Trump’s win means less scrutiny for shady sugar daddy Elon Musk

Winning the 2024 election didn’t just return Donald Trump to power. It also allowed him to dodge multiple criminal cases. And while his unofficial vice president, Elon Musk, didn’t need a Trump win to stay out of jail—at least under any existing charges—the victory likely freed Musk and his companies from regulatory oversight. That’s an exceedingly lucky break for Musk, currently being scrutinized by multiple government agencies for everything from his inflated claims about self-driving Tesla cars to his SpaceX rocket launches polluting wetlands to his purchase of social media platform X—just to name a few.

To be perfectly fair, Trump’s victory means a far friendlier atmosphere for all greedy billionaires who hate regulations, not just Musk personally. But Musk is the one sitting next to Trump at Thanksgiving and the one who threw roughly $260 million at Trump’s campaign while fawning over him on X and in person.

So which pesky investigations and regulations is Musk probably free of now that his bestie is headed to the White House?

For starters, perhaps he’ll get out from under the alphabet soup of agencies looking into Tesla’s so-called full self-driving system, or FSD. Musk has promised a vision of a completely autonomous hands-free Tesla since 2013. It’s not a vision that has ever come true. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has twice required Tesla to recall FSD because of the system’s bad habit of ignoring traffic laws, including being programmed to run stop signs at slow speeds. In October, the agency opened another inquiry after the company reported four crashes, one of which killed a pedestrian, when FSD was used in low-visibility conditions like fog. 

The issue isn’t just that FSD is unsafe. It’s also that Tesla hoovered up cash by selling a product that basically doesn’t exist. Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit in 2022 alleging the company defrauded them by charging $15,000 for an FSD package that didn’t result in a Tesla being able to drive itself successfully. Tesla’s defense? Full self-driving is merely an aspirational goal, so a failure to provide it isn’t a deliberate fraud—just bad luck. Perhaps that’s the same excuse Tesla would have trotted out in response to the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into whether the company committed wire fraud by deceiving consumers about FSD’s capabilities and securities fraud by deceiving investors.

Trump named former reality show star and former Congressman Sean Duffy to head the Department of Transportation, of which NHTSA is a part, and tapped one of his impeachment defense attorneys, Pam Bondi, to head the DOJ after Matt Gaetz’s nomination flamed out. There’s no reason to think either of these people will grow a spine and continue investigating “first buddy” Elon Musk or Tesla.

Trump’s election also probably gives SpaceX breathing room. Musk’s private space company, which receives literal billions in government money, hasn’t been terribly interested in following government rules.

In September, the Environmental Protection Agency fined SpaceX $148,378 for dumping industrial wastewater and pollutants into wetlands near its Texas launch site. The company paid that fine, albeit with some whining about how it was “disappointing” to pay when it disagreed with the allegations, but it’s planning on challenging the recent $633,000 fine from the Federal Aviation Administration. The regulatory agency proposed the fine after two launches in 2023 where the company allegedly didn’t get FAA approval for launch procedure changes and didn’t follow license requirements.

This isn’t SpaceX’s first run-in with the FAA. The aerospace company paid a $175,000 fine in October 2023 over not submitting required safety data to the agency before a 2022 launch of Starlink satellites. After an April 2023 launch where one of the company’s rockets blew up shortly after takeoff, sending debris over South Texas, the FAA required the agency to make dozens of changes before another launch.

Like the NHTSA, the FAA is part of the Transportation Department. Sean Duffy’s past as an airline industry lobbyist doesn’t inspire confidence that he’ll take a hard line against SpaceX.

And as far as whether the EPA will continue to pose any problems for Musk? Under Trump, that agency will be run by former GOP Rep. Lee Zeldin, whose primary qualification seems to be hating EPA regulations. He’s voted against replacing lead water pipes and cleaning up brownfields and sees his mission at the EPA as pursuing “energy dominance.” Again, not exactly someone who will bring the hammer down on Musk or his companies.

Musk is also in hot water with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the possibility he delayed disclosing his acquisition of Twitter stock in 2022. Investors must disclose when they accumulate 5% of a publicly traded company, a requirement that ostensible super-genius Musk says he misunderstood somehow. Under President Joe Biden, current SEC chair Gary Gensler has aggressively pursued enforcement efforts, a trend in no way expected to continue under whoever Trump picks.

