Trump Gets Huge Boost as GOP Slips New Court Rules Into Budget

House Republicans passed Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget early Thursday, advancing a reconciliation package to the Senate that had been jammed through committee hearings held largely in the dead of night.

But in the process of sneaking the budget to the upper chamber, Republicans tacked on an unexpected and dangerous provision that had nothing to do with Medicaid, overtime tax, or reducing the federal deficit. Instead, they added a detail that would hamper federal courts’ ability to “hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders,” according to Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

The addendum follows repeat losses for the president in the court system. Since January, the judiciary has been the only branch of government standing in Trump’s way when it comes to enacting his executive orders, perhaps most notably on his attempts to end constitutional rights such as birthright citizenship and habeas corpus.

“Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders,” Chemerinsky implored in a column on JustSecurity earlier this week.

A Pew Research Center survey from April indicated that the vast majority of the American public—Republicans and Democrats—want the Trump administration to end an action if it’s deemed illegal by a federal court. But the provision in the reconciliation bill would make that goal all the more difficult by retroactively requiring a “security”—such as a bond—to be paid by a plaintiff before an order is issued.

That detail would effectively render countless court orders, across the board, unenforceable, according to Chemerinsky, since “federal courts rarely have required plaintiffs to post bonds.”

“Even when the government had been found to violate the Constitution, nothing could be done to enforce the injunctions against it,” Chemerinsky noted. “In fact, the greatest effect of adopting the provision would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable. If enacted, judges will be able to set the bond at $1 so it can be easily met. But all existing judicial orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable.”

The budget passed by just a hair Thursday morning, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against it and 215 Republicans voting in favor.

After two Israeli Embassy employees were shot and killed on the streets of Washington, D.C., Wednesday night, Republican Representative Randy Fine responded by suggesting Gaza should be nuked.

Fine was asked on Fox News Thursday morning how the shooting would affect the ceasefire the U.S. has proposed to Hamas and Israel to end Israel’s 19-month bombardment of Gaza, resulting in the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe. Fine’s response was to blame “Muslim terror” and compare Palestinians to the Nazis and imperial Japan during World War II.

“The fact of the matter is the Palestinian cause is an evil one,” Fine said. “We nuked the Japanese twice in order to get unconditional surrender. That needs to be the same here. There is something deeply, deeply wrong with this culture, and it needs to be defeated.”

The bigoted answer from the freshman lawmaker is only the latest example of his prejudice toward Palestinians and Muslims. Last year, when Fine was running for a vacant Florida congressional seat, he threatened Muslim Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar by warning them on X that the “Hebrew Hammer” was coming and telling them to “consider leaving before I get there. #BombsAway.”

Fine has remarked in the past that “we have a Muslim problem in America” and that “while many Muslims are not terrorists, they are the radicals, not the mainstream.” At a minimum, Fine should be censured for his remarks, as Tlaib was censured for much less by House Republicans. But Fine’s GOP colleagues have engaged in similar bigotry against Palestinians, and several others have also called for nuking Gaza. Fine is unlikely to get even the slightest rebuke from any Republican leader, let alone President Trump, who endorsed him last year.

Four Supreme Court Justices wanted to make it legal for taxpayer dollars to fund religious charter schools.

The Supreme Court produced a 4–4 deadlock on Thursday on the question of whether an Oklahoma religious school could take part in the state’s publicly funded charter school programs. While the decision is unsigned, thanks to the even split, it is likely that Chief Justice Roberts sided with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan in opposition to the measure, while conservatives Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito likely voted in favor of allowing religious charter schools access to public funds. Justice Amy Comey Barret recused herself due to attorneys from her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School, representing the religious schools.

The deadlock leaves in place an Oklahoma ruling that a Catholic public charter school is unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court sidestepped the question, deferring to the lower court decision.

The four judges who voted in favor of the measure seem to be ignoring that earmarking public funds for religious schools is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. This clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion and from blurring the lines between separation of church and state.

“The fact that the Court split 4–4 in this case, with Justice Barrett recused, is not especially surprising,” said CNN Supreme Court Analyst Steve Vladeck. “The surprise is that the court had agreed to take this case up, with Justice Barrett recused, in the first place. That had led some folks to wonder if Chief Justice Roberts might be willing to join the other four Republican appointees in favor of public funding for religious charter schools. Today’s affirmance without an opinion suggests that he isn’t, at least for now.”

