Elon Musk and Donald Trump clash with Congress over spending bill, but wind up with diminished political power and little else to show for their efforts

Elon Musk (right) with his posse (AP)

 

Donald Trump's decision to engage in the Congressional spending fray presents a foreboding sign for the next four years in the United States, according to a report at the Associated Press (AP). It serves as a reminder that Trump (a) Is inept at almost all areas of governance; and (b) His tendency to rely on threats to bully people and get his way only goes so far.

A team of AP reporters, under the headline "What Trump’s decision to wade into spending fight tells us about the next 4 years," writes:

After days of threats and demands, Donald Trump had little to show for it once lawmakers passed a budget deal in the early hours of Saturday, narrowly averting a pre-Christmas government shutdown.

The president-elect successfully pushed House Republicans to jettison some spending, but he failed to achieve his central goal of raising the debt limit. It demonstrated that despite his decisive election victory and frequent promises of retribution, many members of his party are still willing to openly defy him.

Trump’s decision to inject himself into the budget debate a month before his inauguration also showed that he remains more adept at blowing up deals than making them, and it foreshadowed that his second term will likely be marked by the same infighting, chaos and brinksmanship that characterized his first.

“Stay tuned. Buckle up. Strap in,” said Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., a senior appropriator.

The spending battle likely will be the first of many wasteful imbroglios to mark Trump's second term. Why? Trump has demonstrated that he has little knack for governance and maybe even less for persuasion, AP reports. And these are not items Trump can push through on his own:

A glance at Trump’s agenda shows a cascade of opportunities for similar showdowns in the years to come. He wants to extend tax cuts that he signed into law seven years ago, slash the size of government, increase tariffs on imports and crack down on illegal immigrants. Many of those efforts will need congressional buy-in.

For many of Trump’s supporters, disruption could be its own goal. Thirty-seven percent of those who voted for him this year said they wanted “complete and total upheaval,” according to AP VoteCast, a broad survey of more than 120,000 voters. An additional 56% said they wanted “substantial change.”

But the past few days made clear the difficulty Trump could face in quickly fulfilling his goals, especially with Republicans holding only thin majorities in the House and the Senate. Some lawmakers already seem weary of the apparent lack of a unified strategy.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said the budget battle was “a valuable lesson in how to get our act together.”

“There are no layups and it gets more complicated,” he said

In short, Trump has not taken office yet, and a member of his own party is admitting that the president-elect doesn't have his act together. That's comforting. From the AP report:

How Trump’s demands fell flat

The trouble started when top lawmakers released a copy of the bill, known as a continuing resolution, that was required to keep the federal government functioning until March. It wasn’t the president-elect but Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a Trump confidant, who first began whipping up opposition to the legislation on social media by calling it excessive spending.

Trump eventually waded into the fight. He ordered Republicans to cancel the bipartisan deal they had made with Democrats. And he demanded they increase the debt limit — the cap on how much the government can borrow — in hopes of preventing that thorny issue from coming up while he is in charge of the government.

He ratcheted up the pressure even as his demands shifted. First he wanted to eliminate the debt limit altogether. Then he wanted to suspend it until 2027. Then he floated an extension until 2029.

If there was a shutdown, Democratic President Joe Biden would take the blame, Trump insisted.

“All Republicans, and even the Democrats, should do what is best for our Country, and vote “YES” for this Bill, TONIGHT!” Trump wrote Thursday, before a vote on a version of the bill that included a higher debt limit.

Instead, 38 Republicans voted no. It was a stunning brush-off to Trump, whose power over his party has at times seemed near-absolute.“Without this, we should never make a deal,” he wrote on Truth Social, his social-media site. If he didn’t get what he wanted, Trump said, there should be a government shutdown. He also said members of his own party would face primary challenges if they refused to go along, saying “Republican obstructionists have to be done away with.” He singled out Rep. Chip Roy of Texas by name and with insults. But in the end, lawmakers left out that debt ceiling increase, and a final deal passed early Saturday. Once the matter was resolved, where did everyone stand? Mostly on shaky ground it seemed:

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he had been in “constant contact” with Trump, who, he added was “certainly happy about this outcome.”

If Trump agreed, he didn’t say so himself.

After days of frequent social-media messages, Trump again went silent on Friday. He did not offer a reaction to the final vote or issue any statements. Instead, he went golfing at his Florida resort.

More clashes to come

The circus-like atmosphere of the funding fight was reminiscent of Trump’s first term. Back then, one budget standoff led to a government shutdown when Trump demanded money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. After 35 days — the longest shutdown in history — he agreed to a deal without the money he wanted.

It was a political low point for Trump, and 60% of Americans blamed him for the shutdown, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll at the time.

Trump didn’t stop trying to bend Republicans to his will then. He’s certainly not going to do so now.

