Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other politicians from the U.S. and Latin America condemned the shooting of Colombian presidential candidate Miguel Uribe on Sunday.

Rubio blamed the assassination attempt on ‘violent leftist rhetoric’ originating from the Colombian government. Uribe, a Colombian senator, is currently fighting for his life after sustaining three gunshot wounds, one of which was to the head.

‘The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the attempted assassination of Senator Miguel Uribe. This is a direct threat to democracy and the result of the violent leftist rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the Colombian government,’ Rubio wrote.

‘Having seen firsthand Colombia’s progress over the past few decades to consolidate security and democracy, it can’t afford to go back to dark days of political violence. President Petro needs to dial back the inflammatory rhetoric and protect Colombian officials,’ he added.

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno also condemned the attack in a statement on social media.

‘The assassination attempt on leading presidential candidate Miguel Uribe is a vile attack on democracy. This evil act must be investigated and anyone responsible, directly or indirectly, must face swift punishment,’ Moreno wrote.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric also reacted to Uribe’s shooting.

‘My strongest condemnation of the attack against Miguel Uribe Turbay, pre-presidential candidate in Colombia. In a democracy, violence has no place or justification,’ Boric wrote.

Authorities say Uribe was shot by a 15-year-old hit man, and they are investigating who was behind the attack.

‘Miguel is fighting for his life at this moment. Let us ask God to guide the hands of the doctors who are attending to him,’ Maria Claudia Tarazona, Miguel’s wife, wrote on her husband’s X account. ‘I ask everyone to join together in a prayer chain for Miguel’s life.’

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, Uribe’s chief opponent in the presidential race, said the attack crossed a ‘red line’ and ordered an investigation. He also canceled a planned trip to France this week, citing the ‘seriousness of the events.’

Colombia’s Ministry of Defense has offered a nearly $750,000 reward for information relating to the assassination attempt.

President Donald Trump warned on Saturday that there would be ‘serious consequences’ for Elon Musk if he were to fund Democratic candidates. The president made the remark during a phone interview with NBC News.

‘If he does, he’ll have to pay the consequences for that,’ Trump told NBC News. However, according to the outlet, Trump did not detail what the consequences would be.

The president also told the outlet that he has no interest in repairing his relationship with the Tesla founder and CEO. When asked if he thought his relationship with Musk was over, Trump reportedly told NBC News, ‘I would assume so, yeah.’ 

Trump also apparently has ‘no intention’ of speaking with Musk — which is what he told Fox News Chief Political Anchor Bret Baier.

Trump and Musk have been engaged in a heated feud that has rapidly escalated in a matter of days. The spat began when Musk criticized the Trump-backed ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ after his time with the administration ended.

‘I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,’ Musk said in a Tuesday post on X. ‘Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.’

Musk later had two explosive posts on X, both of which are now deleted. In one, Musk accused Trump of being in files related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Then, he agreed with a post calling for Trump’s impeachment and suggested that Vice President JD Vance take charge.

In one of his posts criticizing the bill, Musk argued that the bill ‘more than defeats all the cost savings achieved by the DOGE team at great personal cost and risk.’

On Friday, Trump spoke with Baier and told him that ‘Elon’s totally lost it.’ That same day Trump posted on Truth Social that Musk should have turned on him ‘months ago.’

‘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. ‘This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!’

Musk endorsed Trump after the then-candidate was nearly assassinated in Butler, Pa., during a campaign rally. The two seemed to become fast friends, with Musk eventually agreeing to join the Trump administration and lead DOGE.

A House committee witness who was called out by Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California during a hearing this week is pushing back after the congressman unearthed a past social media post on Social Security in an attempt to discredit his testimony. 

During a House oversight DOGE subcommittee hearing on Wednesday, Garcia grilled Power the Future CEO Dan Turner while holding up a posterboard of a past tweet calling Social Security a ‘government-sponsored Ponzi scheme.’

