
Estate, Charitable Planning For Stock Options, RSUs, And Company Stock
For those who are fortunate enough to accumulate wealth, passing it along to future generations and donating it to charitable causes are important and laudable financial goals. However, you face a unique set of planning considerations if a large portion of your wealth comes from stock compensation: stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units (RSUs), ESPPs, other types of equity awards, and holdings of company shares.
A recent myStockOptions.com webinar that I moderated featured a trio of experts in this complex planning niche. In this article, I present some of the knowledge and insights they shared.
Tax-law changes may be coming soon, as the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA) is set to expire at the end of 2025 and Congress is working on a tax plan. However, the TCJA's provisions on the exemption amounts for estate tax and gift tax do not affect the core strategies in this type of planning. The strategies outlined below will persist whether the TCJA is extended or not.
Webinar panelist David Haughton, Senior Corporate Counsel at Wealth.com, started the webinar by going over the core legal tools involved in estate and charitable planning. Beyond your will, these include trusts and beneficiary designations.
A revocable trust, also known as a living trust, acts as a bucket that you fill with your assets. It can help you avoid probate, among many other benefits. As it is revocable, it can be freely amended during your lifetime.
By contrast, he went on, an irrevocable trust is a type of trust that can't be modified, amended, or revoked by the grantor once it has been created and funded. An irrevocable trust provides potential tax advantages and asset protection—but you have to be very certain about your decisions.
Unlike a will, which does not take effect until you pass, a trust is active on the day of its creation. Assets that you can put into a trust include not only company stock but also equity grants, such as restricted stock units (RSUs) or nonqualified stock options (NQSOs), depending on the terms of your grant agreement and the company's stock plan, which could restrict your ability to transfer equity grants.
Alert: Become familiar with limits specified in your stock grants on transferring stock options and unvested stock grants to trusts and for donations. Your company may generally allow transfers while you are living or only to certain types of family trusts. Any transfer does not change the timing of the tax treatment at exercise or vesting. The income will still be recognized by the executive or employee who received the grant.
Another estate-planning tool Haughton discussed is the beneficiary designation, in which you leave assets to a beneficiary at death outside the probate process. For stock 'you set that up directly through a financial institution,' he explained. Often this is commonly done with 401(k) plans, IRAs, and brokerage accounts. Depending on the terms of your company's stock plan and procedures, you may be able to designate a beneficiary for your equity awards, such as RSUs or NQSOs.
Alert: When you later receive the underlying shares from the RSU vesting, option exercise, or ESPP purchase, the account those shares go into at your brokerage firm will have its own separate forms for beneficiary designation. The beneficiary designations you may have designed for your stock grants do not then automatically apply to the actual shares you receive.
The company's stock plan will have provisions dictating what happens to your outstanding equity awards if you die. For example, unvested stock options and RSUs may be forfeited. However, it's not uncommon for the grant agreement to instead allow vesting to continue or even to accelerate the vesting and, for options, extend the exercise period for vested options. Therefore, your heirs, executor, trustees, and beneficiaries need to be familiar with rules for each grant received.
For gifting and wealth transfer during your lifetime, tax planning is a major issue, along with your personal cash needs. This was a topic discussed by webinar panelist Mani Mahadevan, the CEO of the firm Valur, a firm that offers resources and strategies on tax planning and estate planning.
You can gift a certain amount to other people annually while you are living or at death before triggering gift and estate taxes, Mahadevan explained. In 2025, you may make annual gifts of up to $19,000 ($38,000 if made with a spouse) to any individual without either affecting a portion of your lifetime exemption or paying gift tax. Once you go over that yearly amount, your exemption for gift and estate tax is reduced. When the excess goes over your lifetime gift-tax exemption, you have to pay gift tax. The yearly amounts are indexed for inflation, and amounts over the exemption threshold are taxed at 40%.
In 2018, the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act doubled the estate-tax exemption. In 2025, the exemption is $13.99 million for unmarried taxpayers and $27.98 million for married taxpayers. However, the TCJA is currently set to expire in after 2025. If Congress does not extend the tax law, the exemption could return in 2026 to the much lower levels that were in effect before the TCJA. Your state may also have rules on estate tax and inheritance tax to know.
With gifts of assets, such as company stock, the tax basis and holding period carry forward. This lifetime gifting is a strategy for all income levels, including gifting shares to those that would have a lower tax rate than you do on capital gains when they sell the stock.
Alert: Be familiar with the kiddie-tax rules before gifting shares to your children to then sell.
Except for smaller gifts 'you want to gift to trusts rather than individuals,' Mahadevan emphasized. The benefits of giving to an irrevocable trust include advantages in estate tax and even income tax, some ongoing control over how the assets are used, asset protection, and privacy.
'You really want to focus on gifting assets that you expect to appreciate significantly,' Mahadevan continued. This is because at their current value they will use up less of your estate-tax exemption than they will in the future. 'If you gift them sooner, the appreciation happens outside of your estate.'