Lightning round! Musk tried hard to violate a consent order with the Federal Trade Commission by giving “Twitter Files” writers improper access to user data, but he was thwarted by Twitter employees who actually followed the order. He’s faced numerous unfair labor practices claims and been investigated multiple times by the National Labor Relations Board, so he’s suing to have the board declared unconstitutional. He lost out on $885 million in government subsidies after the Federal Communications Commission found that Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service, couldn’t meet the speed metrics for the government’s rural broadband program.

Luckily for the multibillionaire, the incoming head of the FCC is a pal of Musk’s who thinks it is “regulatory harassment” to require Starlink to meet program requirements.  

Musk will also have the advantage of helming a newly invented entity, the cringily titled Department of Government Efficiency (aka DOGE—ugh), that can put his rivals under a microscope. DOGE’s co-head, fellow tech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy, has already said he’ll examine a government loan to Rivian, a competing electric vehicle manufacturer, calling the loan “a political shot across the bow at Elon Musk and Tesla.” Though DOGE is not an actual department—you need Congress to create one of those—and cannot slash spending directly, Musk could still suggest to Trump that government funding of fiber optic cables in rural areas be gutted. This would leave satellite services like Starlink as the only option for some rural consumers—an option either those consumers or the government would then have to pay for.

Until Trump was elected in 2016, it was impossible to imagine giving billionaires like Musk so much opportunity to use the levers of government to openly and directly benefit themselves. Now that Trump has won a second term in office, Musk is just one of many oligarchs looking forward to an extremely lucrative four years. It’s lucky for them—but terrible for the rest of us.

Campaign Action

Liz Cheney fires back after House GOP calls for her to be investigated

House Republicans on Tuesday released a report recommending that former Rep. Liz Cheney face criminal charges for her role in the bipartisan Jan. 6 committee.

The interim report comes from the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight chaired by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, who previously compared the 2019 impeachment of Donald Trump to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The report alleges that the Jan. 6 committee was a “political weapon” against Trump and accuses Cheney of witness tampering. Loudermilk’s allegation revolves around the actions of former Trump administration aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified before the committee. Hutchinson said in her testimony that Trump was unconcerned that his supporters were carrying weapons on Jan. 6 and that he wanted to go to the Capitol on the day of the attack.

In the report, texts were revealed between Hutchinson and former Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin purportedly discussing a change of lawyers after her Trump-connected lawyer Stefan Passantino was accused of telling Hutchinson to omit damaging details about Trump’s behavior. The Loudermilk report alleges that through her relationship with Griffin, which she used as an intermediary, and her direct contact with Hutchinson, Cheney crossed a legal line.

Trump praised the report on his Truth Social account writing, “Liz Cheney could be in a lot of trouble based on the evidence obtained by the subcommittee.” He added, “Thank you to Congressman Barry Loudermilk on a job well done.”

Rep. Barry Loudermilk,

“Chairman Loudermilk’s ‘Interim Report’ intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did,” Cheney said in a statement.

The Jan. 6 committee that investigated the attack released a report in December 2022 recommending several criminal charges against Trump for his actions. Trump was charged with election subversion, but special counsel Jack Smith dropped the case after Trump won the election.

The report comes less than two months after Cheney endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president and campaigned alongside her, citing the threat Trump represents to democracy. Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders said President Joe Biden should consider a preemptive pardon of officials like Cheney involved in the Jan. 6 committee after Trump called for them to be jailed.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy criticized the Loudermilk report in a social media post, noting that with the nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, Republicans are pursuing legal retribution against Trump detractors.

“Who will stand in the way of Cheney and others being put in jail? Not DOJ. Kash Patel was chosen to lead the FBI BECAUSE he wants to prosecute Trump's opponents,” Murphy wrote.

Patel is a longtime Trump fan who has previously said the legal system should be used to attack the press for reporting on Trump scandals.

At the same time the House report was released, Trump filed suit against pollster Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register for releasing a poll showing him losing to Harris in Iowa. On multiple fronts, Trump is targeting people who dare to say anything negative about him.

