Musk still plans a major role in midterm elections despite loss in Wisconsin: Sources
(adamkaz/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Despite billionaire Elon Musk’s repeated warnings that “Western Civilization” was at stake if the conservative candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race lost, the Tesla CEO and senior adviser to President Donald Trump downplayed Tuesday’s major election defeat, writing in an overnight post that he “expected to lose.”
The billionaire, who has dominated headlines since joining Trump’s administration as the aggressive head of the Department of Government Efficiency, had gone all-in on the race.
His political groups spent more than $20 million in an effort to push conservative candidate Brad Schimel across the finish line — flooding the airwaves with television ads and saturating Google and Facebook with digital spots. He deployed a ground team across the state to turn out voters, and personally handed out two $1 million checks at a rally where he appeared onstage wearing a cheesehead hat.
But it wasn’t enough.
Schimel lost by what could be a double-digit margin, handing the world’s richest man a significant political setback and prompting questions about how eager Republicans will be to embrace Musk’s involvement in future races, including the midterms.
But despite Tuesday’s result, Musk remains undeterred in his political ambitions. According to people familiar with his operation, he still plans to play a major role in helping Republicans retain control of the House in future races, including the 2026 midterms.
Sources said Musk and his team entered the Wisconsin race knowing it would be an uphill battle. Part of the calculation, according to people close to the effort, was that Democrats in Wisconsin would likely make Musk the face of their attacks regardless, so it was better to confront them directly and make the case to voters rather than let those attacks go unanswered.
Musk’s political team had seen warning signs in the final stretch. A memo from one of his groups obtained by ABC News showed that Schimel had been trailing liberal candidate Susan Crawford by double digits earlier in the race and his numbers improved after a wave of negative advertising. But in the days leading up to Tuesday, Musk’s team saw Schimel’s numbers tank, prompting the billionaire to go on a media blitz that included multiple livestream events and an interview on Fox News.
Now, Democrats are working quickly to capitalize on Crawford’s victory and portray Musk as a liability for Trump and the Republican Party.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Schimel’s loss was a referendum on Musk.
“Wisconsin voters sent a decisive message to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and DOGE by rejecting an extreme Republican for their Supreme Court: our Democracy is not for sale,” Schumer wrote on X.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a billionaire himself who donated more than $1 million to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin ahead of the race, wrote on X late Tuesday night, “Elon Musk is not good at this.”
Patrick Guarasci, a Wisconsin-based political operative who served as the chief strategist for Susan Crawford’s campaign, echoed that view. He said one of the key takeaways for Democrats nationally is the importance of confronting Musk’s political efforts directly.
“We didn’t back down from a fight when Elon Musk got into this race. We didn’t go looking for that fight, but we didn’t back down from it. And I think that’s probably one of the lessons learned,” Guarasci told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday.
Still, Musk’s supporters note that the billionaire also played a central role in Trump’s 2024 presidential win, particularly focusing on Pennsylvania with similar tactics.
“[Musk] journeyed to Pennsylvania where he spent a month and a half campaigning for me … and he’s a popular guy,” Trump said at a rally after his election win. “He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers, those vote-counting computers, and we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide. So, it was pretty good, it was pretty good. So, thank you to Elon.”
Luis Barron/ Pixelnews/Future Publishing via Getty Images
(MEXICO CITY) — The U.S. has paused the implementation of tariffs for a month in both Canada and Mexico following conversations on Monday with President Donald Trump, according to each country’s leader.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a post on social media, writing, “Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl.
Trudeau also added, “Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border.” The moves will result in a 30-day delay in the tariffs in order to work out a deal, he said.
The moves mirror similar promises Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum issued earlier in the day after speaking to Trump.
U.S. tariffs imposed on Mexico have been “paused for a month,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in a post on X Monday shortly after speaking to President Donald Trump. Trump confirmed the news shortly after in a social media post of his own.
Sheinbaum said Mexico has agreed to “reinforce” the Mexico-U.S. border with 10,000 National Guard troops “immediately.” She also said the U.S. had agreed to work to prevent high-powered weapons from being trafficked into Mexico.
