Trump’s foreign policy seems cribbed from the most destructive conspiracy theory in U.S. history: Russiagate. The left said Trump was controlled by the Russians; Carlson says no, it’s the Jews. The second-term anti-Trump operation is a domestic variation on Russiagate, and it operates in much the same way—with anonymous administration officials leaking stories to the same media organizations and many of the same reporters who spread that Russiagate hoax (Tablet). Mark Levin on Tucker: the good news is, the more he talks and writes, the less relevant and more poisonous he becomes (Levin; Rumble).

California Assembly Passes Bill Threatening School Choice

Most immediately, AB84 would threaten charter schools. Many observers see homeschooling at risk as well. State Assemblyman Josh Hoover: The Supermajority just passed a devastating attack on school choice in California. Under the guise of accountability, AB84 cuts critical charter school funding & will harm countless families across our state. Once again our Legislature prioritizes special interests over kids (Hoover). Claudia Weintraub: AB 84 doesn’t just aim to improve the system — it aims to dismantle it. It would impose sweeping restrictions on charter authorization and renewals, giving local districts — often conflicted by financial incentives — expanded authority to block or shut down charter schools. It would severely limit non-classroom-based instruction, which thousands of families rely on for flexibility and individualized learning. The likely outcome? A mass closure of high-performing, student-centered schools that are closing achievement gaps and delivering results (VC Star).