Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said she had zero concerns about former President Joe Biden’s mental acuity while he was in the White House.

Crockett was the only other lawmaker besides House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., in the closed-door interview with former White House physician Kevin O’Connor on Wednesday morning.

She told reporters afterward that Biden’s stutter was the reason for his frequent verbal gaffes and raised her own accusations about President Donald Trump’s mental faculties. 

‘No, I had none,’ Crockett told reporters when asked whether she had any concerns about Biden’s mental fitness while he was in office.

She conceded she did not see Biden ‘every single day,’ but added, ‘I did have an opportunity to interact with the president. I never had a concern.’

‘Now, Joe Biden is, what, 80-some years old? I mean, the 80-some-year-old version of Joe Biden versus the 20-something year-old version of Joe Biden is a little different. And I’d imagine that I would be the same,’ Crockett said. 

‘But as it relates to his ability to understand where he is and what he’s doing – he may get fumbled by words, but that’s not anything new, and it’s not anything that came with age. We know that this is someone that was born with a stutter that ultimately had to get over it.’

Crockett said, ‘Some of the tools that he had been trained to use to get over that stutter’ may have dulled with age but said his mind was still sharp on the issues, before she pivoted to Trump.

‘So yeah, he would maybe clobber over some words or something like that. But if you talk to him about foreign policy – one of the most vivid memories that I have was after that debate that did not go well, we saw him have this complete command of foreign policy, something that this president doesn’t. And this president seemingly doesn’t even know who our allies are,’ she argued.

‘He seemingly is cozying up with our enemies. And ultimately, these are things that should concern the American people, because these are things that are dangerous.’

Crockett surprised reporters when she appeared on Capitol Hill for O’Connor’s deposition on Tuesday morning.

She said nothing to the press on her way in. After the interview, however, she accused House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., of mischaracterizing O’Connor’s decision to plead the Fifth Amendment.

‘This is why it was important to make sure that a Democrat was in the room, because, unfortunately, sometimes people like to cherry-pick and make sure that they can give whatever fits their narrative,’ Crockett said.

Comer, for his part, criticized the doctor’s decision.

His committee is investigating allegations of a cover-up of the former president’s declining mental health by his then-top aides.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

Former White House physician Kevin O’Connor’s closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee ended after less than an hour on Wednesday morning, with the doctor giving investigators virtually no new insights.

O’Connor pleaded the Fifth Amendment to multiple questions about his time with former President Joe Biden during his sit-down. It resulted in a hasty end to what could have been an hours-long deposition.

‘I’m going to read the first two questions that were asked. ‘Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?’ He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He would not answer that question. The second question, ‘Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters after the meeting.

‘Again, President Biden’s White House physician pled the fifth. This is unprecedented, and I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.’

The doctor’s lawyers said O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds was not an admission of guilt, but rather a response to what they saw as an unprecedented investigatory scope that could have violated the bounds of patient-physician privilege.

‘This Committee has indicated to Dr. O’Connor and his attorneys that it does not intend to honor one of the most well-known privileges in our law – the physician patient privilege. Instead, the Committee has indicated that it will demand that Dr. O’Connor reveal, without any limitations, confidential information regarding his medical examinations, treatment, and care of President Biden,’ the attorney statement said.

‘Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty of a physician, could result in revocation of Dr. O’Connor’s medical license, and would subject Dr. O’Connor to potential civil liability. Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden.’

The House Oversight Committee has been investigating whether Biden’s former top aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline while in office. Biden’s allies have denied such allegations.

But Comer suggested to reporters that O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment could have been evidence to the contrary.

‘Most people invoke the fifth when they have criminal liability. And so that’s what would appear on the surface here,’ he said. ‘We’re going to continue to move forward. Obviously, I think his actions today speak loud and clear.’

But O’Connor’s lawyers wrote in their statement, ‘We want to emphasize that asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege does not imply that Dr. O’Connor has committed any crime. In fact, to the contrary, as our Supreme Court has emphasized: ‘One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect
innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who made a surprise appearance at the interview and was the only lawmaker there, save for Comer, defended O’Connor’s use of the Fifth Amendment.

