Authored by Nancy Brinker via RealClearPolitics,

DOGE is saving billions and it’s doing what voters asked for.

As someone who has represented the United States abroad, first as ambassador to Hungary and later as U.S. chief of protocol, I’ve seen how American leadership is measured not just by strength or ideals, but by functionality. Our allies watch how we govern ourselves. And too often, what they’ve seen in recent decades is an increasingly bloated federal government, mired in duplication, inefficiency, and bureaucratic inertia.

That’s why the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, deserves serious consideration. Led by Elon Musk, DOGE has taken on a task that most administrations have promised but failed to achieve: modernizing how our federal government operates. It has consolidated overlapping offices, canceled wasteful contracts, sold underutilized properties, and implemented data-driven reforms, all aimed at reducing cost, improving performance, and saving taxpayer money. 

Since it began in January, DOGE has either cut or reduced grants, leases, and contracts in over 176 departments or agencies. On its website the department reports saving $160 billion. For comparison, that’s more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Transportation. Even according to independent data and analysis, DOGE efforts have already generated billions in savings. This is not a theoretical exercise in reform. It is tangible, measurable, and aligned with what the American people have repeatedly said they want: a government that delivers more by doing less.

Polling backs this up. A February Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 72% of Americans support the existence of an agency focused solely on eliminating waste and inefficiency in government. A clear majority (60%) said they believe DOGE is helping to rein in unnecessary federal spending. That’s not a left-wing or right-wing perspective; that’s a mainstream one.

DOGE’s creation may have sparked controversy, particularly among those uncomfortable with Musk’s unconventional approach and public persona. But we shouldn’t allow style to eclipse substance. If government is functioning more effectively and at a lower cost to taxpayers, then we must look seriously at how those outcomes are being achieved, and what lessons can be responsibly applied more broadly.

Having served in federal roles that demand strict compliance with law, protocol, and tradition, I know firsthand that reform must operate within the boundaries of our values. Rule of law and adherence to institutional norms are non-negotiable. Yet so, too, is the need for honest appraisal: Much of our federal bureaucracy has become outdated, sprawling, and resistant to change. Streamlining is not an assault on government. It is, in fact, an affirmation of it – an attempt to make public institutions worthy of public trust.

Of course, DOGE’s approach is not without flaws. Musk himself has candidly admitted as much. Critics have questioned whether all reported savings are fully verified, and transparency around decision-making needs improvement. Oversight is not only appropriate – it’s essential. But the existence of imperfections should not be a pretext for dismissing a bold, productive effort to modernize government. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of progress.

It’s a time-honored tradition in Washington for good ideas to wither under partisan suspicion. But government reform should not be the property of any one party. For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have campaigned on promises to cut waste, modernize services, and rein in unnecessary spending. 

DOGE is doing what many in both parties have failed to do: take those promises seriously.

The real question is not whether DOGE is controversial – it is. The real question is whether it is effective. So far, the evidence suggests that it is. The challenge ahead is to preserve that momentum, institutionalize the best of what DOGE is doing, fix mistakes, and ensure it is guided by transparency, accountability, and legal rigor.

This moment presents a rare opportunity: the chance to reshape how government operates in a way that is more responsive to the people it serves. Instead of vilifying reformers, we should come together around a shared goal that transcends politics: building a government that works.

If DOGE continues to help us get there, it deserves not derision, but support.

Nancy Brinker served as U.S. ambassador to Hungary and as chief of protocol during the George W. Bush administration. She is the founder of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and the Promise Fund.

Amtrak is cutting roughly 20% of its senior management positions, aiming to reduce expenses amid uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s infrastructure investment plans, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.

The federally-owned passenger railroad - which operates as a for-profit entity, is targeting $100 million in annual cost reductions through these cuts, a source disclosed anonymously, sharing details not publicly announced.

In an official statement, Amtrak confirmed the elimination of roughly 450 management roles, reiterating the goal of achieving $100 million in yearly savings. The company emphasized these layoffs only impact corporate-level positions and assured that operational railroad jobs would remain unaffected. As of 2024, Amtrak employs approximately 22,700 people. (what!?)

"Amtrak identified opportunities to better align resources with the important work we are doing for America," the statement reads.

Amtrak President Roger Harris communicated the details of these layoffs to employees in a recent letter, indicating that impacted staff would receive notifications in the first half of May. Additionally, the railroad has implemented a hiring freeze and halted promotions for management roles, Harris wrote.

"Amtrak is making a full review of our cost structure, which includes evaluating the size of our management staff," reads the letter, adding that leadership plans "to notify impacted employees in the first half of May."