He is cranking up the pressure on his own party over his Cabinet picks, pushing reluctant Republican senators to get on board with some of his most controversial choices, such as anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary and former Fox News host Pete Hegseth as defense secretary.

The spending debates next year seem certain to further test Trump’s influence in the House. Many conservatives view the rapid growth of the federal debt as an existential threat to the country that must be addressed. But some Republicans fear a voter backlash if steep cuts are made to federal programs upon which Americans rely.

Concerns about deficit spending could intensify if Trump pushes expensive tax cuts that he promised during the campaign, such as eliminating taxes on tips, Social Security and overtime pay.

He also wants to extend the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017 that are set to expire next year. He has called for further lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, but only for companies that produce in the United States.

Trump has said he will pay for the dips in revenue with aggressive new tariffs that economists warn will lead to higher prices for consumers.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said reducing spending would likely continue to be a gulf between Trump and House Republicans.

“That’s never been really a campaign promise of Trump, but it’s a big priority for House Republicans,” he said.

There was no sense that the animosity was dying down on Saturday. Some Republicans faulted the House leadership for not securing Trump’s “blessing” on the original deal. Democrats cast Trump as second fiddle to Musk.

While Trump stayed quiet, Biden announced that he signed the budget legislation.

“This agreement represents a compromise, which means neither side got everything it wanted,” he said. “But it rejects the accelerated pathway to a tax cut for billionaires that Republicans sought, and it ensures the government can continue to operate at full capacity.”

After Trump and Musk combine to torpedo bipartisan spending bill, Trump's alternative package fails, with Congress teetering toward a government shutdown

Trump and Musk sink bipartisan spending bill (Getty)

What is the No. 1 talent for Donald Trump and Elon Musk when they put their heads together? The most striking clues to that question came on Wednesday when Trump and Musk worked jointly to torpedo a spending bill that was designed to ensure the government keeps running and avoids a shutdown. Given what they did to that bill, it appears their main talent when working in tandem is breaking things. But the road is getting rocky for the GOP's "dynamic duo," as a Trump-backed alternative bill failed last night, leaving Congress headed for a government shutdown tonight.

Reports came out late yesterday afternoon that Trump supported a new bill to fund the government, and and he called it a "very good deal for the American people," and the House of Representatives was to vote on it last night. That measure failed, however, according to a CNN report at about 9:45 CST. But that came only after Trump and Musk had combined to hold the chamber hostage for a grotesque performance of "Chaos Theatre." Trump was demanding that GOP members embrace the new bill in a show of unity. In the process of backing a bill that went down to defeat, Trump reportedly alienated House members on both sides of the aisle. From the CNN report:

Congress is barreling toward a government shutdown after the GOP-led House failed to pass a funding plan backed by President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday, leaving Hill Republicans scrambling to find a path forward.

The Trump-endorsed plan was opposed by almost all Democrats, who are frustrated and angry after the president-elect tanked an earlier bipartisan deal, and a significant number of Republicans.

Government funding expires at the end of the day on Friday.

The GOP measure included a three-month extension of government funding, a two-year suspension of the debt limit into January 2027, as well as roughly $110 billion for disaster relief, according to five sources. The House voted 174 to 235, with 38 Republicans voting against the measure and 2 Democrats voting in favor.

The GOP measure included a three-month extension of government funding, a two-year suspension of the debt limit into January 2027, as well as roughly $110 billion for disaster relief, according to five sources. The House voted 174 to 235, with 38 Republicans voting against the measure and 2 Democrats voting in favor.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting ahead of the vote that he was “not just a no, I’m a hell no,” on the new GOP proposal, according to a source in the room.

Democrats have argued that the two-year suspension of the debt limit will help Trump pass his tax plan, and they aren’t willing to make it easier for him, given their opposition to it.

“This bill is designed to set up the GOP tax scam 2.0,” Jeffries said in remarks on the House floor ahead of the vote. “That’s what this bill today fundamentally is all about.”

Trump upended the government funding effort on Wednesday when he came out against the bipartisan plan that House Speaker Mike Johnson had backed. Trump is now demanding that any deal to avert a shutdown also address the looming debt limit, a complex issue that typically requires weeks to months of painstaking negotiations on Capitol Hill to resolve.  (Is this another example of Trump not knowing what he's doing, being ignorant of governance.)

In other words, Trump blew up an earlier effort to reach a spending measure, and then tried to bully members into supporting his flawed effort to paper over the problem. That did not work, with Trump leaving members of both parties pissed off at his failed attempts to correct what he had screwed up.

That's the kind of "leadership" delusional Americans (i.e., mostly White conservatives) voted for on Nov. 5, so they can look forward to much more of this incompetence and more episodes of "Trump Can't Govern, and Why Didn't All Sentient Beings Know That Before?" How are Democrats going to bail the country out this time? Republicans show no signs of being able to do it.

