Trump says he will negotiate his budget bill after Musk's criticism
BY
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he plans to negotiate aspects of the 'big, beautiful' tax bill, expressing dissatisfaction with certain provisions while being satisfied with others.
His comments followed billionaire Elon Musk's criticism a day earlier, in which Musk argued that the bill detracts from efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit.
'We will be negotiating that bill, and I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it,' Trump told reporters, without directly addressing Musk's concerns.
He also emphasized the need to secure sufficient support for the bill's passage in the Senate, stating, 'we can't be cutting, you know, we need to get a lot of support.'
In an interview with CBS 'Sunday Morning,' broadcast late on Tuesday, Musk said he was 'disappointed to see the massive spending bill' because it increases the budget deficit and undermines the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it can be both,' Musk said in the interview.
The White House intends to send Congress a small package as early as next week to formalize cuts made by Musk's team targeting federal government spending, a White House official familiar with the plan said on Wednesday.
For months, Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Congress have been asking the administration to codify the federal spending cuts announced by DOGE.
Musk, the world's richest man, was appointed by Trump in February to lead his administration's chaotic reform of the federal government as head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed the sweeping tax and spending bill that would enact much of Trump's policy agenda and saddle the country with trillions of dollars more in debt.
Trump and his fellow Republicans, which passed the measure by a single vote, have dubbed the legislation the 'big, beautiful bill.' It will add about $3.8 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The U.S. Senate is now considering the measure.
—Nandita Bose and Doina Chiacu, Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Politicians, scared of truly open primaries, offer ‘limited' alternative for nonpartisan voters
Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) A ballot measure to establish an open-primary, ranked-choice voting system in Nevada may have been rejected by voters last November, but its underlying message of voter disenfranchisement clearly struck a chord with Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager. The Assembly's top Democrat, who opposed that ballot measure, said he suspects changes to Nevada's closed primary system are coming whether the political establishment wants it or not: 'The dam is going to break one way or another. The question is: Are we going to be part of the process?' To that end, Yeager is proposing Assembly Bill 597, which would allow nonpartisan voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic primary. He introduced the bill as an emergency measure on Monday, a week before the end of the session, and presented it to the Senate and Assembly committees on legislative operations and elections during a joint meeting Thursday. Yeager described his bill as a 'pushing back' to Question 3, the election reform proposal approved by voters in 2022 but rejected by voters in 2024. That ballot measure, which needed to pass twice because it proposed amending the state constitution, was heavily funded by out-of-state election reform groups. Those groups viewed Nevada as 'a playground in which they can experiment,' Yeager said. 'We know they will continue to attempt to exploit this issue' of closed primaries 'to fool around with our elections.' AB 597 is 'much simpler' than Question 3. There would still be Republican and Democratic primaries. The only change would be that a registered nonpartisan voter could cast a ballot in one of them. (Question 3 proposed putting all candidates on the primary ballot regardless of political party, with the top five finishers appearing on the general election for voters to rank in order of preference.) Yeager described AB 597 as a common sense solution that addresses the growing number of nonpartisan voters in the state. As of April 2025, 34.9% of registered voters in Nevada are nonpartisan, 29% are Republican and 29% are Democrats, according to the Secretary of State's Office. The remaining 7% of registered voters are members of minor parties like the Independent American or Libertarian parties. That means nonpartisan and third-party voters are the biggest voting bloc in the state. Yet they are unable to participate in the primary elections their tax dollars pay for unless they agree to temporarily affiliate with a major political party. The Nevada State Democratic Party, which opposed Question 3, has not expressed support or opposition for AB 597. But Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat and the state's top election official, spoke in support of the bill. The Nevada State Republican Party is strongly opposed to AB 597, as they were to Question 3. Representatives from the state party and affiliated local party groups argued that allowing nonpartisans to participate in party primaries would dilute party values and invite interference from outsiders. Opponents also argued the bill is unnecessary because nonpartisan voters can already participate in a primary by temporarily registering to a political party. Nevada offers same-day voter registration, which means nonpartisan voters have that option all the way through election day. 'I think that practically that just doesn't happen,' Yeager countered. 'People are not going to change party registration and then change back. They're not partisan for a reason or not affiliated for a reason.' Some election advocates worry nonpartisan voters may similarly be turned off by the process laid out in AB 597. Yeager plans to introduce an amendment to require nonpartisan voters request a political party primary ballot by 'the 7th Monday before the election day.' (In real terms: That would have been April 23 for last year's June 11 primary.) Nonpartisans after that date would have to vote in person. Yeager's proposed amendment would also keep the state-run presidential preference primary closed. Doug Goodman, the founder of Nevadans for Election Reform, has pushed for fully open primaries for more than a decade. He took a neutral position on AB 597, saying the bill is 'far from ideal' and only 'a small start.' The bill doesn't address disenfranchisement of voters registered to minor parties, who still would be unable to participate in a major political party primary without leaving their preferred party. It also doesn't address the issue of voters not being able to cast ballots in the significant number of races decided in competitive primaries where the winner goes on to run unopposed in a general election. That is a particularly common occurrence in districts that lean heavily toward one party. Sondra Cosgrove, another outspoken advocate for election reform in Nevada, took a similar position as Goodman, though she described herself as 'reluctantly in support' of AB 597. 'In America elections belong to the people, not the political parties,' she said in a statement to the Current. 'So, I plan to run a ballot question in 2026 to adopt a fully open primary so that the people of Nevada can discuss how we would like our primary election to be managed. Many political commentators believe major election reform will only come to Nevada through a ballot measure backed by outsiders because the existing political establishment benefits from the current system. The Legislature must adjourn Monday, leaving lawmakers only a few days to pass Yeager's bill. If they do, it could still be vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who has already vetoed one election bill this session.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China
