The Democratic National Committee (DNC) launched its first-ever ad buy Friday targeting Elon Musk and the millions of dollars he has injected into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, previewing what could be a broader strategy for the party going forward.

The DNC ad buys, which are slated to run through Tuesday in seven local newspapers across Wisconsin, take aim at the $19 million Musk and his affiliated PACs have spent on behalf of conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, in a high-stakes state Supreme Court election that will determine whether the court retains its current 4-3 liberal majority.

Musk ‘has threatened Medicare, gutted Social Security services, and now he thinks he can buy himself a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,’ DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement Friday. ‘That’s why, today, the DNC is out with our first paid media explicitly calling out Musk for his attempts to meddle in Wisconsin’s elections.’

DNC officials told Fox News Digital that the ads will run in seven local newspapers across the state – the Chippewa Herald, the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter, the Beloit Daily News, the Daily Jefferson County Union, the Janesville Gazette, the Watertown Daily Times and the Oshkosh Northwestern – and highlight the message, ‘Wisconsin is not for sale.’

‘Wisconsinites deserve a Supreme Court justice who looks out for them, not the ultra-wealthy,’ Martin said. ‘Now and forever, Wisconsin is not for sale.’

The closely-watched state Supreme Court in Wisconsin is already the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, reaching a total of more than $81 million in spending and far eclipsing the $56 million spent on the state Supreme Court race just two years earlier, according to figures compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. 

Musk’s two super PACs spent more than $17 million on Schimel’s behalf, while Musk personally donated $3 million to the Wisconsin Republican Party earlier this year – funds that in turn can be used for Schimel’s campaign. 

President Donald Trump and Musk have thrown their weight behind conservative candidate Schimel, with Trump himself stumping for Schimel during a Thursday evening tele-town hall event and billing the race as one that could have an ‘outsized impact on the future of the country.’

‘I know you feel it’s local, but it’s not,’ Trump said, adding, ‘The whole country is watching.’

Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama and other notable Democrats have thrown their weight behind liberal opponent Susan Crawford, the current Dane County circuit judge whose campaign has attracted more than $25 million in funding ahead of the race. 

Democrats, for their part, see the race as fertile proving grounds to test their attack against Musk as they look to retain a critical state Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin and gear up for the 2026 midterm elections.

The efficacy of the ad campaign in Wisconsin, a that narrowly elected Trump in both the 2016 and 2024 presidential contests, remains to be seen. 

However, it comes as Democrats have struggled to coalesce around a unifying message in the aftermath of the 2024 elections, which could make Musk, and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), more attractive targets. 

Polling numbers in Wisconsin also bear this out. Fifty-three percent of Wisconsin voters said earlier this month that DOGE is disrupting programs required by law, according to a survey from Marquette University Law School, while a slightly lower 47% said the quasi-agency is carrying out Trump’s agenda. 

A larger 59% majority said Trump’s freezing spending and his closing of federal agencies is beyond his governmental authority.  

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Friday that the Trump administration intends to boost military ties with the Philippines to strengthen deterrence against Chinese aggression in the disputed South China Sea.

The assurance came during a meeting with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Philippines, part of Hegseth’s trip to Asia to reaffirm Washington’s ‘ironclad’ commitment to the region under the administration of President Donald Trump.  

‘Deterrence is necessary around the world but specifically in this region, in your country, considering the threats from the communist Chinese,’ Hegseth told Marcos. ‘Friends need to stand shoulder to shoulder to deter conflict, to ensure that there is free navigation whether you call it the South China Sea or the West Philippine Sea.’

‘Peace through strength is a very real thing,’ Hegseth said, praising the Philippines for standing ‘very firm’ to defend its interests in the contested waters.

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea, a major security and global trade route. The Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have overlapping claims to the resource-rich and busy waters, but confrontations have spiked between Chinese and Philippine coast guard and naval forces in the last two years.

Chinese forces have used powerful water cannons and dangerous maneuvers in the high seas to block what Beijing said were encroachments by Philippine ships into China’s waters. Chinese military aircraft have also approached Philippine patrol planes at alarmingly close distances to drive them away from the Scarborough Shoal, a hotly disputed fishing atoll in the disputed waterway.

Hegseth echoed that pledge by expressing ‘the ironclad commitment’ of Trump and him ‘to the Mutual Defense Treaty and to the partnership.’

Marcos told the U.S. defense chief that by visiting the Philippines first in Asia, he ‘sends a very strong message of the commitment of both our countries to continue to work together to maintain peace in the Indo-Pacific region, within the South China Sea.’

‘We have always understood the principle that the greatest force for peace in this part of the world would be the United States,’ Marcos said.

Hegseth’s visit to the Philippines comes a month before the longtime treaty allies hold their largest annual combat exercises that will include live-fire drills. 