When the day was over, Trump critics were openly mocking the president-elect, by referring to Musk as his "shadow president." Trump clearly had been upstaged, and that is likely to make him and his oversized ego highly agitated.

Elon Musk and SpaceX come under fire for violations of secruity-reporting rules, with reports about the CEO's drug use and ties to foreign leaders setting off alarms in a world where secrets are meant to be kept

Elon Musk and SpaceX (Getty)

Less than 24 hours after revelations that U.S. billionaire Elon Musk had essentially bought the U.S. presidency by plowing more than $270 million into getting Donald Trump elected -- and those included reports about a number of dubious actions on Musk's part -- we have new revelations, from reporting at The New York Times (NYT) that point to more questionable activities by Musk and one of his companies. 

Under the headline "Musk and SpaceX Face Reviews After Violations of Security Reporting Rules; Federal agencies have opened at least three reviews into whether the company and its leader complied with disclosure protocols intended to protect state secrets, people with knowledge of the matter said.," Times reporters Kirsten Grind, Sheera Frenkel, and Eric Lipton write:

Elon Musk and his rocket company, SpaceX, have repeatedly failed to comply with federal reporting protocols aimed at protecting state secrets, including by not providing some details of his meetings with foreign leaders, according to people with knowledge of the company and internal documents.

Concerns about the reporting practices — and particularly about Mr. Musk, who is SpaceX’s chief executive — have triggered at least three federal reviews, eight people with knowledge of the efforts said. The Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General opened a review into the matter this year, and the Air Force and the Pentagon’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security separately initiated reviews last month.

The Air Force recently denied Mr. Musk a high-level security access, citing potential security risks associated with the billionaire. Several allied nations, including Israel, have expressed concerns that he could share sensitive data with others, according to defense officials.

Internally, SpaceX has a team that is expected to ensure compliance with the government’s national-security rules. Some of those employees have complained to the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General and other agencies about the lax reporting, which goes back to at least 2021, four people with knowledge of the company said. SpaceX was awarded at least $10 billion in federal contracts with the Pentagon and NASA from 2019 to 2023, making it a major contractor.

Mr. Musk is facing scrutiny as he wields increasing power around the world through his myriad businesses — particularly SpaceX but also the social media company X and the electric carmaker Tesla. While the 53-year-old has long blown past norms and conventions that do not suit him or his companies, the stakes are arguably higher when it comes to national-security matters.

As the world's richest man, Musk clearly is not a dummy. But one would think that as his power and profile have grown on a global scale -- to the point that he almost single-handedly chose the current president-elect of the United States --  he would be prepared for more scrutiny to come with such perks. That, however, does not appear to have happened. Is a tendency to blow "past norms and conventions" a sign of the arrogance and entitlement that come with great wealth? The answer appears to be yes. With many Americans, especially non-Republicans, highly displeased and distressed by Musk's choice of a man who is widely seen as unfit to be president, the pressure likely will build for him to be held accountable, especially by courts, members of the legal profession, and Defense Department watchdogs. Write The Times reporters:

For years, SpaceX workers responsible for upholding disclosure rules grudgingly allowed Mr. Musk to disregard many of the reporting procedures, as they did not want to lose their jobs, the people with knowledge of the company said. But the issue has reached a tipping point as Mr. Musk’s influence is set to escalate. An ardent supporter of President-elect Donald J. Trump, he was named last month to help lead an effort to winnow the federal bureaucracy and has joined calls that Mr. Trump has held with foreign leaders.

Some SpaceX workers have become concerned about Mr. Musk’s ability to handle sensitive information, especially as he posts openly on X about everything from video games to diplomatic meetings, the people said. The fears have been compounded because Mr. Musk has a top-secret security clearance at SpaceX, which makes him privy to classified material such as advanced U.S. military technology.

Like Trump, Musk seems to have a problem with loose lips. And that can be an unnerving trait in the world of  national security, defense contracts, strategic alliances, and international intelligence/surveillance. Musk's free-wheeling style might have won him admirers in the business world, but it could make him a liability in the political world. Keeping up with security reporting is part of that world. From The Times reporting team: 

Under security-clearance rules, Mr. Musk must report information about his private life and foreign travel, among other details, to the Defense Department as part of a process known as “continuous vetting.” That allows the government to evaluate whether someone with a high-level security clearance should continue handling sensitive information.

