• Elon Musk said he plans to fund "moderate candidates" to challenge Democrats in safe seats.
• It's unclear whether he would support Democrats in primaries, or moderate Republicans.
• It comes as Musk faces blame from lawmakers in both parties for tanking a government funding bill.

Elon Musk spent at least $277 million supporting President-elect Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in competitive races in 2024.

Now, he says he plans to direct some of his largesse toward unseating Democrats in safer seats.

"Forgot to mention that I'm also going to be funding moderate candidates in heavily Democrat districts, so that the country can get rid of those who don't represent them, like this jackass," Musk wrote on X on Thursday evening.

Musk was responding to a clip of Rep. Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, speaking on the House floor about the billionaire businessman's singular role in tanking a government funding bill earlier this week. The top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, Neal represents a deep-blue district and has consistently won reelection by an overwhelming margin.

It's not clear whether Musk meant that he would fund a Democratic primary challenger or a general election candidate to run against safe-seat Democrats like Neal. A spokesman for Musk's main super PAC, America PAC, declined to comment.

Neal reportedly laughed when informed of Musk's threat on Friday, telling a reporter: "That's fine with me."

In a statement to Business Insider, the congressman said: "Everyone knows I'm always ready."

An X account for the Ways and Means Committee Democrats posted a dismissive meme in response to Musk's post.

In 2024, Musk's super PAC spent more than $19 million in House races, backing Republican incumbents and candidates in competitive races across the country.

Ten of the candidates he supported were victorious, while eight lost.

Musk has said that America PAC will continue spending money in forthcoming election cycles, including the 2026 midterm elections and even local district attorney races.

• 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.

• Lawmakers in both parties say Elon Musk played a major role in tanking a government funding bill.
• Now the government is on the brink of shutting down.
• It's an early sign of how he'll wield influence as the co-lead of DOGE.

After a government funding bill went down in flames on Wednesday, lawmakers in both parties were in agreement about one thing: Elon Musk played a huge role in bringing Washington to the brink.

"Yesterday was DOGE in action and it was the most refreshing thing I've seen since I've been here for 4 years," Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia wrote on X.

"The leader of the GOP is Elon Musk," Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania wrote. "He's now calling the shots."

President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance put the final nail in the coffin of the bill, but their joint statement trashing the continuing resolution — and issuing a new demand for Congress to raise the debt ceiling — came after several hours of silence on the matter.

That void was filled by Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency co-lead, Vivek Ramaswamy, who savaged the bill as an example of the wasteful spending that Trump has empowered them to target for elimination during his second term. Newly galvanized by DOGE and lacking any guidance from Trump, several Republican lawmakers publicly cited arguments put forward by the two leaders to justify their opposition to the bill.

"This omnibus is the very thing the incoming Department of Government Efficiency is trying to put an end to," Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri wrote on X. "A vote for this monstrosity is a vote against DOGE."

As Republican support for the bill dried up, passage through the GOP-controlled House became an impossibility, and the bill was scrapped.

Federal funding is set to run out at midnight on Friday. If lawmakers are unable to agree upon and pass a new bill by then, the government will shut down for the first time in six years, prompting flight delays, closures of national parks, and paycheck delays for federal workers.

In a statement to Business Insider, Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump-Vance transition, disputed the notion that Musk is the leader of the GOP.

"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 did not respond to a request for comment.

'This bill should not pass'

Over the past several weeks, Democrats and Republicans had been hammering out a compromise bill to fund the government through March 14. After significant delays, the bill's text was released on Tuesday night.

Aside from extending government funding at current levels for another three months, the bill also included language allowing the District of Columbia to take control of a stadium that the Washington Commanders have long sought to use, a modest pay increase for lawmakers, billions of dollars in disaster relief for states affected by recent hurricanes, and other provisions that Trump and Vance later characterized as "giveaways" to Democrats.

Musk first came out against the bill on Wednesday morning, writing on X: "This bill should not pass."

Over the course of several hours, what began as a simple statement of opposition turned into something much larger, including Musk endorsing shutting down the government until January 20 and saying that any Republican who voted for the bill would deserve to be voted out of office.

Along the way, Musk made and amplified false claims about the contents of the bill, including that it included a 40% pay raise for lawmakers (it was 3.8% maximum) and $3 billion for the Commanders' stadium.

By the time Trump and Vance weighed in on Wednesday afternoon, the bill already appeared dead, and the two men had a different demand: Lawmakers shouldn't simply shut down the government but pass a spending bill without "giveaways," while raising the debt ceiling.

Musk, the 'shadow president'

It remains unclear what legislation will emerge. Democrats have insisted on moving forward with the deal they struck with Republicans, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries rejected in Thursday-morning a Bluesky post the idea of raising the debt ceiling.

The government spending bill's collapse was an early demonstration of Musk's newfound clout with Republicans on Capitol Hill, previewing how the mercurial billionaire might handle the role of DOGE co-lead under Trump.