‘As someone who has served as a criminal defense attorney and actually been in courtrooms, it’s kind of astounding to hear someone say, if you invoke the Fifth Amendment, that is only because you are guilty,’ Crockett said. 

She pointed out that the Trump administration had launched a contemporaneous criminal probe.

‘We have a constitutional right that anyone who may be under fire can invoke. And unfortunately, with this rogue DOJ, it has decided that it wants to run a contemporaneous investigation, criminal investigation, involving the doctor – I think he did what any good lawyer would advise him to do,’ Crockett said.

O’Connor’s lawyers have asked the committee to pause its investigation while the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe is underway.

He and his legal team appeared to catch reporters by surprise with their hasty exit on Wednesday morning, roughly thirty minutes after entering.

One of O’Connor’s lawyers said they would be making ‘no comments to press’ in response to a shouted question by Fox News Digital.

Comer, for his part, insisted the investigation would go on.

‘This is something I think every American is concerned about. I think that the American people want to know the truth. We’re going to continue this investigation. We’ll move forward,’ Comer said. ‘We have several other witnesses that are going to come in for depositions and transcribed interviews. We will do everything in our ability to be transparent with the media and be transparent with the American people.’

The committee previously interviewed former Biden staff secretary Neera Tanden. Comer has summoned several other ex-White House aides to appear.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a Supreme Court order handed down on Tuesday stood out enough that it prompted one of her liberal colleagues to voice disagreement with her.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in a brief concurrence that the high court’s 8-1 order clearing the way for President Donald Trump to continue downsizing the government was the right decision.

‘I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.’

Sotomayor’s remarks were included as part of a short two-page order from the Supreme Court saying the executive order Trump signed in February directing federal agencies to plan for ‘large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), consistent with applicable law’ was likely lawful.

The Supreme Court said it had no opinion at this stage on the legality of any actual job cuts and that that question was not before the high court.

But Jackson felt differently, according to her 15-page dissent affixed to the order.

Jackson, the most junior justice and an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said a lower court judge was right to pause any further reductions to the federal workforce. Jackson lectured her colleagues for thinking otherwise.

‘That temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,’ Jackson said.

Any future government downsizing would come on top of thousands of government employees already losing their jobs or opting to accept buy-out plans as part of Trump’s stated goals to scale down the federal government and make it run more efficiently.

The Supreme Court’s order arose from a lawsuit brought by labor organizations and nonprofits, who alleged that the president’s decision to dramatically slash the federal workforce infringed on Congress’s authority over approving and funding government jobs.

The order was issued on an emergency basis and is only temporary. It will remain in place while the Trump administration appeals the lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A new book on the end of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign and the birth of Kamala Harris’ sheds light on the process behind the vice president choosing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, a decision widely panned by pundits in retrospect. 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ released Tuesday by journalists Josh Dawsey of The Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of The New York Times and Isaac Arnsdor of The Washington Post, described a vetting process that came down to three finalists: Walz, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly.

All three candidates did a final interview with Harris at her residence, the book explains, adding that when asked what they wanted to drink, Shapiro and Kelly chose water while Walz chose Diet Mountain Dew.

Appeal with rural voters was a top priority for the Harris ticket and the book states that Harris’s advisors felt that Walz was the best candidate to do that. 

‘Pelosi privately pushed for him too, because she’d worked with him in Congress,’ the book said about the former House speaker. ‘The pitch for Walz was straightforward: He could appeal to white voters across the Blue Wall states (Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) and hopefully help Harris with male voters. He’d never lost election.’

While most political experts felt Shapiro, governor of a key swing state, was the most logical choice, the book states that the interview with Harris and Shapiro ‘revealed the two were not a perfect match.’

‘He came across as overly ambitious, pushing Harris to define what his role would be. He also conceded it would not be natural for him to serve as someone’s number two, leaving Harris with a bad impression,’ the book states. 

Conversely, the authors explain that Walz was ‘deferential’ while ‘showing no interest in himself’ and ‘flatly denied any interest in running for president.’

‘He went so far as to proactively volunteer reasons why she might not want to pick him,’ the book says. ‘In his interview that Friday, he said he had never used a teleprompter before. On Sunday, he told Harris, ‘I would understand if you went with someone else because I’m really nervous about the debate, and I don’t think I’ll do well.’ Still, the vetting team did not fully appreciate his tendency to misspeak, his folksiness sometimes tipping into factual imprecision.’