‘Madoff went to jail for it. Congress runs on it,’ the post said. ‘I should be able to keep 100% of my money and not watch government waste it with a paltry percentage return.’

Garcia then suggested that post was evidence that Turner lacks the credibility to be testifying about the billions of federal tax dollars directed to left-wing NGOs. 

A Ponzi scheme and so I think it’s interesting, of course, as one of our Republican witnesses is calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and that’s the person that we should be taking advice from here today,’ Garcia said. 

‘Without Social Security, 22 million people would be pushed into poverty. That includes over 16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children. And in fact, Elon Musk has also said and agreed with you, sir, that this is a Ponzi scheme. I think it’s ironic that you are one of our witnesses talking about efficiency when you want to attack the single best program that we have to support people not just out of poverty, but across this country to uplift them, to ensure they can afford a decent life.’

Fox News Digital spoke to Turner, who stood by his post and outlined his belief, echoed by many, that Social Security is structured like a Ponzi scheme by definition. 

‘Rep Garcia does not know the definition of Ponzi scheme,’ Turner said. ‘Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi, demanding more and more people at the bottom pay in to fund the people at the top, expect our demographics have this now reversed. The system will default. Mr. Garcia nor I will likely never see a dime. That should worry him more than my social media feed.’

Turner told Fox News Digital that if Garcia’s staff were to spend as much time trying to save Social Security as it did ‘combing through my social media’ then ‘perhaps the Ponzi scheme can survive long enough for me to get a small percentage of what the government confiscated during my lifetime.’

Turner explained that his father had received a ‘paltry percentage’ of what he paid into the program and the the government ‘kept the rest’ when his father died. 

‘That’s not just a Ponzi scheme, it’s government greed and politicians running a money-laundering operation to get reelected. No one should be compelled to pay into a failed system, yet in a free America, you don’t have that choice.’

In addition to Turner and Elon Musk suggesting that Social Security is by definition set up like a Ponzi scheme, Fox News Digital previously spoke to James Agresti, president of the nonprofit research institute Just Facts, who said the characterization has ‘validity.’

‘A Ponzi scheme operates by taking money from new investors to pay current investors,’ Agresti said. ‘That’s the definition given by the SEC, and contrary to popular belief, that’s exactly how Social Security operates.’

Agresti explained to Fox News Digital that Social Security, a program mired for decades with concerns about waste, fraud, and improper payments, ‘doesn’t take our money and save it for us, as many people believe, and then give it to us when we’re older’ like many Americans might believe. 

‘What it does is, it transfers money when we are young and working and paying into Social Security taxes,’ Agresti said. ‘That money, the vast bulk of it, goes immediately out the door to people who are currently receiving benefits. Now, there is a trust fund, but in 90 years of operation, that trust fund currently has enough money to fund two years of program operations.’

The trust fund only being able to last for two years is not a result of the fund being ‘looted,’ Agresti explained, but rather it was put in place to ‘put surpluses in it’ from money that Social Security collects in taxes that it doesn’t pay out immediately and pays interest on. 

‘The interest that’s been paid on that has been higher than the rate of inflation,’ Agresti said. ‘So, the problem isn’t that the trust fund has been looted. The problem is that Social Security operates like a Ponzi scheme.’

Democrats have vocally pushed back against efforts by Republicans and DOGE to reform Social Security or make cuts to what they say are examples of wasteful or improper spending from the department.

‘There’s been a lot of misinformation about that as of late,’ Agresti told Fox News Digital. ‘You know, when DOGE came in and suggested that the Social Security Administration cut, I think it was about 10,000 workers, Democrats erupted that this is going to weaken Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security pays those workers who are for administrative overhead from the Social Security trust fund. So, by cutting out the money that they’re paying them, you actually strengthen the program financially.’

Agresti told Fox News Digital that the current administrative overhead for Social Security is $6.7 billion per year, which is enough to pay more than 300,000 retirees the average old-age benefit.

