• Rep. Rich McCormick faced a town hall full of constituents angry over DOGE last week.
• Now, he seems the government-efficiency initiative is moving too quickly.
• "I'm concerned that maybe we're moving a little bit too fast," he said.

Last week, Rep. Rich McCormick faced a town hall full of voters angry about President Donald Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency's swift reshaping of the federal government.

Now, the Georgia Republican says he's worried the government-efficiency initiative is moving too quickly.

"I'm not against anything he's doing, but I'm concerned," McCormick said on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's "Politically Georgia" podcast on Monday. "I'm concerned that maybe we're moving a little bit too fast."

At a town hall in Roswell, Georgia on Thursday night, McCormick fielded a variety of contentious questions about the Trump administration's recent moves, with many of the questions focusing on the firing of federal workers and the cutting of certain programs.

The Georgia congressman, who represents a conservative-leaning district, said on Monday that he'd prefer a more methodical approach to cutting than the rapid pace that Elon Musk's DOGE is setting, including the shuttering of entire government agencies.

"We should have impact studies on each department as we do it, and I'm sure they can do that," McCormick said. "But I think if we're moving really, really rapidly, we don't know the impact."

McCormick also suggested that he's not the only House Republican who's concerned by the pace of DOGE's work.

"I think there's debate of how rapidly we're moving," McCormick said. "Some people who are very conservative also think we should move much more slowly."

In response to a request for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement to BI that Trump has "enjoyed broad support" for his cost-cutting initiatives.

"The spending freeze is already uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse across federal agencies and ensuring better stewardship of taxpayer dollars, including for American farmers and families," Kelly said. "Ultimately, President Trump will cut programs that do not serve the interests of the American people and keep programs that put America First, just as 77 million voters elected him to do."

• Donald Trump's political operation is cashing in on DOGE.
• Trump's group is selling official Trump DOGE membership cards.
• Some merchandise also features Elon Musk.

President Donald Trump's political operation is selling DOGE membership cards, part of an effort to capitalize on the popularity of the White House DOGE office and Elon Musk's role in it.

"Today, I'm announcing that YOU can become an OFFICIAL TRUMP DOGE MEMBER!" Trump's political operation wrote in an email to supporters Sunday night.

For a minimum $47 donation, supporters can get their name on a black metal card that says "Trump DOGE member." If that is too pricy, there are also Trump DOGE T-shirts. One shirt for $40 depicts Trump and Musk. Another for $28 shows Trump, Musk, and the Shiba Inu dog, which inspired the original doge meme.

The White House's efficiency initiative is one of the most visible parts of Trump's second term.

DOGE has been the subject of numerous lawsuits from federal workers, Democratic state attorneys general, and good government groups. Trump initially appointed Musk to co-lead the "Department of Government Efficiency," though a top White House official recently declared in a legal filing that Musk is not the DOGE administrator. Musk is a senior White House advisor and remains closely linked to DOGE.

Over the weekend, Musk upended federal agencies by claiming that employees would be fired if they did not respond to an email asking, "What did you do last week?" A number of departments have since told federal workers to pause potential responses ahead of the midnight deadline.

Musk spent over $290 million on the 2024 election to elect Trump. Trump and his allies have featured Musk prominently. Trump's emails to supporters often seize on the latest DOGE headline, including Democratic lawmakers' calls for Trump to rein in the world's richest man.

Trump is term-limited out of the White House, but his political operation has remained active. According to Axios, it plans on using the money to back candidates ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans hold narrow majorities in Congress. Historically, incumbent presidents have lost seats in both chambers, though the GOP currently has a much easier path to retaining control of the US Senate.

Trump could also use his war chest to remain active in the GOP once he leaves office in 2029.

• Steve Bannon told ABC News that Trump "broke" the tech giants who've embraced him.
• "He broke them, and they surrendered," the ex-Trump White House aide said on Sunday.
• Bannon has expressed skepticism toward Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Ex-Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said Sunday during an ABC News interview that the attendance of high-profile tech moguls at Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday signals their "official surrender" to the president-elect.

Bannon, while speaking with journalist Jonathan Karl on "This Week," said he wasn't surprised by the expected appearances of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg at Trump's inaugural.

"As soon as Zuckerberg said, 'I've been invited. I'm going,' the floodgates opened up, and they were all there knocking, trying to be supplicants," Bannon told Karl. "I think most people in our movement look at this as President Trump broke the oligarchs; he broke them, and they surrendered."

Bannon then pointed to President Joe Biden's farewell speech last week, when the departing president warned that "an oligarchy is taking shape in America," expressing his view that extreme wealth and influence threatened the nation.

"When Biden talks about that… they only became oligarchs when they flipped on him when they surrendered, and they're going to come to Trump's thing," Bannon said.

The former Trump aide then compared the attendance of the tech titans to Japan officially surrendering on the USS Missouri in September 1945, an event which marked the end of World War II.

"He's like Gen. Douglas MacArthur," Bannon said of the president-elect. "That is an official surrender, and I think it's powerful."

Bezos and Zuckerberg are set to be guests at Trump's inauguration, and Musk — a political ally of Trump who has become a fixture of the president-elect's political orbit — will also be in attendance.

