Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk wrapped up his time as the public face of DOGE in a press conference with President Donald Trump on Monday, leaving behind a total estimated $175 billion in government cost-cutting over the past few months. 

The $175 billion in savings from slashing government contracts, selling assets, identifying improper payments, and other cost-cutting measures amounts to $1,086.96 per each individual taxpayer, according to the DOGE website. 

The cuts took place all across the government, highlighted by a complete dismantling of USAID, where 83% of the agency’s programs and 5,200 contracts were canceled following the conclusion of a six-week review by DOGE.

Trump discussed some of the other more significant cuts in the Friday press conference.

$20 million for Arab Sesame Street in the Middle East,’ Trump said. ‘Nobody knows what that’s all about. Nobody’s been able to find it. $8 million for making mice transgenders. So they spent $8 million in making mice transgender. And those are better than many others. I could sit here all day and read things just like that.’

While some outlets, including The New York Times and BBC News, have disputed DOGE’s $175 billion estimate and argued the true number is smaller, Musk told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that the savings will continue to build, and he is confident the total cuts will amount to $1 trillion in the coming years. 

The DOGE influence will only grow stronger,’ Musk said. ‘I liken it to a sort of person of Buddhism. It’s like a way of life so it is permeating throughout the government. And I’m confident that over time, we’ll see $1 trillion of savings, and a reduction in $1 trillion of waste, fraud reduction.’

Additionally, Musk said that the DOGE cuts would soon hit the $200 billion threshold for fiscal year 25-26.

From the start, DOGE was hit with not only a tsunami of negative press and outraged Democratic lawmakers, but also a series of lawsuits, which bogged it down in protracted legal battles as Musk struggled to reach his original estimates of $1-2 trillion in cuts. 

This, coupled with the reality of most of the major end cuts requiring congressional approval to carry out, relegated DOGE’s impact on cutting around the edges of the big programs and agencies it likely would have liked to eliminate entirely.

Musk was asked on Friday what the biggest ‘roadblock’ was for him at DOGE.

‘It’s mostly just a lot of hard work,’ Musk responded. ‘It’s really not any one person or Congress. It’s going through really millions of line items and saying just each one of them makes sense or does not make sense.’

‘Obviously, at times when you cut expenses, those who are receiving the money, whether they receive, whether they’re receiving that money legitimately or not. They do complain, and you’re not going to hear someone confessing that they received money inappropriately. Never. They’re going to always say that they received money appropriately for a report. Of course, naturally, that’s what you’d expect.’

Fox News Digital’s Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

With Elon Musk leaving his role at the White House as head of the Department of Government Efficiency and President Donald Trump saying DOGE’s work will continue, the question now in Washington is who will take the reins to become Musk’s successor.

Musk, who has led Trump’s waste-cutting task force from Inauguration Day until now, announced his departure in an X post this week, saying: ‘As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,’

Musk said the DOGE mission ‘will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.’

So, who will take Musk’s place? Right now, no one.

A senior White House official previously told Fox News Digital that ‘the DOGE employees at their respective agency or department will be reporting to and executing the agenda of the president through the leadership of each agency or department head.’

The official said DOGE is now part of the ‘DNA’ of the federal government, and that it will keep operating as it already has. 

Speaking with reporters on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that ‘the DOGE leaders are each and every member of the president’s cabinet and the president himself, who is wholeheartedly committed to cutting waste, fraud and abuse from our government.’

These statements cast doubt on whether any singular individual will succeed Musk as the DOGE chief. However, if Trump finds a DOGE successor necessary and decides to shift gears, who could fill Musk’s shoes?  

Amy Gleason

While Musk was never an official federal employee, Amy Gleason, a little-known government employee who also worked in the first Trump administration, has been serving as the official acting chief of the United States DOGE Service (USDS) since February.

If the president decides to steer clear of any public-facing DOGE chief, it seems likely that he will keep Gleason on as a more behind-the-scenes DOGE leader at USDS.

Gleason, 53, is a career official who was recognized by the Obama administration as a ‘champion of change’ for her work with several nonprofits researching and raising awareness about a rare autoimmune disorder known as Juvenile Myositis. Gleason previously worked in the first Trump administration in what was then called the U.S. Digital Service before leaving to work at Russell Street Ventures, which was founded by Brad Smith, another DOGE leader.

Keeping Gleason on as DOGE chief would allow the president to keep the agency’s efforts alive while following the structure of each cabinet head leading their own waste-cutting programs.

Russell Vought

As director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought has already been a central figure in DOGE’s waste-cutting efforts.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Vought already has plans to continue Musk’s efforts, even in his current role as OMB head. Vought is a close ally of Trump and a much more subdued personality than Musk, making him appear as a likely pick to take over DOGE. 

However, Vought does come with his own political baggage, with many on the left labeling him a ‘Christian nationalist’ and criticizing his role as a co-author of Project 2025. Still, he was successfully confirmed by the Senate in his current role as OMB director.

Vivek Ramaswamy

A one-time GOP presidential candidate-turned key Trump ally, Vivek Ramaswamy, has been widely reported as a top contender to replace Musk at the helm of DOGE. Ramaswamy co-led DOGE alongside Musk for a short period at the start of Trump’s second term. However, he stepped down from his DOGE leadership role in February to begin his run for Ohio governor.

Though Ramaswamy shares Musk’s and Trump’s vision for cutting government waste, it would seem unlikely he would rejoin the DOGE team any time soon with his eyes on winning the keys to the Ohio governor’s mansion in 2026.

Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report.

Elon Musk showed up to the Oval Office on Friday to bid farewell to his official role in the Trump administration, but it wasn’t just the mark he made with DOGE that raised eyebrows.

It was the black one under his right eye. 

Social media lit up during the livestreamed event as eagle-eyed viewers noticed what appeared to be a fresh bruise under Musk’s eye, prompting speculation about everything from a gym mishap to a political dust-up. 

The assembled press couldn’t resist asking the obvious: ‘What happened to your eye?’

‘Well, I wasn’t anywhere near France,’ Musk quipped, poking fun at headlines regarding French President Emmanuel Macron, who was caught on camera being shoved by his wife last week. ‘I didn’t know the first lady of France isn’t a lieutenant.’

Then came the real story.

‘No, I just was horsing around with little X,’ Musk said, referring to his five-year-old son, X Æ A-Xii. ‘And I said, ‘Go ahead, punch me in the face.’ And he did. Turns out even a 5-year-old punching you in the face… actually does this.’

President Donald Trump jumped in immediately. ‘That was X that did that?’

‘Yeah,’ Musk replied.

‘X could do it, if you knew X,’ Trump said with a grin.

The whole exchange, captured during Musk’s Oval Office farewell event, quickly became the moment of the day, a lighthearted pause in a sendoff marking the end of Musk’s 130-day stint as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Musk didn’t let the black eye distract from his message.

‘This is not the end of DOGE,’ he told reporters. ‘Only the beginning.’

According to a May 26 update on DOGE’s official site, the department racked up over $175 billion in savings during Musk’s tenure, mostly through asset sales, canceled contracts, and cracking down on fraud. That translates to an estimated $1,087 saved per taxpayer.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Hunter Biden was seen out and about with his family in Cape Town, South Africa, Friday amid Republicans’ investigation into an alleged ‘conspiracy’ related to his father’s cognitive decline as president. 

The embattled son of the former president toured Cape Town with his wife, Melissa Cohen Biden, and son, Beau Biden Jr., driving a rented Toyota sedan, a big change from the black Chevy Suburbans he was used to traveling in before President Donald Trump yanked his Secret Service detail. 

In March, Trump terminated Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail after former President Joe Biden extended his son’s detail indefinitely. Typically, children of former presidents only enjoy Secret Service protection if they are 16 or younger.

Trump’s move to remove Hunter Biden’s detail came as the former president’s son was once again vacationing in South Africa.

Hunter Biden and his family were seen on the Sea Point Main Road, a main thoroughfare in a wealthy part of Cape Town, paying for parking and stopping into the local butcher. Based on the images, it is apparent Hunter no longer has the luxury of a Secret Service detail.

The new pictures also mark the first time Hunter Biden has been seen publicly since his father’s public cancer announcement.

Republicans are launching a new investigation into the alleged ‘conspiracy’ behind former President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. 

Senstors Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, announced plans to hold a Senate Judiciary hearing June 18 to look into the alleged cover-up of the 82-year-old former president’s mental decline while in office by the media and those closest to him.

The lawmakers are still gathering witnesses for the probe, which would be the first full congressional committee hearing on the subject.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller contributed to this report.

A federal appeals court paused a lower ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, siding with the administration Thursday in a legal fight over the White House’s use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. 

The back-and-forth injected more volatility into markets this week after several weeks of relative calm, and court observers and economists told Fox News Digital they do not expect the dust to settle any time soon. 

Here’s what to know as this litigation continues to play out.

What’s happening now?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed a lower court ruling Thursday that blocked two of Trump’s sweeping tariffs from taking force.

The ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs’ that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

It came one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously to block the tariffs.

Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have ‘unbounded authority’ to impose tariffs under the emergency law. 

Now, lawyers for the Trump administration and the plaintiffs are tasked with complying with a fast schedule with deadlines in both courts. Plaintiffs have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response to the Court of International Trade, according to Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents five small businesses that sued the administration. 

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response to the stay and the Trump administration until June 9 to file a reply, Schwab told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

The goal is to move expeditiously, and lawyers for the plaintiffs told Fox News they plan to file briefs to both courts before the deadlines to mitigate harm to their clients.

‘Hopefully,’ Schwab said, the quick action will allow the courts to issue rulings ‘more quickly than they otherwise would.’

What’s at stake?

The Trump administration praised the stay as a victory.

The appellate court stay on the CIT ruling ‘is a positive development for America’s industries and workers,’ White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.

‘The Trump administration remains committed to addressing our country’s national emergencies of drug trafficking and historic trade deficits with every legal authority conferred to the president in the Constitution and by Congress.’

But some economists warned that continuing to pursue the steep tariffs could backfire. 

The bottom line for the Trump administration ‘is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic,’ William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. 

Cline noted that this had been the framework laid out earlier by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. 

‘I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America’s Rust Belt jobs and that they’ll collect money while they’re doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth,’ said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance.

‘Those are both fantasies.’

What happens now?

Plaintiffs and the Trump administration wait. But whether that wait is a good or bad thing depends on who is asked.

Economists noted that the longer the court process takes, the more uncertainty is injected into markets. This could slow economic growth and hurt consumers. 

For the U.S. small business owners that have sued Trump over the tariffs, it could risk potentially irreparable harm.

‘Some of the harm has already taken place. And the longer it goes on, the worse it is,’ said Schwab. 

The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. But it’s unclear if the high court would choose to take up the case.

The challenge comes at a time when Trump’s relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain, which could make the high court wary to take on such a politically charged case. 

Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the case as ‘very likely’ to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it’s unclear whether it will move to review it.

‘It’s possible that because the case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially applies to the country, unlike specific appellate courts, which have certain districts, that the Supreme Court might be OK with whatever the Federal Circuit decides and then not take the case,’ Schwab said. 

For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet.

Beyond that, Schwab said, the court will weigh a balancing test. If both sides claim irreparable harm, the justices will ask, ‘Who is irreparably harmed more?

‘And I think it’s fair to say that our clients are going to be more irreparably harmed than the United States federal government. Because our clients might not exist, and the United States federal government is certainly going to exist.’