‘Every single study shows social security going completely bankrupt in the next few years. Garcia and other democrats know the iceberg is ahead but rather than turn the ship, they are yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard,’ Turner said. ‘This Ponzi scheme is collapsing fast, and turning my tweets into posters is not going to stop it.’

From bringing the heat to retreating on the beef.

Elon Musk appears to be backtracking on some of the wild accusations he made during his ugly spat with President Donald Trump earlier this week.

Musk sensationally posted on Thursday that the president’s name appears in unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files — and said that’s why the files haven’t been made public.

‘@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files,’ Musk wrote on X. ‘That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!’

Musk followed the post with another, saying, ‘Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.’

But eagle-eyed online sleuths noticed that Musk had quietly deleted the posts.

The former ‘First Buddy’ dropped the allegation in response to a back-and-forth series of social media messages between him and Trump. But as of today, the post has been removed from the Tesla CEO’s timeline. 

The post wasn’t the only one he deleted: Musk also appears to have taken down a post endorsing a message that read, ‘Trump should be impeached’ and that Vance ‘should replace him.’

Musk shared the post and wrote ‘yes,’ but his comment is no longer visible. 

The beef between Musk and Trump exploded onto the national scene this week with the SpaceX CEO publicly blasting Trump’s major legislation, the Big Beautiful bill, for increasing the deficit by around $2.5 trillion.  

The feud came despite a months-long ‘bromance’ between the pair, with Musk donating around $277 million to Trump’s campaign and enthusiastically supporting his return to office. Trump’s return to office also saw Musk oversee the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for months. 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in the aftermath of Musk’s post that it was an ‘unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.’

The White House said a source familiar with the Epstein matter said it is widely known that Trump kicked Epstein out of his Palm Beach Golf Club.

The source also pointed out that the administration released the Epstein files, which included Trump’s name, and nothing was new about Musk’s revelation.

‘If Elon truly thought the President was more deeply involved with Epstein, why did he hang out with him for 6 months and say he ‘loves him as much as a straight man can love a straight man?” the source said.

Musk’s bombshell allegation against Trump comes months after a trove of files pertaining to the Epstein case were released.

In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel explaining the delay in the release of documents and placing blame on an FBI field office in New York.

Bondi said she requested the full Epstein case file before Patel was confirmed as the head of the FBI and received about 200 pages — far fewer than the number of pages released last year in a civil lawsuit connected to Ghisalaine Maxwell, the trafficker’s former lover and convicted accomplice.

Although Bondi pushed for the release of the full dossier, which included records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Epstein and his clients, the request remains unfulfilled.

One of the key pieces that remains unreleased is a client list, though Bondi claimed in February it was on her desk to be reviewed.

The documents that have been released so far include flight logs, an evidence list, a contact book and a redacted ‘masseuse list’ believed to refer to Epstein’s victims.

Many people named in the documents have never been accused of Epstein-related wrongdoing. However, some have, like Maxwell; Prince Andrew, who has denied allegations of wrongdoing; and Jean-Luc Brunel, a French modeling agent who, like Epstein, died in a jail awaiting trial.

Epstein, Maxwell and unnamed co-conspirators allegedly abused young women and underage girls between 1996 and his death in 2019, according to the lawsuit. Citing police documents, it alleges that Epstein recruited girls between 14 and 16 as well as students at Palm Beach Community College for ‘sex-tinged sessions.’

Maxwell is appealing her conviction while serving a sentence at a federal prison in Tallahassee. She is due for release in the summer of 2037.

Fox News Digital’s Andrew Mark Miller and Mike Ruiz contributed to this report.

Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on the Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense.

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote on X that ‘I can’t believe I’m saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right.’ However, that seems to be the last point on which the two agree. They both object to the Big Beautiful Bill, viewing it as full of pork. Musk opposes the bill because he believes it raises government spending too much, while Schiff objects to what he calls its ‘far-right’ content, which he describes as ‘dangerous.’