Planning for these cuts reportedly began months ago, driven by uncertainty following Trump’s presidential victory and his subsequent moves to withhold previously approved grants. This has cast doubt over future infrastructure funding.

Significant projects potentially impacted by the management layoffs include new multi-billion-dollar rail tunnels in New York City and Baltimore, as well as a replacement of the Susquehanna River Bridge and other major initiatives along the Northeast corridor.

While construction on these major projects is currently ongoing, future financing—particularly funding initially expected from the fifth year of former President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill—is now uncertain.

Authored by Patrick Keeney via The Epoch Times,

The French have an apt expression for those vexing moments when, having exited a spirited exchange, the perfect rejoinder belatedly arrives. They call it l’esprit de l’escalier—“the wit of the staircase.”

The phrase captures that all-too-human affliction of eloquence delayed. The sharp retort, the subtle riposte—these come not in the heat of dialogue but only after one has turned his back and descended the stairs. “If only I had said ...” It’s an experience with which I’m intimately familiar.

Yet every so often, I rise to the occasion. One such instance still affords a small measure of satisfaction. A visitor from England took it upon himself to scold me for driving a German automobile. He declared he could never own one, not after the destruction wrought by the Luftwaffe on England during the war. The implication was unmistakable: my vehicular choice constituted a moral failing. He drove, he proudly informed me, a Toyota Camry. For once, I replied in real time, “Ah, well, I could never own a Japanese car, not after what the Japanese Army did to our Canadian boys in Hong Kong.” 

We changed the subject.

That brief exchange came to mind as I watched the recent paroxysms of hostility directed at Tesla. 

Dealerships have been torched, vehicles vandalized, and owners accosted in parking lots by sanctimonious citizens, sneering moral condemnation.

It is not necessary to be a shareholder, Tesla owner, or admirer of Elon Musk to find this troubling. The issue transcends personalities or partisanship.

It is a symptom of a civic pathology, one where ideological grievance takes precedence over shared achievement, and where economic success is no longer a cause for celebration but a litmus test of political allegiance.

If Mr. Musk espouses views one finds disagreeable, there are democratic mechanisms to contest them. 

But to vilify an entire enterprise—its workers, consumers, products—based on its founder’s political eccentricities is intellectual laziness masquerading as moral conviction.

It also prompts a deeper question, leading us to the heart of the matter: which corporations, if any, are so morally unblemished that we can consume their products without public disapproval? In an age increasingly saturated with virtue signalling and performative ethics, should we now consider our consumer choices as moral declarations?

If so, the standard quickly becomes untenable.

Consider Henry Ford, whose contributions to American industry were matched only by the virulence of his anti-Semitism. 

Ford financed the dissemination of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notorious forgery, and his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, published material that later delighted Nazi propagandists. By the logic of ideological purity, must we now abandon our Fords and dismantle every endowment bearing his name?

Or ponder Apple. Lauded for its sleek design and innovation, the company has also drawn fire for its reliance on overseas manufacturing, particularly through Foxconn, where reports of dire labour conditions have prompted global concern. 

Are we then to discard our iPhones, torch our MacBooks, and boycott the Apple Store as gestures of resistance?

Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Nike, and Amazon have all faced their respective reckonings—environmental degradation, exploitative labour, tax evasion, and anti-competitive conduct. 

Even the so-called “green industries,” ostensibly paragons of sustainability, are entangled in troubling realities: the mining of cobalt and lithium (often involving child labour), the environmental toll of solar and wind technologies, and the geopolitical implications of rare earth extraction.

And what of legacy media organizations, whose selective coverage, ideological slant, and occasional falsehoods have sown confusion and deepened division? If we are to demand moral rectitude from our manufacturers, should we not hold our journalists and media organizations to the same standard?

The list is endless. In a fallen world, condemning every corporation and institution for its moral shortcomings takes little imagination. Yet, this is precisely the point: the moral outrage directed at Tesla is not principled but opportunistic. It is less about ethics and more about tribalism.

This is not to say that ethics should not play a role in commerce. Instead, it is to warn against the politicization of consumption, whereby our purchases become emblems of ideological identity. A society that demands moral perfection from its corporations but does so selectively, based not on a coherent principle but on partisan affinity, is not morally serious. It is merely moral theatre. The recent wave of anti-Tesla fervour has less to do with conscience than spectacle.

But moral seriousness requires more than slogans. It demands consistency, humility, and, most critically, an acknowledgment of our shared imperfection. Without these, protests that take us to task for our consumer habits are not acts of ethical resistance, but empty gestures—tribal totems in the theatre of cultural war.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

President Donald Trump is urging Republican lawmakers to raise taxes on some of the wealthiest Americans as part of his sweeping new economic package - a move that US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says he's 'in favor' of doing.

According to individuals familiar with the discussions, Trump is pushing for the creation of a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million annually or couples making $5 million. The current top rate stands at 37 percent. If enacted, the measure would restore the top marginal rate to its pre-2017 level, effectively rolling back a key piece of President Trump’s own first-term tax cuts.

According to Bloomberg, Trump made his case in a phone call Wednesday with House Speaker Mike Johnson, where he also reiterated support for ending the carried interest tax break - a longstanding benefit claimed by private equity and venture capital managers, one source said.

Representative Jason Smith, the Missouri Republican who chairs the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to meet with President Trump on Friday. A congressional aide said Smith plans to assure the president that the forthcoming tax bill 'will deliver on the president’s priorities,' according to the aide.

While the proposal’s full contours remain under negotiation, it is not yet clear whether it would include an expansion of the existing small business income exemption under the individual tax code.

The push to raise the top rate comes as House Republicans face mounting fiscal pressure in drafting what President Trump has labeled the “one big beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion-dollar package aimed at extending the 2017 tax cuts while enacting a range of new promises, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

To finance the plan, GOP leaders have struggled to find consensus on cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, prompting President Trump to float alternatives. Despite concerns that taxing high earners could harm Republicans politically or drive wealth abroad, President Trump has increasingly suggested such a move might be necessary.

Raising taxes goes against long-standing Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s willingness to propose a tax hike for millionaires demonstrates how much he has remade the GOP in his own populist image. Top Republicans have balked at other proposals that would raise levies on affluent households. -Bloomberg

“Anytime the president asks for something, we will consider it,” said Representative Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a member of the House tax-writing committee. He confirmed that both the new top rate and carried interest repeal are “under discussion” but emphasized that “there is no agreement yet.”

In the Senate, the reaction has been more measured. Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that he’s “not excited” about the tax hike but acknowledged that “there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are.”

“If the president weighs in in favor of it,” Crapo added, “then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration.”

As Republicans weigh how to advance President Trump’s second-term tax ambitions, the question of who pays — and how much — is shaping up to be a defining test of the president’s enduring sway over the party’s economic direction.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Vice President JD Vance said on Wednesday that negotiations between the US and Iran are "on the right pathway," although he repeated a false claim that no other country in the world besides Iran has a nuclear enrichment program without a nuclear weapons program, a talking point first used by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Several non-nuclear armed states that are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty enrich uranium at low levels, including Japan, Germany, and Brazil. "Let me ask this basic question. Which regime in the world has civil nuclear power and enrichment without having a nuclear weapon? And the answer is: no one," the vice president said at the Munich Leader Conference in Washington.

Vance at the Munich Leaders Conference in Washington. White House video screenshot.

Vance said that Iran could maintain a civil nuclear program, but his comments about enrichment suggest he’s saying all uranium enrichment must be eliminated, a condition Tehran has strongly rejected.

"We don’t care if people want nuclear power. We’re fine with that, but you can’t have the kind of enrichment program that allows you to get to a nuclear weapon, and that’s where we draw the line," Vance added.

The 2015 Iran deal, known as the JCPOA, limited Iran’s uranium enrichment at 3.67%, far below the 90% needed for weapons grade, and made its nuclear program subject to the most stringent inspections in the world. Vance criticized the deal, claiming it left open a path to Iranian nuclear weapons.

"We believe that there were some elements of their nuclear program that were preserved under JCPOA that, yes, they weren’t nuclear weapons — Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon — but [it] allowed Iran to sort of stay on this glide path towards a nuclear weapon if they flip the switch and press go," Vance said.

Vance’s comments come after President Trump said Iran’s nuclear program must be totally dismantled, although he said he was "open" to hearing about the possibility of a civil program.

So far, the US and Iran have held three rounds of negotiations. Talks that were supposed to be held this past weekend were postponed, but Iranian media has reported that another round of negotiations will be held this Saturday in Oman.

In his comments on Wednesday, Vance also referred to President Trump’s threat that if a deal isn’t reached, the US will attack Iran. He said there was a possibility of a deal that would "reintegrate Iran into the global economy," which he called "Option A." He added that "Option B" would be "very bad."

Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran if a deal isn’t reached, even though his intelligence agencies recently reaffirmed that there’s no evidence Tehran is building a bomb or that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reversed his ban on the development of nuclear weapons.