But since at least 2021, Mr. Musk and SpaceX have not adhered to those reporting requirements, the people with knowledge of SpaceX said. He and his team have not provided some details of his travel — such as his full itineraries — and some of his meetings with foreign leaders, they said. He has also not reported his use of drugs, which is required even with a prescription, they said.  A Wall Street Journal report has tied Musk to the use of LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms and katamine.  Musk has denied smoking pot, even though he smoked a joint on a video, widely available on the Web, during an apperance on the Joe Rogan podcast. This is from a report at Forbes about Musk's drug habit (dated 9/12/18, written by contributor Ben Curren):

Last week, when Elon Musk appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, he broke the internet when he took a single puff of cannabis at the two-hour-and-ten minute mark. In just under 15 seconds of a podcast that topped two-and-a-half hours, he seemingly did enough damage to cause Tesla’s stock to plummet nine percent, where it remained for the rest of the day.

Today, Tesla’s stock price has rebounded and is back to normal. But the fifteen seconds in which Musk accepted Rogan’s joint, studied it quizzically, took a single tentative puff, shrugged it off, and handed it back spawned a slew of headlines that persisted through the weekend.

“DealBook Briefing: Elon Musk Smoked Weed on Air,” crowed The New York Times.

“Analysis: Elon Musk is hurting Tesla with his bizarre behavior,” wrote CNN Money.

“Elon Musk seen smoking weed on podcast,” said CNBC.

While cannabis use has come more into the mainstream and become more normalized than ever before, the daylong selloff and the headlines that came from Musk’s appearance suggest that cannabis still has a long way to go before it can overcome the stigmas that have persisted around it for decades.

Never mind that cannabis – for both medical and recreational use – is legal in California, where the interview was taped. Never mind that Musk said he never smoked, or that he demonstrated the ability to continue holding a rational and thoughtful conversation until the interview’s conclusion. And never mind that he and Rogan were drinking whiskey the entire time without incident or note. That 15-second clip has been played on loop as evidence that Musk has lost credibility or, in the more extreme portrayals, has become unhinged.

I write this not to attack Elon Musk nor to be overly supportive of his behavior. To be sure, while it may seem unfair, a public company CEO has a duty to act at the highest levels of professionalism. As a CEO myself, I understand all too well the expectations that are required in public settings. But it seems wildly problematic, especially in 2018 with legalization on the rise across the country, that someone can be stereotyped as unhinged for consuming a small amount of cannabis.

As it stands now, Musk has raised a lot of questions without providing clear answers. That might not be appreciated by officials for the political space in which Musk now operates. The Times reports that some who are used to the requirements of that political space are alarmed about Musk's cavalier approach to providing important information:

It is unclear why Mr. Musk did not report some of this information to the government, especially since he sometimes posts on X about matters that he does not relay to the Defense Department. It is also unclear if Mr. Musk instructed SpaceX to not report the information. No federal agency has accused him of disclosing classified material.

Still, “to have someone who has major contracts with the government who would be in a position to pass along — whether deliberately or inadvertently — secrets is concerning,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and a member of the Senate Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations.

Last month, Ms. Shaheen asked the Air Force and the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General to investigate whether Mr. Musk was having inappropriate communications with foreign leaders, including President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

The Air Force and the Pentagon’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security initiated their reviews in response to questions from Ms. Shaheen and another lawmaker. On Friday, a day after The New York Times asked the secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, about the matter, he responded to Ms. Shaheen, saying federal privacy laws prohibited him from discussing Mr. Musk’s case.

“The Department of the Air Force takes security matters very seriously, and I share your concerns,” he said.

Whether the federal reviews will affect Mr. Musk or SpaceX is unclear. Some of the SpaceX employees who complained about the privately held company’s reporting practices have been fired or forced out, the people with knowledge of the rocket maker said. Two defense officials said senior Pentagon leaders had given directives to avoid discussing the matter so they would not become targets of Mr. Musk, who has promised to cut government workers and budgets in his new role in Washington.

As a matter of constitutional law, Mr. Trump could grant a security clearance to anyone after his inauguration, even if others in the government object.

Mr. Musk, a lawyer for Mr. Musk, and SpaceX did not return requests for comment. In a post on X after this article was published, Mr. Musk said, “Deep state traitors are coming after me, using their paid shills in legacy media.” He added, “I prefer not to start fights, but I do end them …”

Could that be taken as a threat by some of Musk's new colleagues and superiors? Yes. Was it smart to say that, under the circumstances? No. Will that comfort anyone who might be concerned about Musk's loose lips? Definitely not. Word of The Times' reporting seems to be getting around:

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment. A spokesman for the department’s Office of Inspector General, which is a quasi-independent watchdog arm, said the office could “neither confirm nor deny the existence of an ongoing investigation.”

Mr. Kendall declined to comment on Mr. Musk, but said the Pentagon was serious about security clearance rules. “We depend upon enforceable and executable contracts, and we enforce them,” he said in an interview at the Pentagon.

Top Secret

Mr. Musk’s security clearance has been fraught for years, three people with knowledge of the matter said. Until about 2018, he held a mid-level secret clearance at SpaceX, they said. That year, the company applied for a higher level of clearance known as “top secret” on his behalf.