Musk fired off a response rejecting Schiff’s alleged praise of the tech billionaire’s position on the bill.

‘Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!’

On May 30, Musk’s time with the administration came to an end, and he seemed to leave things on good terms. President Donald Trump thanked Musk for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and gave him a symbolic ‘key to the White House’ as a parting gift. 

Following his departure from the White House, Musk said he was looking forward ‘to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president.’ However, things took a sharp turn as a feud between Trump and Musk quickly heated up after the Tesla founder began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill. 

After the legislation passed the House, Musk said that the ‘massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. ‘Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.’

Musk’s criticisms received mixed reactions from Republicans, with some — such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — agreeing with him. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was ‘surprised’ by Musk’s reaction and claimed the two of them had a good discussion about the bill.

Trump and Musk then began slugging it out on their respective social media platforms — X and Truth Social — as well as TV. The president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was ‘very disappointed’ with Musk and claimed that the former DOGE head knew what was in the bill, something that Musk denied. 

The heated exchange led to two explosive tweets, both of which were later deleted. In one post, Musk claimed Trump was mentioned in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex offender and disgraced financier. In his other post, Musk endorsed a message that called for Trump’s impeachment and said that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over.

While it’s unclear whether Trump and Musk will reconcile, for now it seems unlikely. Trump told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was not interested in talking to Musk and that ‘Elon’s totally lost it.’

Some of the White House’s conservative House allies say they’re interpreting the upcoming vote on President Donald Trump’s $9.4 billion spending cut proposal as a ‘test’ of what Congress can achieve in terms of rolling back federal funding.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he would not speak for members of the Trump administration but added, ‘I do think it is a test.’

‘And I think this is going to demonstrate whether Congress has the fortitude to do what they always say they’ll do,’ Roy said. ‘Cut the minimal amount of spending – $9 billion, NPR, PBS, things you complain about for a long time, or are they going to go back into their parochial politics?’

House GOP leaders unveiled legislation seeking to codify Trump’s spending cut request, known as a rescissions package, on Friday. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote sometime next week.

‘The rescissions request sent to Congress by the Trump Administration takes the federal government in a new direction where we actually cut waste, fraud, and abuse and hold agencies accountable to the American people,’ House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said in a statement introducing the bill.

The legislation would claw back funding that Congress already appropriated to PBS, NPR, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – cuts outlined by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) earlier this year.

And while several Republican leaders and officials have already said they expect to see more rescissions requests down the line, some people who spoke with Fox News Digital believe the White House is watching how Congress handles this first package before deciding on next steps.

‘You’re dead right,’ Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital when asked if the rescissions package was a test. ‘I think that it’s a test case – if we can’t get that…then we’re not serious about cutting the budget.’

A rescissions package only needs simple majorities in the House and Senate to pass. But Republicans in both chambers have perilously slim majorities that afford them few defections.

Republicans are also racing the clock – a rescissions package has 45 days to be considered otherwise it is considered rejected and the funding reinstated.

Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, did not directly say whether he viewed the spending cuts as a test but dismissed any potential concerns.

‘This is very low-hanging fruit, and I don’t anticipate any problems,’ Gooden told Fox News Digital.

‘I’ve heard a few comments in the media, but I don’t think they’re serious comments. If someone on the Republican side can make a case for PBS, but they won’t take a tough vote against illegal immigration, then we’ve got a lot of problems.’

Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), told Fox News Digital last week, ‘This first rescissions package from President Trump is a test as to whether Congress has the ability to deliver on his mandate by canceling wasteful spending through a filibuster-proof process.’

‘If they can’t then it’s a signal for the president to turn up the dial with other tools at his disposal,’ Winfree, who served as Director of Budget Policy in the first Trump administration, said.

Both Roy and Norman suggested a process known as ‘pocket rescissions’ could be at least one backup plan – and one that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has floated himself.