The defense secretary’s visit comes as he faces calls back home for his resignation for texting attack plans to a Signal group that included top-level U.S. security officials and the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., fired back after Elon Musk unflinchingly stood behind the decision to label the lawmaker a ‘traitor.’ 

Musk made the accusation earlier this month when replying to a post in which the senator, who is also a Navy veteran and retired astronaut, argued that it is important for the U.S. to ‘stand with Ukraine.’

When Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Musk why he leveled the accusation, Musk indicated that Americans should care about U.S. interests over those of another nation, adding, ‘if they don’t, they’re a traitor.’

‘But he’s a decorated veteran, a former astronaut, a sitting U.S. senator,’ Baier pressed.

Musk said that does not mean it is ‘OK’ for Kelly to place the interests of another nation over the U.S.

Kelly fired back during an appearance on CNN. 

‘My entire life has been about serving this country,’ he declared, asserting that he always supports America’s best interests and ‘standing with our allies and standing up for democracy is in the best interests of the United States.’

Kelly added that he would categorize Musk as being ‘much closer to Russia.’

Earlier this month, after Musk called him a ‘traitor,’ the senator announced that he would get rid of his Tesla electric vehicle, saying he did not want to drive a ‘car built and designed by an a–hole.’ 

‘I bought a Tesla because it was fast like a rocket ship. But now every time I drive it, I feel like a rolling billboard for a man dismantling our government and hurting people. So Tesla, you’re fired! New ride coming soon,’ he tweeted.

He later announced that his ‘new ride’ is a Chevrolet Tahoe SUV.

President Donald Trump late Thursday signed an executive order to end collective bargaining with federal labor unions in agencies with national security missions.

The order cites his authority granted under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and will affect most of the federal government. 

Agencies such as the Departments of State, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Health and Human Services, Treasury, Justice and Commerce and the part of Homeland Security responsible for border security are just a few listed in the executive order.

The need to end collective bargaining with federal unions in these agencies is because of their role in safeguarding national security, according to the order. 

‘President Trump is taking action to ensure that agencies vital to national security can execute their missions without delay and protect the American people. The President needs a responsive and accountable civil service to protect our national security,’ according to a White House fact sheet regarding the order.

It also claims that ‘Certain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,’ and that the ‘largest Federal union describes itself as ‘fighting back’ against Trump. It is widely filing grievances to block Trump policies.’

According to the administration, VA’s unions have filed 70 national and local grievances over President Trump’s policies, averaging over one a day since the inauguration.

‘President Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions,’ the White House said.

Police and firefighters will continue to collectively bargain.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Despite being an ocean away, Rosie O’Donnell can’t seem to keep her mind off President Trump. 

The two have an ongoing feud that goes back decades, and after Trump was elected a second time, the comedian moved her family to Ireland.

But she still posts anti-Trump content on her social media accounts every few days. 

On Thursday, the 63-year-old posted a video on her Substack channel saying she forgives MAGA supporters.

‘I forgive them, and I know they didn’t ask for my forgiveness. And I hope that doesn’t sound condescending, but I forgive them for making the mistake of believing the Americanized propaganda where we sold a conman as a businessman,’ she said.

The White House told Fox News Digital ‘Good riddance!’ when asked for comment. 

The former co-host of ‘The View’ added that she blames Mark Burnett, who created and produced Trump’s former reality series, ‘The Apprentice.’ 

She said she had met Burnett, and he was a ‘nice guy, and I’d love to know what happened to him. Was it pure greed? Cause everybody in the world knew just how bad he is, but Mark Burnett put a shine on the s—, and everybody thinks it’s gold, and it really is not.’ 

She also brought up Trump and Burnett earlier this week in a TikTok video. 

‘We’ve been lied to by the media that is corporately owned for a very long time, and one of the biggest offenders was the show ‘The Apprentice,’ produced by Mark Burnett,’ she said Monday. ‘He taught Donald Trump how to lie into a character and sell it with rudeness, and that’s all that Donald Trump is.’

The ‘League of Their Own’ actress has even been writing anti-Trump poetry, which she describes as ‘simplistic lyrics to a song to convey a feeling or a mood.’ 

‘once a misogynist…always a creep/ he went after me for years and hasn’t stopped yet/ those who love him/ think I’m the anti christ/ those who hate him/ are my people,’ she wrote in part in one such effort on Substack earlier this month. 

Last week, she also appeared on Ireland’s ‘Late Late Show,’ where she discussed her recent decision to move out of the U.S., her longstanding feud with Trump and more.

In the interview, O’Donnell said she never imagined she’d leave the country and that it’s ‘overwhelmingly sad to me personally and way too much for me to take as well emotionally’ that he won the presidential election in 2024.

When asked about her decision to move to Ireland, she also said, ‘The President of the United States has it out for me and has for 20 years,’ later adding that ‘he sort of uses me as a punchline whenever he feels the need.’