* This story has been updated to remove references to the Lemon test.

Elon Musk’s electric carmaker Tesla has been outsold in Europe by a rival company for the first time. 

The continent’s longtime electric favorite was overtaken by Chinese company BYD in April, which sold 7,231 fully electric cars compared to Tesla’s 1,165, according to data from Jato Dynamics.

It’s a major boon for the Chinese electric vehicle company, which only began selling cars in Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022. But Musk’s recent support for Donald Trump and the U.S. president’s far-right, government-destroying policies has influenced buyers, leading to boycotts at home and abroad that have drastically affected Tesla’s margins.

“This is a watershed moment for Europe’s car market, particularly when you consider that Tesla has led the European battery electric vehicle market for years, while BYD only officially began operations beyond Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022,” Felipe Munoz, global analyst at Jato Dynamics, told the Financial Times.

Tesla historically attracted a more liberal consumer base with its electric vehicles, but since Musk went “dark MAGA,” that same base has soured on the tech billionaire and his products. That’s proven especially true in some of Europe’s stronger economies, such as Germany, which has seen Tesla sales in the country fall by more than 70 percent in the beginning of the year, reported Bloomberg. Sales in China—where Tesla has two major factories—similarly plummeted, falling by 49 percent in February.

Musk, however, has brushed off the volatility. Speaking with Bloomberg at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday, the world’s richest man pointed to Tesla’s rising stock as evidence that bullish investors were likely to ignore his political activism.

“We’ve lost some sales perhaps on the left, but we’ve gained them on the right. The sales numbers at this point are strong and we see no problem with demand,” the Tesla CEO said. “The stock wouldn’t be trading near all-time highs if things weren’t in good shape, they’re fine, don’t worry about it.”  

Republicans narrowly passed Donald Trump’s sweeping budget reconciliation bill through the House Wednesday night, including a last-minute provision that would not require gun owners to register the purchase of silencers.

Georgia Representative Andrew Clyde had already ensured the elimination of a $200 transfer tax on gun silencers. But during negotiations Wednesday, he was able to add another provision altogether removing silencers from the regulatory purview of the National Firearms Act, which imposes taxes on the manufacture, distribution, and import of weapons, according to Politico.

The last-minute addition would strike another $200 tax on the manufacture of gun silencers. But by removing silencers from the purview of the National Firearms Act, lawmakers said that the change also had eliminated the NFA’s registration requirement with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives.

“The question I have is, this was not in the bill that we were marking up. So, whose vote was bought with this provision that silencers will no longer need to be registered with the ATF or subject to background check purchasers?” asked Colorado Representative Joe Neguse on the House floor Wednesday night.

“What member was on the fence about this bill, and then went to Republican leadership and said, ‘I know you’re eliminating the tax on silencers but if you can just eliminate all regulation on silencers, I will vote for this bill?’”

Georgia Representative Austin Scott claimed that silencers’ exception from ATF registry did not mean that purchasers would not be subject to background checks. Scott, who argued in support of the provision, seemed confused about what it was actually about. He said it was about suppressors, rather than silencers—but that was incorrect.

When a person attempts to buy a firearm, they must complete an ATF form, and the seller then relays information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation website. The NICS staff then performs a check to see whether the buyer has a criminal record or is in any way ineligible to purchase the firearm.

If the purchaser is not required to fill out a form with the ATF to purchase a silencer, it’s not clear how a background check would still be completed.

“Quite frankly, what is in the reconciliation bill does more to support assassins than it does American families,” said Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern.

There was some laughter in the hall.

“Yeah, well you know what? Talk to law enforcement, talk to people who have been victims of gun violence,” McGovern continued. “I know you think it’s funny, but I don’t.”

House Republicans managed to pass their draconian budget bill, which promises to make massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and food assistance, early Thursday morning by a narrow one-vote margin that was only possible due the deaths of three Democrats in this current Congress. 