Gift high-tax-basis assets, Mahadevan recommended, and keep low-basis assets. 'When you sell appreciated assets, how much are you going to owe in capital-gains taxes? That's entirely tied to the basis. You typically gift high-basis assets to a trust for your kids.'
Why continue to hold the low-basis stock and not put it into an irrevocable trust? For the stock not in that type of trust, after you die your estate or beneficiaries receive a 'step-up' in the tax basis of the shares to the market value of the stock at the time of your death. Therefore, when the company shares are sold, the appreciation in the shares that occurred between your acquisition of the stock and your death would not be taxed to the estate or beneficiary for income-tax purposes.
This results in less capital-gains tax for the company stock that appreciated before your death. On the other hand, if you gift those assets to your kids before you pass away, they won't receive a step-up in basis and will owe capital-gains tax on all the appreciation.
'This is a really powerful way for your heirs to inherit and sell appreciated assets and avoid capital-gains tax when they sell the stock,' Mahadevan observed.
Webinar panelist John Nersesian, Head of Advisor Education for US Global Wealth Management at PIMCO, went through the many strategies and vehicles for making charitable donations of company stock that you hold.
He emphasized first that donating stock held for at least one year is much more tax-efficient than selling the stock and then gifting the cash proceeds, as you get a tax deduction for the fair market value at the time of the stock donation. 'Appreciated investments are a very tax-efficient way to give,' he noted. 'You can avoid the capital gains that would otherwise be realized at the time of sale.'
Alert: Donating and gifting company shares are dispositions under special holding-period rules for ISO stock and tax-qualified ESPP stock. The holding period is two years from grant and one year from exercise/purchase. Selling or transferring the stock before the holding period is met triggers a disqualifying disposition.
Donation vehicles for company stock that Nersesian discussed include the following.
A donor-advised fund (DAF), Nersesian explained, is a private account that you create to manage and distribute charitable donations. When you give to a DAF, such as donating company stock, that amount is eligible for the charitable deduction on your tax return without the need at that point (or perhaps ever) to pick the nonprofits receiving the funds. When you're making a very large donation of appreciated stock to a DAF (or to any charity directly), the tax deduction is limited to 30% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) per year, and you can carry forward what's not used on that year's tax return for five years.
Appreciation within a DAF is not taxable. When you itemize deductions on Schedule A of your federal tax return, the DAF 'facilitates the bunching of deductions for maximum tax benefit.' Lastly, there are 'no wash-sale implications—the stock can be repurchased immediately to maintain exposure with higher cost basis.'
A CRT is an irrevocable split-interest trust that provides an income stream to designated beneficiaries (donor, spouse, family member) for a defined period (maximum 20 years) or for life. The remaining assets are distributed to designated charities at the end of the term, including DAFs.
'CRTs are suitable for concentrated and highly appreciated assets, such as company stock,' asserted Nersesian. There are many tax benefits. You, the donor, receive a reduced income-tax deduction upon funding. You achieve diversification with deferral of capital-gain recognition and remove assets from your taxable estate.
'A CLT is an irrevocable trust funded with donor assets that provides an annual income stream to a charitable organization for a pre-determined term or life of donor,' Nersesian observed. There is no minimum or maximum. 'The remainder is distributed to the donor's family members or to other noncharitable designated beneficiaries at the end of the term.' Benefits include charitable cash flow and reduced inheritance taxes.
Webinar panelist Mani Mahadevan of Valur continued with some strategies and vehicles for estate planning and wealth transfer. They included the following two specialized types of trusts for company stock, including ways in which founders of startups can use them for QSBS stock.
'Particularly if the company is publicly traded and therefore easy to value, consider gifting stock to a GRAT,' said Mahadevan. A GRAT freezes a portion of an estate's value while shifting asset appreciation to beneficiaries. The grantor gives up control of the assets for the term of the trust while receiving a regular annuity payment. At the conclusion of the GRAT term, remaining assets in the trust pass to heirs free of gift tax and estate tax. The trust can be structured so that the grantor does not use any of their lifetime exclusion for gift tax and estate tax.
You can transfer any type of financial asset to a GRAT. 'GRATs are one of the most powerful estate-tax strategies, and they're very well suited for public stock positions and become more favorable as interest rates lower,' observed Mahadevan.
This is, according to Mahadevan, 'the most common, complex, and potentially impactful estate-planning trust.' The IDGT is an irrevocable trust that removes assets from the grantor's estate but keeps the grantor as the income-tax owner. Therefore, trust assets avoid estate taxes on appreciation.
The IDGT is popular, he continued, because of its overall estate-tax efficiency. It allows you to personally pay the trust's income taxes without using up your gift-tax exemption and allows the trust assets to grow tax-free outside your estate. 'If the stock is privately held, it should receive substantial valuation discounts relative to enterprise value.' Specifically, Mani continued, an IDGT is 'for people who expect to be significantly over the estate-tax-exemption amount and want to pass on assets to future generations.'