Treasury Secretay Scott Bessent slammed Senate Democrats on Thursday for nuking a stablecoin bill that they began stalling on earlier in the week.

"For stablecoins and other digital assets to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership," Bessent posted on X. "The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today by failing to advance the GENIUS Act."

The GENIUS Act of 2025 (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins ), died after a Senate vote of 48-49, short of the 60 votes needed to move the measure further along the road to final passage, would create a framework for payment stablecoins

The bipartisan proposal introduced by Sens. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Tim Scott (R-SC), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), would have allowed stablecoins to be insured by depository institutions, or state-qualified issuers that meet specific regulatory standards - which would include maintaining 100% reserves in US dollars or short-term Treasury securities, publicly disclosing reserve compositions on a monthly basis, submitting to audits if their market cap exceeds $50 billion, and various consumer protection provisions such as prohibiting misleading claims about government backing.

According to Bessent, "This bill represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand dollar dominance and U.S. influence in financial innovation. Without it, stablecoins will be subject to a patchwork of state regulations instead of a streamlined federal framework that is more conducive to growth and competitiveness," adding "The world is watching while American lawmakers twiddle their thumbs."

For stablecoins and other digital assets to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership.

The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today by failing to advance the GENIUS Act.

This bill represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand dollar…

Things Go Sideways

Things went south over the weekend for the bill - after Senate Democrats who previous supported the GENIUS Act withdrew support for the bill after GOP leadership sought to fast-track a vote on the legislation - accusing Republicans of cutting off negotiations early, and claiming that the latest version of the bill lacked strong enough provisions over anti-money laundering, national security, and other issues.

This came after several days of negotiation between the parties with rumors of a deal - however Senate Democrats said on Thursday morning that they had yet to see new bill text with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) signaling a willingness to amend the GOP-backed stablecoin legislation to pass the bill in the coming weeks, after Democratic lawmakers pushed for additional hearings before advancing any legislation.

Democrats also suggested that there were ethical concerns about President Trump's ties to crypto. As Amin Haqshanas reported earlier via CoinTelegraph.com, in a May 5 letter to the Office of Government Ethics, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley said that Trump and his family stand to personally profit from an investment involving UAE state-backed firm MGX, crypto exchange Binance and World Liberty Financial (WLFI).

The senators called for an urgent probe, warning the deal may violate the US Constitution’s Emoluments Clause and federal bribery statutes.

At the center of the controversy is WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin, reportedly chosen for a $2 billion investment MGX plans to make into Binance.

The senators said the transaction amounts to a potential backdoor for foreign influence and self-enrichment, with Trump’s allies allegedly set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars:

Further complicating ethics concerns, Trump hosted a $1.5 million-per-plate dinner on May 5 at his golf club in Sterling, Virginia. The event came just days after hosting a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser for the MAGA super PAC.

According to The Hill, Senate Republicans have expressed frustration with Democrats - arguing that they have worked on the legislation for months and incorporated their feedback, with Thune - who changed his vote from Yea to Nay in a procedural move to preserve the right to bring the measure up again - suggesting that Democrats may be trying to prevent Republicans and President Trump from securing a bipartisan win.

"I just have to say frankly I just don’t get it. I don’t know what more they want," said Thune, adding "Which of course makes you wonder if this is about the bill at all. Or if it’s simply Democrats obstructing because they want to deny Republicans or President Trump a bipartisan win. Now given the fact that Democrats keep moving the goal posts, it’s hard not to suspect that is the case."

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

California is home to some of the widest gaps between mortgage payments and rental costs in the nation, meaning it is increasingly harder to buy a home compared to renting one, according to analysts.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported on April 21 that the gap between monthly costs of buying a bottom-tier home versus renting a bottom-tier home has reached levels not seen since the mid-2000s housing bubble, with the growth attributed to higher home prices and higher mortgage rates.

“Historically, people would rent, save money, and then buy a house. But, if the rents are high and the prices of houses are even higher, then there’s really no hope,” Joel Kotkin, a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University, told The Epoch Times.

“Buying is becoming more and more difficult, unless you have inherited wealth, or if you have money from overseas.”

A study by Bankrate published on April 23 highlighted the growing affordability challenges in the state’s largest metropolitan areas, where coastal cities lead the country in cost disparities between owning and renting.

Bankrate compared average monthly rent to average monthly mortgage payments across the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and revealed that cities in California are at the top of the list when it comes to expensive home ownership, especially when compared to rents.