Republicans are totally cool with Trump pardoning Jan. 6 rioters

Republicans are sucking up to Donald Trump in the best way they know how: by being cowards. 

The convicted felon has promised that when he takes office in January, he will pardon Jan. 6 insurrectionists and called for lawmakers who investigated the attempted coup to be punished. And GOP senators and Congress members, most of whom were hunkered down in the Capitol on that terrible day, are lining up to roll over for him. 

“As we found from Hunter Biden, the president’s pardon authority is pretty extensive. That’s obviously a decision he’ll have to make,” incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune told The Hill about Trump’s promised pardons.

While he plans to let the rioters off scot-free, Trump recently told “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker that former Rep. Liz Cheney and other members of the Jan. 6 committee should “go to jail.” 

“I don’t have a comment really on those statements,” Thune said.

Thune’s timorous stance on pardoning the rioters was parroted by fellow Republican senators.

“We’ll see what he does. I mean it’s been four or five years [since the attack]. The ones that hurt cops, they’d be in a different category for me, but we’ll leave that up to him,” said South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims that the Jan. 6 committee destroyed evidence that would exonerate him. He has also publicly fantasized about committee co-chair Cheney facing a firing squad, and House Republicans including Second Amendment apologist Tim Burchett of Tennessee seem fine with Trump’s interest in political witch hunts.

“If they broke the law, then they should [be imprisoned],” Burchett told The Bulwark. “Now we know that they’ve manipulated evidence, so—if that’s the case, then absolutely.” 

As always, some Republicans were eager to minimize Trump’s threats.

“It was my understanding that he backed off that statement in a subsequent interview,” said Maine Sen. Susan Collins. “So I don’t really think that there’s—since he’s backed off on it, I don’t think there’s really any need for me to comment on it.”

Other GOP leaders cheered Trump’s vendetta on—even if it means targeting their own colleagues.

“With politicians, if you’ve used a congressional committee and you’ve lied and tried to set people up and falsely imprisoned people, then you should be held accountable,” said Rep. James Comer, who is no stranger to using House committees and scant evidence to attack political opponents.

“I haven’t kept up with the January 6th stuff like other people,” Comer told The Bulwark. “I don’t know exactly what Trump was referring to. But I have two years of experience working with one of the January 6th committee members, and I can tell you he’s been nothing but completely dishonest,” Comer said, clearly referring to Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin.

Every traitorous revelation from the Jan. 6 committee hearings was terrifying. The nearly 850-page final report by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol illuminating—and damning

Most voters oppose Trump’s plan to pardon convicted insurrectionists, but what most voters want has never been the Republican Party’s bag

Daily Kos is on Bluesky! We’ve made it easy for you to join us with the Daily Kos Bluesky Starter Pack. Click this link to follow Daily Kos and start curating your lists.

McConnell’s still whining about Trump—even though he voted for him

Outgoing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell once again sat for an interview in which he crapped all over Donald Trump, warning that the president-elect’s foreign policy ideas pose a danger not only to the United States but to the whole world.

In an interview with the Financial Times, McConnell said Trump and the Republican Party's isolationist views are a threat, as “the cost of deterrence is considerably less than the cost of war."

“To most American voters, I think the simple answer is, ‘Let’s stay out of it.’ That was the argument made in the ’30s and that just won’t work,” McConnell told the Financial Times. “Thanks to [Ronald] Reagan, we know what does work—not just saying peace through strength, but demonstrating it.”

Yet in that very same interview, McConnell admitted that he voted for Trump anyway.

“I supported the ticket,” McConnell said, refusing to even utter Trump's name.

What’s more, McConnell declined to say whether he should have done more to stop Trump from becoming president for the second time. McConnell had the chance to prevent Trump from running for president again during the Senate impeachment trial over Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. McConnell voted to acquit Trump, even though he said Trump was responsible for the insurrection at the Capitol that sought to overturn the free and fair election of Joe Biden.

It's not the first time McConnell has spoken ill of Trump. In October, excerpts from a McConnell biography were released in which McConnell called Trump “stupid,” a “narcissist,” and a “despicable human being." 

Yet despite thinking Trump is an awful person, McConnell endorsed Trump's 2024 comeback as he made those same attacks against the leader of the Republican Party.

