• 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.

• 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.

• Trump wants the power to refuse to spend federal dollars that Congress has already approved.
• He's pledged to challenge a Nixon-era law that constrains the president's "impoundment" powers.
• Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have endorsed this approach as a way to implement their DOGE cuts.

President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have long signaled that if elected to a second term, he would seek to reduce the constraints that presidents typically face when carrying out their agenda.

That vision is already beginning to take shape, with Trump's recent demand for recess appointments signaling a desire to bypass the Senate's role in confirming his nominees. But the president-elect doesn't just want more control over staffing. He also plans to try to assert his power over government funding by simply refusing to spend money that has already been approved by Congress.

It's called "impoundment," and it's been mostly illegal for the president to do since 1974, when Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act after President Richard Nixon refused to spend congressionally approved funds on programs that he personally opposed.

But in an June 2023 campaign video, Trump argued that the law is unconstitutional and pledged to "do everything I can to challenge" the law in court and "if necessary, get Congress to overturn it."

If Trump successfully pushed for the elimination of that law, he could gain unilateral power to defund vast swaths of the federal government, refuse to dole out foreign aid, or withhold federal funds to pressure others to bend to his will.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the co-leads of a newly announced "Department of Government Efficiency," wrote in a joint op-ed on Wednesday that they "believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with" Trump and declare the law unconstitutional. Impoundment has been floated as one way that Trump could singlehandedly enact DOGE's recommended cuts to the federal budget.

Meanwhile, lawmakers on Capitol Hill — including those on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that control government spending — don't seem concerned about Trump's impoundment power grab just yet.

"I'm going to have to get back to you on that one," Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia told BI. "I haven't dreamed about impoundment, and haven't really focused on it, so I don't know."

"To be honest with you, I've not really followed it very closely," Republican Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama told BI, later adding in a statement issued via a spokesman that he "would be happy to work with" Trump on fixing what he calls a "broken" budget process.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told BI that Trump "doesn't have the constitutional authority" to impound funds, but said that her "first order of business" is dealing with an upcoming government funding deadline.

'The Congress can't just be pushed aside'

Trump's quest for impoundment powers will likely engender resistance, at least from Congress. Funding the government has long involved a complex set of negotiations between Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, and spending bills typically contain a broad range of provisions designed to satisfy different groups of lawmakers. If Trump could tinker with those arrangements unilaterally after the fact, it would represent a significant shift in power away from the legislative branch.

"If it's something that further weakens Congress's ability to do its job the way they should be, then I'm going to look at that real carefully," Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, told BI. He added that there "would be a problem" if Trump tried to impound funding approved by both chambers of Congress.

"The Congress can't just be pushed aside," said Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, a Democratic member of the committee. "I would hope that we wouldn't allow ourselves to be pushed aside, but we'll see."

But Trump is also dealing with a far more obedient GOP than he was during his first term, and even Republican appropriators aren't fully ruling out impoundment. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the Republican chairman of the committee, has characterized impoundment as a "tool in the toolbox" for Trump, according to The Washington Post.

What Trump could do with such sweeping powers

Even if Congress won't grant Trump impoundment powers, he has another potentially more attractive avenue — the courts.

It remains an open question whether the Supreme Court would ultimately side with Trump and strike down the law, granting him the sweeping power to cancel government funding at his behest.

"I think we're always very mindful of the fact that this court has broken tradition on a whole host of issues, whether it's reproductive rights or immunity," said Morelle. "When we talk about how the American people have not elected a king — we don't have a sovereign — this is what we're talking about."

In general, Trump and other GOP supporters of impoundment have primarily described it as a means to simply reduce government spending that he considers wasteful.

"If it takes fewer resources to implement a program than what was appropriated, an agency should not be forced to waste taxpayer dollars," Mark Paoletta, a GOP lawyer who served in the Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget, co-wrote in a June op-ed. "If there is room for savings in federal programs, why should the president be restrained from ordering agencies to shrink the size of the federal government?"

But there's also concern that Trump could use that power in a more punitive way, withholding funds set aside for projects in individual lawmakers' districts in order to punish them for crossing him. Daniel Schuman, a Congress expert and the Executive Director of the American Governance Institute, laid out a variety of scenarios in a July op-ed.

"The President's not supposed to be a super-legislator in that way," Schuman told BI in a recent interview. "The President shouldn't be able to blackmail members of Congress."

Trump-Vance Transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt did not address BI's inquiry as to whether Trump might pursue such punitive measures, merely saying in a statement that the president-elect has "a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail" and that "he will deliver."