She also suggested on the show that Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk’s involvement in Trump’s win should be investigated. 

‘I question why the first time in American history a president has won every swing state and is also best friends and his largest donor was a man who owns and runs the internet,’ O’Donnell said Friday on Ireland’s ‘The Late Late Show.’

O’Donnell confirmed her move to Ireland earlier this month, saying she left the U.S. days before Trump’s inauguration, explaining on TikTok that she thought it ‘would be the best for myself and my 12-year-old child.’

O’Donnell and Trump have been involved in a feud since 2006, after she criticized him on ‘The View’ about his leniency toward a Miss USA winner who had been accused of drug use and other bad behavior.

At the time, in reference to Miss USA Tara Conner, Trump said he was a ‘believer in second chances. Tara is a good person. Tara has tried hard. Tara is going to be given a second chance.’

Their feud has continued over the years, with O’Donnell telling Seth Meyers after Trump’s first win that she spends ‘about 90% of my working hours tweeting hatred toward this administration.’

Trump also brought her up in a 2015 Republican primary debate, joking ‘only Rosie O’Donnell’ when he was asked about having called women disparaging names like ‘fat pigs’ and ‘slobs.’ 

During last year’s election, Trump brought up O’Donnell’s name again when he told a crowd at the October Al Smith dinner that ‘The View’ had gotten ‘so bad’ that showrunners ‘really need to bring Rosie O’Donnell back.’

Her name also came up last week when a reporter asked Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, ‘Why in the world would you let Rosie O’Donnell move to Ireland? I think she is going to lower your happiness.’

Before Martin could answer, Trump chimed in and replied, ‘That’s true. I like that question. Do you know you have Rosie O’Donnell? Do you know who she is? You’re better off not knowing.’

O’Donnell later said on the ‘Late, Late Show’ that she sent the prime minister an apology note over the Oval Office episode. 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday aimed at restoring what he calls ‘truth and sanity’ in American history by reforming the Smithsonian Institution, protecting national monuments, and countering divisive ideology in public institutions.

Trump’s order directs Vice President Vance to work on eliminating ‘improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology’ from Smithsonian museums, research centers, as well as the National Zoo. 

It also pushes Congress to ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund exhibits or programs that ‘degrade shared American values’ or promote ideologies which divide Americans by race.

‘Americans have witnessed a concerted effort to rewrite history and force our nation to adopt a factually baseless ideology aimed at diminishing American achievement,’ the order states. 

The Smithsonian is criticized in the EO for promoting narratives that claim American and Western values are harmful. Trump specifically calls out exhibits that suggest sculpture has been used to ‘promote scientific racism’ and that the United States has maintained power through racial systems.

The order also takes issue with the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which previously suggested that ‘hard work,’ ‘individualism,’ and ‘the nuclear family’ are aspects of ‘White culture.’

Additionally, the EO declares that the Smithsonian ‘celebrate women’s achievements in the American Women’s History Museum and do not recognize men as women.’

The Executive Order also directs the Secretary of the Interior to restore national parks, monuments, and statues that have been ‘improperly removed or changed’ in recent years to fit what it calls a false revision of history. 

Under the Executive Order, agencies must complete restorations and improvements to Independence Hall before our nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate’s Armed Services Committee requested the Pentagon’s inspector general probe whether classified defense information was shared on Signal, an encrypted messaging platform. 

‘This chat was alleged to have included classified information pertaining to sensitive military discussions in Yemen,’ Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Jack Reed, D-R.I., wrote in a letter to acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins. ‘If true, this reporting raises questions as to the use of unclassified networks to discuss classified and sensitive information.’

The letter was sent Wednesday evening, a committee spokesperson said, after The Atlantic published messages in full that included details about a planned strike on the Houthis in Yemen and revealed a target had been successfully killed when a building he was in collapsed. 

White House officials have insisted the information Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security advisor Mike Waltz shared in the chat was not classified. 

Stebbins is the acting Pentagon watchdog after President Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general, including the Defense Department’s IG, shortly after taking office. 

Wicker told reporters Wednesday he would seek an ‘expedited’ investigation. 

Hegseth’s Signal messages revealed F-18, Navy fighter aircraft, MQ-9s, drones and Tomahawks cruise missiles would be used in the strike on the Houthis.

‘1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),’ Hegseth said in one message notifying the chat of high-level administration officials that the attack was about to kick off.

‘1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)’ he added, according to the report. 

‘1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)’

‘1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)’

‘1536 F-18 2nd Strike Starts – also, first sea-based Tomahawks launched.’

‘MORE TO FOLLOW (per timeline)’

‘We are currently clean on OPSEC’ – that is, operational security.

Later, Waltz wrote that the mission had been successful. ‘The first target—their top missile guy—was positively ID’d walking into his girlfriend’s building. It’s now collapsed.’