The webinar in which these experts spoke is available on demand at the myStockOptions Webinar Channel. Other resources on gifts and donations, estate planning, and death taxes with equity awards and company stock are available at the website myStockOptions.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump warns Musk will face ‘serious consequences' if he backs Democrats
President Donald Trump vowed his former friend Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' should he choose to support the Democratic party following their very public feud. Trump delivered the warning in an interview with NBC News, during which he also said he had 'no intention of speaking to' the tech billionaire any time in the near future, citing the online threats and insults he hurled in recent days. 'I'm too busy doing other things,' Trump said Saturday. 'I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful,' he added. 'You could not disrespect the office of the president.' Asked directly whether he believes their relationship to be permanently over, Trump replied: 'I would assume so, yeah.' The world's richest man backed Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the 2024 election, shelling out nearly $300 million in a bid to land them in the White House. In the months following their win, Musk cemented himself by Trump's side, appearing at press conferences, parties and public events, while professing his 'love' for the president. But relations ruptured between the pair on Tuesday, when Musk ripped into the Republicans' 'Big, Beautiful' budget bill aimed at enacting much of Trump's agenda. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on his X social media platform. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He said the bill would undermine much of his efforts to trim federal spending during his brief period with Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. On Thursday, he then blasted the president and accused him of being an ingrate, saying, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Mere hours later, the SpaceX founder dropped the 'really big bomb' when he alleged Trump appeared in the 'Epstein files,' referring to a trove of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex trafficking crimes, including those who were involved. That post was deleted Friday night. 'That's called 'old news,' that's been old news, that has been talked about for years,' Trump said Saturday when asked about his reaction to Musk's allegation. 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it. It's old news.' The president also fired back in a series of press appearances and social media posts. He threatened to not only terminate Musk's government contracts, but to get rid of his Tesla as well. Sources told NBC News the electronic vehicle is still parked outside of the White House. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, referring to federal contracts with SpaceX. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' As for his budget bill, Trump believes his feud with Musk has actually been positive, telling NBC the Tesla CEO helped bring it to the public's attention. 'I think, actually, Elon brought out the strengths of the bill because people that weren't as focused started focusing on it, and they see how good it is,' Trump said. 'So in that sense, there was a big favor. But I think Elon, really, I think it's a shame that he's so depressed and so heartbroken.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump threatens Musk with 'serious consequences' in spending bill row
US President Donald Trump threatened his former advisor Elon Musk with "serious consequences" Saturday if the tech billionaire seeks to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. The comments by Trump to NBC News come after the relationship between the world's most powerful person and the world's richest imploded in bitter and spectacular fashion this week. The blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public on Thursday -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. He also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." Just last week, Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described as an "abomination" the spending bill that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe and from, there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both had appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." - 'Old news' - Trump spoke to NBC Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican leader is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. The Trump administration has acknowledged it is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, videos and investigative material that his "MAGA" movement says will unmask public figures complicit in Epstein's crimes. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on his social media platform, X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He initially doubled down on the claim, writing in a follow-up message: "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." However, he appeared to have deleted both tweets by Saturday morning. Trump dismissed the claim as "old news" in his comments to NBC on Saturday, adding: "Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it." Supporters on the conspiratorial end of Trump's "Make America Great Again" base allege that Epstein's associates had their roles in his crimes covered up by government officials and others. They point the finger at Democrats and Hollywood celebrities, although not at Trump himself. No official source has ever confirmed that the president appears in any of the as yet unreleased material. Trump knew and socialized with Epstein but has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the US Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein trafficked underage girls for sex. "Terrific guy," Trump, who was Epstein's neighbor in both Florida and New York, said in an early 2000s profile of the financier. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." bur-st/sst

USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned
Disputes inside the GOP about parts of Trump's major tax bill threaten approval in the Senate and past compromises reached by the Republican-led House. Show Caption Republicans begin debate in the narrowly divided Senate with factions seeking to increase spending cuts or curbing tax breaks, which threaten the compromise needed for approval back in the House. Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk complicated the debate by urging lawmakers to kill the bill. Congressional leaders insist approval is still possible despite the fissures in the narrow Republican majorities in each chamber and the unified opposition of Democrats. WASHINGTON – Will President Donald Trump 's 'big beautiful bill' go bust? The second-term president's highest-priority legislation is under attack from some Senate Republicans – and from his former billionaire adviser Elon Musk – for costing too much. Complaints are also mounting from Republicans who are opposed to cutting Medicaid health insurance and other popular programs used by many Americans, especially as a way to help pay for tax breaks that would benefit some of the country's highest-income earners. With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. 'We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. 'Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change,' Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. 'I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? 'This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it,' added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas 'crazy' in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky 'can't stand him.' House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that – in both parties, and everybody – and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election – and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years – in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called 'Profiles in Futility.' Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package.'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,' Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump 's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. 'I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. 'Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises."