Trump’s IRS Pick Turns Into Babbling Mess as Senator Warren Grills Him

The likely next head of the Internal Revenue Service refuses to say whether President Trump is allowed to use the agency to strip organizations of their nonprofit status as he sees fit. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren had IRS commissioner nominee Billy Long visibly shaken with a series of questions during his confirmation hearing Tuesday regarding the legality of Trump levying the IRS against nonprofit groups he doesn’t like. 

“I sent you the statute, you’ve had three weeks to talk to the lawyers about it. So let’s jump in. Mr. Long, is it illegal for the president to direct the IRS to revoke a taxpayer’s nonprofit status?”

“In the first place, he wouldn’t do that—”

“That’s not my question, Mr. Long, please don’t start down this—”

“Are we on section 72-12 or 72-17?”

“I’m at 26 U.S.C 72-17. Do I need to read it to you?” 

“Prohibits any member of the executive branch to request the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit on a taxpayer,” Long read aloud from the statue. 

“Alrighty. So is it illegal?”

“I’m gonna follow the law, and if that’s the law, yes.” 

“That is the law, so I just want to be clear, is it illegal for the president of the United States to instruct the IRS to remove a taxpayer’s nonprofit status?” 

Long recited the statute again in response. 

“Is that a yes?” Warren pressed.

“I’d have to go to the lawyers at the IRS to tell me.” 

“Come on, you just read it!”

“I know, but see, the instance that you’re speaking about in there, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see …” he tailed off. 

“Look, it says ‘it shall be unlawful for any applicable person’—which in this case includes the president—‘to request directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.’” Warren asked Long once again if what Trump has already threatened to do is illegal. 

“I’m not gonna have the answer that you need, and I apologize, but like I said—”

“Why are you not having the answer? You’ve had three weeks to consult with lawyers, the statute is about as clear as plain English—”

“Well if I say I’m gonna follow the law, why would you need to ask me the question?” 

“Because I wanna make sure that you understand what the law says. If you think ‘follow the law’ means you just get to make it up on the spot, then you don’t get to be the IRS commissioner. The point here is to follow the law as it is written.… Can the president of the United States legally tell the IRS to change someone’s nonprofit status?”

Long again refused to answer. 

Warren and Long continued to spar, with Warren getting more frustrated and Long getting more flustered as neither of them got anywhere with their questioning and Long refused to plainly state that he wouldn’t let his future boss force him to break the law. 

“You know, Mr. Long, you’d have a lot more credibility if you just say ‘yes.’ It’s clear that the statute makes it illegal for the president to direct the IRS vis-à-vis any particular taxpayer. And the fact that you wanna sit there and dance around about this tells me that you shouldn’t be within a thousand miles of the directorship of the IRS.”  

Trump has repeatedly threatened to strip universities like Harvard of their nonprofit status. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are working to give him more power to kill just about any nonprofit he disagrees with .

Did Donald Trump just hurt his own chances of passing his “big, beautiful bill”?

After the president urged Republican lawmakers to get behind his sweeping legislation at the closed-door House Republican Conference Tuesday, several moderate GOP members from blue states messaged House Speaker Mike Johnson to tell him they weren’t on board, according to Punchbowl News.

Trump had specifically pressured Republican members of the SALT caucus, a bipartisan group fighting to restore state and local tax, or SALT, deductions, to agree to legislation that would cap the deductions at only $30,000 for anyone making $400,000 or less.

The group of lawmakers have pushed to significantly increase that limit, arguing that it’s hurting middle-class residents in their high-tax states, such as New York, California, and New Jersey. Trump’s 2017 tax bill had previously capped those deductions at $10,000.

Republican members of the group include New York Representatives Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler, and Nicole Malliotakis, New Jersey Representative Tom Kean, and California Representative Young Kim.

On Tuesday, the president reportedly told lawmakers to “let SALT go,” according to The Hill. One source said that the president had specifically targeted Lawler, who represents New York’s 17th congressional district, just north of New York City. “I know your district better than you do,” Trump said. “If you lose because of SALT, you were going to lose anyway.”

Lawler’s seat goes up for grabs in 2026. He has not yet said whether he will run for reelection.

A White House official told The Hill that Trump’s main message was that Republicans could circle back later on SALT, and should focus on getting the bill passed now. South Carolina Republican Mark Norman told Punchbowl News that he’d gotten a slightly different message from the president: “Forget SALT.”

It seems that Trump’s visit has only caused members of the SALT caucus to dig in even more.

Several world leaders were shocked by how submissive Donald Trump was to Moscow’s demands following a two-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Shortly after hanging up Monday with his favorite autocrat, Trump hopped on the line with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and a few other world leaders to update them on negotiations.

Sources told Axios that some of the leaders seemed “surprised” and “shocked” when Trump reported that Putin had agreed to begin negotiations toward a ceasefire—something that the Russian president had previously done, as talks had already taken place in Istanbul last week.

When Zelenskiy pointed this out, Trump did not respond.

Additionally, Trump reportedly pushed back on commitments to impose penalties on Moscow, after previously discussing levying sanctions on Russia with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer if Russia refused calls for a ceasefire. While Trump declined to ramp up pressure on Putin, Starmer followed through, imposing 100 new sanctions on Russia Tuesday.

It seems that, if anything, Putin was able to come out of the conversation with new economic prospects, rather than penalties, as Trump touted the “largescale trade” Russia could conduct with the U.S. once the “bloodbath” was over.

The leaders were surprised that Trump was presenting his discussion with Putin as a new development, when clearly nothing had been achieved during the discussion, sources said.

Putin seems to have once again succeeded at efforts to prolong peace talks with his latest nothingburger conversation with the U.S. president. After the call, Putin said that his government was prepared to work with Ukrainian officials on a “memorandum regarding a potential future peace treaty,” which means it will present a deal to Ukraine for its approval.

During the group call, Zelenskiy warned Trump that Russia wouldn’t budge on its unacceptable requests, such as obtaining Ukrainian territory, unless the U.S. president started to apply some pressure. One source on the call said that Trump claimed to have told Putin to pitch something that “people can agree to” and not something that will immediately be rejected.

Trump also seemed to want out of negotiations altogether, pitching direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Last week, Russian officials seemed far from ready to make nice, after Putin bailed on talks with Zelenskiy in Istanbul, as did Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who called the jilted wartime president “pathetic.”

Donald Trump seems to think that cuts to food assistance mean cheaper and more abundant food for everyone.

“You campaigned on lowering the price of groceries. How can you justify cutting food assistance in this [budget] bill?” a reporter asked the president, on Capitol Hill Monday, after he emerged from a meeting with House Republicans.

The president’s response didn’t make any sense.

“Let me just tell you, the cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down. Groceries are down,” Trump said. He added, “You know that eggs now? Way down. Everybody’s buying eggs. Grocery’s down. Energy’s down. Gasoline? They’re now buying—they’re buying gasoline now for $1.99.”

First of all, gasoline is not selling for that price anywhere in the United States, except possibly in wholesale markets. And cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps, would not lower food prices. As the head of a Nevada food bank told NBC last month, “These reductions don’t just affect people facing hunger—they also hurt the retailers, farmers, and businesses that supply fresh, local food to our region.”

The president’s answer seems to miss the point of the question, which was calling into question Trump’s campaign promise of lowering food prices, in contrast to Republican plans to cut food aid and shift the cost to the states. The Republican budget would threaten benefits for close to 42 million low-income Americans and would have little effect on overall food supply or prices, which the president would know if he understood basic economics.

But Trump’s mismanagement of the economy, as seen in his nonsensical, flip-flopping tariff policies, demonstrate that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. His decisions are already causing food prices to go up, and retailers like Walmart are complaining. Trump and his allies are responding to their concerns with threats and no recognition that they’re responsible for the problems.

Either State Secretary Marco Rubio is playing dumb about Donald Trump’s new private jet from Qatar, or he’s actually dumb.

While testifying before Congress Tuesday, Rubio claimed that he had no knowledge of reports that ownership of the plane would eventually swap to Trump’s presidential library.