US President Donald Trump signaled renewed trade tensions with China on Friday, arguing that Beijing had "violated" a deal to de-escalate tariffs, at a time when both sides appeared deadlocked in negotiations. Trump's post on his Truth Social platform came hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that trade talks with China were "a bit stalled," in an interview with broadcaster Fox News. The world's two biggest economies had agreed this month to temporarily lower staggeringly high tariffs they had imposed on each other, in a pause to last 90 days, after talks between top officials in Geneva. But on Friday, Trump wrote that: "China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US," without providing further details. Asked about the post on CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer took aim at Beijing for continuing to "slow down and choke off things like critical minerals." He added that the United States' trade deficit with China "continues to be enormous," and that Washington was not seeing major shifts in Beijing's behavior. On Thursday, Bessent had suggested that Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping could get involved in the situation. He said there could be a call between both leaders eventually. Since Trump returned to the presidency in January, he has imposed sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners, with especially high rates on imports from China. New tit-for-tat levies from both sides reached three digits before the de-escalation earlier this month, where Washington agreed to temporarily reduce its additional tariffs on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent. China, meanwhile, lowered its added duties from 125 percent to 10 percent. The US tariff level remains higher as it also includes a 20 percent levy that the Trump administration recently imposed on Chinese goods over the country's alleged role in the illicit drug trade -- an issue that Beijing has pushed back against. The high tariff levels, while they were still in place, forced much trade between both countries to grind to a halt, as businesses paused shipments to try and wait for both governments to reach an agreement to lower the levies. Trump's tariff plans are also facing legal challenges. A trade court ruled this week that the president overstepped his authority in tapping emergency economic powers to justify sweeping tariffs. It blocked the most wide-ranging levies since Trump returned to office, although this ruling has since been put on hold for now as an appeals process is ongoing. The ruling left intact, however, tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on sector-specific imports such as steel and autos. bys/st
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade
U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during a tariff announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Credit - Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images The roller coaster that is President Donald Trump's trade war steamed ahead this week. On Wednesday, a federal district court dealt a major blow to Trump when it ruled that his sweeping global tariffs were illegal. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled the levies could remain in place for now. And then, on Friday, Trump accused China of violating a preliminary trade deal and suggested he would respond. As all this unfolds and the U.S. legal system lumbers toward a final verdict, one thing is clear: the White House needs to get a real trade strategy, and fast. Read More: The Five Small Businesses That Helped Block Trump's Tariffs Few issues are more fundamental to Trump's worldview than trade. For Trump, trade is not merely an economic issue, but a litmus test of whether America is winning or losing on the world stage. Even matters of war and peace, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, have seemingly taken a back seat to Trump's stubborn fixation on China's trade surplus with the U.S. During his first term, Trump launched a trade war against China with a goal, as he framed it, of punishing China's unfair trade practices. The trade war ended with a Phase-one deal wherein China promised to increase its future purchases of American products and enact structural reforms. Ultimately, this deal failed to deliver. The Chinese underperformed on their pledges. Trump blamed the Biden Administration for not enforcing the deal. Unbowed by the disappointment of his first trade war with China, Trump launched a second one when he returned to office earlier this year. This time, he surrounded himself with loyalists who supported his instincts for public confrontation and rapid escalation to force China to the negotiating table. Trump's approach appeared to be built on an assumption that China's economy was brittle, and Beijing would buckle under pressure. Read More: Why Trump Will Blink First on China That bet backfired. China retaliated with counter-tariffs. Beijing also implemented novel new export controls on critical minerals and magnets upon which U.S. industries depend. Chinese policymakers moved swiftly to shore up China's economy while expanding trade ties with other partners. Rather than fold, China punched back. As the economic costs of the trade war mounted on both sides of the Pacific, Trump designated his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate a 90-day truce. The Chinese accepted. Trump's trade war with China is not over. It is merely paused. Trump will continue returning to the well of grievance about America's trade imbalance with China until he can secure a deal that he can sell as a win to the American public. But therein lies the rub. Based on my recent exchanges with Chinese officials and experts, it seems Beijing has taken America's measure in recent weeks and concluded that China has greater capacity to withstand economic pain than the U.S. China's leaders lack confidence that any agreement with the mercurial Trump will last. At a more fundamental level, China's leaders are unclear on what specifically Trump seeks—and what he would offer in return. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Bessent said that U.S.-China talks were 'a bit stalled' and suggested Trump and Xi Jinping 'have a call.' But until the Trump Administration can articulate its concrete objectives, its strategy for achieving them, and its vision of a productive process for doing so, the U.S.-China trade war will stay stalemated. Read More: It's Time for Trump and Xi to Meet To be clear, the Trump Administration has legitimate grievances about China's unfair economic practices. China's market access barriers, forced technology transfers, and state-directed subsidies to preferred industries and businesses have created massive global trade distortions. But grievance is not a strategy. And daily improvisation is not a formula for progress in negotiations. The 90-day trade truce gives the Trump Administration time and space to do its homework. That means discarding the failed assumptions that Xi will cave under pressure and instead doing the hard work of homing in on what specifically Trump is aiming to achieve and what he is prepared to give in return. In the end, trade policy is not about scoring points or undermining competitors. It is about making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous. If Trump wants to succeed, he will need to move beyond theatrics and prepare for the grinding process of negotiating with China that awaits. Contact us at letters@