“It is abundantly clear that former President Trump has earned the requisite support of Republican voters to be our nominee for President of the United States. It should come as no surprise that as nominee, he will have my support," McConnell said in March.

But McConnell's hypocrisy is not a surprise. Earlier in December, McConnell accused federal judges of playing politics by reneging on their decisions to retire in order to prevent Trump from choosing their replacements. But McConnell wrote the book on playing politics with the courts, as he stole a Supreme Court seat from former President Barack Obama, as well as a number of other judicial seats on lower courts. 

He also blocked a bicameral commission to probe the Jan. 6 insurrection, even though he believed Trump was responsible for the riot that led to the assault of more than 140 law enforcement officers.

While McConnell won’t be part of Senate GOP leadership next year, he is sticking around Capitol Hill. He claimed to the Financial Times that without the constraints of being in leadership, he will now push back on Trump and his own party’s isolationist policies.

“No matter who got elected president, I think it was going to require significant pushback, yeah, and I intend to be one of the pushers,” McConnell said.

But given that he’s always capitulated to Trump, color us skeptical. 

Campaign Action

Lindsey Graham wants to rewrite the Constitution to suck up to Trump

On Sunday, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a sycophant to President-elect Donald Trump, praised Trump's push to end birthright citizenship.

“We are one of a handful of countries in the world that allows birthright citizenship,” Graham said in his post. “If you’re born in the United States, you’re automatically an American citizen. This and birth tourism from developed countries like China have become one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration.”

“I have introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship, and I’m now working on a constitutional amendment to put an end to this practice once and for all,” Graham added.

To end birthright citizenship would mean amending the U.S. Constitution, whose 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States.” For a new constitutional amendment to take effect, it needs to be passed by a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber of Congress as well as ratified by 38 of 50 state legislatures.

Graham’s comments followed Trump’s Sunday appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” where he declared he would move to end birthright citizenship.

“We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in the interview. “We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Trump’s claim that America is the only country with birthright citizenship is false. More than 30 countries have it, according to a 2018 report by the Library of Congress. However, that mattered little to Graham, who was focused on how it “cheapens” American citizenship. 

"I believe legal immigration is important to our economy and future," Graham continued. "However, birthright citizenship and birth tourism … cheapen American citizenship." 

He concluded with his usual flair: "I look forward to working with President Trump to go beyond his executive order and end this disastrous policy once and for all."

Such a move would directly challenge the landmark 1868 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of full citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parent's immigration or citizenship status.

Graham has long advocated for ending birthright citizenship. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, he said, “Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. And in a series of posts railing against the constitutionally protected right, he declared his plans to introduce legislation in the Senate. 

This past September, he did just that. 

“This legislation will change the laws that exist today,” he said in a press conference announcing his bill, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2024. “There’s an 1898 Supreme Court ruling that basically suggested that if you’re born in America, you’re automatically a citizen. I do not believe that is a sound policy to have, and the Supreme Court will revisit this if challenged.”

This push to end birthright citizenship comes on the heels of a 2020 Trump administration policy that sought to curb “birth tourism”—a purported practice where foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth, hoping their child will be granted American citizenship. Through the State Department, the Trump administration restricted access to temporary visitor visas for foreign nationals hoping to give birth on American soil, though the administration didn’t provide a clear explanation of how it might know the intentions of pregnant travelers. (It also exempted 39 countries, most in Europe, from the rule.)

Graham’s relationship with Trump has been, to put it mildly, a rollercoaster. 

In 2015, amid the Republican presidential primary, Graham called Trump a “jackass,” and Trump called Graham an “idiot.” 

Eventually, Graham and Trump developed a friendship over their shared disdain for the Affordable Care Act. Since Trump’s first term, Graham has often aligned himself with Trump, from calling Trump’s impeachment hearings a witch hunt, to publicly defending Trump in the media. 

However, earlier this year, the relationship hit a rough patch after Trump reportedly refused to back a federal abortion ban, leading to some reported tension between the two. Yet Graham has remained a staunch supporter of Trump’s immigration policy—one of the agendas that swayed American voters to catapult him back into the White House. 

By challenging the 14th Amendment, Graham and Trump are not just targeting immigration policy—they’re aiming to rewrite what it means to be an American.