The latest Democrat to pass away was 75-year-old Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia, who died on Wednesday after battling esophageal cancer. In March, Representative Raul Grijalva of Arizona passed away at the age of 77 due to complications from cancer treatments. Representative Sylvester Turner of Texas, 70, a House freshman, died six days earlier. (Turner replaced Sheila Lee Jackson, who also died in office in July.)  

Had any of these three Democrats, who all are from safe Democratic districts, taken their health into consideration and decided not to run in 2024, such an egregious bill would have failed to pass. Do Democrats have an age problem? The party has been reluctant to give younger rising stars more prominent leadership positions, mostly notably when Connolly, whose condition was publicly known, was chosen to be the leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee over the much younger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

In 2024, Democrats failed to connect with younger people and lost many of their votes, and this year, Americans of all ages have been urging the party to put up a vigorous fight against the Trump administration’s attacks on the country’s institutions. Are older politicians in their seventies and eighties up for that battle? 

The last eight members of Congress to have died in office were Democrats, with seven of them being over the age of 70 with significant health concerns. Six Democrats died in the last year alone. Democrats in Congress should decide whether they are physically and mentally up to the task of stopping the Republican effort to tear down America’s institutions—or make way for those who are.

Over a dozen officials within the Trump administration conveniently sold off their shares just days before their president crippled the stock market with his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, according to ProPublica.

Attorney General Pam Bondi sold up to $5 million in her Trump Media shares on Liberation Day. One State Department official sold $50,000 in shares two days before. A White House lawyer sold off shares in nine different companies in February, the day before Trump announced tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sold shares in nearly 36 companies on February 11, two days before Trump teased his Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs. In each of the more than dozen instances, someone high up within the Trump administration sold off large amounts of their stock market shares right before Trump tanked the stock market, and some even bought a similar amount of shares back at much lower prices shortly after. 

There is no direct proof that these officials had nonpublic information about policies that would impact the stock market before everyone else, but the administration has clearly created an environment in which the potential for insider trading is incredibly high. And even if this administration isn’t insider trading, it’s doing an awful job at keeping up appearances. Trump himself posted in April, “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT,” a mere four hours before announcing a 90-day pause on most retaliatory tariffs except for those on China, yet another market-shocking announcement that caused stocks to shoot up. 

“Trump is creating giant market fluctuations with his on-again, off-again tariffs. These constant gyrations in policy provide dangerous opportunities for insider trading,” Senator Adam Schiff wrote on X at the time. “Who in the administration knew about Trump’s latest tariff flip flop ahead of time? Did anyone buy or sell  stocks, and profit at the public’s expense? I’m writing to the White House—the public has a right to know.”

While Republicans managed to pass their budget bill through the House Thursday morning, one GOP representative was not happy, calling it a “debt bomb ticking.”

Representative Thomas Massie warned his colleagues, still debating in the middle of the night, that he couldn’t vote for a bill that would cut taxes and increase spending.

“I’d love to stand here and tell the American people, we can cut your taxes and we can increase spending and everything’s going to be just fine. But I can’t do that because I’m here to deliver a dose of reality,” Massie said. “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now.

“Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises? This bill is a debt bomb ticking,” added the Kentucky congressmen, known for his libertarian views. Massie was one of two Republican “no” votes on the bill, along with Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio. One Republican, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, voted “present.” Every Democrat voted against the bill.

Massie hammered the bill, warning that “very soon, the government will be paying $16,000 of interest, interest alone, per U.S. family,” and that the national debt would skyrocket up to $30 trillion over the next 10 years.

“Congress can do funny math, fantasy math, if it wants,” Massie added. “But bond investors don’t.

“We’re not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic tonight. We’re putting coal in the boiler and setting a course for the iceberg,” he added, to applause from other members in the room.

In one final message, Massie laid into his colleagues and his party, saying, “If something is beautiful, you don’t do it after midnight.”

Throughout the budget reconciliation process, Massie has warned that he wouldn’t support the bill, even taking attacks from Donald Trump, who threatened to have him “voted … out of office” on Tuesday. While the GOP passed the bill without him, Trump is known for holding grudges, and could turn most of the Republican Party against Massie in the near future.

House Republicans passed Trump’s “big, beautiful” spending bill by just one vote early Thursday morning.

