Elon Musk is making the maximum allowable donation to GOP members of Congress who back impeaching activist judges

Apple, AAPL, iPhone could triple in price to $3,500 if they’re made in the US

Former U.S. Rep. George Santos sentenced to 7 years in prison for fraud

One-third of younger millennials received down payment help in the form of a gift or a loan from a friend or relative

China is considering suspending its 125% tariff on some US imports including medical equipment, ethane and plane leasing

Elon Musk has reportedly made donations to seven Republican members of Congress, all of whom support efforts to impeach or sideline federal judges who have blocked aspects of former President Donald Trump’s agenda.According to The New York Times, Musk contributed thousands of dollars to Representatives Eli Crane of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Brandon Gill of Texas, and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa.These lawmakers have been among the most vocal in Congress calling for impeachment or other measures to curb judicial authority.Rep. Gill has introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who had ordered the Trump administration to halt certain deportation flights to El Salvador in response to a legal challenge over the White House’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations. The administration ignored the ruling.Meanwhile, Rep. Crane has pushed to impeach a federal judge who temporarily blocked Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency program from accessing Treasury Department records.“We didn’t take action just to get a campaign donation from Elon Musk,” Crane told the Times. “But I think it’s great that individuals like Elon are supporting those of us willing to take a stand.”Musk Accuses Judges of a ‘Judicial Coup’Musk has been vocal in his criticism of federal judges who have ruled against Trump’s policies, claiming they are orchestrating a "judicial coup."He recently shared a post from conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who described federal judges as “gavel-wielding dictators.” Kirk called for their impeachment, saying Congress should act to “restore rule of the people.”The Trump administration and its allies have ramped up attacks on the judiciary, arguing that unelected judges should not have the power to challenge presidential authority—a stance that critics say undermines the foundational principle of separation of powers.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt accused those challenging administration actions of attempting to “judge shop—picking judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president's agenda.”Trump himself lashed out at Judge Boasberg in a post on Truth Social, writing:“If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers and other criminals out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!”Leavitt referred to Boasberg as a “Democrat activist” appointed by former President Barack Obama, though she was corrected at a press conference, where it was noted that he was initially appointed by George W. Bush before later being elevated by Obama.Legal Experts Warn of a Constitutional CrisisLegal analysts warn that the Trump administration’s defiance of federal court rulings could trigger a broader constitutional crisis.Former Trump administration official Ty Cobb told The Independent last month that the White House appears poised to disregard judicial orders in most cases—except when they come from the Supreme Court."Unless and until the Supreme Court intervenes, because that’s the only court he seems to listen to,” Cobb said.This week, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement following the Trump administration’s attempts to remove Judge Boasberg from the deportation case.“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts wrote. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”