US politics – Congress matters

The speaker is mounting a multi-front rebuttal to the billionaire’s criticism — and trying to keep the backlash contained.

Billionaire Elon Musk targeted congressional Republican leaders Thursday, attacking Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader John Thune on social media over the cost of Donald Trump’s domestic agenda after openly breaking with the president. Musk shared two previous social media posts from Johnson and Thune where the GOP leaders had voiced concern about the budget deficit and national debt and added: “Where is the Mike Johnson of 2023!?” and “Where is the John Thune of 2020??” Musk, the former Department of Government Efficiency chief, has blasted the megabill over recent projections it would grow the budget deficit. A Johnson spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday, though Johnson said earlier Thursday that Musk was a “good friend” and that they’d planned to speak. Thune sidestepped a question about the feud Thursday. “I don’t have an observation about that,” he told reporters when asked about Musk’s attacks. Musk, a GOP megadonor, has stepped up his attacks on the megabill in recent days and told his millions of social media followers to “kill the bill.” He’s also threatened to target or primary Republican incumbents in the midterm elections. Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.

Republicans have so far kept hands off the politically sensitive program. But senators are now desperate to find additional spending cuts.

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley said he wants to see changes to a provision in the House-passed “big, beautiful bill” that could limit judges’ ability to enforce court orders. Under the provision, U.S. courts can’t use federal funds to enforce a contempt order unless the party bringing the case gives a so-called security — or posts a bond. Democrats planned to challenge the measure under the so-called Byrd rule, which limits provisions that can be included in reconciliation legislation to those that impact the budget. They and some legal scholars claim the provision would hamstring the federal court system and weaken judges’ power at a time when the Trump administration is already acting with disregard for the law. “If it does meet the Byrd test, there needs to be some changes,” Grassley (R-Iowa) said. He declined to provide further details.

Musk has been on a three-day rampage against Republicans’ reconcilliation package.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune sounded supportive Thursday of the House-passed 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local artificial intelligence laws, but conceded it remained an open question if it would comply with the chamber’s rules. “That issue got fairly carefully litigated in the House,” Thune said in response to a question from POLITICO. “The goal is to make sure that we aren’t losing the race in AI and making sure that we have a policy that’s consistent.” Still, when asked whether the moratorium would comply with the chamber’s Byrd rule, which blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation, Thune said: “We’ll see.” Thune’s measured support for the state AI law freeze was his first comment on the provision that has triggered opposition from some Republicans, including Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), as well as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). Democrats, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), have vowed to challenge the provision as the legislation advances. House Speaker Mike Johnson has defended it.

House Oversight Committee Democrats have once again failed to subpoena Elon Musk to testify on Capitol Hill. The panel rejected the minority party’s request Thursday morning for the former DOGE chief to appear before lawmakers in a party-line, 21-20 votes. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the committee’s acting ranking member, argued that Musk, DOGE and the Trump administration threatened “the privacy and security of all Americans,” and Musk should answer to the American people for actions over the last several months. “Since President Trump’s inauguration, he has given Elon Musk free reign to terrorize our civil servants,” said Lynch, appearing before a number of giant posters, including one that read, “Was Elon Musk on drugs when he stole your private data?” Lynch continued, “Musk has been operating without any oversight whatsoever, while posing a very real risk of violating security and privacy laws.” After Lynch made his request for a vote on a motion to subpoena Musk, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) — who was presiding over committee business in the absence of chair James Comer (R-Ky.) — called up the motion as a voice vote, then claimed the “nays” prevailed. But Democrats cried foul, as they outnumbered Republicans present at the start of a scheduled hearing on the federal government’s use of artificial intelligence, and thus would have had the support to adopt the motion. Democrats then demanded a roll call vote, forcing Mace to ultimately suspend the hearing while Republicans trickled into the hearing room to participate. During that long delay, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is running against Lynch and two other colleagues to be the ranking member on the committee to succeed the late-Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), asked whether the panel was not voting on the motion because Republicans knew they would lose. Mace argued that the panel was simply preparing for a recorded vote. Oversight Committee Democrats previously tried to subpoena Musk months ago, with that vote also failing along party lines. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who notably missed that initial vote, was present this time around.

Pity Speaker Mike Johnson this morning. Not only does he have to deal with Elon Musk trying to sabotage the “big, beautiful bill,” Johnson is now staring down Senate tax writers who are doubling down on threats to scale back his carefully negotiated deal to raise the state and local tax deduction cap. Senate Finance Republicans left the White House on Wednesday without decisions on key tax provisions in the bill. But two things are clear: Senators want to make President Donald Trump’s business tax incentives permanent, not just extend them for five years as the House did. And to help pay the roughly half-trillion-dollar price, they’re ready to carve up the House’s deal to quadruple the SALT deduction limit. SALT Republicans don’t have the same leverage in the Senate that they do in the House — because they simply don’t exist in the other chamber. “There’s not a single [Republican] senator from New York or New Jersey or California,” said Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). That means there’s not much appetite “to do $353 billion for states that, basically, the other states subsidize.” But Senate Republicans are keenly aware of the House’s precarious math problem. If they send a package back to the House with significant SALT changes, it could derail the timeline for Trump’s biggest legislative priority. “We are sensitive to the fact that, you know, the speaker has pretty narrow margins, and there’s only so much that he can do to keep his coalition together,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) told reporters. “At the same time it wouldn’t surprise people that the Senate would like to improve on their handiwork.” Where’s Trump? The president on Wednesday didn’t directly tell lawmakers not to meddle with the House’s SALT deal. But he, too, is playing the numbers game. “He said, ‘You do this, do we lose three votes here? If you do that, do you lose three votes here?’” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters after the meeting. Senate Majority Leader John Thune also conceded the difficult calculus on SALT, telling reporters “we understand that it’s about 51 and 218” and “we will work with our House counterparts and the White House” to move the megabill. There’s been a breakthrough elsewhere, though: With Commerce preparing to release its draft bill Thursday, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told POLITICO on Wednesday that he’s satisfied a planned spectrum auction will protect national security, with specific frequencies used by the military shielded through 2034. One potential wrinkle: Rounds later suggested to POLITICO that the deal that was still being finalized Wednesday could look to free up other frequencies “that the business community is going to be concerned with.” What else we’re watching: — Appropriations moving: Speaker Johnson plans to meet Thursday with top GOP appropriators about what funding totals to use in drafting the dozen government funding bills they’ll write this summer. House Appropriations is forging ahead with markups Thursday on two of the 12 bills, even before GOP leaders and his dozen subcommittee chairs — “the cardinals” — have settled on numbers for the full slate. — Senate Banking meeting: Senate Banking Republicans will propose provisions that would change the pay scale for Federal Reserve employees and zero out funding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Senate version of the GOP megabill, according to a committee staff memo obtained by POLITICO. Banking Republicans are scheduled to meet Thursday morning to discuss the proposal. — Lutnick on the Hill (again): Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is back on Capitol Hill on Thursday to testify in front of House Appropriations. Expect him to be back in the hot seat after Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) grilled him Wednesday over the Trump administration’s tariffs. Jasper Goodman, John Hendel and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Lawmakers seem to have reached a breakthrough over language for a spectrum provision in the GOP’s tax and spending megabill, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told POLITICO Wednesday. The House proposal aimed to open up 600 MHz of spectrum for commercial use, alarming national security hawks, who warned that it would encroach on important military and intelligence frequencies. Rounds, a senior Senate Armed Services Committee member who was among those who pushed back, said on Wednesday that, per this emerging agreement, key spectrum bands would be protected from the auctions through 2034. “It’s looking better than it has in the past, and I think we’re going to be able to get everything that we had concerns with,” he said, cautioning that the deal was still pending. “Final paper I have not seen, but it looks good.” Asked earlier Wednesday about Rounds’ threats a day earlier to vote against legislation that doesn’t address his spectrum concerns, Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “I am confident we’ll get it done.”

The next chief of the U.S. Capitol Police will be Michael Sullivan, a former interim chief of the Phoenix Police Department, the department announced Wednesday. Before serving in Phoenix, Sullivan had stints at the Baltimore Police Department as deputy commissioner of compliance and deputy commissioner of operations, according to his Linkedin profile. He was also a deputy chief at the Louisville Metro Police Department, where he spent more than two decades as an officer. Sullivan prevailed over another finalist, former Secret Service Director Randolph “Tex” Alles, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private selection process. Sullivan will be sworn in June 30. When he took the interim chief job in Phoenix, the department was under a Justice Department “pattern or practice” investigation, an independent probe conducted by civil rights attorneys into potential systemic misconduct. After a 34-month inquiry, a June 2024 report found the department had a pattern of “depriv[ing] people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law” as well as “pervasive failings” in policies, training, supervision and accountability systems “that have disguised and perpetuated these violations for years.” “The Board is confident in Chief Sullivan’s experience, leadership, and approach in protecting the Congress as an institution to ensure the legislative process is unimpeded,” the department said in a statement. “The Congressional Community is fortunate to have a seasoned professional who will lead with integrity, ensure accountability, and draw on his experience in providing a safe and secure environment for Members of Congress, staff, and visitors.” It’s the second time in four years that department overseers have decided to go outside the department for a chief. The board passed over Sean Gallagher, the interim head of the department and assistant chief, who has been with the department for more than two decades and served in a wide variety of roles across the agency. He was part of the leadership team during the Jan. 6 insurrection, weathered a no-confidence vote by the union and eventually worked to help stabilize the agency after a time of tectonic tumult. The union signaled it was opposed to Gallagher’s selection as interim chief, with union chair Gus Papathanasiou saying in a Tuesday statement: “We’re astounded the Board would even consider [Gallagher] for the role. The Capitol Police force cannot continue to see problem officers ‘fail upwards’, winning promotions instead of demotions commensurate with their actions.” The Capitol Police Board is composed of Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Jennifer Hemingway, House Sergeant-at-Arms William McFarland and Architect of the Capitol Thomas Austin. They are tasked with replacing former chief Thomas Manger, who retired last month after four years at the helm. The board’s potential choice of another outside candidate, instead of promoting internally within the Capitol Police ranks, signals residual doubts about those who were in leadership roles for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. “They’re going to have to learn about our mission, the uniqueness of it, but the structure of oversight as well, and there is a learning curve there,” Manger said in a recent interview, talking about anyone who comes to lead Capitol Police from an outside law enforcement agency. Others who had been in the mix included external and internal candidates from the force, including former Deputy Chief JJ Pickett, Deputy Chief Tom Loyd, and Assistant Chief Jason Bell.

Several former Republican governors in the Senate have sounded alarms over a controversial House GOP plan to help pay for the Trump megabill by pushing billions in federal food aid costs to states. Now there’s a would-be governor raising similar concerns. Behind the scenes in recent days, Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama raised issues over the provision with GOP leaders and pushed for the plan to be scaled back, according to three Republicans granted anonymity to describe the conversations. Tuberville, who announced a gubernatorial bid May 27, confirmed his worries in a brief interview Wednesday. “Everybody that’s going to be in state government is going to be concerned about it,” he said. “I don’t know whether we can afford it or not.” The House provision affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would financially hammer deep-red states like Alabama, forcing governors and state legislatures to foot billions in new costs or cut benefits to low-income families. The Republicans say Tuberville appears to be increasingly worried about a multi-billion-dollar bill hitting his desk should he be elected governor. Tuberville, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump who supports the House bill’s strict new work requirements for SNAP, isn’t the only Republican who’s raised concerns about the House plan. At least two dozen other GOP senators have quietly raised concerns about how their states could be hit. Senate Republicans involved in the talks have been surprised that current GOP governors have not raised more public concern about the House GOP plan. Many House Republicans assumed the Senate would strip the proposal out of the megabill, but the Senate GOP is now considering a host of options to scale down but not fully strip out the cost-sharing measure. Senior Republicans have discussed one option to force every state to pay five percent of the cost of SNAP benefits for the first time, adding extra penalties for states with the highest payment error rates, according to three other Republicans with knowledge of the conversations. “I think a lot of governors are saying the Senate is not going to do this to us,” said one Republican with direct knowledge of the conversations. “No, we absolutely might.” Republicans involved in the talks say they will likely need to maintain some version of the provision in order to achieve the needed spending cuts while also paying for a $60 billion farm bill package in the House version of the bill. The Senate parliamentarian appears likely to nix one smaller source of savings from the Agriculture bill — a provision creating a national clearinghouse to crack down on duplicate benefits across SNAP, Medicaid and other programs. Sen. Jim Justice, who served as West Virginia’s governor until January, said both current and future governors need to “analyze this very, very, very seriously” and “voice their opinions.” “Because if you’re asleep at the switch, and you miss what the cost is going to be … you can put a state in a tough spot,” he said.

Questions are swirling about whether the Senate’s parliamentarian will kill a major tax increase in Republicans’ megabill — potentially blowing a big hole in their plans. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough could decide that a $116 billion provision raising taxes on foreign companies violates the chamber’s internal rules about what may go into a reconciliation measure, which would be immune to Democratic filibusters. Republicans are concerned that she will see the provision as tantamount to overriding tax treaties the U.S. has with other countries. If that’s the case, she could decide the matter belongs under the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — which would be a problem for Republicans because their reconciliation plans never mentioned that panel. That would force lawmakers to redraft their plans or drop the provision altogether, leaving them scrambling to cover the resulting budget hole. “We’ll see what she does,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “I don’t want to speculate about anything.” The issue is now being discussed behind closed doors as lawmakers eye changes to a sprawling tax package approved last month by the House that Republicans hope to push into law by their July 4 recess. In the Senate, Republicans ordered nine other committees to produce pieces of their reconciliation plan, with much of the effort focused on the tax-writing Finance Committee. The tax provision in question, dubbed a “revenge tax,” would impose as much as a 20 percent levy on foreign companies whose governments impose taxes on U.S. firms deemed discriminatory. House Republicans designed the tax to counter efforts by other countries to impose special taxes on American internet giants long accused of ducking tax authorities abroad. Some tax vets see another potential problem with the provision when it comes to persnickety reconciliation rules: that it’s not a sincere effort to raise money. The provision could be seen less as a way to help defray the cost of Republicans’ tax cuts than as a chit to be traded in negotiations between the U.S. and other countries over how they’re taxing big multinational companies — and that too might be interpreted as a violation of reconciliation guidelines.