Amazon and Meta each donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund. Other companies have also donated money as many business leaders seek to establish or strengthen ties with Trump ahead of his second term.

Bannon, during the ABC interview, however expressed skepticism of their recent warmness toward Trump.

"Zuckerberg's, you know, road to Damascus came a little late. It was after the Fifth of November," Bannon told Karl. "It's very, you know, now wants to be a bro. … That doesn't hack it with me."

"That guy will flip on President Trump, and he'll flip on us in a second when it's convenient for him," he added.

Earlier in January, Bannon called Musk a "truly evil guy" after the tech mogul stood behind his support of H-1B visas. Many conservatives have argued against the visas, insistent that the skilled-worker program is detrimental to American workers.

"I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day," Bannon said at the time.

Business Insider reached out to Amazon and Meta for comment.

As Donald Trump returns to the White House, loyalty will be a key aspect of his second term. Unlike 2017, Trump is no longer a political outsider adjusting to Washington for the first time. While Trump has to contend with a closely-divided House, he now has much more control over the GOP.

• As Donald Trump returns to the White House, loyalty will be a key aspect of his second term.
• Unlike 2017, Trump is no longer a political outsider adjusting to Washington for the first time.
• On Inauguration Day, Trump will be sworn in with a firm grip on the Republican Party.

When President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in for a second term on January 20, a lot will have changed since his 2017 inauguration, when he came into office as a political outsider who still elicited skepticism from many in Washington's Republican political class.

"They just weren't expecting to win," Peter Loge, an associate professor and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, told Business Insider about Trump's victory in 2016. "This time, there's an entire infrastructure. He has plans. There's Project 2025. He's much more like a traditional candidate who's ready to start governing on Day One."

Here's a look at how Trump and the country have entered a whole new era as the start of the president-elect's second term approaches:

Trump has raked in post-election cash

From Meta and Amazon to Ford and GM, a wide range of businesses and CEOs have contributed to Trump's inaugural fund.

In 2017, Trump raised $107 million for his inaugural committee, a staggering sum at the time. Just four years earlier, then-President Barack Obama's inaugural committee raised roughly $43 million.

Trump has so far raised at least $170 million for his second inaugural, according to The Associated Press. A full accounting of his inaugural funds isn't due until after he takes office.

Trump's business and tech support has grown

Ahead of Trump's first term, there was optimism among many in the business community over what they saw as his pro-growth agenda.

Trump's $1.5 trillion tax bill, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, was applauded by leaders who had been vocal about the need for American businesses to remain competitive in a global marketplace.

However, Trump's relationships with many of these leaders fizzled after the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., where white nationalist groups unleashed a wave of violence. And many top leaders steered clear of Trump in the immediate aftermath of the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, where legions of pro-Trump supporters stormed the complex in an effort to stop the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 electoral victory.

After Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in November, though, many business and tech leaders actively began to renew or establish relationships with the incoming commander-in-chief.

Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, was ahead of the curve. He spent lavishly to help elect Trump and other GOP candidates last year, and Musk is now seemingly never too far away from the president-elect during major public appearances.

Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple chief executive Tim Cook, and Musk will be guests at Trump's inaugural, according to NBC News and Bloomberg.

Loge told BI that many businesses have decided that it's "better to be on the Trump train than under it," pointing to the president-elect's penchant for dismissing the traditional workings of Washington and the desire for business leaders to have access to power.

"As a result, a lot of businesses are lining up behind Trump pretty rapidly," he said.

A Cabinet evolution

During Trump's first term, several high-profile members of his Cabinet, like onetime Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had turbulent tenures and were fired by the president.

This time around, Trump is leaning heavily on loyalists and longtime supporters in selecting his second-term Cabinet picks and other high-level appointees.

Many of the names stand out. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York has been tapped to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations, pending Senate confirmation. Defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth underwent a tough confirmation hearing but is likely to win enough GOP votes to secure the post. And ex-presidential candidate and Health and Human Services secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who backed Trump's campaign after ending his own candidacy — has emerged as a popular figure in Trumpworld over his stances on food and vaccine policies.

The million dollar question of Trump's second term is whether or not picking loyalists for his Cabinet will give him the sort of stability that he lacked in his first administration.

A less shocking win compared to 2016

Many Americans, who saw the multitude of national polls showing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump in 2016, were genuinely surprised when he won that November.

Dan Schnur, who teaches political communication at the University of Southern California and the University of California-Berkeley, told BI that Trump's first election "caused much more disruption" than it did in November 2024.

"The idea of Trump beating Clinton was inconceivable to most of the political universe," Schnur said.

After Trump's tumultuous first term and his lonely exit from Washington after losing to Biden in 2020, a large segment of the public saw the president-elect's political career as finished.

Still, Trump retained his hold over the GOP base, which powered his dominant caucus and primary wins last year. This was the case despite his myriad legal problems, which threatened his general election campaign.

Even as Harris' presidential candidacy spiked enthusiasm among Democrats after Biden stepped aside as the party's nominee, Trump still retained an advantage on the economy — which was a top issue for voters last November.

So when Trump won, it wasn't a shock to many. And the results showed that Trump broadened his appeal, as he won every major swing state and even secured a plurality of the national popular vote.