Over the past two years, a pattern has emerged in government funding and other fiscal fights. Both parties work on compromise legislation, hard-line Republicans rail against it, and both the House and the Senate easily pass it with mostly Democratic votes.

On Wednesday, that pattern was broken, with a shutdown appearing imminent.

For hard-line Republicans who've typically opposed government funding bills, it marked a moment of elation and a sign that with the advent of DOGE, the balance of power is set to shift in their direction under Trump.

Some Democrats, meanwhile, have seized the moment as an opportunity to embarrass Trump, painting him as subordinate to Musk.

In a steady drumbeat of social media posts and TV interviews, Democrats have begun referring to Musk as the "president-elect," the "shadow president," the "copresident," and even the "decider in chief" as they've attacked Republicans for opposing the bill.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, released a fact sheet about "what Elon will cost your state" that said "President-Elect Musk's" opposition to the government funding bill had also derailed disaster-relief funds.

"It is dangerous for House Republicans to have folded to the demands of the richest man on the planet, who nobody elected, after leaders in both parties came to an agreement to fund the government and provide this disaster aid," DeLauro said in a statement. "There was no need for a government shutdown."

Musk, for his part, rejected the notion that he was the real leader of the GOP.

"All I can do is bring things to the attention of the people," he wrote on X, "so they may voice their support if they so choose."

• 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%.

• Members of Congress may be getting an up to $6,600 raise this year.
• That's due to a provision in a must-pass funding bill that's set to get a vote this week.
• Rank-and-file lawmakers have been making $174,000 since 2009.

For the first time since 2009, members of Congress may be about to get a raise.

Under a provision tucked into a new bill to fund the government through March 14, lawmakers would be given a cost of living adjustment to their salaries — something that Congress has blocked every year for a decade and a half.

That could result in up to a $6,600 raise for rank-and-file members of Congress next year, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service.

Currently, most members of the House and Senate make $174,000 each year. Some congressional leaders make more than that, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, who makes a $223,500 annual salary.

Though that $174,000 sum is well above the average household income, it hasn't kept place with inflation, and lawmakers in both parties have argued that it's not enough to keep up with the demands and responsibilities of the job, which can include maintaining two residences.

"If we want working class people who don't rely on independent wealth, to represent people in Congress, we have to make it work," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider earlier this year.

"You have quite a number of members of Congress that sleep in their offices," Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah told BI earlier this year. "In this day and age, it makes sense to have people that feel that they can serve, and still be able to sleep in a home at night."

If Congress hadn't blocked annual cost of living adjustments since 2009, rank-and-file lawmakers would be making $217,900 this year, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Earlier this year, a group of current and former lawmakers filed a class-action lawsuit to recover money that they would have made if their wages hadn't, in their view, been "unconstitutionally suppressed."

Increasing lawmakers' salaries has long been politically unpopular, and the inclusion of the provision is already leading to some opposition from more politically vulnerable members.

Rep. Jared Golden, a Democrat who represents a GOP-leaning district in Maine, said in a statement on Wednesday that he wouldn't vote for the government funding bill unless a pay freeze was reinstated.

"Members of Congress earn more than 90 percent of Americans," Golden said. "If any of my colleagues can't afford to live on that income, they should find another line of work."

If Congress fails to pass the bill by Friday, the federal government will shut down due to a lack of funding.

• President Joe Biden expressed support for a stock trading ban in Congress for the first time.
• "Nobody in the Congress should be able to make money in the stock market," he said.
• Lawmakers have been trying to enact a stock trading ban for years.

With just a few weeks left in his tenure, President Joe Biden expressed support for banning members of Congress from trading stocks.

"Nobody in the Congress should be able to make money in the stock market while they're in the Congress," Biden said in a forthcoming interview with More Perfect Union, according to the Associated Press.

It's the first time that Biden has expressed support for the idea, which has been a subject of debate on Capitol Hill for years.

In 2022, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that Biden "believes that everyone should be held to the highest standard," but that he would defer to Congress on the issue.

"I don't know how you look your constituents in the eye and know, because the job they gave you, gave you an inside track to make more money," Biden said in the More Perfect Union interview. "I think we should be changing the law."

Despite widespread public support for a stock-trading ban, it's unlikely to come to fruition during this Congress. Even so, there's been significant progress over the years, with a bipartisan group of senators passing a compromise stock-trading ban bill out of committee in July.

• Trump says it's "terrible" that some admire Luigi Mangione, the UHC CEO shooting suspect.
• "That's a sickness, actually," Trump said.
• He speculated that some of the public reaction to the shooting was "fake news."

President-elect Donald Trump on Monday commented on the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson and the valorization of the suspect, Luigi Mangione.

"I think it's really terrible that some people seem to admire him," Trump told reporters at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago.

"That was a terrible thing. It was cold-blooded. Just a cold-blooded, horrible killing," Trump said of the killing.