After hours of deliberation, the bill passed 215–214, an incredibly slim margin that highlights the lack of political cohesion within the GOP. Two Republican representatives—Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio—voted with the Democrats.

The bill will include even more funding for the military and more funding for Trump’s border crackdown, while slashing crucial programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and also repealing clean energy credits put in place by the Biden administration. Up to 15 million Americans will be uninsured by 2034 due to the bill’s cuts, and 7.6 million will be at risk of losing Medicaid, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

“What we’re going to do here this morning is truly historic, and it will make all the difference in the daily lives of hardworking Americans.… To put it simply, this bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it’s been a long time coming,” Speaker Mike Johnson said, in a floor speech prior to the vote.

Democrats are accusing the GOP of pushing the anti-working-class bill “under the cover of darkness.”

“Here’s what it will mean for the American people,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, prior to the vote. “Children will get hurt. Women will get hurt. Older Americans who rely on Medicaid for nursing home care and for home care will get hurt. People with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to survive, will get hurt. Hospitals in your districts will close. Nursing homes will shut down. And people will die.”

This story has been updated.

Elon Musk’s shouting match with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent might have been the final nail in the coffin for the tech billionaire’s four-month stint in the White House, but it came after months of bubbling frustration at Musk’s “chain-saw” approach to dismantling the federal government.

Musk and Bessent exploded at each other in April when Musk attempted to force through his pick to lead the IRS—Gary Shapley—behind Bessent’s back. (Musk eventually lost this battle—Shapley lasted less than 72 hours before Bessent tapped Michael Faulkender to replace him.)

“Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!” a typically mild-mannered Bessent was heard shouting after Musk as they charged down the halls of the West Wing.

“The fight had started outside the Oval Office; it continued past the Roosevelt Room and toward the chief of staff’s office, and then barreled around the corner to the national security adviser’s warren,” The Atlantic reported Wednesday.

But the gossip-worthy feud was just one of many that occurred between Musk and Trumpworld 2.0’s prominent members.

In March, Musk walked into what he understood to be an ambush, facing heated backlash from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Donald Trump had arranged the volatile meeting: “Bring them all in here, and we’ll have at it,” Trump said, according to The Atlantic. The advisers were frustrated with what they felt was Musk overstepping into their agencies.

Musk’s tenure wasn’t a total failure, according to former federal employees. He had managed to force out some of the federal workforce and shutter agencies (while “traumatizing the employees who remain,” The Atlantic reported). But ultimately, his Department of Government Efficiency’s Silicon Valley, hacking-and-slashing approach to reshaping the government failed to make bureaucracy more efficient. And some of his haphazardly introduced policies, such as requiring federal employees to submit weekly bullet-pointed progress reports, have quietly fallen by the wayside.

“He had some missteps in all of these agencies, which would have been fine because everyone acknowledges that when you’re moving fast and breaking things, not everything is going to go right. But it’s different when you do that and you don’t even have the buy-in of the agency you’re setting on fire,” one outside Trump adviser told The Atlantic.

Another adviser was a little more blunt. “How many people were fired because they didn’t send in their three things a week or whatever the fuck it was?” the adviser said anonymously. “I think that everyone is ready to move on from this part of the administration.”

And even those still on Musk’s side now see that a different approach would have been more effective at advancing the administration’s goals.

“In retrospect,” Matt Calkins, the CEO of Appian, a Virginia-based company that provides software for the federal government, told The Atlantic, “it wasn’t nearly as much as we needed, and we probably didn’t need the chain saw. We needed the chisel.”

Musk’s unceremonious exit from government followed widespread reports that several senior Trump officials practically hated the tech billionaire, finding him abrasive, unfunny, and pompous—with some describing Musk as the “most irritating person” they’d “ever had to deal with.”

“I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he’s not funny. Like, at all,” a senior Trump official told Rolling Stone last month. “He makes these jokes and little asides and smiles and then looks almost hurt if you don’t lap up his humor. I keep using the word ‘annoying’; a lot of people who have to deal with him do. But the word doesn’t do the situation justice. Elon just thinks he’s smarter than everyone else in the room and acts like it, even when it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”