Campaign Action

Kash Patel’s qualifications to run FBI include writing Trump fan fiction

Donald Trump proposed on Saturday that current FBI Director Christopher Wray be replaced by pro-Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist Kash Patel. Wray was appointed by Trump in 2017 and is slated to serve a 10-year term which would end in 2027. Replacing him ahead of time would require Wray to voluntarily retire or for Trump to fire him once he becomes president.

Some Republicans have already expressed skepticism about replacing Wray. South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds said on ABC’s “This Week” that he had not heard complaints about Wray’s leadership of the law enforcement agency.

“The message, and one that I feel very strongly about, is that there is a constitutional separation. The Founding Fathers did that for a reason,” Rounds told the network.

Even though Wray was originally Trump’s pick, Trump has frequently complained that the FBI director has followed the law and authorized investigations into criminal behavior by Trump, his team, and pro-Trump rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Patel is a Trump devotee who previously worked as a DOJ prosecutor, exaggerating his role by claiming to be the “lead prosecutor” on the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Patel was actually a junior staffer on the team. He went on to work as an aide for former Rep. Devin Nunes, who now heads Trump Media & Technology Group.

In his role with Nunes, Patel fed Trump backchannel information on Ukraine that contributed to Trump’s plot to push that nation to help him smear his political opponents. Trump’s first impeachment was over his misuse of office in this effort. Trump rewarded Patel with jobs in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and in the Pentagon.

During this time, Patel authored a memo arguing that it was disloyal for then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper to oppose a request by Trump to deploy military troops against American citizens protesting police violence against Black people.

After Trump lost to President Joe Biden in 2020, Patel pushed lies about the election being stolen and argued that reporters debunking Trump’s election lies should be targeted by the government.

“Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections—we’re going to come after you,” Patel said in an interview last year with Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser.

Patel has authored three children’s books that are pro-Trump fan fiction.

“The Plot Against the King” is described by the publisher as a “fantastical retelling of Hillary’s horrible plot against Trump” and features a character named “Kash the Distinguished Discoverer” defending King Donald Trump.

The second book, “The Plot Against the King: 2,000 Mules,” is a fictionalized version of pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza’s debunked lies about the 2020 election being stolen. The blurb details a “terrible scheme to elect Sleepy Joe instead of King Donald on Choosing Day.”

In “The Plot Against the King 3: The Return of the King,” the story is about the “Journey of the MAGA King as he returns to take down Comma-la-la-la and reclaim his throne.”

These books are authored by the person who Trump wants to lead the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, responsible for the safety and security of hundreds of millions of people.

Campaign Action

 

Quid pro quo and Putin praise: Trump’s contentious history with Ukraine

The Biden administration is pushing through major support for Ukraine before Donald Trump takes office. 

From billions of dollars in security assistance to a nearly $5 billion debt-relief package, Biden is attempting to stockpile support before the wells are expected to dry up under Trump’s presidency. 

Trump has claimed he will end the war in just one day, with no explanation of how he would do that. However, Trump’s previous statements regarding the war—including his refusal to pick a side—suggest the felon-elect would lean in favor of Russia to swiftly dissolve conflict. 

The nonstop news cycle makes it easy to lose track of the why’s and who’s in this issue, so Daily Kos has compiled a quick walk-through history on Trump’s relationships with Ukraine and Russia.

Here’s what you need to know.

The “perfect phone call” scandal

The way the world views Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has changed quite a lot since he first took office in 2019. Since Russia’s invasion of his country in 2022, Zelenskyy has been a praised wartime leader—a huge jump from his time as a comedian who played the piano with his penis—but in 2019, Zelenskyy found himself as a pawn in Trump’s political maneuvers. 

That July, Trump swept Zelenskyy up into an international scandal, threatening in a phone call to withhold aid from the Ukrainian president unless he provided dirt on Joe Biden, who had not even won the Democratic nomination yet.

Later in 2019, officials testified before Congress that Trump withheld $400 million in security aid as a means to coerce Zelenskyy to announce Ukraine would investigate Biden for corruption.

Ultimately, this—and plenty more—led to Trump’s impeachment in the House. He was later acquitted by the Senate.