While a broad swath of politicians have condemned the shooting, some progressive Democrats have also used the moment to take stock of Americans' frustrations with the healthcare industry, given that the public reaction to the shooting has not been universally negative.

"Of course, we don't want to see the chaos that vigilantism presents," Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider last week. "We also don't want to see the extreme suffering that millions of Americans confront when your life changes overnight from a horrific diagnosis, and people are led to just some of the worst, not just health events, but the worst financial events of their and their family's lives."

Trump expressed bewilderment at the public reaction on Monday, speculating that some of it had been falsified.

"How people can like this guy, is… that's a sickness, actually," Trump said. "Maybe it's fake news, I don't know. It's hard to believe that can even be thought of, but it seems that there's a certain appetite for him. I don't get it."

• Peter Thiel has been a major Trump supporter and spent big to help elect JD Vance to the Senate.
• He said he's not interested in working in Trump's new administration — at least full-time.
• He said politics is important but he'd be "depressed and crazy" if he thought about it all the time.

Peter Thiel was one of President-elect Donald Trump's first major supporters in Silicon Valley, donating more than $1 million to groups that supported Trump's 2016 campaign.

However, that doesn't mean he's interested in actually serving full-time in Trump's second administration.

"I'm not going to do anything on a full-time basis," Thiel said on "Piers Morgan Uncensored," an online talk show. "You can't go full-time into government if you've been in a tech position like I have. It's just — the sort of things you have to be realistic about, what you can and can't do."

As Trump has begun staffing his new administration, he's plucked a handful of figures from tech world. They include entrepreneur and investor David Sacks, who's set to serve as an AI and crypto czar in the new administration, and Jacob Helberg, who works at Palantir and was recently nominated to a role at the State Department.

Elon Musk is perhaps the biggest tech-world figure who's working with Trump these days. Along with Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk is set to co-lead the "Department of Government Efficiency," a new initiative to root out wasteful spending in the federal government. It isn't a full-time role for Musk, and DOGE won't have any formal authority on its own.

As Thiel offered cautious praise for DOGE, Morgan asked him whether he might consider an "Elon-style role" with Trump.

"It's just not my area of comparative advantage," Thiel said. "I think politics is very important… I enjoy going on your show, thinking about it every now and then. If I spent my whole life thinking about this, man, I'd be depressed and crazy."

Despite Thiel's apparent lack of interest in working in the government himself, he's had a significant impact on politics in recent years.

Thiel was instrumental in the political rise of Vice President-elect JD Vance, pouring millions of dollars into a super PAC that supported the Ohio senator's 2022 campaign.

Another close associate of Thiel, Blake Masters, is reportedly in the running to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under Trump.

• Trump has promised to do a variety of different things on "Day One" of his second term.
• Much of his agenda will take time to implement, but there are things he could start immediately.
• Among the first items could be pardons for January 6-related offenses.

President-elect Donald Trump has outlined clear plans on how he plans to spend his first day back in the White House.

He plans to spend his first few hours signing executive orders rolling back some of President Biden's policies, considering pardons for a number of people convicted of January 6-related offenses, and launch his mass deportation program.

Some of the early items on Trump's list are already crossed off. Trump no longer has to fire special counsel Jack Smith, who has moved to dismiss his criminal cases against Trump. Speculation that the president-elect might fire FBI Director Christopher Wray is also moot. Wray announced he would resign before Trump is sworn in.

Other aspects of Trump's agenda, particularly his promises to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits, will require Congress to act.

Trump has also conceded that some of his pledges, like "ending inflation," may be difficult to fulfill. Fellow Republicans are also pressuring the president-elect to expand his agenda to include items like nixing the IRS' free direct tax-filing tool.

Tariffs: Trade wars are likely to return

The president-elect made clear just before Thanksgiving that he intends to use tariffs much like he did during his first term.

In a series of posts, Trump pledged to levy a 25% tariff on all products coming into the US from Mexico and Canada. Chinese imports would get an additional 10%.

He said the tariffs would be among his first actions after being sworn in — meaning he'll likely return to his reliance on a law that allows a president wide discretion to impose tariffs in the event of a national emergency.

Trump said the tariffs are needed to take migration and fentanyl more seriously. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum quickly retorted that her nation may be forced to impose its own retaliatory tariffs.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened to use tariffs as a cudgel, though he did not always follow through.

Executive orders: Immigration and likely legal challenges

Some of Trump's most readily achievable promises are related to immigration, an area where the White House and Executive Branch have a significant say. In the closing days of the campaign, Trump underlined his commitment to getting to work right away on building "the largest deportation force" in the nation's history. The American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations have said they would challenge Trump's actions in court, meaning that anything begun on Day One will only be the beginning of a potentially long legal fight.

Trump also repeatedly promised to curtail parole, which allows immigrants to temporarily live in the US, often for humanitarian reasons. He also pushed debunked claims about secret "migrant flights," which he also promised to ban on day one.

Trump has promised to issue several executive orders when he takes office, though some of them are likely to be challenged in court.

For example, Trump has pledged to sign an executive order revoking birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

During the Republican primary, he pledged to take executive action "banning schools from promoting critical race theory or transgender insanity."

It's likely that such an action could mirror an executive order President Joe Biden revoked after taking office, which at the time prohibited the federal government and federal contractors from conducting workplace trainings on "divisive concepts." A federal judge later blocked prohibitions on certain trainings.

Pardons and personnel decisions: January 6 rioters could get immediate pardons

Trump said he could take action on January 6-related pardons "within the first nine minutes."

He has long maintained that some people arrested or convicted of offenses related to the Capitol riot were overcharged. Trump is likely to avoid any personal legal consequences at the federal level for his efforts to overturn the election. Smith's 2020-charges against Trump were dismissed in a way that would allow them to be refiled once the president-elect leaves office in 2029.

In an interview with Time Magazine, Trump said his focus is on non-violent offenders and that he will weigh potential pardons on a "case-by-case" basis.

"We're going to look at each individual case, and we're going to do it very quickly, and it's going to start in the first hour that I get into office," Trump said to the publication during a wide ranging interview. "And a vast majority of them should not be in jail. A vast majority should not be in jail, and they've suffered gravely."

Some of Trump's promises are more simple and involve firing government officials he does not like.

At a Bitcoin conference in July, Trump also pledged to fire Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, on "day one" and appoint a replacement. Gensler has angered many in the cryptocurrency community, which Trump and his campaigned courted ahead of the 2024 election. Gensler, too, has headed off a potential showdown by announcing he will resign before Trump's inauguration

Trump has also pledged to pardon January 6 rioters "if they're innocent," which he would be able to do as soon as his first day in office.

"Day One" promises that Trump may not be able to fulfill

Some "day one" commitments are simply not possible.

At times during the campaign, Trump pledged to "end inflation" just hours after taking office. No one, including the president, can single-handedly lower broad price levels set across the entire US economy.

Prices reached record highs earlier in the Biden administration, but since then inflation has continued to cool. Many economists are concerned that Trump's protectionist trade policies could exacerbate inflation. He has repeatedly rejected this view, but conceded lowering grocery prices will be difficult.

"Look, they got them up," Trump said to Time. "I'd like to bring them down. It's hard to bring things down once they're up. You know, it's very hard. But I think that they will. I think that energy is going to bring them down. I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down."

• Trump said he plans to impose a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports, plus 10% on Chinese imports.
• Democrats have generally opposed Trump's tariff plans — but at least one is offering him praise.
• Rep. Jared Golden, who previously introduced a 10% tariff bill, says Trump's "off to a good start."

President-elect Donald Trump is winning praise from one House Democrat over his recent threat to impose tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada, and China.

"I think Trump's off to a good start there," Rep. Jared Golden, a centrist Democrat who represents a GOP-leaning congressional district in Maine, told Business Insider at the Capitol on Thursday.

Golden isn't your average Democrat. While many in his party — including Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee — have long panned Trump's tariff plans as a burdensome tax on consumers, Golden has embraced the idea as a way to spur growth in domestic industries.

In September, Golden introduced a bill that mirrored Trump's proposal for a 10% tariff on all foreign imports. Under Golden's "Balance Unequal International Labor and Trade for the United States of America" (BUILT USA) Act, that tariff would increase by 5% for every year that the United States maintains a trade deficit.

Other Democrats have taken the opposite approach, citing economists who say that the costs of tariffs would be passed on to regular consumers. Reps. Suzan DelBene of Washington and Don Beyer of Virginia recently introduced a bill that would block Trump from unilaterally imposing tariffs via executive order.

Trump recently said that he "can't guarantee" that Americans won't pay higher prices as the result of tariffs.

The president-elect's latest tariff proposal includes a 25% tax on imports from Mexico and Canada. In a November Truth Social post, Trump said he would sign an executive order to impose those tariffs on the first day of his presidency, and that they would remain "until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country."

He announced a 10% tariff on China that same day, blaming the country for the "massive amounts of drugs, in particular Fentanyl, being sent into the United States."

Golden pointed out on Thursday that both parties have embraced tariffs in recent years, citing President Joe Biden's decision to maintain tariffs that Trump had instituted during his first term. "We've had eight years of bipartisan executive branch consensus on tariffs," he said.

"Tariffs alone are not necessarily good or bad. They've got their positives and negatives," said Golden. The congressman said he'd like to see Trump's tariffs coupled with other policies, such as investments in domestic manufacturing and subsidizing American-made goods to offset potential retaliatory tariffs from other countries.

"All of those things in combination, I think, can make for good economic policy. They don't stand necessarily well on one foot," said Golden. "I think we've seen some of that in the last four years and a little bit in the four years before that."

"You don't just take an economy that's been heading in wrong direction for decades and turn it around like that," Golden said, snapping his fingers.

• The UHC CEO killing has led to an outpouring of frustration toward the healthcare industry.
• Some progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill say it's the "right time" to talk about it.
• "I think for people who are surprised, it's a wake-up call," said Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

In the wake of the shooting of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, lawmakers are weighing in on the crime and the reaction to it, including expressions of frustration many Americans feel toward the healthcare system.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told Business Insider on Wednesday that the rapturous online response to the shooting and the valorization by some of the suspect, Luigi Mangione, was indicative of a "mass bubbling of resentment around the precarity that people have been living with."

"Of course, we don't want to see the chaos that vigilantism presents," said Ocasio-Cortez. "We also don't want to see the extreme suffering that millions of Americans confront when your life changes overnight from a horrific diagnosis, and people are led to just some of the worst, not just health events, but the worst financial events of their and their family's lives."

She added, "I think for people who are surprised, it's a wake-up call for how much of this exists in our society."

Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida, who began his political career as a gun violence prevention activist, told BI that he's "against gun violence in all forms," but that he understood some of the reaction.

"There's so much animosity and hatred of this system that people are looking beyond maybe their typical moral scope to meme this guy, or to praise him, because the issue is just so pervasive," he said. "That's something to take note of."

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told HuffPost that the shooting was "a warning" to the healthcare industry — though she later told the outlet in a statement that she "should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder." Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont told the outlet that the "outpouring of anger at the health care industry" showed that "millions of people understand that health care is a human right."

Not all lawmakers on Capitol Hill are taking this approach — both Republicans and Democrats have opted to condemn the shooting and leave it at that.

"It's pretty simple to me. Nobody who commits cold-blooded murder is a hero. Period, full stop," Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told BI.

"He's the asshole that's going to die in prison," Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania told NBC News about the shooter. "Congratulations if you want to celebrate that."

For some progressives, though, the praise for Mangione and the outpouring of frustration over the healthcare industry can't be ignored, even if it's coming on the heels of a murder they condemn.

"It's exactly the right time when you've got thousands of people that are sharing their stories of frustration," Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California told BI.

In his view, it's simple enough to talk about the healthcare industry while not making excuses for the alleged murder.

"There's no linkage," said Khanna. "You condemn the murder of an insurance executive who was a father of two kids. At the same time, you say there's obviously an outpouring behavior of people whose claims are being denied, and we need to reform the system."

• The IRS has gradually rolled out a program to allow Americans to directly file taxes with the IRS.
• It's designed to make filing taxes simpler and easier.
• A group of Republicans want Trump to end it, saying it's government overreach.

More than two dozen House Republicans are asking President-elect Donald Trump to terminate the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) free direct tax filing system as soon as day one of his presidency.

Republican Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Chuck Edwards of North Carolina sent a letter to the president-elect on Tuesday urging him to end the program via executive order, saying that the program poses a "threat to taxpayers' freedom from government overreach."

The letter was signed by 27 other Republicans and is also addressed to Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-leads of DOGE.

The program came about as the result of the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $15 million in funding to study the creation of a website allowing Americans to directly file their taxes to the IRS for free. That led to the rollout of a pilot program that was available in 12 states last year, and is set to expand to 24 states in 2025.

A spokesperson for the IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Many Americans rely on tax-prep companies like TurboTax and H&R Block to do their taxes each year. The new program is designed to compete with those programs and make filing easier and less costly for Americans.

Smith and Edwards argued in their letter that the program represents a conflict of interest for the IRS — that the agency should not be in charge of both assessing taxes and enforcing tax crimes. The duo wrote that the agency "has little incentive to ensure hardworking Americans do not pay more than they owe in taxes."

They also cast the free direct-file program as an example of the "weaponization of government against Americans," a long-standing focus of Trump and MAGA-aligned right.

It is unclear whether Trump will take the lawmakers up on their request, and the Trump-Vance transition did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Republicans have broadly sought to roll back the $80 billion in additional funding for the IRS that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, saying it will be used to enable the agency to target conservatives and ordinary taxpayers.

• 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.

• Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-leads of DOGE, visited Capitol Hill on Thursday.
• GOP lawmakers were generally upbeat about the duo's plan to cut spending.
• But the details of how they'll do it remain vague.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy paid a visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday, meeting with GOP lawmakers in both the House and Senate to discuss their much-anticipated "Department of Government Efficiency," otherwise known as DOGE.

But while their visit generated all of the buzz that one might expect from an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the world's richest man, it left little clarity about what, exactly, President-elect Donald Trump's new government-efficiency effort would actually do.

"There won't be a lot of detail for the press today, and that's by design," House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters. "This is a brainstorming session."

Musk and Ramaswamy had spent their mornings meeting separately with an array of GOP senators to discuss government efficiency. With Johnson in tow, they were now meeting with members of the House and Senate's newly formed DOGE caucus in the Capitol basement. After that, they would speak with a larger group of Republicans in a nearby auditorium. Democrats were apparently not invited to any of those meetings, despite a handful of them expressing interest in the new project. "I would have liked to attend the meeting," Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York wrote on X, calling the one-party nature of the affair "unfortunate."