“It’s not your understanding that the plane ultimately will belong to Trump or to the president’s library?” pressed Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy.

“I’m not involved at that level, I’ve never heard that before,” the state secretary—whose job it is to manage and carry out U.S. foreign policy—said. “What I’ve heard is that plane will replace Air Force One, which is an Air Force plane.”

Murphy then made mention of Trump’s plans to meet this week with a couple hundred of the top investors in his cryptocurrency. Earlier this month, 19 of the top 25 holders registered on the meme coin site used foreign exchanges that exclude U.S.-based customers, reported Bloomberg, meaning that foreigners are effectively buying face-to-face time with the president.

“I don’t know anything about it, or didn’t even know there was a dinner Thursday night,” Rubio said.

“So you don’t know if any of the foreign individuals meeting with the president Thursday night, for instance, are on our list of sanctioned individuals or have connections to, let’s say, terrorist organizations abroad?” Murphy asked.

Rubio then deferred oversight of that responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security, repeating that he wasn’t aware of the dinner.

“You’re asking about a dinner that I don’t know anything about. I can’t answer you because I don’t know anything about this dinner. It’s the first I’ve heard of it,” Rubio said, claiming he doesn’t know the president’s “social schedule.”

Murphy then underscored the danger of major foreign interests potentially circumnavigating the State Department for unfettered access to Trump.

“It’s kind of naïve to believe that they aren’t going to be in that room talking about national security matters,” Murphy said. “I think that right there is a real problem for this committee, because there’s clearly a way around the State Department for foreign individuals of significant influence and wealth to be able to directly lobby the president of the United States. You are saying you don’t know this is happening; that in and of itself is a problem.”

Qatari leadership gifted Trump a super luxury jumbo jet earlier this month in an act that was widely interpreted as a foreign bribe, including by longtime supporters of the president’s agenda, such as far-right influencers Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer. It was one of the most lavish gifts ever bestowed on a U.S. president.

Claiming that the plane is going toward the Defense Department is a convenient workaround that would allow Trump to ethically accept the pricy present, since it is obviously illegal for a president (or any U.S. public officeholder) to accept gifts “of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State,” per the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause.

Trump has claimed the jet is a “gift” to the Defense Department and thus the country—except that the plane is not actually being donated to the American people. Instead, Trump is opting to use the luxurious aircraft as his new Air Force One until “shortly before he leaves office,” at which point he will transfer ownership of the plane to his presidential library foundation, sources with knowledge of the arrangement told ABC News.

Richard Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor, told NPR News Trump’s decision to accept the jumbo jet is a “pretty textbook case” of violating the emoluments clause, clarifying that if Trump hands the jet over to his library after leaving office, then it’s “not really a gift to the United States at all.”

Elon Musk claimed Tuesday that he plans to back off from buying American elections, following his failed attempt to purchase a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat earlier this year.

While speaking remotely at the Qatar Economic Forum, Musk was asked whether he intended to go on another shopping spree during America’s upcoming midterm elections. The billionaire bureaucrat had dropped a whopping $228 million on Donald Trump’s campaign.

“Are you going to continue to spend at that kind of level on future elections?” asked Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain.

“I think, in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk replied.

“And why is that?” Husain asked.

“I think I’ve done enough,” Musk said. Some laughter echoed throughout the hall.

“Is it because of blowback?” Husain pressed.

“Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. And I don’t currently see a reason,” he said.

Musk spent at least $20 million to back the Republican candidate in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race—but lost. Afterward, a humiliated Musk pretended he didn’t even care about the results, but it was too late: He’d proved himself a political liability instead of an asset.

Musk’s messy work with the Department of Government Efficiency has tanked public opinion of the current administration, while protesters across the country target their ire at the billionaire bureaucrat and his beloved Tesla dealerships. Musk shed 25 percent of his personal wealth in Trump’s first 100 days in office.

In a humiliating first-quarter earnings report, Musk’s Tesla said that profits had crashed by a whopping 71 percent, falling to a mere $409 million, compared with $1.39 billion from the same quarter last year. There was even a report that Tesla was looking to replace Musk as CEO, which the company promptly dismissed and which sent Musk into a rage.