Trump did not mention the U.S. working to prevent weapons from being trafficked into Mexico, but confirmed the 10,000 Mexican troops being deployed to the border “to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country.”
Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick, Trump’s yet-to-be-confirmed commerce secretary nominee, will negotiate with Mexican leaders in the next month to achieve a permanent deal.
Sheinbaum, who took over as Mexican president in October 2024, said Trump asked her how long she would like the tariffs on Mexico to be paused, and she responded “forever,” before Trump suggested they pause them for a month.
“He insisted on the commercial deficit that the U.S. has with Mexico. I told him it was not a deficit, that we are commercial partners, and it’s the best way to compete with China and other countries,” Sheinbaum said.
“I told him to collaborate,” Sheinbaum said. “He has agreed to the working group.”
Trump had told reporters he would speak on Monday with Sheinbaum and Trudeau prior to imposing import tariffs on their goods. The U.S. president was expected to sign executive orders on Tuesday putting in place 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% tariffs on those from China, according to the White House.
Trump said Monday afternoon he plans to talk to China in the next day or two about tariffs on that country.
Sheinbaum in a video posted to social media on Sunday said her government was calling for “reason and law” among “individuals as well as among nations.”
‘This measure of 25% tariffs has effects for both countries but it has very serious effects for the U.S. economy,” she said, “because it will raise the costs of all the products that are exported from Mexico to the U.S., it will have a 25% higher cost.”
Trudeau responded to the planned tariffs on Saturday evening, announcing his country will implement 25% tariffs on 155 billion Canadian dollars, or about $107 billion, of U.S. goods. The prime minister said he has not talked to Trump since his inauguration.
Sheinbaum, who was elected in June, offered little detail on how her government’s “Plan B” would respond to the tariffs.
She instructed her economic secretary to “implement Plan B that we have been working on, which includes tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico’s interests,” she said in a statement written in Spanish and translated by ABC News.
She also sought to remind the White House that the current free trade agreements between the U.S. and Mexico have been in place for about three decades.
“The last free trade agreement was signed by President López Obrador and President Trump himself,” she said.
Trump on Sunday told reporters he was unconcerned about the potential impact of imposing tariffs on close trading partners, saying the American people would understand.
“We may have short term, some, a little pain, and people understand that, but, long term, the United States has been ripped off by virtually every country in the world,” he told reporters on Sunday, as he departed Air Force One at Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews.
He added, “We have deficits with almost every country, not every country, but almost. And we’re going to change it. It’s been unfair. That’s why we owe $36 trillion; we have deficits with everybody.”
Canada has been taking advantage of the U.S., Trump said, calling the relationship with the country a “one-way street.”
“They don’t allow our banks. Did you know that Canada does not allow banks to go in, if you think about it, that’s pretty amazing,” he said. “If we have a U.S. bank, they don’t allow them to go in.”
Trump added, “Canada has been very tough on oil, on energy. They don’t allow our farm products in. Essentially, they don’t allow a lot of things in, and we allow everything to come in. It’s been a one-way street.”
ABC News’ Matt Rivers, Max Zahn, Kelsey Walsh, Victoria Beaule and William Gretsky contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid a flurry of executive actions President Trump is taking to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government, the Trump administration is also turning its attention to private companies and institutions.
President Trump signed an executive order the day after he was sworn in to his second term that not only rescinded DEI policies in the federal government, but also “[encourages] the private sector to end” what the order calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” claiming in part that DEI policies “violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws.”
“Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex,” the order said.
Several legal experts who advise companies and institutions regarding their DEI policies told ABC News that while the Trump administration doesn’t have the legal authority to mandate that private businesses abandon their DEI policies, the executive order’s language uses the threat of potential legal action against certain companies with DEI policies to ostensibly force them to do so.
‘It’s a powerful threat’
Part of Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order directs the attorney general, “within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of [the Office of Management and Budget],” the latter of which oversees the performance of all federal agencies, to “submit a report … containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”
The order instructs the federal agencies to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars,” as well as “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest.”