Many SpaceX employees hold some level of security clearance since the company is a defense contractor that puts NASA astronauts into orbit and provides its Starlink satellite internet service to the military. It is also helping the federal government build a new constellation of spy satellites.

Security clearances are critical for the government to protect intelligence and state secrets. Officials examine an applicant’s financial background and personal relationships, interview the applicant’s friends and family and collect documents outlining the person’s history.

The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, which is in charge of vetting individuals seeking access to classified information, took more than two years — an atypical length that was more than double the average time — to approve Mr. Musk’s top-secret security clearance, three people with knowledge of the matter said. Top secret is the highest clearance through the security agency, but some government departments offer separate levels of access to classified materials that can be higher.

During that period, Mr. Musk was filmed on Joe Rogan’s podcast smoking pot, which remains illegal at the federal level and is prohibited under security clearance rules. His business interests in China, where Tesla has a factory, were also a concern, the people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Musk ultimately received the clearance.

A spokesman for the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency said he could not address any questions related to Mr. Musk.

Those holding a security clearance must self-report certain details of their lives during the continuous vetting process. The Air Force, as part of its contracts with SpaceX that include classified work, pays the company to hire a special staff to ensure these requirements are honored.

SpaceX’s team that reports such information for its employees, including Mr. Musk, was until recently overseen by Terrence O’Shaughnessy, a retired four-star Air Force general and a top lieutenant to the billionaire, four people with knowledge of the team said. Mr. Musk has recommended General O’Shaughnessy for a position in the new Trump administration.

Donald Trump shows rare signs of being normal, with a warm side, but how long will that last once a journalist poses a question that raises his hackles?

Trump and SoftBank CEO Son (Getty)

As the proprietor of a progressive blog that is about to turn 18 years old, I feel compelled to "share" some background on our little endeavor in the blogosphere. (by "share," I mean "brag about," so here it goes):  Legal Schnauzer has been published continuously since June 2007, and in 2012, a Chicago-based company called Cision ("a global provider of media relations services and software solutions for public-relations professionals") included us among their survey of the top 50 independent law bogs (No., 37 to be exact) in North America. Along the way, I reached the conclusion that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as president of the United States. Based on my social-media accounts and e-mail traffic, a lot of reasonable people (and by "reasonable," I mean "Democrats") have reached similar conclusions. Just this week, we've received multiple reports with new evidence that Trump should not be allowed to run a Weed Eater on the White House lawn, much less setting foot in the Oval Office. 

The first such report came on Monday when Trump conducted a press conference that The New York Times covered under the headline "Trump Meets the Press; Reflecting on how much has changed, and hasn’t, for Donald Trump since he first became president." in the On Politics newsletter. Reporter Shane Goldmacher did not spend much time on the changes he has seen in Trump, and that suggested to me that maybe Trump hasn't changed. That could mean, in my left-of-center brain, that Trump's second term might be a repeat of his first, with all of the attending chaos and dysfunction. It also might mean -- Heaven help us -- that Trump could be even worse this go-around. 

So, how does Donald Trump of 2024 compare to the Trump of 2016 -- in Shane Goldmacher's eyes? Let's take a look:

Nearly eight years ago, I remember walking into the lobby of Trump Tower to cover President-elect Donald Trump’s first news conference after the 2016 election. On Monday (12/16/24), as I watched him turn Mar-a-Lago into the backdrop of his first news conference since he became president-elect for the second time, I couldn’t help but reflect on how much has changed.

And how much hasn’t.

As it turned out, Trump himself seemed to be in a similarly contemplative mood.

“The first term, everybody was fighting me,” he said on Monday. “In this term, everybody wants to be my friend. I don’t know — my personality changed or something.”

Trump’s personality has not, in fact, changed. But plenty of world leaders, American politicians and corporate chieftains have caught on to the simplest and most direct way to Trump’s heart: flattery, preferably in public.

Back in 2016, much of the Republican Party was still openly leery of Trump. Paul Ryan was the House speaker. Mitch McConnell was the Senate leader. Both were Trump skeptics, to say the least, and their own centers of political gravity in the party.

Now, everything in the G.O.P. revolves around Trump.

That sounds innocent enough, but some phrases cause an eyebrow to head skyward. Consider this line: "American politicians and corporate chieftains have caught on to the simplest and most direct way to Trump’s heart: flattery, preferably in public." That suggests  Trump is surrounded by butt kissers, and he likes it that way. (Nothing new about that; same old Trump.)

And consider this: "Now, everything in the G.O.P. revolves around Trump." That would be fine if Trump were a gifted politician and a shrewd master of governance. But Trump is neither of those things. And it would be nice if he had a sliver or two of integrity. But as his "convicted felon" status suggests, Trump has a few challenges in the integrity area. And we've seen few signs that he has learned anything from the deluge of mistakes he made in his first term. Goldmacher writes:

The way top Republican congressional leaders all piled into the same luxury suite as the president-elect at the weekend Army-Navy game was symbolic of their relationship. Speaker Mike Johnson all but owes Trump his gavel. And while Senator John Thune has previously been no MAGA mouthpiece, he has had only positive words for Trump since his ascent to becoming his chamber’s majority leader.

“We have a big head start — last time we didn’t,” Trump said. “And last time we didn’t know the people, we didn’t know a lot of things.”

Trump seemed to exert his new authority over the party by flashing some magnanimity on Monday.

I don't think I've ever seen "Trump" and "magnanimity" used in the same sentence before. Now, that is new! Let's see what's going on, per Goldmacher:

[Trump] suggested that he wouldn’t necessarily seek to encourage primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose his nominees — at least if he deems their objections “reasonable” and not “stupid.” (Notably, he continued to throw his support behind Pete Hegseth, saying that if he is not confirmed as defense secretary it would be a “tragedy.”)

Trump also opted against publicly strong-arming Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to appoint Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump to the United States Senate, calling it the governor’s “choice” and even saying he didn’t expect DeSantis to give her the nod.

“No, I don’t — I probably don’t,” Trump said. “But I don’t know.”

What is the biggest change for Trump? In 2016, he portrayed himself as drainer of the D.C. Swamp. Now, he is part of the swamp. Goldmacher writes:

Trump’s management of all these Republican relationships, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, is the surest sign of how much a political insider he is this time around.

Back in his first post-2016 news conference, Trump had attacked the pharmaceutical industry for having “a lot of lobbies and a lot of lobbyists.” On Monday, he bragged about having just had dinner with top executives at Eli Lilly, Pfizer and other industry representatives along with his pick as health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and others.

“The dinner was fascinating,” Trump said on Monday, before repeating the pharma industry’s talking points attacking the “middlemen” in the drug industry as the real villains driving up costs. It’s a line the pharmaceutical lobby has pushed in advertising.

“We’re going to knock out the middleman,” Trump said on Monday, adding, “I don’t know who these middlemen are but they’re rich as hell.”

It was a reminder that those whispering in Trump’s ear in private often have their positions echoed in public. It’s one of the reasons a parade of tech titans have been making the Mar-a-Lago pilgrimage — much to Trump’s delight. Sundar Pichai. Sergey Brin. Tim Cook. And soon Jeff Bezos. Elon Musk, meanwhile, has become a constant companion.

“The biggest difference is that people want to get along with me this time,” Trump declared, before adding, “Getting along is a great thing.”

Some executives learned that lesson the first time.

The ostensible reason for Monday’s news conference — a $100-billion investment from SoftBank in American projects — was a throwback to 2016. The firm’s chief executive, Masayoshi Son, had made an eerily similar pledge eight years ago (then it was $50 billion) after a private meeting with Trump.

Son appeared with Trump on Monday, who prodded him to double the investment to $200 billion on the spot.

“He’s a great negotiator,” Son said.

One thing that hasn’t changed in the last eight years is that anytime Trump is in front of a bank of television cameras taking questions for an hour, he is likely to unleash a news tsunami.

And so it was on Monday.

He left open the possibility of pardoning New York’s mayor, Eric Adams, who was indicted on federal corruption charges. He spoke fondly of TikTok, when lawmakers voted to force a sale of it earlier this year (“I have a warm spot in my heart”). And he said the government knows the full story of what is happening with the recent “drone sightings” but “for some reason, they don’t want to comment.”

One through line with Trump is his frustration with the free press. In his post-2016 news conference, he assailed CNN as “fake news” and expressed frustration with the publication at the time of an unproven dossier of allegations of ties to Russia.

“With freedom comes responsibility,” he said back then.

Now he was targeting The Des Moines Register over its publication of a poll that showed him trailing in Iowa before the election — when he won the state easily. He promised more libel lawsuits just after he settled a defamation suit with ABC News for $15 million.

“We have to straighten out the press,” he said now.

Another Trump constant is his obsession over trade and tariffs.

“We don’t make good deals anymore,” he said eight years ago. On Monday, he had only the slightest revision.

“Let’s just say this,” he said, “we’re going to make great deals.”

In the end, Goldmacher reveals several signs that Trump, indeed, possesses at least the hint of a warm side. How long will that last? We will examine that question in upcoming posts.

Elon Musk plowed more than $250 million into getting Donald Trump elected, including the peculiar RBG PAC, which suggested Trump and Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared similar views on abortion rights

Donald Trump and Elon Musk (Getty)

Elon Musk gave $20 million to a PAC seeking to convince voters that Donald Trump and Ruth Bader Ginsburg held similar views on abortion. Musk's oversized role in the 2024 election was revealed in federal documents filed roughly 10 days ago and one month after election day.

From a New York Times report, under the headline "Elon Musk Backed Trump With Over $250 Million, Fueling the Unusual ‘RBG PAC’; The enormous spending from the world’s richest man quietly fueled allied groups and was revealed only now, as Mr. Musk plays a key role in the presidential transition," reporters Maggie Haberman and Theodore Schleifer write:

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, spent over a quarter of a billion dollars in the final months of this year’s election to help Donald J. Trump win the presidency, federal filings revealed recently.

The sum is a fraction of Mr. Musk’s wealth. But it is nonetheless a staggering amount from a single donor, who poured the cash into allied groups and is now playing a role in helping shape the next administration.

One of Mr. Musk’s most brazen moves — which emerged only days ago — was spending $20 million to prop up a super PAC that was named after Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late liberal Supreme Court justice, but that sought to help Mr. Trump by softening his anti-abortion positions.

Mr. Musk put the lion’s share of the money he donated toward his main super PAC, America PAC, cutting three checks for $25 million each in the final weeks of the race, according to the new filings with the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Musk also spent $40.5 million on legally controversial checks to voters in swing states who signed a petition in support of the Constitution.

Over the course of the race, he gave America PAC a staggering $239 million in both cash and in-kind contributions. In total, Mr. Musk and entities he controls disclosed about $277 million in donations to federal groups this cycle.

Where did all of that money go? Haberman and Schleifer provide details:

America PAC conducted what it described as an expansive ground-game effort on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Mr. Musk came to see defeating President Biden as a vital imperative and swung hard toward Mr. Trump after the assassination attempt against him in July. He became so invested in the effort that he campaigned frequently for the Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, widely seen as the most important battleground state.

Mr. Musk also donated $4 million to America PAC on Nov. 12, a week after Election Day. He has vowed to keep his super PAC active by targeting progressive prosecutors and supporting Mr. Trump’s agenda.

Since the election, Mr. Musk has become inescapable at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club in Florida. He is leading an effort to try to trim the size of the federal government, and he has weighed in on various personnel choices that the incoming president has made.

While some in Mr. Trump’s orbit — and at times the president-elect himself — have seemed weary of Mr. Musk’s constant presence, the upside he brings in the form of enormous financial support and a major social-media platform have clearly outweighed any concerns.

What is the total of Musk-linked funds going to support Trump? There is no clear answer to that question at the moment, Haberman and Schleifer report:

Mr. Musk’s total spending on the election is not yet known — and may never be. He cut other political checks to conservative down-ballot groups this cycle, including $12 million to two groups trying to elect Republican senators, the Senate Leadership Fund and the Sentinel Action Fund. Mr. Musk, who originally wanted to keep his support for Mr. Trump quiet, may have also funded dark-money entities that will never disclose his involvement or donations.

On Thursday, Mr. Musk was revealed as the hidden funding source behind RBG PAC, a Republican group that worked to elect Mr. Trump but was named after a liberal jurist who despised him.

A trust belonging to Mr. Musk was the sole funder of RBG PAC, which had not yet disclosed its donors before a late filing on a recent Thursday. During the election, the group had run ads arguing that Mr. Trump’s position on abortion was not dissimilar from that of Justice Ginsburg, a feminist icon. “Great Minds Think Alike,” read the text on the super PAC’s website, featuring twin large photos of Mr. Trump and Justice Ginsburg, who died in 2020.

Her family bitterly opposed the ads. Ms. Ginsburg’s granddaughter, Clara Spera, said in a statement in October that the family condemned the use of her grandmother’s name and that doing so to “support Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, and specifically to suggest that she would approve of his position on abortion, is nothing short of appalling.”

Did RBG PAC help turn the tide of the election in Trump's favor and away from his opponent, longtime abortion-rights supporter Kamala Harris? That might never be answered with certainty, but it appears to be possible. From The Times report: 

The effort by RBG PAC was meant to reassure female voters who were wary of Mr. Trump because of his opposition to abortion rights. He has boasted of being proud of appointing the conservative justices, including Justice Ginsburg’s successor, who helped overturn Roe v. Wade.

When the group began running ads, there were hints of Mr. Musk’s involvement. The group’s leader, May Mailman, at times defended Mr. Musk on television.

The ads were part of a broader effort to use various pro-Trump entities to fund ads targeted at specific segments of voters in a race that Mr. Trump’s advisers anticipated could be closer than it ultimately was. He swept the seven battlegrounds and won the popular vote, the first time a Republican had done so in 20 years.

Christopher Wray's resignation as FBI director leaves unfit Trump sycophant Kash Patel in charge of the world's most powerful law-enforcement agency

FBI's Christopher Wray resigns (WBAL)

Christopher Wray has announced that he will step down as FBI director at the end of the Biden presidency in January, a move apparently driven by Wray's refusal to be a lap dog for President-Elect Donald Trump, according to a report at The New York Times. That Wray was appointed by a Republican (Trump) and will serve until the end of a Democrat's term  suggests he was an effective director. That Trump wants to replace him with Kash Patel, a deeply flawed loyalist, indicates this will mark the weakening of another American institution on Trump's watch. From a piece by The Times' Adam Goldman and Devlin Barrett:

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, says he intends to resign before the Trump administration takes office, bowing to the reality that President-elect Donald J. Trump had publicly declared his desire to replace him.

Mr. Wray announced the move while addressing employees in remarks that tacitly acknowledged the politically charged position the F.B.I. now faces with an incoming president who openly scorns the agency.

“I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Mr. Wray said, adding, “This is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”

The director spoke wistfully about his time at the F.B.I. “This is not easy for me,” he said, addressing a packed conference room at F.B.I. headquarters, as many more watched on video feeds at F.B.I. offices around the country. “I love this place, I love our mission and I love our people.” He left the room to a standing ovation, and some shed tears as Mr. Wray shook employees’ hands on the way out, according to an F.B.I. official.

The announcement comes after Mr. Trump said in late November that he intended to nominate Kash Patel, a longtime loyalist, to run the F.B.I., and more than two years before Mr. Wray’s 10-year term would have expired.

Patel has published his own enemies list, which suggests he knows little about U.S. law, much like his soon-to-be boss. That Patel openly suggests he will bring prosecutions based on his personal grievances, indicates he is not aware U.S. law requires that criminal actions be brought against defendants based only on a finding of probable cause, not on personal grievances. Patel has made a special point to note his desire to "go after" the media, although it is unclear what "crimes" journalists routinely commit, especially given that much of their work is protected by the First Amendment or associated court cases, such as Near v. Minnesota. 

Trump's decision to force out Christopher Wray in favor of Kash Patel indicates the president-elect values personal loyalty over the public's interest in effective law enforcement. Write Goldman and Barrett:

Over more than seven years, Mr. Wray oversaw one of the most consequential and tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history, juggling high-profile criminal investigations of political figures, heated congressional inquiries and two attempted assassinations of Mr. Trump.

Even as he fended off Mr. Trump’s relentless criticisms of the F.B.I., Mr. Wray supervised a wide array of national security issues that included terrorism, escalating cyberattacks and threats from geopolitical rivals like China, Iran and Russia. He also had to grapple with a spate of mass shootings and the rise of right-wing extremism while managing an agency with 35,000 employees and a budget of more than $10 billion.

But it was the bureau’s scrutiny of Mr. Trump that almost certainly cut short Mr. Wray’s tenure. His F.B.I. repeatedly investigated Mr. Trump, including by conducting a court-approved search of the president-elect’s Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 for classified documents, examining his widespread efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and delving into the possible links between his 2016 campaign and Russian intelligence operatives engaged in election interference.

Under Mr. Wray’s watch, agents also investigated the current president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., over his handling of sensitive records after he left the vice presidency. They undertook several other politically charged cases that made the agency the subject of sharp partisan scrutiny, including its inquiry into Hunter Biden.

In the face of intense political cajoling, second-guessing and condemnation, Mr. Wray frequently urged his agents to “keep calm and tackle hard,” and preached a strict adherence to the investigative process that has been the agency’s calling card for decades.

His apparent successor could not be more different. Mr. Patel, a former federal prosecutor and public defender, is a fierce critic of the F.B.I. and has vowed to fire its leadership, empty its headquarters and root out the president-elect’s perceived enemies in what he calls the “deep state.”

Mr. Wray’s resignation was not unexpected, but former and current F.B.I. agents said the news still hit hard. They voiced wariness at what could ensue if Mr. Patel was confirmed and said they were bracing themselves for upheaval.

Was Wray forced out due to Trump's sense of personal grievance? Consider this passage from The New York Times, which strongly suggests the answer is yes:

Mr. Trump welcomed the news of [Wray's resignation], praising it on social media as “a great day for America.”

Under Mr. Wray’s leadership, he added, the bureau had “raided my home, without cause, worked diligently on illegally impeaching and indicting me, and has done everything else to interfere with the success and future of America.”

Without cause? If that was the case, how did the FBI get a court order to search Trump's Florida home? Why did they find boxes full of classified documents? Trump, of course, tends not to address those "minor" questions. With Kash Patel in charge, Trump won't have to worry about such trivial issues. 

The American people, however, will have to worry about living under a president who flat-out lies to them -- as Trump did when he said the FBI raided his home without cause.