Earlier in the interview, Husain had asked Musk about Tesla’s tough spot. “I wonder if some of what has happened to Tesla in the last few months—did you take it personally?”

“Yes,” Musk answered, to loud laughter in the audience.

“And did it make you regret, or think twice about, your political endeavors?” Husain asked.

After a long pause, Musk replied, “I did what needed to be done.”

Elon Musk is having a hard time explaining his cushy new Starlink contracts.

While speaking with Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum Tuesday, the world’s richest man aggressively dodged a direct question about his space-based internet network’s reported deal with South Africa, which would circumvent the country’s post-apartheid laws.

After refusing to engage with the idea that there had been a conflict of interest between his work for the Trump administration and operating his multibillion-dollar international businesses, Musk pushed back against the question that foreign governments could be using deals with his companies in order to cozy up to the White House.

“Starlink is obviously a very good internet service,” said Bloomberg’s Mishal Husain. “It also had more contracts coming its way, and there is some evidence that companies are allowing access to it because they want to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signals.”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is planning to offer Musk a Starlink contract ahead of Ramphosa’s meeting with Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, despite the fact that Musk’s business doesn’t fit the parameters of South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment laws.

“That is being done on the event of the visit President Ramaphosa is expected to make to the White House. Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest?” Husain asked.

“No, of course not,” Musk responded. “First of all, you should be questioning why are there racist laws in South Africa. That’s the first problem; that’s what you should be attacking. It’s improper for there to be racist laws in South Africa.”

“The whole idea with what Nelson Mandela, great man, proposed, is that all races should be on equal footing in South Africa,” Musk continued. “Whereas there are now 140 laws in South Africa that basically give strong preference to if you’re a Black South African, and not otherwise.”

Musk then repeatedly pressed Husain on whether she believed that was “right,” while the moderator elaborated that the law was about to change to benefit Musk.

“Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa, and it looks like the government has found a way to work around those rules for you,” Husain said.

“I asked you a question,” Musk said, eliciting an awkward laugh from the crowd. “Why do you like racist laws?”

“This is not for me to answer,” Husain said. “Now, you wouldn’t be trying to dodge a question that’s difficult for you to answer?”

The South African government’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment policy stipulates that all companies that do business in the nation must have at least 30 percent of their ownership or economic involvement owned by Black South Africans. Musk claimed Tuesday that he’s been rejected for a business license in his home country because he’s “not Black,” though Starlink has failed to meet the requirements for the license.

The mandate is a part of the country’s efforts to correct inequalities left in the wake of apartheid, striving to “advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy,” per the South African Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Musk has practically made the notion of diversity his enemy through his work at the Department of Government Efficiency, where he pitched to strip and defund federal agencies whose missions make mention of inclusivity efforts.

And on his social media platforms, the billionaire’s X-based artificial intelligence bot Grok has practically confessed that its algorithm was changed in order to accommodate Musk’s “white genocide” conspiracy regarding South Africa.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem just gave an absolutely incorrect definition of habeas corpus, displaying a deeply alarming lack of knowledge for someone overseeing the Trump administration’s illegal immigration crackdowns. 

“Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?” Senator Maggie Hassan asked at a hearing on Tuesday.

“Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country—” 

“Let me stop you, ma’am. Excuse me, that’s incorrect,” Hassan replied.

“President Lincoln used it—” 

“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people,” Hassan said, explaining an undergraduate-level principle to the acting DHS director. 

“If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,” she continued. “Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the ‘live free or die’ state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans. So Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides, that the government must provide public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?” 

“I support habeas corpus, I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not—”

“It has never been done without approval of Congress, even Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval from Congress.” 

Senator Andy Kim gave Noem another chance to display her ignorance. 

“I wanted to just go back to something that was raised earlier about habeas corpus,” Kim said. “Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?” 

“President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with, um, retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current day president. This president has never said he’s going to do this, he’s never communicated to me or his administration that they’re going to consider suspending habeas corpus,” Noem replied. “But I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it.”