San Francisco has a buy-rent gap of 190.7 percent, making it home to the largest gap nationwide. The typical monthly mortgage payment in San Francisco was around $8,882, up 4.7 percent year-over-year, while the typical rent is $3,055, down 1.7 percent year-over-year.

San Jose comes in a close second on the list, where homeowners fork over mortgage payments that are 185.6 percent higher than rent. The typical mortgage payment is $9,438, up 10.5 percent year-over-year, with rent coming in around $3,305, down 1.3 percent year-over-year.

Los Angeles and San Diego have seen a similar trend. Mortgage payments in Southern California’s largest metro areas are 88.5 percent and 79.9 percent higher than rent, respectively, landing them sixth and ninth compared to other U.S. metros included in the study.

Bankrate’s study attributes high cost gaps between renting and owning a home to skyrocketing home prices because of low housing supply, as well as high mortgage rates, which average nearly 6.90 percent for a 30-year fixed loan nationwide as of April 24.

“ If you’re in the coastal markets, you have to consider this home as a very long-run solution,” Skylar Olsen, Zillow’s chief housing economist, said in a statement. “In California, people famously leave their homes to their children. There are very long tenures in these really expensive markets for that reason.”

California Housing Costs

California homes are around twice as expensive as the typical American home, reported the California LAO, citing Zillow data. A mid-tier home in California costs around $789,000 in 2025, compared to the U.S. average of $361,000.

According to the California Association of Realtors (CAR), the median California home price in March 2025 was $884,350.

In a July 2024 report from Zillow, for 117 cities across California, a typical starter home costs $1 million or more.

Los Angeles’s median home price is just over $1 million, reports Redfin. Meanwhile, San Francisco and San Jose report higher median home prices, at more than $1.3 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

Mid-tier home monthly payments reached nearly $5,900 a month in March 2024, making for an 82 percent growth in prices since January 2020, reported the California LAO. Bottom-tier home payments reached more than $3,500 per month, representing an 87 percent increase since January 2020.

CAR reports that a mere 17 percent of households could afford a median-priced home in early 2024. California home prices are forecasted by CAR to increase 4.6 percent in 2025.

Homeownership rates have fallen in California, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, where the current home ownership rate is 55.9 percent, compared to the national average of 65.2 percent. Homeownership in the state peaked at 60.2 percent in 2006.

Meanwhile, according to the LAO, the monthly rent for a two-bedroom home in California in 2024 was $2,225 compared to the $1,400 national average.

The California Housing Partnership found in 2024 that renters in Los Angeles need to make $48.04 per hour—2.9 times Los Angeles’s minimum wage—in order to afford the average rent of $2,498.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported that renters comprise a 44 percent share of households in California compared to 35 percent in the rest of the country. Save for two other states, more California renters spend over half of their income on rent than any other state.

Lack of Homeownership

Amid the rising prices, 70 percent of Californians believe children today will fare worse than their parents financially, according to a 2024 PPIC statewide survey.

The survey found 29 percent of Californians skipped meals or ate less food in order to save money within the prior year, while 17 percent used CalFresh (food stamp) benefits. Moreover, 20 percent put medical care on hold as a result of financial constraints.

According to Mark Schniepp, director of The Economic Forecast, the main issue is housing.

“But there’s not much we can do about it outside of building more of it,” Schniepp told The Epoch Times in an email. “However we are unlikely to be able to build enough, given current regulations in place and current zoning.”

“The Coastal Act, CEQA, land costs and many local regulations prevent developing housing,” he added.

Kotkin agreed state policies have contributed to a lack of affordable housing, which makes it difficult to build in places that would otherwise be cheaper.

“What essentially is approved is increasingly high density and expensive in the inner city,” Kotkin said.

The bottom line, he said, is that home ownership is an important part of preparing for retirement. If you own a house, then you can stay there once you retire, because you probably have paid it off.

“The house is an asset,” he said. 

“[Owners] can borrow against it, they can sell, and then they can have a comfortable retirement.”

However, if an increasing number of people are forced to rent, “people will generally look to the state, or some other institution, to take care of them, because they have nothing of their own,” Kotkin said. 

“They’re going to rent for life, which means that when they retire, they’re not going to have any assets. They’re going to be dependent on state transfer payments.”

He sees such dependency as incompatible with democracy.

“Democracy is built on the fact that there’s some degree of independence on the part of a large part of the population,” he said. “If you own a house, you have a certain degree of autonomy that maybe you can think in a different way than if you are dependent on the fact that your landlord may decide to increase the rent 50 percent.”