Lawmakers in charge of funding the government grilled President Donald Trump’s budget director on Wednesday about why he hasn’t yet sent a full request to Congress. With less than four months left in the fiscal year — and until the next government shutdown deadline — White House budget director Russ Vought has yet to deliver key pieces of Trump’s budget request to guide Congress’ future funding decisions. And even Republicans on Capitol Hill are publicly complaining. “Where’s the budget?” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) pressed Vought during the budget director’s testimony before House appropriators. Vought reiterated that he plans to send the full budget request once Republicans clear the party-line tax and spending package they are trying to enact this summer. But he told appropriators that they have “all of the information that is needed to be able to write those bills” to fund the government for the upcoming fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Republican appropriators, who are preparing to mark up the first of those bills later this week, aren’t convinced. Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) told Vought the delay “really puts us up against the wall.” “We don’t need another CR,” Alford said, referring to the prospect of a continuing resolution that keeps federal funding on autopilot. “And we don’t need a government shutdown. That will not be good for the president. It will not be good for Congress. It will not be good for America.” Last week Vought sent a 1,200-page appendix, with detailed totals expanding on Trump’s earlier “skinny budget” delivered in May, to help guide lawmakers as they draft the 12 bills Congress has to clear each year to keep the federal government funded. But funding details for the Pentagon were lacking, including details like how many ships or aircraft the Pentagon aims to buy or what major weapons systems would be cut. Vought is also holding back other essential pieces of Trump’s budget, such as projections for deficits and economic growth.

House Oversight Chair James Comer is broadening his investigation into former President Joe Biden’s mental decline. Comer on Wednesday asked five senior Biden White House aides to appear for transcribed interviews with his committee: former senior adviser Mike Donilon, former senior adviser Anita Dunn, former chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and former counselor Steve Ricchetti. “The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the role of former senior White House officials in possibly usurping authority from former President Joe Biden and the ramifications of a White House staff intent on hiding his rapidly worsening mental and physical faculties,” Comer wrote to the former White House aides. Comer last month asked for testimony from four former senior aides — Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden — and Biden’s physician Kevin O’Connor. His inquiry into Biden comes amid renewed scrutiny in Washington over the former president’s mental fitness toward the end of his term, ballyhooed by a much-discussed book by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson. In a brief interview, Comer said some witnesses were already working with the committee. He expects some will appear for their testimony before the committee in the next few weeks. “They’re cooperating,” he told POLITICO. “Hopefully, we’ll be able to announce some dates within the next 24 hours of when those first five will be coming in.” The Kentucky Republican, who is mulling a bid for governor in 2027, previously led an impeachment inquiry into the former president. The House never held a vote on the matter.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is launching the confirmation process for the first judicial nominations of President Donald Trump’s second term. The panel Wednesday morning opened a hearing for Whitney D. Hermandorfer, Trump’s nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and four other district court judges in Missouri: Maria A. Lanahan, Cristian M. Stevens and Zachary M. Bluestone for the Eastern District, and Joshua M. Divine for the Eastern and Western Districts. It is a continuation of a major priority of Trump’s first term: applying a conservative slant across the federal bench. The Senate confirmed hundreds of judges the last time Trump was in office, rewriting the rules around judicial nominations in the process. The Biden administration also confirmed hundreds of judges, leaving relatively few vacancies for Trump to fill upon his return to the White House in January. According to data from the U.S. courts, there are currently about 49 existing vacancies. Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), in opening remarks, reminded his colleagues that some judicial nominees during the Biden era received bipartisan support, even though many were controversial to Republicans. “Elections, as we all know, have consequences … I worry that partisanship will hamper these efforts,” said Grassley. He was referring to ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who recently suggested he could seek to block swift consideration of future U.S. attorney nominees. Durbin defended his threats by pointing to similar tactics deployed by Vice President JD Vance when he was a Republican senator from Ohio, during which time he moved to slow-walk confirmation of former President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees. The two committee leaders also sparred Wednesday over the Trump administration’s decision to stymie the American Bar Association’s influence on the judicial selection process, which stipulates that the nominees will no longer respond to the ABA’s questionnaire or conduct interviews with the organization prior to confirmation. Durbin argued the administration’s decision could prevent senators from knowing whether the nominees are qualified for their roles. Grassley maintained that the ABA could still send letters to the committee, like other organizations, but criticized the group as a “partisan progressive organization.” Circuit courts have enormous influence, with judges there often having the last word in cases not taken up by the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit seat specifically is one of only a handful of appeals court vacancies that Trump can populate. To this end, Hermandorfer is being subject to significant scrutiny. A graduate of George Washington University Law School, Hermandorfer is the current director of the strategic litigation unit for the Tennessee Attorney General. She previously clerked for Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as for Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was still a D.C. Circuit Court judge. Republican senators praised Hermandorfer’s credentials, though Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware suggested the nominee lacked the experience typically seen in lawyers proposed for federal appellate judgeships. “I am concerned about the striking brevity of your professional record,” said Coons. “You graduated from law school just a decade ago,” said Coons. Under further examination by Coons, Hermandorfer acknowledged she has never been lead counsel in a federal jury trial, questioned a witness on the stand or conducted a deposition. “As an appellate lawyer, that’s really not part of my practice,” Hermandorfer said. She also conceded that while she has been involved in over 100 appellate cases, she has only argued four cases before federal appeals courts and has never presented oral argument at the Supreme Court. Toward the end of the hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) asked Hermandorfer whether there were any circumstances under which she would advise a client to violate a federal court order. Hermandorfer declined to answer the question with a yes or no answer, saying there may be extraordinary situations, to which Kennedy repeatedly interjected, “Like what?” “I’d be real careful there,” Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who was at this point running the proceedings in Grassley’s absence, quickly interrupted and ended the exchange. Josh Gerstein contributed to this report

The top two congressional Republicans rebutted Elon Musk’s criticism of their “big, beautiful bill” Wednesday as the tech mogul and former Trump administration cost-cutter continued attacking the GOP legislation overnight. Speaker Mike Johnson spent several minutes during a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Wednesday morning pushing back on Musk and trying to reassure Republicans after Musk signaled that he thinks lawmakers who support the megabill should be ousted next year, according to three people in the room granted anonymity to describe the private meeting. Johnson told his conference that he’s tried to call Musk to explain the process behind the megabill, as well as a separate bill to claw back billions in spending. Johnson’s message, in the meeting, according to the attendees: People will have differences of opinion; don’t take it personally. “I think he’s flat wrong, and I’ve told him as much,” Johnson said at a news conference after the meeting. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune downplayed the impact that Musk’s criticism would have on his whip count. Republicans can afford no more than three defections in the chamber, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is already expected to oppose the bill. “Obviously he has some influence, got a big following on social media,” he said. “But at the end of the day this is a 51-vote exercise here in the Senate, and I think … the question for our members is going to be, would you prefer the alternative? And the alternative isn’t a good one.” He added, “There are going to be a lot of people who share commentary about this, and we just got to make sure we’re doing everything we can to get our arguments out there.” Musk called the bill a “disgusting abomination” Tuesday and continued his broadsides Wednesday, attacking the bill and the GOP Congress overnight for not doing more to address “massive deficit spending,” then insisting in an afternoon post that a “new spending bill should be drafted that doesn’t massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS.” The bill actually includes a $4 trillion increase in the borrowing limit; the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday the bill will add an additional $2.4 trillion in deficits over the coming decade. Responding to reporters Wednesday afternoon, Johnson said Republicans “can’t go back to the drawing board.” “We don’t have time for a brand new bill,” he said. “And I want Elon and all my friends to recognize the complexity of what we’re doing.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise , meanwhile, downplayed Musk’s potential threats to GOP members in a brief interview, saying that the party is “continuing to see fundraising goals get exceeded” ahead next year’s midterms. “The speaker, myself, our whole team continues to exceed fundraising goals, because people know what’s at stake next year,” he added. “And President Trump’s all in, by the way, too, helping us hold the House. … He’s been our best, most effective deliverer of support.” Johnson said at the news conference that Trump is deeply unhappy about Musk torching the centerpiece of his legislative agenda — reiterating comments he’d made inside the closed-door meeting: “As you know, he’s not delighted that Elon did a 180 on that.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his tax writers will huddle with President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday as Republicans race to resolve a growing list of tax policy disputes in their megabill. Thune detailed what to expect in an exclusive interview with POLITICO: BUSINESS TAX PERMANENCE: Thune emphasized that one of the biggest tax issues for him and other Finance Republicans is making key business tax incentives, such as full expensing for research and development costs, permanent. “There’s a lot of interest in growth in the economy among our caucus,” Thune told POLITICO. “Permanence, I have been told by a number of our members, is a red line for them.” But it’s a costly ask, and senators have been cagey on how they’ll make the numbers work. TAXES ON TIPS: One long-shot idea that could come up is from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who suggested to POLITICO that the $40 billion “no tax on tips” proposal could drop out of the bill and get passed later on a bipartisan basis. Don’t expect Trump to jump at the idea. Trump campaigned on making tips tax-free, and it’s one of his top priorities in the megabill. CLEAN-ENERGY CREDITS: Tillis also plans to raise concerns Wednesday about House Republicans’ plan to gut clean-energy tax credits, amplifying the warning he and GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Curtis (Utah) and Jerry Moran (Kan.) previously delivered to GOP leaders that a full-scale repeal won’t fly in the Senate. Democrats are working to drive a wedge on the issue. SALT: Some GOP senators are pushing back against the deal House GOP leaders struck with blue-state moderates to quadruple the state-and-local-tax deduction cap to $40,000. Thune signaled to POLITICO that the Senate is likely to scale it back. “It would be very, very hard to get the Senate to vote for what the House did,” Thune said. But SALT Republicans are digging in. Rep. Nick LaLota (N.Y.) told POLITICO on Tuesday that such a move could “unwind many of the other connected policies” in the many interlocking deals Speaker Mike Johnson negotiated to muscle the first draft of the megabill through his narrower majority. “It would likely stall the bill,” LaLota warned. Meanwhile, Thune seems optimistic as he works to douse other flare-ups within his conference (Medicaid, food aid) and outside of it (hello, Elon Musk). The majority leader also told POLITICO he expects every committee to release its bill text by the end of next week as he pushes toward a pre-July 4 vote. Armed Services kick-started that process Tuesday with draft text that increases funding for nuclear weapons, munitions production and new technology beyond what the House GOP proposed. POLITICO Pros can dive deeper into the full Thune Q&A. What else we’re watching: — Vought hits the Hill: OMB Director Russ Vought testifies Wednesday in front of House Appropriations on the OMB budget. Expect plenty of questions about rescissions, impoundments and other cuts to come as House Republicans prepare to vote next week on the $9.4 billion rescissions request Trump just sent over. — In the DOGE-house: A House Oversight subcommittee will scrutinize fraud risk in the Defense Department during a hearing Wednesday morning, with testimony from a deputy Pentagon inspector general and an official from the Government Accountability Office. It comes after a GAO report found $10.8 billion in fraud within DOD for fiscal years 2017 through 2024. — Trump’s attempt to reshape the courts: Nearly six months into Trump’s second term, the Senate will finally start to consider his nominees to fill vacancies across federal courts. On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary will consider picks for vacancies in Missouri and on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Jordain Carney, Brian Faler and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

In an exclusive interview, the Senate majority leader laid out how he plans quick action on the GOP legislation.

The GOP faces internal opposition over its legislative priority.

Elon Musk’s bashing of President Donald Trump’s megabill sparked some conflict with congressional Republicans. But some deficit hawks were thrilled. Several hard-liners rejoiced at Musk’s comments on X on Tuesday — calling the House-passed GOP megabill a “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill” and a “disgusting abomination.” “These numbers are nothing short of stunning,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded. “Congress has hollowed out America’s middle class through reckless deficit spending and the inflation it causes.” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has reiterated his opposition to the bill, said to reporters on Tuesday that Musk “has some of the same skepticism” as him that the bill is “just not conservative.” Musk’s comments came less than two weeks after Speaker Mike Johnson carefully threaded the GOP megabill through his razor-thin majority. He managed to garner enough support from conservative hard-liners concerned over the bill’s multi-trillion-dollar deficit impact. But Musk’s comments reignited the conversation as the bill heads to the Senate. The two hard-right House Republicans who voted against the bill quickly praised Musk for speaking out. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) called Musk’s post “The Big Beautiful Tweet,” while Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) responded, “He’s right.” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the Freedom Caucus chair who voted “present” on the bill, told reporters he didn’t know if Musk’s blowtorch approach would change any minds in the congressional GOP. But he said “we ought to pay attention” when people with “real world experience” throw up red flags about growing deficits. Most Republican senators — even very conservative ones — didn’t appear to share Musk’s assessment that the bill was hopeless. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he believed it would be salvageable with some adjustments. “I think the Senate should make the bill substantially better, and I hope and believe we’ll do that,” Cruz said. Any opponents will have to face Trump, who has already publicly bashed Paul and Massie on Truth Social for their prior comments. The president is pushing for the bill to pass with components, such as raising the debt ceiling and border wall spending, that the members have criticized. “Sure, it helps bolster the case,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a key Senate deficit hawk, said about Musk’s post. “But again, the president wants to balance the budget as well.” Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Donald Trump’s megabill has attracted the rebuke of typical allies and opponents alike.

Elon Musk’s declaration that the GOP’s domestic-policy megabill, the centerpiece of President Donald Trump‘s legislative agenda, is a “disgusting abomination” rocketed around Capitol Hill on Tuesday — and frustrated a host of Republican lawmakers. Inside the Senate Republican lunch, it “got spread around pretty quick,” said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — who, like other GOP senators, was swarmed by reporters afterward seeking reaction to the tech mogul’s blunt musings. House Speaker Mike Johnson had just gaveled the House into session after a quiet recess week when he was set upon with questions. He immediately declared Musk’s take on the House product “terribly wrong” and “very disappointing” — and revealed he’d walked the tech mogul through the bill as recently as Monday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, characteristically diplomatic, said only that GOP senators “have a difference of opinion” with Musk and that he hoped “he’ll come to a different conclusion” after learning more about the bill. Democrats were more than happy to play up the discord over the GOP’s legislative centerpiece, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer emerging from the Democratic lunch with a printout of the post and giddily telling reporters, “I agree with Elon Musk!” Whether Musk, with all the power he wielded in Washington over the past several months, will now be able to shape the megabill — or kill it entirely — is another question, though. The answer is, probably not, according to several mostly exasperated Senate Republicans who weighed in Tuesday. “He’s entitled to his opinion,” said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who gave a one-word answer on whether Musk’s message would affect amendments to the bill: “No.” Even MAGA conservatives who have been among Musk’s biggest Hill backers brushed him off: “We need spending reductions, no doubt. But we’re going to work through it,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri. Added Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, “I think the Senate should make the bill substantially better, and I hope and believe we’ll do that.” Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he just didn’t see Musk’s opposition moving the ball much: “I think the people that are of the same view are encouraged, and I think others are sort of dismissive.” “I like Elon Musk,” he added, “but he’s one man.”CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misspelled Sen. Eric Schmitt’s name.

Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that Elon Musk is “terribly wrong” after the tech billionaire blasted the GOP megabill as a “disgusting abomination.” “With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong about the one big, beautiful bill,” Johnson told reporters. Johnson said he spoke over the phone with the former chief of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative for what he described as a friendly conversation of more than 20 minutes Monday about the “virtues” of the bill. “And he seemed to understand that,” Johnson added. Johnson said he discussed with Musk the accelerated repeal of many green subsidies in the House version of the bill, something Musk has voiced opposition to in recent days. “But for him to come out and pan the whole bill, to me, is just very disappointing — very surprising in light of the conversation I had with him yesterday,” Johnson said. “It’s not personal,” the speaker added. “I just deeply regret that he’s made this mistake.”

House GOP leaders are aiming to move a widely anticipated $9.4 billion package of spending cuts through the House next week, eyeing a Rules Committee vote Monday followed by floor action, according to three Republicans granted anonymity to relay private discussions. Some GOP appropriators are still not completely thrilled with the “rescissions” package, but there are no current plans to alter or mark up the legislation in the Appropriations Committee before it heads to the floor, the people said. The White House plans to send the package rescinding funding for PBS, NPR and foreign aid programs to the Hill Tuesday afternoon. Some House Freedom Caucus members want a vote this week. But Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership circle is planning for a vote next week, barring any other issues. One reason is they want to follow the 72-hour-notice rule for legislation though they are still discussing what particular day it could head to the floor. “My objective is to move it as quickly as our rules allow us,” Johnson said in a brief interview Tuesday, nothing that discussions are ongoing.

Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett officially kicked off a bid to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, making her the fourth contestant in a crowded race to succeed the late Rep. Gerry Connolly. “Our country is in an existential crisis driven by an out-of-control Executive with a flagrant disregard for our Constitution, our way of governance, and our very way of life as citizens of a democratic republic,” she said in a letter to Democratic colleagues obtained by POLITICO. “We must pull back the curtain on the unmitigated chaos under Trump 2.0 and translate our findings to the American people in a way they can digest.” The vacancy opened by Connolly’s death has kicked off a hotly contested race to lead a panel likely to take a bulldog approach to President Donald Trump and his administration if Democrats take the House majority in next year’s midterms. Three other Democrats have declared bids: Reps. Robert Garcia of California, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland. The contest has set up a generational clash among Democrats amid a broader reckoning with seniority and age in the caucus. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), opted against a bid, leading many Democrats to see the secret-ballot caucus election scheduled for June 24 as wide open. Crockett told her Democratic colleagues she saw the committee leadership position as one to respond to Trump and make the case for a Democratic majority. “From the pulpit of the Oversight Committee, the Ranking Member must lay out our case against Trump 2.0 and his accomplices, the Republicans in the House, and discharge this message across the nation,” she wrote, adding that “our work cannot be solely reactive.” Crockett, who is 44 and serving her second term, is seen as a rising star among House Democrats. She’s earned plaudits from other Democrats for her tough questioning and viral moments on the committee — and criticism from Republicans for recent verbal missteps. She challenged Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan to lead the caucus’ messaging arm and came up short in a previous leadership bid. Connolly designated Lynch, 70, to serve as an interim ranking member. Garcia, 47, has been running on his record as mayor of Long Beach, California, and his caucus leadership position. And Mfume, 76, has touted his experience leading an Oversight subpanel overseeing government operations. In her letter to colleagues, Crockett cited her experience as vice ranking member of the committee — a largely ceremonial title — and her background as the child of a federal worker from St. Louis, Missouri. She also praised former President Joe Biden, saying he “saved the world economy,” at a time when the former president and his inner circle have come under fire for failing to disclose concerns around the octogenarian politician’s fitness for office.CORRECTION: A previous version of this report misspelled Gerry Connolly’s name.

Rep. Mike Quigley lost his plum committee post earlier this year, and the Illinois Democrat hasn’t forgotten. Speaking in an episode of the Pro Politics podcast published Monday, Quigley issued a sidelong rebuke to a pair of former top House Democratic leaders who claimed committee leadership roles after leaving Democratic leadership in 2022. It’s personal for Quigley: He served as the ranking member on the House Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation-HUD until 84-year-old Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) gave up his leadership position earlier this year and bumped Quigley off of the panel. It also comes amid an increasingly open debate over age and leadership inside the Democratic Party; Quigley, who is 66, was among the first House Democrats to call on President Joe Biden to step aside as presidential nominee in 2024. ”If you’ve been one of the top three leadership spots, you should hesitate wanting to come back and say, ‘I want to be a ranker or chair,” Quigley, a nine-term veteran, told Democratic pollster and podcast host Zac McCrary. “At some point you’ve had your moment, and it’s time to let someone come in and have an opportunity to be on one of those select committees and being a ranker or chair.” Another senior appropriator who later joined leadership, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, assumed the ranking member role on the Financial Services subcommittee in 2023 after exiting as majority leader at age 83, bypassing Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who is 25 years younger. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not claimed any committee assignments since returning to the rank-and-file that same year.

Virginians are set to vote for the late Rep. Gerry Connolly’s successor in a special election on Sept. 9. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Tuesday called for a special election to fill the northern Virginia seat left vacant after the longtime lawmaker’s passing on May 21. Virginia’s 11th district is deep blue and will almost assuredly elect another Democrat. The special election will be the third this fall to fill vacancies left by the passing of Democratic lawmakers. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, set a Nov. 4 special election to replace Rep. Sylvester Turner in April, following consternation among statewide Democrats, who threatened to sue the governor over the monthlong delay in setting the date. Arizona voters will also wait to find a successor for Rep. Raúl Grijalva, with Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, setting a Sept. 23 special election date after Grijalva’s March 13 passing. Arizona state law generally requires a longer timeline for a special election than many other states. Connolly, who had battled with esophageal cancer, had announced on April 28 that he would not seek reelection to represent the heavily Democratic D.C. suburb in 2026. In early May, the Virginian endorsed his former aide, James Walkinshaw, for the job. But the field is already getting crowded, with five other Democrats and two Republicans also tossing their hats in the ring.

Senate committees will start rolling out their portions of the GOP megabill as soon as Tuesday, providing a first look at how Republicans in the chamber plan to address some of the House’s most controversial proposals. Here’s the draft-text timeline POLITICO reported Monday night, though it could change: — Armed Services plans to release its text Tuesday — Environment and Public Works is pushing for Wednesday — Commerce is aiming for Thursday — Banking is expected Friday The scheduling logic: Just as the House sequenced its megabill markups from least-to-most controversial to buy lawmakers more time to resolve their stickier policy debates, the Senate will have committees release their least-contentious draft bills first. Finance, which has jurisdiction over tax cuts and changes to Medicaid, is widely expected to be among the final Senate panels to release text, if not the last. The massive tax-and-spending package will “most likely” hit the Senate floor the last full week of June, ahead of the July 4 recess, per Senate Majority Leader John Thune. It could come even sooner — but that depends on how conversations go with the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. Committee staffers started vetting the megabill with MacDonough last week and will continue their talks this week and next. MacDonough’s job is to recommend which House-passed provisions and policy priorities must be dropped to comply with the strict rules governing the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process. Thune signaled Monday that Republicans won’t seek to override their referee if they don’t like her rulings but said he hoped MacDonough could be convinced to green-light inclusion of the so-called REINS Act “in some fashion.” The longstanding conservative proposal would give Congress more authority to approve agency regulations. The chamber’s lightning-fast turnaround nods to the weeks of behind-the-scenes work by GOP senators and their aides to prepare for the domestic policy bill’s arrival from across the Capitol. It also shows the immense pressure they’re under from the White House to get moving on advancing President Donald Trump’s sweeping legislative agenda. The president is starting to play his own hand. Trump met separately Monday at the White House with both Thune and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who wants deeper spending cuts but told POLITICO “we all want to get a bill done.” Trump also spoke by phone with Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who’s pushing a return to pre-pandemic spending levels, and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who’s opposed to some of the Medicaid changes endorsed by the Republican House. And the president will likely meet with Thune and Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) either this week or next to talk through the details of the tax portion of the bill. One key fight to watch this week: Look to see if the Senate backs away from the House’s plan to re-up government auctions of federally controlled spectrum. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) has drawn a red line on it, saying Monday that “we’ll have to take out the spectrum language that’s in the bill right now. That simply is a non-starter for me.” What else we’re watching: — Rescissions incoming: The White House plans to send up a package Tuesday outlining $9.4 billion in spending cuts, asking Congress to nix current funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid. House Republican leaders helped shape the so-called rescissions request over the last few weeks in a back-and-forth with the White House. But Senate Republicans are exploring options for amending the package. — Billy Long is back: Senate Finance members will vote Tuesday to advance the nomination of Billy Long, Trump’s pick to lead the IRS, six months after the president announced the selection. In his confirmation hearing last month, Long sought to distance himself from his promotion of certain tribal tax credits that turned out to be nonexistent. Jordain Carney, Benjamin Guggenheim and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled Monday that Republicans won’t move to overrule the chamber’s parliamentarian during an upcoming debate on President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” “We’re not going there,” Thune said when asked by reporters about overruling Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who will play a special role in vetting the bill for compliance with the strict Senate rules allowing Republicans to bypass a Democratic filibuster. Senate staffers met with MacDonough during last week’s recess to vet the House-passed megabill and talk through their own ideas, conversations first reported by POLITICO. Thune said that committee staffers tasked with drafting the legislation will continue conferring with her this week and next week. At the end of the process, MacDonough will make rulings on whether various policies comply with the chamber’s rules. The question about the fate of the parliamentarian comes after Senate Republicans sidestepped her in a recent fight to nix waivers allowing California to set its own emissions standards. At least one of Thune’s members is already publicly floating that his party should be willing to directly overrule MacDonough on the megabill. In a tweet last month, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wrote on X that “disagreeing with the Senate parliamentarian may be warranted if the parliamentarian gives bad advice, and it’s wrong to suggest otherwise.” Several significant pieces of the House-approved bill are at risk of falling out of the legislation as it moves through the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday that Democrats will challenge one House provision that places limits on the ability of federal judges to enforce contempt citations. He predicted it will get booted from the bill. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, added that Democrats are looking at challenging some immigration provisions, as well. He added that it was his understanding that conversations with MacDonough were just getting started.