“How many times has habeas corpus been suspended in our country?” Kim asked.

“Once that I know of.” 

“Four times.” 

“I’m not certain if that those were—”

“The instance that you’re referring to is one where the courts subsequently showed that Congress is the one that has the ability. Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in?” 

“I do not. Nope.” 

“Do you know which article it is in?” 

“No I do not, sir.” 

“Well it is in Article 1. Do you know which branch of government Article 1 outlines the tasks and the responsibilities for?”

“Yes.” 

“Which one?” 

“Congress,” Noem replied, proving the point Kim and Hassan had been trying to get across. 

This is an administration that has no knowledge of the Constitution because it could care less about following it. Stephen Miller himself said earlier this month that they’re trying to suspend habeas corpus because we’re being “invaded.” That couldn’t be further from the truth.  

Leo Terrell, a Trump-appointed lawyer in the Justice Department, wants to press charges against Jill Biden for “elder abuse.”

The former Fox News contributor posted on X Sunday night, shortly after Joe Biden publicly announced his cancer diagnosis, sharing a post calling out the former first lady for knowing about “President Biden’s health problems.”

“But still wanted him to run for President. Evil,” posted Ian Jaeger, a right-wing account, to which Terrell added his own commentary: “Elder Abuse! Criminal Charges??”

Terrell wasn’t the only figure on the right attacking the former president’s wife. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, took a shot at Jill Biden’s educational credentials, appearing to mistake her doctorate for a medical degree.

But while Trump Jr. is only a conservative influencer with a podcast, Terrell is the senior counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights in the DOJ, and could actually push for a trumped-up criminal investigation if he wanted. He would find no shortage of supporters on the right or in the White House, who have constantly pushed the narrative of the “Biden crime family” to distract from President Trump’s own criminal activities.

For the past two days, the right has run with a cover-up narrative about Joe Biden’s health on the part of Democrats, the left, the media, and anyone it distrusts, which apparently includes Jill Biden. To them, it’s a far more important subject than funding the government, or the current president’s own cognitive decline.

Donald Trump’s Justice Department is sending a message.

Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba announced late Monday that she had dropped charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka for facing off with authorities at an ICE facility in his city earlier this month. But in a back-to-back press release, the Justice Department official revealed that the administration would instead be going after a sitting congresswoman who was also present that day.

Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney, declared charges against Representative LaMonica McIver for “assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement,” and insisted that McIver’s conduct during the ICE facility clash “cannot be overlooked.”

“I have persistently made efforts to address these issues without bringing criminal charges and have given Representative McIver every opportunity to come to a resolution, but she has unfortunately declined,” Habba said in a statement.

McIver and Baraka have both denied accusations that they were violent at the protest.

“The charges against me are purely political—they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” McIver said in a statement.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries torched the Trump administration last week for the charges against Baraka and for hinting they would go after McIver next. Jeffries argued that threatening to arrest a sitting congresswoman for visiting an ICE facility would be a clear example of executive overreach.

“It’s a red line,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol at the time. “They know better than to go down that road.”

McIver visited the Ice facility earlier this month alongside Representatives Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman, fellow New Jersey Democrats. Baraka joined the trio for a tour. The lawmakers were reportedly at the facility to serve a summons for code violations to a representative of the facility’s operating company, Geo Group.

After Baraka passed the entry gates, the group was barraged by agents, with at least one of the lawmakers getting shoved. Baraka was ultimately arrested, and Habba accused him of trespassing and ignoring multiple warnings from Homeland Security to leave the premises.

But the lawmakers did not interpret the events of the day that way.

“What we experienced was the weaponization, is the abuse of power.… They know who we are … they manhandled us and arrested the mayor,” Coleman said, adding that “if they can treat members of Congress like that, imagine how they treat people on the streets.”

Representatives from around the country echoed that sentiment. In a post on X late Monday, Texas Representative Greg Casar wrote that the charges against McIver should “send a chill down the spine of every American.”

“If the president can arrest law-abiding elected officials in an attempt to silence them, then no American is safe from his abuses of power,” he wrote.