With all of the attention that DOGE is generating (at least 100 reporters and staff members had assembled outside the basement meeting room to catch a glimpse of Musk, who was carrying his son X-Æ-12 on his shoulders) it still remains unclear how the initiative will achieve Musk's goal of $2 trillion in spending cuts — and which programs might end up on the chopping block.

That's despite the best efforts of the Capitol Hill press corps, who peppered Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina with several such questions as he left a meeting with Ramaswamy on Thursday morning.

How would DOGE succeed when so many previous government reform initiatives have failed? "You're way too ahead, that question is way too early for this process," Tillis replied.

Does Musk have too many conflicts of interest to run DOGE, given some of his companies' reliance on government largesse? "You're way too early, you're already anticipating what the priorities are going to be," Tillis replied.

Were there any specific departments discussed in the meeting? "Way too early," Tillis replied.

Despite the lack of broad clarity, Musk and Ramaswamy have laid out some initial plans for DOGE, including using recent Supreme Court rulings to challenge and roll back existing regulations, reevaluate federal government's contracts, shrink the federal workforce, and going after taxpayer funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood. Musk has also indicated an interest in addressing wasteful spending in the military, drawing the interest of progressives.

Republicans also have their own long-standing pet projects that they're eager to see DOGE take up. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, the chair of the Senate DOGE caucus, has already identified $2 trillion in cuts that she'd like to see. More broadly, Republicans are generally eager to shrink government expenditures at any chance they might get.

Rep. David Schweikert, a debt-obsessed Republican from Arizona, told BI that his initial skepticism about Musk and Ramaswamy was assuaged after attending the DOGE caucus meeting with the duo, which he said focused more on the mechanics of how cuts might be pursued than specific line items to be targeted.

"There seemed to be a much deeper understanding of the structural issues and structural barriers than I expected," said Schweikert. "I left genuinely impressed."

Johnson told reporters that Thursday's meeting were the "beginning of a journey" for lawmakers, and he's probably right.

It's hard to see DOGE coming anywhere close to $2 trillion in cuts without touching entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, which would likely become a major political headache for Republicans if pursued.

And the organization that Musk and Ramaswamy are set to run will only be able to make recommendations. While Trump may seek to veer into legally treacherous terrain by asserting his authority to simply refuse to spend congressionally approved funds, any major reform proposals will likely need the approval of majorities in both chambers — itself a treacherous task, given their slim majorities.

But as long as DOGE remains a collection of platitudes, everyone involved will be on the same page — and is eager to snap a selfie with Musk.

"This is sort of the opening bell, I think, of something that's going to be really great," said Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri.

• Most Democrats aren't interested in Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's "DOGE" initiative.
• But a handful of them are signaling an openness to working with DOGE on specific issues.
• "A broken clock is right twice a day," said one DOGE-curious House Democrat.

As Republicans rush to embrace Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's "Department of Government Efficiency," most Democrats have taken a dismissive, even adversarial approach to the new initiative.

"Musk is a narcissist, a grifter, and a self-serving plutocrat," said Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas. "I don't have my hopes up that Elon Musk is going to do anything other than really awful, stupid, self-serving stuff."

It's not hard to see why. Ramaswamy was one of the more right-wing 2024 GOP presidential candidates, while Musk — who just spent an immense sum of his own money to get Donald Trump elected — has emerged in recent years as a Democratic boogeyman. And while the exact contours of DOGE's agenda remain vague, there are already signs that progressive priorities could fall victim to Musk and Ramaswamy's proposals for deep spending cuts.

Yet a handful of Democratic lawmakers have signaled a willingness to engage, eyeing DOGE as an unlikely opportunity to push their own long-standing policy goals.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, see tackling wasteful military spending as a potential point of common cause with DOGE.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, meanwhile, became the first Democrat to join the House's DOGE caucus on Tuesday. He told BI that his "singular focus" would be restructuring the Department of Homeland Security by making the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Secret Service each report directly to the president.

"If this is where that conversation is going to happen, I'm happy to be at the table," said Moskowitz. "And if they want to do stupid stuff, I'll call it out and I'll vote against it."

The three lawmakers' DOGE-curious posturing also offers an early look at how some Democrats, fresh off of a defeat in the 2024 election, plan to cautiously engage with a Trump administration that's set to pursue a more radical transformation of the country than the first time around.

Khanna, a Silicon Valley-based progressive who remains cordial with Musk, appears to be taking the billionaire businessman seriously when he says he wants to examine the Pentagon's budget, citing Musk's past criticism of bloated defense contracts. The congressman has also previously suggested that Democrats have unduly alienated Musk in recent years.

"If Musk is going to help bring accountability to defense contractors, that's something that Democrats should welcome," said Khanna.

But other progressives who want military spending cuts are much more suspicious.

"I highly doubt that one of the largest defense contractors in the United States — and by that, I mean Elon Musk — is going to opt for the federal government to cut the money that he is receiving directly from them," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. "He relies on the federal government to give him money."

Sanders, who wrote on X that Musk "is right" when it comes to bloated military spending, may simply be using the unexpected synergy to highlight an issue he's long cared about. The Vermont senator told BI that he hasn't directly engaged with Musk, and that it remains to be seen how seriously the SpaceX founder should be taken on the issue.

"I would hope that he is serious," said Sanders. "If you want to save taxpayer dollars, you do it not by cutting programs for hungry children, but by getting rid of the waste and fraud in the military."

Despite these small areas of potential agreement, much of what Musk and Ramaswamy have floated so far is likely to be anathema to the average Democratic lawmaker. There's a reason why it's Republicans, not Democrats, who are set to meet with the duo at the Capitol on Thursday.

Last week, Musk said that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency established by President Barack Obama that regulates financial services, should be eliminated. And Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota warned that Musk and Ramaswamy want to "defund Planned Parenthood" after the duo called out the organization as a recipient of "federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended."

That's not deterring lawmakers like Khanna and Moskowitz just yet.

"Obviously, if they're targeting areas that are going to lead to less education funding or less consumer protection, we need to speak up passionately, vociferously, and oppose it," said Khanna. "But our opposition will be much more effective and reasonable if we're willing to work with them on areas where there is government fraud and abuse."

"Some of these recommendations, I'm sure, will be horrible," said Moskowitz. "But a broken clock is right twice a day, so if there are things that they find that we can improve, shouldn't we give it a chance?"

But while Khanna could end up serving on a new DOGE subcommittee set to be chaired by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Moskowitz says he's steering clear.

"I'm not interested in doing anything Marjorie Taylor Greene touches," said Moskowitz. "She's not a serious member."

• Trump is nominating GOP Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to be his Secretary of Labor.
• She's a political moderate who's backed a pro-union bill that many Republicans don't like.
• That's earned her some initial praise from Democratic senators — and skepticism from the right.

As President-elect Donald Trump builds out his prospective cabinet, one nominee has emerged as a potential favorite of Democrats — and a headache for Republicans.

Trump announced last month that he's nominating Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a first-term Republican who just lost a tough reelection fight in a Democratic-leaning Oregon district, to serve as his Secretary of Labor.

Unlike most Republicans, she's positioned herself as an ally of labor unions, has co-sponsored major Democratic pro-union bills, and has earned the backing of some prominent labor leaders ahead of her Senate confirmation battle next year.

"Oftentimes, you'll get a nominee out of a Republican administration who has had an anti-labor record," said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. "Her track record would suggest she could be a good advocate."

Chavez-DeRemer is one of just three House Republicans who've cosponsored the PRO Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that would override state-level "right-to-work" laws that Republicans have long supported while strengthening workers' ability to form unions. She was also one of just eight House Republicans to cosponsor a separate bill that would guarantee public-sector employees the right to organize.

"I've only heard good things," said Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. "She's a supporter of the PRO Act, and that's like the holy grail of labor."

Several Democratic senators have offered conditional praise for Chavez-DeRemer, indicating that they're willing to support her nomination if she commits to strengthening labor unions in her new position.

Meanwhile, many Republicans are declining to weigh in on her support for pro-labor legislation, saying they'd like to meet with her first. But a handful of them, particularly those who are more supportive of right-to-work laws, have publicly expressed reservations about her.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote on X that he needed a "better understanding of her support for Democrat legislation in Congress that would strip Louisiana's ability to be a right to work state, and if that will be her position going forward."

"I don't know her, don't really know much about her record, other than what I've read," said Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. "Some of those things she supports would give me some concern."

A spokesperson for Chavez-DeRemer told BI that she would reserve comment on her nomination out of respect for the confirmation process, but that she looks forward to advancing the Trump administration's policies.

An 'early test' of the GOP's relationship with labor under Trump

Chavez-DeRemer's nomination comes as the GOP's relationship with labor has begun to shifted, with self-styled populists like Sens. JD Vance of Ohio and Josh Hawley of Missouri pushing for the party to take a more worker-friendly approach than it has before. And in recent years, organized labor and labor unions have enjoyed a bipartisan resurgence of support.

Fetterman argued that it was "smart" for Trump to nominate Chavez-DeRemer, given the drift of union voters into the GOP in recent elections. "I think that means that he's making a move to continue to grab even more votes out of the unions," said Fetterman.

But Chavez-DeRemer won't have singular power of labor policy in America, and Trump's appointees to the National Labor Relations Board will likely be especially consequential for workers and organized labor.

Biden's NLRB — which weighs in on labor-related cases and can investigate different labor disputes — has, among other labor-friendly moves, ruled that captive audience meetings are unlawful and set new precedents making it easier for workers to organize.