“I’m the only one to get impeached on a perfect phone call, like a perfect phone call,” Trump said laughably in an August 2020 interview with Fox Business.

Historically, the U.S. has provided aid to Ukraine as an incentive for pushing out corruption and promoting democracy. However, Trump’s request positioned Zelenskyy to play the same games of corruption the Ukrainian president was fighting, in exchange for much-needed aid.

The praise-fest

Trump has a laundry list of kind words for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Here are some of the (many) receipts of their love exchange over the years. 

In 2014, Trump praised Putin for the takeover of Crimea, saying the move was “smart” and predicting that Ukraine would fall “fairly quickly” because of it. 

In 2022, Trump called the Russian dictator a “genius” and “very savvy” for his invasion of Ukraine.

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius,’” Trump said following the invasion. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine—of Ukraine—Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

According to CNN, Trump talked about Putin over 80 times, often heaping praise on him, between June 2013 and February 2017. 

Putin is now returning some of the sentiment. In November, Putin said he is willing to reopen the line of communication about ending the war once “courageous” Trump takes office next year. 

However, critics have argued that Trump and Putin’s idea of ending the war leans more in favor of the dictatorship claiming Ukrainian land and less in line with the U.S. 's history of supporting Ukraine’s independence.

Trump smears Ukraine

While the U.S. has a long track record of providing support to Ukraine to promote the country’s independence and anti-corruption efforts, Trump has turned his back on the idea of Ukrainian independence from Russia, painting the country as broken and helpless. 

In September, Trump dismissed Ukraine as "demolished” and called its people “dead” as he raved about how the country should have given into Russia’s demands sooner. 

“If they made a bad deal it would’ve been much better,” he continued. “They would’ve given up a little bit and everybody would be living and every building would be built and every tower would be aging for another 2,000 years.”

The incoming president further speculated that Ukraine shouldn’t have fought Putin, saying that “the worst deal would’ve been better than what we have now.”

Trump has seemingly taken up a personal vendetta with Zelenskyy as well, making jabs to delegitimize the Ukrainian president. 

“Every time Zelenskyy comes to the United States he walks away with $100 billion, I think he’s the greatest salesman on Earth,” Trump said in September, on the campaign trail. 

The U.S. has supplied $175 billion of aid to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, with $106 billion of that going directly to Ukraine’s government. 

Notably, Trump has pointed fingers at Ukraine and Zelenskyy for the war while staying mum about any fault Russia might have. 

At the end of the day, Trump made his stance clear last month when he said Zelenskyy “should never have let that war start.”

 

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.

How Trump plans to seize the power of the purse From Congress

The second-term president likely will seek to cut off spending that lawmakers have already appropriated, setting off a constitutional struggle within the branches. If successful, he could wield the power to punish perceived foes.

By Molly Redden, for ProPublica

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Donald Trump is entering his second term with vows to cut a vast array of government services and a radical plan to do so. Rather than relying on his party’s control of Congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers intend to test an obscure legal theory holding that presidents have sweeping power to withhold funding from programs they dislike.

“We can simply choke off the money,” Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. “For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.”

His plan, known as “impoundment,” threatens to provoke a major clash over the limits of the president’s control over the budget. The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to appropriate the federal budget, while the role of the executive branch is to dole out the money effectively. But Trump and his advisers are asserting that a president can unilaterally ignore Congress’ spending decisions and “impound” funds if he opposes them or deems them wasteful.

Trump’s designs on the budget are part of his administration’s larger plan to consolidate as much power in the executive branch as possible. This month, he pressured the Senate to go into recess so he could appoint his cabinet without any oversight. (So far, Republicans who control the chamber have not agreed to do so.) His key advisers have spelled out plans to bring independent agencies, such as the Department of Justice, under political control.

If Trump were to assert a power to kill congressionally approved programs, it would almost certainly tee up a fight in the federal courts and Congress and, experts say, could fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power.

“It’s an effort to wrest the entire power of the purse away from Congress, and that is just not the constitutional design,” said Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown Law professor who has written about the federal budget and appropriations process. “The president doesn’t have the authority to go into the budget bit by bit and pull out the stuff he doesn’t like.”

Trump’s claim to have impoundment power contravenes a Nixon-era law that forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements as well as a string of federal court rulings that prevent presidents from refusing to spend money unless Congress grants them the flexibility.

Elon Musk and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during a campaign rally on Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pennsylvania.

In an op-ed published Wednesday, tech billionaire Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, who are overseeing the newly created, nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency, wrote that they planned to slash federal spending and fire civil servants. Some of their efforts could offer Trump his first Supreme Court test of the post-Watergate Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend the money Congress approves. The law allows exceptions, such as when the executive branch can achieve Congress’ goals by spending less, but not as a means for the president to kill programs he opposes.

Trump and his aides have been telegraphing his plans for a hostile takeover of the budgeting process for months. Trump has decried the 1974 law as “not a very good act” in his campaign video and said, “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State.”

Musk and Ramaswamy have seized that mantle, writing, “We believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.”

The once-obscure debate over impoundment has come into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to veterans of Trump’s first administration who remain his close allies. Russell Vought, Trump’s former budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought as the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, have worked to popularize the idea from the Trump-aligned think tank Vought founded, the Center for Renewing America.

On Friday, Trump announced he had picked Vought to lead OMB again. “Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government, and he will help us return Self Governance to the People,” Trump said in a statement.

Vought was also a top architect of the controversial Project 2025. In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted that he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda.

“I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral,” Vought said.

Trump spokespeople and Vought did not respond to requests for comment.

The prospect of Trump seizing vast control over federal spending is not merely about reducing the size of the federal government, a long-standing conservative goal. It is also fueling new fears about his promises of vengeance.

A similar power grab led to his first impeachment. During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Pasachoff predicted that, when advantageous, the incoming Trump administration will attempt to achieve the goals of impoundment without picking such a high-profile fight.

Trump tested piecemeal ways beyond the Ukrainian arms imbroglio to withhold federal funding as a means to punish his perceived enemies, said Bobby Kogan, a former OMB adviser under Biden and the senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning think tank American Progress. After devastating wildfires in California and Washington, Trump delayed or refused to sign disaster declarations that would have unlocked federal relief aid because neither state had voted for him. He targeted so-called sanctuary cities by conditioning federal grants on local law enforcement’s willingness to cooperate with mass deportation efforts. The Biden administration eventually withdrew the policy.

Trump and his aides claim there is a long presidential history of impoundment dating back to Thomas Jefferson.

Most historical examples involve the military and cases where Congress had explicitly given presidents permission to use discretion, said Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. Jefferson, for example, decided not to spend money Congress had appropriated for gun boats — a decision the law, which appropriated money for “a number not exceeding fifteen gun boats” using “a sum not exceeding fifty thousand dollars,” authorized him to make.

President Donald Trump listens while acting OMB Director Russell Vought speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Oct. 9, 2019.

President Richard Nixon took impoundment to a new extreme, wielding the concept to gut billions of dollars from programs he simply opposed, such as highway improvements, water treatment, drug rehabilitation and disaster relief for farmers. He faced overwhelming pushback both from Congress and in the courts. More than a half dozen federal judges and the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the appropriations bills at issue did not give Nixon the flexibility to cut individual programs.

Vought and his allies argue the limits Congress placed in 1974 are unconstitutional, saying a clause in the Constitution obligating the president to “faithfully execute” the law also implies his power to forbid its enforcement. (Trump is fond of describing Article II, where this clause lives, as giving him “the right to do whatever I want as president.”)

The Supreme Court has never directly weighed in on whether impoundment is constitutional. But it threw water on that reasoning in an 1838 case, Kendall v. U.S., about a federal debt payment.

“To contend that the obligation imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution, is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible,” the justices wrote.

During his cutting spree, Nixon’s own Justice Department argued roughly the same.

“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds,” William Rehnquist, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel whom Nixon later appointed to the Supreme Court, warned in a 1969 legal memo, “we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”

Campaign Action

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s new gig will make your eyes roll

All-star conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene has been given her own subcommittee to chair. The representative from Georgia will work under the House Oversight Committee and alongside Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s toothless Department of Government Efficiency—yes, named after the DOGE meme and crypto scheme that Musk is so fond of.

Fox News reports that Greene will chair yet another DOGE—the Delivering on Government Efficiency Committee, which will purportedly “focus on rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.”

A longtime Donald Trump loyalist, Greene tried and failed to oust Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this year. She subsequently threatened to try it again. The prospect of chairing her own subcommittee seems to have mollified the congresswoman, as reports indicate she is now expected to support Johnson’s upcoming bid to re-up as speaker.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had a perfect response to Greene’s new gig. 

“​​This is good, actually,” AOC posted on X. “She barely shows up and doesn’t do the reading. To borrow a phrase I saw elsewhere, it’s like giving someone an unplugged controller.“

“Absolutely dying at those two now getting assigned the ‘privilege’ of ‘working” with MTG,” she continued. “That is actually hilarious. Enjoy, fellas! Very prestigious post you have there.”

Absolutely dying at those two now getting assigned the “privilege” of “working” with MTG. That is actually hilarious. Enjoy, fellas! Very prestigious post you have there 💀

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 22, 2024

Carpetbagger Greene has a rich history of unproductive antics in the House and on committees. Way back in 2021, 11 Republicans voted with Democrats to remove Greene from her committee assignments. At the time, Greene’s history of making threatening statements against fellow lawmakers and spewing antisemitic conspiracy theories was considered a detriment to the American public.

In 2023, after the GOP retook control of the House, Greene got a chance to embarrass America as a committee member again. And since her very first day back, she has spewed hate, disseminated misinformation, and even had to be muzzled by her own party’s committee chair for being such a crap-tabulous person.

She is now tasked with having to actually work with someone. Sure, she will parade in government agency officials and then misinform the public about excessive spending while turning a blind eye to actual waste and the private sector’s gouging of American taxpayers. But will her ego coexist with Musk’s, a guy known to relish in destroying things because he’s in a tyrannical position of power? 

Campaign Action

Thought Gaetz was a bad attorney general pick? Get a load of Pam Bondi

Donald Trump has chosen to nominate former Florida Attorney General and Fox News guest host Pam Bondi to serve as his attorney general. Trump made the decision after his first choice, sex trafficking investigation subject Matt Gaetz, decided to drop out.

Bondi fits right in with Trump ideologically. During her time serving in Florida, Bondi focused on attacking the Affordable Care Act, which Trump has long pushed to repeal.

In 2012, she worked with other Republican attorneys general on a lawsuit meant to undo the law, which has extended health care coverage to millions of Americans. Bondi clearly relished her role as the public face of the suit and a 2012 Tampa Bay Times story quoted Bondi asking her team to take photos of her in front of the Supreme Court following a news conference there.

The case failed and the law has remained in place—with coverage expanded by the Biden/Harris administration.

Bondi was also part of a 2018 lawsuit that sought to strike down provisions in the law that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. That effort also ultimately failed.

Like so many others in the Trump orbit, Bondi is a frequent part of the rotation of guests and guest hosts on Fox News.

In her appearances on the network the lawyer distinguished herself by referring to Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse as merely a “little boy out there trying to protect his community,” and by calling for schools to follow the post-9/11 airport security model in response to school shootings, as opposed to gun regulation.

Trump enlisted Bondi to argue his case on the Senate floor when he was impeached for using the presidency to solicit political favors from Ukraine, and she was one of the public faces of Trump’s efforts to promote election lies following his loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

“We’ve won Pennsylvania,” Bondi claimed at the time—and in a Fox News appearance came up with a story about “fake ballots” purportedly being counted in the state. Trump lost Pennsylvania to Biden by over 80,000 votes.

Trump has frequently said that loyalty is extremely important to him, and Bondi has been an advocate for him for years.

Those ties have also led to the appearance of corruption. In 2016, Trump was forced to pay a penalty to the IRS after it was determined that he had broken tax laws by giving a political contribution to a Bondi-connected nonprofit.

Following that 2013 donation of $25,000 from Trump, Bondi decided not to investigate fraud claims against Trump University in her role as Florida attorney general. Years later, Trump paid out $25 million in settlements to students who said the organization had duped them with promises to impart the “secrets of success” in real estate.

Unlike Gaetz, Bondi may not have any ongoing sex trafficking investigations (that are publicly known at least) but she has proven herself a Trump diehard, which is his top qualification for the most important positions.

Campaign Action