‘Pocket rescissions’ essentially would mean the White House introduces its spending cut proposal less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. In theory, it would run out the clock on those funds and allow them to expire whether Congress acted or not.

Vought told reporters after meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday that he wanted to ‘see if it passes’ but was ‘open’ to further rescissions packages.

‘We want to send up general rescissions bills, to use the process if it’s appropriate, to get them through the House and the Senate,’ Vought said. ‘We also have pocket rescissions, which you’ve begun to hear me talk a lot about, to be able to use the end of the fiscal year to send up a similar rescissions, and have the funds expire. So there’s a lot of things that we’re looking at.’

Still, some moderate Republicans may chafe at the conservative spending cuts.

READ THE BILL BELOW: APP USERS CLICK HERE

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., refused to comment on whether he’d support the legislation before seeing the details but alluded to some concerns.

‘Certainly I’m giving you a non-answer right now until I read the details,’ Bacon said.

‘It does bother me because I have a great rapport with Nebraska Public Radio and TV. I think they’ve been great to work with, and so that would be one I hope they don’t put in.’

He also raised concerns about some specific USAID programs, including critical investments to fight Ebola and HIV in Africa.

The legislation is expected to come before the House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most legislation sees a House-wide vote, on Tuesday afternoon.

It’s separate from Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill,’ a broad piece of legislation advancing the president’s tax, energy, and immigration agenda through the budget reconciliation process.

President Donald Trump and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk engaged in a public feud Thursday, less than a week after the White House held a farewell press conference for Musk highlighting his contributions spearheading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk departed his tenure as a special government employee with DOGE May 30, but swiftly launched into criticisms of Trump’s massive tax and spending package dubbed the ‘big, beautiful, bill.’ Tuesday, Musk labeled the measure a ‘disgusting abomination’ because of reports it ramps up the federal deficit.

On Thursday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that Musk opposed the bill because it eliminates an electric vehicle tax credit that benefits companies like Tesla. But Trump said that provision has always been part of the measure. 

‘I’m very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people,’ Trump said in the Oval Office in a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. ‘He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair.’

Musk immediately responded on X to Trump’s statements, urging a removal of the ‘disgusting pork’ included in the measure. He also said it was ‘false’ that he had been shown the measure ‘even once.’

The two continued to publicly spar against one another, with Musk asserting that Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election if it weren’t for his own backing. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going ‘CRAZY’ over cuts to the EV credits, and said that Musk had been ‘wearing thin.’ 

Additionally, Trump told Fox News on Friday that ‘Elon’s totally lost it’ and was not interested in speaking over the phone with Musk, despite media reports suggesting that the two would talk. 

Here’s what also happened this week: 

Visit with the chancellor of Germany

Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz met with Trump at the White House Thursday, where the two discussed the war in Ukraine. 

While Merz asserted that the U.S. was in a powerful spot to bring a meaningful end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Trump offered that the world might need to ‘let them fight for a little while.’

‘America is again in a very strong position to do something on this war and ending this war,’ Merz said. 

Merz said that Germany was willing to help however it could, and wanted to discuss options to partner with the U.S. to bring peace. Likewise, Merz suggested that European allies exert additional pressure on Russia to end the conflict. 

But Trump said that he told Putin in a recent call that perhaps both countries would need to feel the consequences of fighting more acutely, claiming he had told Putin ‘maybe you’re going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot.’

‘Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy – they hate each other, and they’re fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart, they don’t want to be pulled,’ Trump said.  ‘Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.’

Call with Xi

Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday to discuss trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing. 

‘I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal,’ Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. ‘The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries.’

Trump said the conversation had focused ‘almost entirely’ on trade, and that Xi had invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Likewise, Trump reciprocated and invited Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, to visit the U.S. 

The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China on May 30 for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China had hashed out in May. And on Wednesday, Trump said Xi was ‘extremely hard to make a deal with’ in a Truth Social post. 

The negotiations from May prompted both countries to agree that the U.S. would lower its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would reduce its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%.

Fox News’ Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.