Congress will be more obedient

Trump is entering his second term with perhaps his strongest influence over Republicans to date. Lawmakers who may have been reluctant to align themselves with Trump in the past have largely put old feelings aside, embracing the fact that Republicans will now control the levers of power in Washington.

Republicans who defy the party on critical votes are more likely to be met with swift repercussions this time around, mostly in the form of primary challenges and pressure campaigns on social media platforms like X.

Trump is also going to be reliant on GOP leaders in Congress — namely House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota — to get his ambitious immigration and tax legislation passed.

However, while Republicans will enjoy a 53-47 edge in the Senate, they currently have a razor-thin 219-215 House majority, which is set to shrink even further following the expected departures of two members for roles in the Trump administration.

The wind is at Trump's back

In 2017, Trump was still a political novice and leaned on the legislative relationships that then-Vice President Mike Pence had amassed during his years on Capitol Hill.

"Back then, he tended to rely on establishment figures whom he felt would give him the necessary credibility in Washington," Schnur told BI. "But he learned over the course of those four years that many of those figures weren't nearly as loyal to him as he had expected."

"This time, he's put much more of a premium on personal relationships and loyalty. He's much more confident that the team around him is motivated toward the same goals as he is," Schnur added.

Trump now has a unified Congress, and he won a second term on the strength of his prior economic record, giving him a level of public support that he lacked early on in his first term.

Once he's is back in office, it'll clearly be a new day in Washington.

• There's been little movement in recent years, especially in the House, on banning stock trading.
• That could change this year, with a group of hardline Republicans now pushing the issue.
• "I need to put my foot on the gas a little bit," said Rep. Chip Roy. "Let's deal with it."

For years, lawmakers in both parties have tried to pass legislation to ban members of Congress from trading stocks.

It's popular with the American public. Both outgoing President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump support it. A bipartisan group of senators came together around a single stock trading ban bill this past summer, and two years ago, the House almost took a vote on a bill hastily put forward by House Democratic leadership.

However, an actual floor vote in either chamber has long remained elusive. Now, some hardline House Republicans are hoping to change that.

"I'm tired of my colleagues sticking their heads in the sand on it. It needs to be dealt with, sooner rather than later," Rep. Chip Roy of Texas told Business Insider in a brief interview on Friday.

Roy and 10 other members of the House Freedom Caucus board sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday expressing their "sincere reservations" with his tenure. Many of those lawmakers initially withheld their votes for Johnson, only to relent out of deference to Trump.

In that letter, the GOP hardliners outlined a series of rule changes they wanted to see, along with policy items that they expected Johnson to put up for a vote. Among those items: Ending stock trading by members of Congress.

"If that's what it takes to gain some confidence by the public in the fact that members of Congress work ethically, then I think that's a small price to pay," Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told BI.

Roy has long been the leader GOP cosponsor of one of the leading bills to ban stock trading, the TRUST in Congress Act, and he told BI that it was his idea to add that demand to the letter. He also happens to be one of Johnson's chief critics, and could — in coordination with the other Republicans — threaten the speaker with a vote on his ouster if the House doesn't take up that legislation.

As of now, it's not clear whether that will happen. Roy said that banning lawmakers from trading stocks is "not as existential to the functioning of the average American family on a daily basis" as some of the other priorities laid out in the letter, including steep cuts to federal spending and enacting tough border security and immigration measures.

The Texas Republican did express frustration with the lack of progress on the issue over the last several years while hinting that this year could be different.

"It's been sitting out there for three or four years, we kind of keep dragging feet, and it's time to deal with it," said Roy. "I need to put my foot on the gas a little bit, and so I'm putting my foot on the gas."

As of now, Roy says that "foot on the gas" involves laying out the demand and talking with Johnson and other relevant committee chairs about moving the legislation.

Johnson, for his part, has not publicly expressed a position on a stock trading ban, and a spokesperson did not provide a position when contacted by Business Insider on Monday. His predecessor, former Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, did express support for a stock trading ban.

"The perception of Congress, whether true or not, is that some may take advantage of insider information," Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, another Freedom Caucus letter signatory, told BI. "This is a gesture to say, 'Hey, look, we're not treated any differently.'"

Despite widespread agreement on the principle, the details of an eventual ban aren't widely agreed upon, and different bills propose different things. Some legislation would ban the ownership of stocks altogether, but Ogles said that "active day-trading" is the real problem.

"It doesn't mean you can't own stock, so that you can't have mutual funds," Ogles said.

Meanwhile, some House Freedom Caucus members still trade stocks, and one — Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida — violated a federal law requiring timely disclosure of stock trades in the fall of 2024.

A September 2024 report from the Campaign Legal Center found that 44% of House members and 54% of senators own stock.

• Donald Trump offered his full support for House Speaker Mike Johnson.
• Johnson is hoping to be reelected as House speaker on Friday.
• Trump's endorsement may quell a growing frustration about Johnson's leadership.

President-elect Donald Trump has set up another quasi-loyalty test for House Republicans before he formally reenters the White House.

On Monday, Trump endorsed Speaker Mike Johnson to remain as speaker when the House votes on its next leader on Friday.

"Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hard working, religious man," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!!!"