Those agencies are further directed to identify “key sectors of concern” and “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” within each agency’s jurisdiction, and to develop “a plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles.”
The possibility of a legal battle with the federal government over DEI is already causing concern for many private businesses, experts told ABC News.
“It’s a powerful threat that companies are responding to it by taking another very close look at their programs to make sure that they are comfortable with them,” said labor attorney Jason Schwartz, a partner and co-chair of the Labor and Employment Practice at Gibson Dunn in Washington, D.C., and who leads the firm’s DEI task force.
“Nobody wants to be on that Donald Trump DEI blacklist,” Kenji Yoshino, a professor of constitutional law at NYU and the director of NYU’s Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging, and who also advises Fortune 500 companies on DEI matters, told ABC News. “I worry that there’s a very smart move and savvy move on the part of the executive branch to cast a fear through this kind of gesture of ‘we are going to single you out,’ or targeting so that a lot of companies are going to withdraw or pull back more than they needed to pull back, strictly legally.”
“[Companies] just don’t want to be one of those nine,” Yoshino added, referring to the number of the executive order’s “potential civil compliance investigations.”
“Until those nine are announced, it’s going to cause others to be risk-averse,” said Yoshino. “So there’s a kind of, you know, preemptive compliance, you know, or obedience going on.”
How companies are responding
Schwartz told ABC News that since Trump signed his executive order, companies have been scrambling to seek legal counsel regarding their DEI policies and whether they need to be revised.
“The phone is literally ringing off the hook,” he said, referring to the calls his firm is receiving. “Companies are very concerned. They want to make sure, obviously, that they stay on the right side of the law.”
Yoshino said that the phones at NYU’s Center for DEI likewise have been “ringing off the hook” with calls from companies seeking advice on how to proceed with their DEI initiatives. For now, he advises that concerned parties take a measured approach.
“The reflexive response is often to be like, ‘Oh, if we shut it down, we will minimize risk,’ and we regard that to be short sighted, both because there are smart ways to tweak these programs to lower the risk, or even lower to zero, eliminate the risk while still getting the same results,” Yoshino told ABC News.
“And alternatively, if you eliminate all your DEI policies, you’re then going to get sued from the other side,” he cautioned, noting that marginalized groups could argue that rolling back DEI “leads to a less inclusive, more discriminatory environment.”
Several large corporations – including Amazon, Meta, McDonalds, Walmart and Ford – announced before Trump was sworn in for his second term that they were ending, scaling back or otherwise reevaluating some of their DEI-related programs or initiatives.
However, according to Yoshino, whose office has been tracking the impact of Trump’s actions on DEI, even some companies who are stepping away from some DEI initiatives are retaining some policies or programs committed to inclusion, and that the majority of companies on the Fortune 500 list “still have pro-DEI statements on their websites.”
Some companies also are publicly standing by their DEI commitments, with leaders at Goldman Sachs, Costco and JPMorgan Chase & Co recently speaking out in support of their diversity programs amid pressure from anti-DEI activist shareholders to roll back their policies.
“I do think that it’s really important not to overreact,” Yoshino told ABC News.
What comes next?
While it’s unclear what might be “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest” against private companies, as the executive order states, as well as what might be the outcome of any such actions, Yoshino and Schwartz both noted that anti-DEI litigation efforts in the U.S. have been escalating since the Supreme Court’s June 2023 landmark ruling that effectively ended affirmative action in higher education.
Since the Supreme Court decision, conservative legal advocacy groups have been ramping up litigation against private companies over their DEI initiatives, Schwartz said, noting that with Trump’s executive order, those groups have now “moved their operation into the White House.”
“They now have the full force and power of the United States government where they can bring these cases,” Schwartz added.
Yoshino agreed, telling ABC News that the president is now putting the “muscle of the executive branch behind the impact of that decision.”