By contrast, Trump's NLRB took steps that ultimately weakened workers' organizing ability, including curtailing organizers's abilities to leaflet at employers' property and restricting areas where union organizers could be.

"Donald Trump has not exactly been an ally of working families and and labor. So if she's confirmed, we'll see how she does," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who said he wanted to make sure his fellow Oregonian got a "fair shake" in her confirmation hearings. "I'll be listening closely to her testimony."

In a statement offering conditional praise for Chavez-DeRemer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts argued that Chavez-DeRemer's nomination offers an "early test" of whether Trump will "stand strong with workers or bow down to his corporate donors and the Republican establishment's opposition."

"If Republican Senators block Trump's labor nominee for standing with unions, it will show that the party's support for workers is all talk," said Warren.

Hawley, who supports Chavez-DeRemer's nomination, said that her confirmation will indeed be a "test of whether or not the party is going to follow this president on his agenda for labor and for workers."

For now, many Republicans appear to be in wait-and-see mode — and a GOP desire to show party unity could help keep Republican support from cratering.

"My bias is supporting President Trump in staffing his administration with the people he wants around him," said Johnson.

"I don't support the PRO Act. I think the PRO Act is not good policy," said Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. "But I'll assess every nominee on the merits."

• Matt Gaetz announced Thursday his withdrawal from consideration to be US attorney general.
• He said his confirmation was "unfairly becoming a distraction" to Trump's team.
• It's the first major defeat that Trump has faced in staffing his new administration.

Matt Gaetz has withdrawn himself from consideration to be President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for US attorney general, the former Florida congressman announced on Thursday afternoon.

In a post on X, Gaetz said that the "momentum" behind his nomination was strong, but that his "confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction" for the Trump-Vance transition team.

It comes after Gaetz began meeting with senators on Wednesday, accompanied by Vice President-elect Sen. JD Vance of Ohio.

"I greatly appreciate the recent efforts of Matt Gaetz in seeking approval to be Attorney General," Trump wrote on Truth Social after Gaetz announced his withdrawal. "He was doing very well but, at the same time, did not want to be a distraction for the Administration, for which he has much respect. Matt has a wonderful future, and I look forward to watching all of the great things he will do!"

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told The Washington Post that Gaetz's decision to withdraw "was appropriate."

While Gaetz's nomination had excited Trump's most ardent supporters, the Florida Republican faced an uphill battle for confirmation in the Senate, where lawmakers had questions about sex-trafficking allegations that have long dogged him.

The Department of Justice declined to pursue charges against Gaetz in 2023, but the House Ethics Committee continued a probe into the allegations, including speaking with witnesses. The panel met on Wednesday to determine whether it would release a long-awaited report on its investigation but ultimately deadlocked.

CNN reported that Gaetz withdrew from consideration shortly after it reached out to him for comment regarding accusations of a second sexual encounter with a 17-year-old at a party in 2017.

Meanwhile, Gaetz had taken the extraordinary step of resigning from the House after his nomination was announced, ostensibly to allow Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to quickly fill his House seat via a special election.

He had also said that he would not take the oath of office in January, despite being elected to serve another full two-year term through 2027.

It is unclear now whether Gaetz will follow through with that plan, and a spokesman did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Gaetz's withdrawal represents Trump's first major loss in staffing up his incoming administration, though other nominees face confirmation challenges in the Senate.

• Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is set to chair a new subcommittee that works with Elon Musk's DOGE.
• The panel will be tasked with investigating "wasteful" government spending.
• Greene said it would also "expose people who need to be fired."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is set to get a plum new role next year: chairing a new House panel that will work with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency.

The Georgia Republican is expected to chair the new Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, which will be housed under the House Oversight Committee, a person familiar with the matter told Business Insider on Thursday. Fox News first reported on the creation of the panel.

The DOGE subcommittee will be tasked with investigating "wasteful" spending, examining ways to reorganize federal agencies and supporting the work of the DOGE commission.

Greene and Rep. James Comer, the chair of the oversight committee, have already met with Ramaswamy and intend to work together, this person said.

"Wasteful government spending must end, and taxpayers deserve to see their money used effectively and efficiently," Comer told Fox News. "I look forward to working with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy to deliver on these goals to make America great again."

Greene told Fox News that the subcommittee "will expose people who need to be fired." She added: "Bureaucrats who don't do their job, fail audits like in the Pentagon, and don't know where billions of dollars are going will be getting a pink slip."

President-elect Donald Trump announced the creation of DOGE earlier this month, naming Musk and Ramaswamy as the co-leads of the new extragovernmental organization. In a joint op-ed on Wednesday, the duo laid out their vision for DOGE in greater detail. They signaled that they would rely heavily on executive actions to carry out their recommended cuts to government spending.

That could include "impoundment," in which Trump could simply refuse to spend congressionally approved funds. Impoundment has been largely illegal since 1974, but Trump and his allies view the law as unconstitutional and have pledged to challenge it in court.