If any Republicans still want to challenge Johnson, they would have to defy Trump. While Trump's failure to get the GOP to back his debt ceiling plan shows such defiance is possible, electing a speaker is an entirely different matter.

Republicans hold an extremely narrow majority, meaning Johnson may be able to afford only a single defection.

Without a speaker, congressional lawmakers could not formally certify Trump's 2024 election win, raising personal stakes for the president-elect to soothe current tensions.

At least one potential challenger, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, quickly lined up behind Johnson after Trump's show of support.

"Agreed, @realDonaldTrump!" Jordan wrote on X. "Time to do what we said we would do."

Elon Musk also offered his support.

"I feel the same way! You have my full support," the world's richest man wrote on X in a reply to Johnson's post thanking Trump for his backing.

A handful of House conservatives have previously expressed displeasure with Johnson, particularly his role in crafting legislation that extended government funding through March 14. Musk and Trump teamed up to kill Johnson's initial bipartisan deal, which was loaded with unrelated provisions to garner support from House Democrats.

Not everyone appears to be convinced by Trump's backing. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a libertarian, who initially supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the GOP presidential primary, reiterated his frustration with Johnson's leadership.

"I respect and support President Trump, but his endorsement of Mike Johnson is going to work out about as well as his endorsement of Speaker Paul Ryan," Massie wrote on X. "We've seen Johnson partner with the democrats to send money to Ukraine, authorize spying on Americans, and blow the budget."

Why some conservatives aren't happy with Mike Johnson

Johnson also failed to deliver on Trump's last-minute demand to add a debt-ceiling extension to the must-pass funding bill. Trump has advocated for Congress to permanently ax the debt ceiling, a view shared by liberal lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Trump's debt ceiling failure illustrated that despite his popularity among the GOP base, the president-elect doesn't always get what he wants. Last year, Trump unsuccessfully tried to topple Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Unlike the Senate, the House speaker vote is public. The House is also filled with Trump loyalists, even more so than when he took office in 2017. While Trump failed to get Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close ally, elected speaker last year, the then-former president effectively killed another Republican hopeful's chances during the chaos after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's ouster.

Trump is also more powerful than last year. He returns to Washington with the promise of a GOP trifecta.

As the incoming president, he has a greater perch to reward loyalists and attack dissenters than he did during the 2023 speaker's race.

• A group of Republicans recently introduced a bill to repeal the Impoundment Control Act.
• It would hand Trump more control over government spending — he could even unilaterally cut it off.
• Several Republicans who backed the bill told BI they're fine with giving up congressional power.

Ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's return to the White House, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are ready to do something unusual: Relinquish some of their own power over federal spending.

More than 20 Republicans cosponsored a bill this month that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, or ICA, a Watergate-era law that requires the president to spend all of the money that Congress approves. In the absence of that law and subsequent court rulings, the president would have the power to spend less money than what Congress decides — or refuse to spend money on certain programs altogether.

That would bring a massive power shift from the legislative to the executive branch, upending a balance between the two that's existed for 50 years. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill say it's their best hope of enacting spending cuts and reducing the national debt, given Congress's history of inaction and what they view as their colleagues' unwillingness to reduce spending.

"I think the spending is just out of control, and I think Congress is gutless," Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told Business Insider. "I just don't think we're capable of making changes without some other interference, whether it be the executive branch or the voters."

"If the power is reducing expenditures, then I'm all for it," Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri told BI. "Something has to be done."

"You look at where we are in this country, why not give him that power?" Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told BI, referring to the country's fiscal situation. "At this point, I'm willing to take that risk. Anything can be abused. I can drink too much water, and suffer from it."

The Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a request for comment.

'We can simply choke off the money'

Trump is no stranger to impoundment — his first impeachment was triggered by his refusal to deliver aid to Ukraine. As he's mounted his third presidential bid, Trump has argued that the ICA is unconstitutional and should be done away with, either via congressional repeal or via the courts.

"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump said in a 2023 campaign video. "I alone can get that done."

As Trump has staffed up his administration, he's appointed staunch proponents of impoundment to key positions. That includes Russell Vought and Mark Paoletta, who have been nominated to their previously held roles of director and general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, respectively.

The president-elect's allies have argued that impoundment is a constitutional power that all presidents hold, owing to the president's duty under Article II of the US Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

They also point out that for roughly 200 years before 1974 — when Congress passed the ICA as President Richard Nixon refused to spend money on programs he disagreed with — presidents of all stripes have used impoundment for a variety of reasons, including policy disagreements.

"When Congress passes a spending bill, we pass a ceiling," Rep. Andrew Clyde, the Georgia Republican who introduced the ICA repeal bill, told BI. "It's not a floor and ceiling put together at one number."

More recently, impoundment has been embraced by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, whose "Department of Government Efficiency" initiative aims to enact trillions of dollars in cuts to federal spending. The duo have publicly agreed with Trump's argument that the ICA is unconstitutional, and the topic arose when they visited Capitol Hill to speak with Republicans earlier this month.

"I look at it as a tool of saving money, and being more efficient," Clyde said. "That's what the American people literally demanded in this election."

'Maybe this is too broad'

There are plenty of opponents of impoundment on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the incoming GOP chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has told reporters that she's opposed to repealing the ICA. And it's not just Trump skeptics who are uneasy with it.

"If it's something that further weakens Congress' ability to do its job the way they should be, then I'm going to look at that real carefully," Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada told BI in November.

Key Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed opposition to Trump's impoundment plans. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a fact sheet making a case against impoundment.

"The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous," Boyle said in a statement. "Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk."

Republican skepticism, along with Democrats' likely opposition to any effort to give Trump more spending power, could make repealing the law via Congress an uphill battle.

The president-elect said in the 2023 video that he "will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court," queueing up what would be a high-stakes legal fight early in his second term.

What remains unclear is exactly how expansively Trump would try to use impoundment. For some of the Republicans who support the effort, it's merely about spending less than what's necessary. Others warn that Trump could use that power in a retributive way, denying federal funding to states and localities over policy disagreements.

Even those who've cosponsored the ICA repeal bill expressed some ambivalence about its potential implications.

"Maybe this is too broad. I don't know," Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona told BI. "But I can tell you this: if you have a president who says 'I don't need 10 billion, I need 2 billion,' then I would like them not to spend that 8 billion. That's really kind of what the objective is, I think."

• Members of Congress were set to make a few thousand extra bucks under a government funding bill.
• Then Elon Musk helped tank it.
• That's despite growing concern that it's becoming unaffordable to serve in Congress.

One of the most controversial pieces of the short-term government funding bill that Elon Musk helped tank last week was a provision that would have allowed members of Congress to receive a modest salary increase.

As Musk argued against the so-called continuing resolution in a stream of posts on X, he said lawmakers were set to receive a 40% salary increase if the bill passed.

In reality, rank-and-file members of the House and the Senate would have gotten at most a pay bump of $6,600, or 3.8% of their $174,000 annual salary, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Nonetheless, that provision wasn't included in the bill that emerged — and was signed into law — after two days of chaos on Capitol Hill.

That's despite growing sentiment from lawmakers in both parties that even if the optics are poor, increasing the congressional salary is necessary to ensure that less-wealthy people are able to serve and aren't lured away by higher salaries in the private sector.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican and staunch supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, told reporters last week that the demands and responsibilities of the job made serving in Congress "not affordable" for those who weren't already wealthy like him.

"If we're not careful, you're only going to get the individuals that are millionaires-plus that's able to serve in Congress, and that's not what it's supposed to be," Mullin said. "It's supposed to be the people's house."

A $174,000 salary is far more than the average household income, but it hasn't budged since 2009. Accounting for inflation, lawmakers' salaries have essentially decreased by more than 30% in the past 15 years.

Members of Congress also face unique demands, including the need to maintain two residences: one in Washington, DC, the other in their home district. Those who can't afford it often opt to sleep in their offices. Experts have also said it's simply a matter of good governance: If lawmakers are paid well, they're less incentivized to cash out by becoming lobbyists after their tenure.

"I tell people the worst financial decision I ever made was running for Congress," Mullin said jokingly.

The provision tucked into the original funding bill technically was not a raise but rather allowed for an automatic cost-of-living increase originally established by the 1989 Ethics Reform Act. Those annual adjustments, which are typically single-digit-percentage salary increases, are designed to avoid the optics of lawmakers voting to increase their own pay.

Rep. Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sought to downplay the notion that members were receiving a raise. "It just complies with existing law," Morelle told BI last week. "There's nothing extraordinary about it."

Congress has nonetheless chosen to block those adjustments every year since 2009, owing to both inertia and the political unpopularity of increasing lawmakers' salaries. In March, a cohort of current and former lawmakers filed a class-action lawsuit over those denials, arguing that their wages had been "unconstitutionally suppressed."

The politics of raising wages on Capitol Hill remains toxic, however. As word spread on Wednesday about the cost-of-living adjustment in the bill, lawmakers in both parties came out against it.

"I cannot and will not vote to give myself more money when my constituents are feeling unbelievable financial pressure," Rep. Pat Ryan, a Democrat who represents a New York swing seat, said in a statement that day. "Congress should be focused on lowering costs for the American people, not giving ourselves a raise. If this provision isn't removed, I will be voting against the continuing resolution."

Ultimately, the cost-of-living adjustment was blocked once more.

Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

• Republicans tanked a government funding bill after Elon Musk led a campaign against it.
• Democrats have been insinuating that Musk is now the real leader of the GOP.
• In a statement to BI, a Trump spokeswoman forcefully pushed back.

President-elect Donald Trump's team is making clear that he's the one in charge of the Republican Party — not Elon Musk.

In a statement to Business Insider for a story about how Musk helped tank a government funding bill (otherwise known as a continuing resolution, or "CR") this week, Karoline Leavitt, the Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman, pushed back on statements made by Democrats that Musk is actually calling the shots, rather than the president-elect himself.

"As soon as President Trump released his official stance on the CR, Republicans on Capitol Hill echoed his point of view," Leavitt said. "President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. Full stop."

Musk has also rebuffed the idea he's calling the shots, writing on X: "All I can do is bring things to the attention of the people, so they may voice their support if they so choose."

That post came after scores of Democrats baited Trump with social media posts accusing Musk of being the actual president-elect, the "shadow president," or the "co-president."

While a statement from Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance late Wednesday marked the final straw for the ill-fated government funding bill, Republican opposition had reached a fever pitch on Capitol Hill long before either of them weighed in.

Several Republicans even cited arguments put forward by Musk or his DOGE co-lead, Vivek Ramaswamy, in explaining why they would oppose what they characterized as wasteful spending in the bill.

Meanwhile, some Republicans questioned why Trump hadn't weighed in sooner.

Trump and Vance also took a different stance on the bill than Musk, who endorsed the idea of simply allowing the government to shut down until January 20, when Trump is set to take office again.

Instead, Trump and Vance called on lawmakers to pass a more narrowly tailored bill while simultaneously raising the debt ceiling — a request that likely won't go over well with many of the same hardline Republicans who cheered Musk's opposition to the bill.

As of Thursday afternoon, it remains unclear how lawmakers will proceed, and whether they'll be able to pass any bill through the House and Senate before government funding runs out at midnight on Friday.

If Congress does not pass a bill by then, the federal government will shut down, likely leading to flight delays, the closure of National Parks, and delayed paychecks for some federal workers and members of the military.

• Elon Musk endorsed shutting down the government until Trump takes office on January 20.
• He and Vivek Ramaswamy are leading a MAGA online pressure campaign against a must-pass funding bill.
• Some GOP lawmakers are listening, and Trump eventually came out against the bill.

In a post on X on Wednesday afternoon, Elon Musk endorsed the idea of shutting the government down until January 20, the date that President-elect Donald Trump is set to be sworn into office.

It was the latest missive in a pressure campaign that Musk, along with fellow DOGE co-lead Vivek Ramaswamy and a host of hardline Republicans on Capitol Hill, have been leading against a so-called "continuing resolution" that would fund the government through March 14.

Just over an hour later, Trump and Vice-President-elect JD Vance called on Republicans to renegotiate the bill in a joint statement, saying that the current one contained too many "giveaways" to Democrats.

Trump and Vance also called on Congress to raise the debt ceiling, a task that lawmakers had not contemplated as part of the funding bill and that they had planned to tackle in the first months of the new year.

"I expected Elon to go off on this a little bit," Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters on Wednesday. Mullin said that he remains undecided on the bill, but said that Musk's and others' campaign would "greatly" affect its fate in the House, where lawmakers could take a vote as soon as Wednesday evening.

Opponents of the bill have pointed to a range of provisions that they view as wasteful, including an extension of pandemic preparedness legislation, provisions to allow the Washington Commanders to use the old RFK stadium in Washington, DC, funding for the Global Engagement Center at the Department of State, and a provision that will allow lawmakers to see a modest pay increase for the first time since 2009.

Wednesday's pressure campaign, which ramped up over the course of the day after Musk and Ramaswamy expressed initial opposition to the bill, provided an early glimpse of how the two men may approach government spending fights under Trump. Both of them are leading an initiative tasked with recommending up to $2 trillion in cuts to government spending by 2026.

Musk and Ramaswamy's voices appeared to only be amplified by the fact that Trump himself didn't weigh in on the bill until late in the day.

"What we've heard from both Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy is they want us to shut down government," said Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, according to HuffPost. "Is that the posture of the President?"

Several House Republicans directly cited Musk and Ramaswamy as they expressed their opposition to the bill on Wednesday, while others invoked DOGE to pressure their colleagues to join them in voting against the bill.

"So many members of Congress want the clout of working with @DOGE and @ElonMusk," Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado wrote on X. "Only a handful are actually interested in cutting spending."

Musk also wrote that "any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!"

Just as Musk's prior pressure campaign to install Sen. Rick Scott of Florida as Senate GOP leader failed, Wednesday's campaign against the continuing resolution appeared to show the limits of Musk's grasp on Capitol Hill and legislation.

Both Musk himself and the DOGE X account claimed that the bill would increase lawmakers' salaries by 40%, a vastly inflated figure. According to the Congressional Research Service, the maximum possible increase would be 3.8%.

• Trump said on Sunday that he'd consider trying to raise the federal minimum wage.
• Some Republicans have come around to the idea, including VP-elect JD Vance.
• It's likely to run into significant opposition in Congress — from members of the GOP.

Over the weekend, President-elect Donald Trump said he'd consider raising the federal minimum wage, saying that the current rate of $7.25 per hour is a "very low number."

"There is a level at which you could do it, absolutely," Trump said in an interview with NBC on Sunday, declining to commit to a particular dollar amount. "I would consider it. I'd want to speak to the governors."

As the GOP has sought to refashion itself as a working-class party, several Republicans have proposed increases to the federal minimum wage. Vice President-elect JD Vance cosponsored a bill in 2023 that would raise it to $11 per hour, while Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has proposed mandating a $15 minimum wage at companies that generate more than $1 billion in annual revenue.

While Vance and Hawley have led the charge for a more economically populist GOP agenda, their point of view remains unpopular within a party that's full of free-market enthusiasts and broadly supportive of business interests.

"If we're going to take a look at it, we should repeal it," Rep. Eric Burlison, a Missouri Republican who sits on the House Education and Workforce Committee, told BI of the federal minimum wage. "I don't think it should exist."

Despite Trump's comments, it's not clear that the president-elect views the minimum wage as a priority at all. He did not pursue an increase during his first term, he threatened to veto a 2019 Democratic bill that would raise it to $15, and he dodged a question on the topic during his McDonald's photo-op in October.

He has long struck a more open-minded note on the topic than many Republicans, backing a $10 minimum wage during his 2016 campaign and saying he'd consider a $15 minimum wage during a 2020 presidential debate. That gives more populist-minded Republicans hope that Trump, if he chose to spend political capital on the issue, could push the party to embrace a higher minimum wage.

After all, he's managed to break long-standing GOP orthodoxy on trade and foreign policy.

"These people wouldn't do two-thirds of what we're going to do in the next two years if it were not for Trump," said Hawley. "Let's be honest."

The Trump-Vance transition did not respond to a request for comment.

Not an 'area of emphasis' for the GOP

Any minimum wage increase would require an act of Congress, and Republicans in both the House and Senate told BI on Tuesday that they were against it. They generally echoed long-standing party dogma on the topic, arguing that wages are best determined by market forces and that any increase would simply trigger soaring prices.

"I don't think the federal government should be in that business," said Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas. "Let the markets go figure out how we can do this stuff."

Republicans aren't unanimously opposed to a minimum wage increase. The proposal that Vance backed — the "Higher Wages for American Workers Act" — is also supported by Republican senators like Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Bill Cassidy of Lousiana. Aside from increasing the minimum wage to $11 over the course of several years, that bill would also require companies to verify whether their employees are authorized to work in the United States — a priority for many Republicans.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia — a member of Senate GOP leadership who also supports the bill — told BI on Tuesday that she doesn't expect any movement on that bill in the next Congress, and that she hoped "rising economic growth" triggered by Trump's policies would organically cause wages to rise.

"I just don't see that's going to be an area of emphasis that we're going to go to," said Capito.

A federal minimum wage increase would be popular. Polling has consistently shown a sizable share of Republicans support the idea, and several Republican-leaning states have approved minimum wage increases via ballot measures in recent years.

At the same time, few people still make $7.25 per hour. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, just 1.1% of hourly paid workers were at or below the federal minimum wage in 2023. Most states have enacted higher minimum wages, and some cities have gone even higher.

"The question is, is there a need?" Republican Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania said. "Honestly, when you look around the country, positions that used to be minimum wage are now paying $15, $16, $17 an hour."

President Joe Biden supports a $15 federal minimum wage, but was unable to get it enacted due to opposition from several Democratic senators in 2021.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, meanwhile, has proposed an increase to $17.

• Elon Musk spent at least $277 million on Trump and the GOP, according to new documents.
• Most of it went toward America PAC, where Musk spent just shy of $239 million.
• But he also gave over $20 million to a group that compared Trump to RBG.

Elon Musk spent at least $277 million in political contributions to support President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates, according to documents filed late Thursday.

That sum, totaling more than a quarter of a billion dollars, likely makes Musk the single largest donor of the 2024 election. Other top donors this cycle included Timothy Mellon, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, and Miriam Adelson, all of whom spent more than $100 million supporting Trump and the GOP.

Musk, the owner of X and the CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX, is now set to co-lead a new "Department of Government Efficiency" initiative under the incoming Trump administration.

Here's a look at where Musk's millions went this election cycle.

Musk poured roughly $239 million into America PAC — and spent $58 million of that on voter giveaways

As of November 25, documents filed with the Federal Election Commission showed that Musk had contributed just shy of $239 million to his personal super PAC, America PAC.

That super PAC, almost entirely funded by Musk alone, would go on to spend $154.5 million directly on canvassing efforts and digital ads to support Trump and oppose Vice President Kamala Harris.

More than $19 million went toward supporting GOP House candidates in 18 battleground districts, 10 of whom ultimately won their races.

The most intriguing revelation from Thursday night's report, however, was the amount of money that went towards America PAC's controversial voter giveaways, in which registered voters received $47 or $100 for signing a petition along with the chance to win $1 million.

Records show that $40.5 million went toward paying voters for signing the petition, while an additional $18 million — $1 million apiece — went to 18 lottery winners, each of whom were paid for being a "spokesperson consultant."

Musk poured $20 million into a mysterious PAC that compared Trump to Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Separately from America PAC, Musk was revealed to be the sole funder of a super PAC that ran ads comparing Trump's position on abortion to that of the late liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Musk contributed $20,500,000 via a trust to "RBG PAC," which ran ads highlighting his pledge that there would be no federal abortion ban under his watch.

Clara Spera, an abortion rights lawyer who's also Ginsburg's granddaughter, told the New York Times in October that the PAC was "an affront to my late grandmother's legacy."

"The use of her name and image 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," Spera said.

Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Musk's contributions to other GOP groups

While America PAC and RBG PAC represented the bulk of Musk's spending, there's a handful of other groups that have also received money from him this election cycle.

He gave $10 million in October to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC linked to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, along with more than $2.3 million to Sentinel Action Fund. Both groups spent heavily on Senate elections.

Musk contributed $1 million to Early Vote Action PAC, which is led by the pro-Trump activist Scott Presler, along with $924,600 directly to Trump's campaign and hundreds of thousands to House Republican's central campaign committee.

It's likely that Musk spent even more than what's publicly accounted for, including to "dark money" nonprofit groups that aren't required to disclose their donors.

He reportedly contributed to a dark money group that gave $3 million to a super PAC that ran ads portraying Harris as simultaneously supportive and hostile toward Israel.

Correction: December 6, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated Sentinel Action Fund's affiliation with the Heritage Foundation. The group was legally separated from Heritage's political infrastructure in 2023.

• Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech billionaire, dropped his 2024 presidential bid to back Donald Trump.
• Ramaswamy left the Department of Government Efficiency, leaving Elon Musk as the face of the effort.
• Here's everything to know about Ramaswamy.

Vivek Ramaswamy became a top supporter of President Donald Trump after his own presidential primary campaign fizzled out.

After the November 2024 general election, Trump tapped Ramaswamy to co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency alongside Elon Musk, another Trump fan.

Ramaswamy over the span of several weeks laid out DOGE's plans to reform the federal bureaucracy. However, he left DOGE just as it was set to commence its work under Trump's second administration.

And now, Ramaswamy has his sights set on the 2026 Ohio gubernatorial race, with the entrepreneur expected to kick off his campaign in February, according to multiple outlets.

How did Ramaswamy get here? Here's a look at his background and path to Trump's inner circle.

Vivek Ramaswamy's family, early life, and education

Ramaswamy was born in August 1985 in Cincinnati.

His parents, who immigrated from Kerala, India, raised him Hindu, but he attended a Catholic high school. He has a younger brother named Shankar.

Ramaswamy graduated from Harvard University in 2007 with a degree in biology. A self-described contrarian, Ramaswamy thrived academically and moonlighted as a rapper under the name "Da Vek."

Years later, after making a fortune on Wall Street, he attended Yale Law School. He graduated with a law degree in 2013 though he never intended to practice law.

Ramaswamy married his wife, Apoorva, in 2015. They have two sons, Karthik and Arjun, and a $2 million estate in Upper Arlington, outside Columbus.

Vivek Ramaswamy's career

Ramaswamy's net worth is about $1 billion, according to Forbes. He made his fortune in biotech and pharmaceuticals.

After graduating from Harvard, he worked on Wall Street at QVT Financial, a hedge fund. He made partner by age 28. At the same time, he was attending law school at Yale University, where he befriended JD Vance, Trump's vice president.

In 2014, Ramaswamy left QVT to found Roivant Sciences, a pharmaceutical venture to develop drugs previously abandoned by other companies.

Ramaswamy stepped out of his role as CEO in 2021 to serve as chairman, a position he held until early 2023, when he stepped down to focus on politics.

In 2021, published a book, "Woke, Inc.," which explored his position that American capitalism works best without political posturing. He co-founded Strive Asset Management, an "anti-woke" investment fund that garnered support from conservatives like tech billionaire Peter Thiel.

2024 presidential run

Ramaswamy launched his bid for the presidency in February 2023, entering a crowded field of conservatives vying for the GOP presidential nomination that ultimately went to Trump.

He branded himself as a candidate trying to bring American exceptionalism back to the forefront of the national narrative.

Ramaswamy suggested raising the voting age from 18 to 25 because he said Gen Z didn't have enough national pride. He also suggested they should have to "meet a national service requirement" — such as serving in the military, working as a first responder, or passing a civics test — to access their voting rights.

He also floated sending US troops to the southern border, limiting the Federal Reserve, and shutting down the FBI and the Department of Education.

Ramaswamy suspended his presidential campaign in January 2024 and threw his support behind Trump, who would go on to select him to co-lead DOGE with Musk, who previously suggested Ramaswamy would make a good vice president.

Department of Government Efficiency appointment

Ramaswamy was slated to team up with Musk to lead DOGE, a task force with grand plans to streamline government operations and reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy.

"I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans," Trump said in a November 2024 statement announcing the ambitious effort.

On X, Ramaswamy said that "Americans voted for drastic government reform & they deserve to be part of fixing it."

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that month, Ramaswamy and Musk outlined what they said would be DOGE's three categories of reform: "regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings."

The duo also said DOGE would seek to bring about "mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy" through voluntary severance payments and early retirements.

However, Ramaswamy's exit from DOGE was announced in January 2025 just as the task force was to begin its work.

DOGE exit and Ohio gubernatorial run

Shortly after leaving DOGE, Ramaswamy appeared on Fox News, where he was asked about the circumstances behind his departure.

"We had different — and complementary — approaches," he said of his work with Musk.

Ramaswamy then said Musk examined things from a technological approach, whereas he took on more of a "constitutional law, legislative-based approach."

And Ramaswamy said his exit from DOGE came from a "mutual discussion" with Musk.

"I wish him well," he said. "In saving the country, it's not a one-man show from the top down or the bottom up, it's all of the above, and that's what I'm in for."

Ramaswamy, who had long been rumored as a potential statewide candidate in Ohio, is now poised to jump into the GOP gubernatorial primary in the race to succeed term-limited Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.