Walz would ultimately draw intense scrutiny on the campaign trail for his ‘folksiness’ with a series of blunders, including his characterization of his military service and a claim he was present at the Tiananmen Square massacre. 

The book says Harris ‘struggled’ deciding between Shapiro and Walz, believing that she had a better ‘rapport’ with Walz but understood the importance of Pennsylvania. Harris’ team, according to the book, told her that polling did not offer a clear answer as to which of the two candidates would help the ticket more.

‘There was no empirical evidence that Shapiro would deliver Pennsylvania and with it the White House,’ the book said. 

As Shapiro was being considered, many pundits speculated that his staunch support of Israel could be an issue given the progressive wing of the Democratic Party being vocally pro-Palestinian, resulting in protests, sometimes violent, across the country after Oct. 7.

The book said the Harris campaign was aware of that issue. 

‘Much of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party declared war on Shapiro, largely because of his support of Israel,’ the book said. ‘Some Shapiro allies saw the criticism as deeply unfair and borderline antisemitic, since the governor was an observant Jew, but his positions on the Palestinian conflict broadly aligned with the Biden administration and the other vice presidential contenders. The lawyers vetting Shapiro did flag some comments they viewed as more incendiary, particularly as it related to pro- Palestinian protests on college campuses after the October 7 attacks.’

‘One that caught their attention was his commentary on CNN from April: ‘We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities.’’

Ultimately, the book says Harris ‘went with her gut’ and chose Walz believing he was the ‘better fit’ in a decision her staff was ‘unanimously behind.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Walz and Shapiro for comment. 

After losing every battleground state and ultimately the presidency to Donald Trump, critics were quick to judge the Walz pick as a misstep by Harris. 

‘The choice of Walz was only one of many disastrous mistakes but symptomatic of one larger problem – the Democratic Party leadership is too scared to say no to the hard-left progressive wing of the party,’ Julian Epstein, longtime Democratic operative and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital shortly after the election. 

Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal, told Fox News Digital in November that Harris picking Walz ‘proved to be a disastrous decision that doomed Kamala Harris from the moment she made it.’

‘Not only was Walz ill-prepared for the national spotlight and media scrutiny, but Harris passed over several better options,’ Bluey said. ‘Given how little Americans knew about Harris or her policy positions, they were right to question her judgment on this big decision.’

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he is tapping Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to serve as interim administrator of NASA, a move the president said reflects the growing importance of space in national priorities.

‘I am pleased to announce that I am directing our GREAT Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, to be Interim Administrator of NASA,’ Trump posted to Truth Social. 

‘He will be a fantastic leader of the ever more important Space Agency, even if only for a short period of time.’

The president praised Duffy’s performance at the Department of Transportation, calling his tenure ‘TREMENDOUS,’ and sharing his work on air traffic control modernization and infrastructure revival. ‘Rebuilding our roads and bridges, making them efficient, and beautiful, again,’ Trump wrote.

Duffy, a former congressman from Wisconsin and longtime Trump ally, accepted the role enthusiastically. ‘ Honored to accept this mission. Time to take over space. Let’s launch.’ he wrote on X.

Duffy replaces Janet Petro, who has served as acting NASA administrator since January. Trump withdrew Jared Isaacman’s nomination for the role in May.

Isaacman, a billionaire private astronaut and longtime associate of Elon Musk, was nominated by Trump in December 2024 but faced mounting scrutiny over ties to Musk and SpaceX, which some officials viewed as a conflict of interest.

According to The Associated Press, Trump said the decision to pull Isaacman’s name came after a ‘thorough review of prior associations’ and growing concern over ‘corporate entanglements.’

NASA has increasingly factored into the Trump administration’s national defense, innovation, and economic agenda. Trump has long emphasized the strategic importance of space, launching the Space Force during his first term.

The Biden-era kid gloves are off.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the United States is imposing sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the controversial United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Palestinian rights.

‘Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated,’ Rubio posted on X. ‘We will always stand by our partners in their right to self-defense.’

Albanese has pushed to haul U.S. and Israeli officials before the International Criminal Court (ICC), drawing outrage from lawmakers, diplomats, and human rights advocates alike.

In multiple reports and public comments since her 2022 appointment, Albanese has accused Israel of apartheid and dismissed Hamas violence as ‘not surprising.’ According to her July 2025 report to the UN Human Rights Council, Albanese claimed the U.S. may be ‘liable for the international crime of aggression’ for President Trump’s strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.

Albanese has also taken aim at American-based companies supplying defense technologies to Israel, suggesting they should face legal consequences for ‘aiding and abetting’ alleged crimes. In a now‑deleted 2022 post, she questioned whether ‘the Jewish lobby’ controlled U.S. foreign policy, a comment she later retracted amid criticisms that it espoused antisemitism.

‘The State Department is to be congratulated for finally taking action against Albanese, her virulent and violent antisemitism and her constant attacks on the United States, American businesses and the very existence of the State of Israel,’ said Anne Bayefsky, President of Human Rights Voices, in an exclusive statement to Fox News Digital. 

‘Albanese poses a direct threat to the well-being and security of U.S. citizens – not to mention her utter disregard for the theoretical purposes and principles of the United Nations – and as such, the United States is not obligated to admit her. President Trump’s Executive Order requiring action on international actors bent on throwing American and Israeli soldiers into International Criminal Court dungeons in the Hague needs even more enforcement,’ Bayefsky added.

‘Add Navi Pillay and her diabolical UN Commission of Inquiry. There is an answer for those who would incorrectly argue that the U.S. is impotent in the face of the U.S-UN host agreement: kick the UN out of the U.S. along with Albanese and her UN partners in crime,’ the statement concluded.

Israeli leaders quickly backed Rubio’s move. ‘A clear message. Time for the UN to pay attention!’ Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar posted in response.

Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon also weighed in to the Jerusalem Post: ‘Albanese consistently undermines the credibility of the UN by promoting false and dangerous narratives… We will not remain silent.’

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, weighed in with a statement to Fox News Digital, writing: ‘This is a bold and courageous move by Secretary Rubio. No UN official — in this case, a purported official, as her reappointment was illegal — has ever been sanctioned before in history. Then again, no UN official has ever been condemned for Holocaust distortion and antisemitism by France, Germany, Canada, and both Democratic and Republican US administrations.’

‘She will never again spread her poison on American campuses or enter the country. Justice is served. Good triumphs over evil.’

Former White House physician Kevin O’Connor’s closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee ended after less than an hour on Wednesday morning, with the doctor giving investigators virtually no new insights.

O’Connor pleaded the Fifth Amendment to multiple questions about his time with former President Joe Biden during his sit-down. It resulted in a hasty end to what could have been an hours-long deposition.

‘I’m going to read the first two questions that were asked. ‘Were you ever told to lie about the president’s health?’ He pleaded the Fifth Amendment. He would not answer that question. The second question, ‘Did you ever believe President Biden was unfit to execute his duty?” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., told reporters after the meeting.

‘Again, President Biden’s White House physician pled the fifth. This is unprecedented, and I think that this adds more fuel to the fire that there was a cover-up.’

The doctor’s lawyers said O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds was not an admission of guilt, but rather a response to what they saw as an unprecedented investigatory scope that could have violated the bounds of patient-physician privilege.

‘This Committee has indicated to Dr. O’Connor and his attorneys that it does not intend to honor one of the most well-known privileges in our law – the physician patient privilege. Instead, the Committee has indicated that it will demand that Dr. O’Connor reveal, without any limitations, confidential information regarding his medical examinations, treatment, and care of President Biden,’ the attorney statement said.

‘Revealing confidential patient information would violate the most fundamental ethical duty of a physician, could result in revocation of Dr. O’Connor’s medical license, and would subject Dr. O’Connor to potential civil liability. Dr. O’Connor will not violate his oath of confidentiality to any of his patients, including President Biden.’

The House Oversight Committee has been investigating whether Biden’s former top aides covered up evidence of his mental and physical decline while in office. Biden’s allies have denied such allegations.

But Comer suggested to reporters that O’Connor’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment could have been evidence to the contrary.

‘Most people invoke the fifth when they have criminal liability. And so that’s what would appear on the surface here,’ he said. ‘We’re going to continue to move forward. Obviously, I think his actions today speak loud and clear.’

But O’Connor’s lawyers wrote in their statement, ‘We want to emphasize that asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege does not imply that Dr. O’Connor has committed any crime. In fact, to the contrary, as our Supreme Court has emphasized: ‘One of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect
innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, who made a surprise appearance at the interview and was the only lawmaker there, save for Comer, defended O’Connor’s use of the Fifth Amendment.

‘As someone who has served as a criminal defense attorney and actually been in courtrooms, it’s kind of astounding to hear someone say, if you invoke the Fifth Amendment, that is only because you are guilty,’ Crockett said. 

She pointed out that the Trump administration had launched a contemporaneous criminal probe.

‘We have a constitutional right that anyone who may be under fire can invoke. And unfortunately, with this rogue DOJ, it has decided that it wants to run a contemporaneous investigation, criminal investigation, involving the doctor – I think he did what any good lawyer would advise him to do,’ Crockett said.

O’Connor’s lawyers have asked the committee to pause its investigation while the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe is underway.

He and his legal team appeared to catch reporters by surprise with their hasty exit on Wednesday morning, roughly thirty minutes after entering.

One of O’Connor’s lawyers said they would be making ‘no comments to press’ in response to a shouted question by Fox News Digital.

Comer, for his part, insisted the investigation would go on.

‘This is something I think every American is concerned about. I think that the American people want to know the truth. We’re going to continue this investigation. We’ll move forward,’ Comer said. ‘We have several other witnesses that are going to come in for depositions and transcribed interviews. We will do everything in our ability to be transparent with the media and be transparent with the American people.’

The committee previously interviewed former Biden staff secretary Neera Tanden. Comer has summoned several other ex-White House aides to appear.

EXCLUSIVE – Amid charges that its distribution model forces civilians to travel long distances and pass through military zones, the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) announced a new initiative on Wednesday to add another layer of security to deliver food aid directly to Gazans in need, without diversion or interference from Hamas. 

The new system enables community leaders to contact GHF or one of its non-governmental organization (NGO) partners to coordinate local distribution. A GHF team will vet the leader, determine their needs, and set up the initial distribution of food aid. Boxes will be collected by locals at a predetermined location, and GHF will verify that boxes are distributed to aid recipients listed by the community leader.

GHF interim Executive Director John Acree told Fox News Digital, ‘We simply can’t keep doing things how they’ve always been done. Big challenges need new thinking, and I commend our team for continuing to think outside the box as we address pressing humanitarian needs on the ground.’ 

Using this method, GHF partnered with Gazan NGO Al-Amal to successfully deliver some 2,000 boxes of food aid to residents of central Gaza.

Though GHF has delivered 67 million meals since beginning operations in May, it has faced criticism over its distribution model, which required Gazans to reach one of four distribution points to receive aid. 

Critics, including the U.N., UNRWA and other aid groups, have seized on reports that aid recipients have been shot at and even killed by the Israel Defense Forces while seeking GHF aid. The IDF said those reports ‘are false.’

Testimonies from Gaza residents, released by Israel’s Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), show that ‘Hamas fires at Gaza residents near the aid distribution sites, spreads false claims about IDF fire, publishes fabricated data about large numbers of casualties, and circulates fake footage,’ COGAT said.

GHF leaders have also charged Hamas with hoarding humanitarian aid, and selling or using the aid ‘for coercive purposes.’

Acree acknowledged that ‘The Gaza Strip is a dynamic, dangerous environment that requires innovative solutions to get food to those who need it most. This is the latest example of GHF doing exactly that. I am encouraged by the results of this program and proud to work alongside our local NGO partner as we continue to feed the people of Gaza.’

GHF hopes to partner with additional NGOs to expand its delivery service. Its ultimate goal is to distribute over 20,000 boxes of aid – 1.2 million meals – each day throughout Gaza.

Despite negative feedback about the GHF model from the UNRWA and NGOs, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of the important role the new aid system plays in getting Gazans fed.

In an exclusive interview with FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo on ‘Mornings with Maria,’ on Wednesday, Netanyahu was asked whether he would agree to demands that the U.N. be placed back in charge of humanitarian aid distributions in Gaza. 

‘We have our own distribution system that has been established to prevent Hamas from stealing the food that is supposed to go to the population,’ Netanyahu replied. ‘They steal it, they take it for themselves and the remainder, they hike the prices and basically, extort the Palestinian population in order to use it to continue recruiting people to their war machine.

‘Obviously, we don’t want to give up the thing that we began with, which is distribution that goes directly to the people.’

The U.S. State Department has already approved funding of $30 million for GHF.

Let’s talk about language. Because in politics, language isn’t just what you say — it’s what people hear. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from decades of helping brands and campaigns get their words right, it’s this: the wrong message can kill even the best idea. Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s America Party is a case study in how not to build trust through language.  

I’ve seen this movie before. I started my career on Ross Perot’s campaign, where we learned firsthand how the right words can electrify a movement — and how quickly the wrong ones can turn hope into skepticism. Perot’s success was based on his ability to connect with voters using language that was clear, relatable and believable. He spent a lot of time talking about a broken system, but he did so in a way that made people believe change was possible.  

Musk, on the other hand, is using the language of disruption without understanding the language of trust. And that’s why his America Party is likely to be just another blip in the long history of failed third-party efforts.  

The language of disruption vs. the language of trust  

Let’s break down Musk’s messaging. He says it’s ‘time for a new political party that actually cares about the people.’ He talks about ‘reducing government spending,’ dismantling regulatory bloat, and embracing AI-driven modernization. These are buzzwords, not beliefs. They’re designed to provoke, not persuade.  

Here’s the problem: Americans are already drowning in distrust. They don’t believe politicians. They don’t believe in institutions. And they certainly don’t believe that this billionaire with a Twitter habit is suddenly going to care about the people. Musk’s words are meant to sound populist, but they just sound AI-generated.  

Slogans can help build trust but trust cannot be built on slogans alone. It’s built on language that resonates, connects to people’s real concerns and is grounded in actions that create credibility. Perot was also a billionaire, but he understood how to speak the language of the average person and make it feel real.    

Musk, by contrast, is speaking at people, not to them.  

The pitfalls of start-up populism  

Musk’s messaging is heavy on tech jargon and light on empathy. AI-driven modernization might excite Silicon Valley, but it’s a scary prospect for many voters increasingly worried about their job, their healthcare or their kids’ future.    

Start-up language is sexy … if you’re a venture capitalist. But Musk doesn’t understand that most Americans don’t speak the language of technology.    

Perot was also a tech entrepreneur, but he left talk of mainframes out of his campaign. His version of reducing regulatory bloat was much simpler: ‘if you see a snake, just kill it — don’t appoint a committee on snakes.’  

I care for you. You’re fired  

We once had a client who wanted to test a campaign designed to show how much they cared about their customers. The slogan: ‘We care.’ As we expected, it bombed in testing. The company’s actions did not support the message. The same is true for Musk.  Musk says he wants a party that ‘actually cares about the people.’ But the language he uses doesn’t show care — it shows calculation. It’s the language of someone who wants to be seen as a disruptor, not someone who wants to build trust.  

Words like ‘disruption,’ ‘modernization,’ and ‘efficiency’ are the language of business (and often of layoffs), not the language of belonging. They don’t answer the fundamental question every voter is asking: ‘Do you understand me? Do you care about what I care about?’ If you can’t answer that in your messaging, you’ve already lost.  

The bottom line: Words matter more than ever  

It’s unclear if Musk is really serious about building something new or just tearing down something Trump. But if he wants to build a movement, he needs to do more than talk about what’s wrong.  That’s the easy part.   

Perot also said the system was broken. But he made the problem understandable and he made a solution seem achievable. He made the deficit real. He made government waste personal. He made it feel like we could all roll up our sleeves and fix it. Ultimately, he had his own issues, but at the peak of his campaign, 39% of the population said they planned to vote for him.

So much has changed since 1992, but building a third party in America remains one of the hardest jobs in politics. The only way to even start to make it work is to find language that creates hope, engenders optimism and illuminates a path to overcoming challenges that a significant plurality of Americans care about.    

Ironically, in the same poll that showed Perot leading the race, 65% of the public said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who ‘made a fortune doing business with the federal government.’ So maybe less has changed than we think.