Yoshino said that while the Supreme Court case addressed the higher education admissions process and was not about diversity and inclusion efforts in the private sector, “it gave us such a clear window into how [the Supreme Court] was thinking about the issue of race discrimination.”
The Supreme Court ruled that “in the same way that you can’t discriminate against a person of color, you also can’t discriminate against a white individual,” according to Yoshino. “That contrasts that with the previous jurisprudence that said you’re allowed to use a [race] classification in narrow circumstances so long as your intent is to lift up a historically subordinated group.”
According to Schwartz, while the Trump administration is “not creating new laws” regarding the legality of DEI through his executive order, the Department of Justice is gearing up to bring cases against private companies by arguing that existing laws “already prohibit many of the DEI programs that exist.”
Schwartz also pointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a federal agency that is likely to help advance the White House’s anti-DEI efforts. The federal agency, which has the authority to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged employment discrimination, is now led by Trump appointee Andrea Lucas, who said in a statement upon being named EEOC acting chair Jan. 21 that her priorities are “consistent with the President’s Executive Orders,” and include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.”
“Our employment civil rights laws are a matter of individual rights. We must reject the twin lies of identity politics: that justice is measured by group outcomes and that civil rights exist solely to remedy harms against certain groups,” Lucas’ statement continued. “I am committed to ensuring equal justice under the law and to focusing on equal opportunity, merit, and colorblind equality.”
ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca and Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid the fallout from The Atlantic’s Monday article reportedly detailing the Signal group chat discussing the U.S. attack on Houthis in Yemen, Vice President JD Vance appearing to break with President Donald Trump is also getting attention.
Vance made a noteworthy statement in the chat, appearing to break with Trump and questioning whether the president recognized that a unilateral U.S. attack on the Houthis to keep international shipping lanes open was at odds with his tough talk about European nations paying their share of such efforts, according to an account by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief who said he was inadvertently included in the conversation.
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote in the chat, according to Goldberg. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
On the day before the attack, according to The Atlantic’s reporting published on Monday, Vance participated in the chat as he told the group he was traveling to Michigan for an economic event.
“Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake,” Vance wrote in the chat, according to Goldberg. “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Ultimately, he supported the attack, telling Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” according to Goldberg’s account.
The White House has insisted the communications in the group chat were not war plans and criticized The Atlantic journalist who detailed the account.
“This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X on Wednesday.
William Martin, Vance’s communications director, said the vice president and Trump “are in complete agreement.”
“The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement,” he said in a statement.
Asked if Vance and Trump had spoken between the time Vance raised his concerns with the group, as reported by The Atlantic, and he concurred with those advocating to go ahead with the strike, a spokesperson for Vance said the statement Martin provided to ABC News made it clear that they did, pointing out the line that they had “subsequent conversations about this matter.”
The comments from Vance are striking, given that he has been in lockstep, at least in public, with Trump, his top defender most of the time since being chosen as his running mate last July.
No situation depicted that more than Trump and Vance’s Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier this month, where the three men got into a shouting match in front of the media over the prospects of a ceasefire deal to end the war in Ukraine. Vance berated Zelenskyy for not being thankful for the support the U.S. has provided Ukraine.
“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,” Vance said to Zelenskyy. “Right now, you guys are going around enforcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”
During the campaign cycle, where Vance was the policy attack dog for the president and previously said that Trump needs a vice president who wouldn’t “stab” him in the back, there was only a handful of times he deviated from Trump on policy, with the most notable incident occurring in an NBC interview during the presidential campaign when he said Trump would veto a national abortion ban. A few weeks later, Trump, during his debate with Kamala Harris hosted by ABC News, was asked about Vance’s comments on an abortion ban.
“Well, I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness,” Trump said.
Since then, Vance has been more careful not to deviate publicly from the president’s policy position.
Following their victory in November, a source close to Vance told ABC News that the vice president was tasked to ensure that all of the priorities of the Trump administration move forward and would work on any of the issues Trump needs him to further.
In November, a source familiar with Vance and Trump’s relationship said Vance was focused on doing whatever was needed to support the president-elect and the administration.