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who was unintentionally added to the chat, published an initial story that did not include specifics about the strike he believed to be sensitive. After the White House insisted the information was not classified, he asked them if they would object to him publishing its contents. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that they would object. 

‘No locations. No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS,’ Waltz wrote on X on Wednesday.

Government officials frequently use Signal to communicate, even for sensitive information, given that they don’t always have quick access to a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF). 

‘This is an approved app. It’s an encrypted app,’ Leavitt insisted to reporters Wednesday.

Still, even some Republicans have grumbled about how the situation has been handled. 

Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., a Navy veteran with a top secret clearance, said adding Goldberg to the chat was ‘totally sloppy,’ and the information shared was either classified ‘or at the very least highly sensitive.’ 

‘In the wrong hands, like the Houthis or any of America’s adversaries, this kind of Intel could have jeopardized the mission and put our troops at greater risk,’ he told Fox News Digital. ‘It was wrong when Hillary put all that classified information on an unclassified server. It was wrong when Biden had the sensitive files in his garage. And it’s wrong now.’ 

The Senate letter asked for ‘what was communicated and any remedial actions taken as a result’ and an assessment of whether proper policies had been followed related to government officers ‘sharing sensitive and classified information on non-government networks and electronic applications.’ 

It also asked for the IG to probe how the policies of DOD, the intelligence community, the National Security Council and the White House differ on the matter. 

The DOD IG’s office confirmed receiving the letter yesterday to Fox News Digital and said it was in the process of reviewing it. 

Earlier this week, Wicker and Reed said they would ‘likely’ hold a bipartisan hearing on the Signal chat. But given the political nature of the storyline, it may be easier to allow an independent watchdog to conduct a fact-finding mission. 

‘This is precisely why independent offices of inspectors general are so valuable. When a situation becomes a hot-button political issue, it’s incredibly helpful to have an objective, nonpartisan group of trained professionals to do the fact-finding and answer the hard questions,’ former State Department inspector general Diana Shaw told Fox News Digital. 

She warned not to expect the IG to give any answers on whether criminal conduct had taken place, and not to expect a quick probe given the crossover of agencies implicated in the chat. 

‘It’s very difficult to do anything quickly when it involves the Interagency – an interagency review requires navigation through a complex maze of jurisdictional boundaries. The committee may get some of its questions answered quickly, but it will likely have to wait some time for answers to the more central questions it’s posed.’

Eight inspectors general abruptly fired by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term appeared in federal court Thursday to challenge their dismissals — a long-shot case that nonetheless sparked fireworks during oral arguments.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes acknowledged on Thursday that it would be difficult for the court to reinstate the eight ousted inspectors generals, who were part of a broader group of 17 government watchdogs abruptly terminated by Trump in January, just four days into his second White House term. 

In a lawsuit last month, the eight inspectors general challenged their firings as both ‘unlawful and unjustified’ and asked to be reinstated — a remedy that Reyes acknowledged Thursday would be exceedingly difficult, even if she were to find that their firings were unconstitutional.

 ‘Unless you convince me otherwise,’ she told the plaintiffs, ‘I don’t see how I could reinstate the inspectors general’ to their roles.

Reyes suggested that the best the court could do would be to order back pay, even as she told both parties, ‘I don’t think anyone can contest that the removal of these people — the way that they were fired — was a violation of the law.’

The preliminary injunction hearing comes more than a month after the eight fired inspectors general filed a lawsuit challenging their termination as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs asked the judge to restore them to their positions, noting in the filing, ‘President Trump’s attempt to eliminate a crucial and longstanding source of impartial, non-partisan oversight of his administration is contrary to the rule of law.’  

Still, the remedies are considered a long shot — and Trump supporters have argued that the president was well within his executive branch powers to make such personnel decisions under Article II of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent and updates to federal policy.

In 2022, Congress updated its Inspector General Act of 1978, which formerly required a president to communicate to Congress any ‘reasons’ for terminations 30 days before any decision was made. That notice provision was amended in 2022 to require only a ‘substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons’ for terminations.

The 30-day period was a major focus of Thursday’s hearing, as the court weighed whether inspectors general can be considered ‘principal’ or inferior officers. 

The White House Director of Presidential Personnel has claimed that the firings are in line with that requirement, which were a reflection of ‘changing priorities’ from within the administration. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested earlier this year that Congress should be given more information as to the reasons for the firings, though more recently he has declined to elaborate on the matter.

Reyes, for her part, previously did not appear to be moved by the plaintiffs’ bid for emergency relief.

She declined to grant their earlier request for a temporary restraining order — a tough legal test that requires plaintiffs to prove ‘irreparable’ and immediate harm as a result of the actions — and told both parties during the hearing that, barring new or revelatory information, she is not inclined to rule in favor of plaintiffs at the larger preliminary injunction hearing.