GOP Rep. Raising Funds After Trump ‘Threatened' Him For Not Supporting ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is calling on donors to support his reelection campaign after President Donald Trump publicly suggested he should be 'voted out of office' for not falling in line with the Republican Medicaid and tax cut bill.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Trump-endorsed 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would use cuts in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to help pay for tax cuts for all income groups, but that would especially benefit the rich.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the legislation would add $2.3 trillion to deficits over the next decade and add $3.1 trillion to the national debt.
In addition to cutting essential services for the lowest-income U.S. households, the bill also contains a provision to eliminate a sales tax on gun silencers, Reuters reports.
Massie criticized the legislation, warning CNN's Manu Raju Tuesday that the bill would only add to the national deficit.
'We're going to add $20 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, which is three and a half to $5 trillion more than would have been added otherwise,' Massie said.
Trump came after Massie that same day at a press gaggle on Capitol Hill.
'I don't think Thomas Massie understands government,' Trump said. 'I think he's a grandstander. ... We don't even talk to him much. I think he should be voted out of office.'
Following the president's suggestion that he be voted out of office, Massie took to social media Tuesday and called for donors to help fund his reelection campaign.
'For having the audacity to say this bill does NOT repeal the green new deal, but DOES increase the deficit and debt substantially, I was threatened by Trump today,' Massie wrote on X.
Economic Analysis Shows 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Taking From Poor, Giving To Rich
Jimmy Kimmel Exposes The 2 'So Crazy' Things Hidden In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
No Big Surprise: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Favor The Rich
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
10 minutes ago
- E&E News
Trump-Musk split could leave Tesla politically homeless
The spectacular breakup between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump threatens to leave Tesla with few political friends. Musk has spent the past few months alienating the electric automaker's base of climate-minded car buyers by moonlighting as Trump's government-slasher-in-chief. Now, the billionaire's fixation on the GOP megabill has opened a dangerous rift with the president, who threatened Thursday to end all subsidies to Musk's companies. Tesla's stock had its largest one-day drop in history Thursday as Musk and Trump sniped at each other from their respective social media platforms. The share price fell more than 14 percent, lopping off more than $150 billion from Tesla's market value — and, according to Bloomberg, tanking Musk's personal net worth by $34 billion. Advertisement The core of the argument between the two men — whether the Republican spending package is a 'big, beautiful bill' or a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK' — is a side concern for people whose main priority is Tesla. 'The CEO of that company needs to spend his time focused on the company's success,' said Nick Nigro, the head of Atlas Public Policy, which analyzes the electric vehicle market. 'Whether his interest in federal policy comes from a good place, it's a distraction from what Tesla shareholders and drivers need, which is his full attention.' Seth Abramson, a vociferous Musk critic who is writing a book about the entrepreneur, wrote on X that 'Musk will go the rest of his life without a political home or patron, shunned by politicians of both parties and therefore unable to effectively operate as a CEO of any company.' The breakup between the world's richest man and one of its most powerful could have far-reaching impacts for Musk's companies. Investor optimism about Tesla has been based on the assumption that Musk's proximity to power would lead to a national policy on autonomous vehicles that would ease the arrival of Tesla's robotaxi, which is supposed to hit the roads of Austin, Texas, this month. Musk could also lose leverage on other issues important to Tesla, such as Trump's tariffs on China's critical minerals. Meanwhile, his space company SpaceX has billions of dollars of federal defense and space contracts — now at risk — while its satellite subsidiary Starlink is angling for billions more in federal broadband subsidies. 'Attack mode' Tesla is still the country's largest electric automaker. But the Trump-Musk split comes at a vulnerable moment for both Tesla and electric vehicles writ large. The company is facing declining sales around the world, as its vehicle lineup has grown stale and Musk's political activities have turned off many EV buyers in Europe and North America. Meanwhile, federal support for EVs is hanging by a thread. The House's version of the megabill would drastically scale back Biden-era tax incentives meant to stimulate EV manufacturing and sales. The fight between Trump and Musk escalated on Thursday after Trump told reporters that Musk was 'upset' about the House-passed bill's proposal to remove EV tax credits and other incentives. Musk took to X to deny that narrative, writing: 'Keep the EV/solar incentives cuts in the bill, also cut all the crazy spending increases in the Big Ugly Bill so that America doesn't go bankrupt!' The president's repeated attacks on EVs and vows to repeal the Biden administration's subsidies certainly didn't seem to trouble Musk much during last year's campaign, when the megabillionaire spent more than $270 million and countless hours to help put Trump back into the White House. (Trump did concede at the time that Tesla made a 'great product.') Musk's apparent willingness to sacrifice federal incentives was unwelcome news to clean energy and EV advocates who hope Republican senators will save some of the tax credits from the Democrats' 2022 climate law. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate, and some GOP senators have indicated they think the bill's rollbacks go too far. The war of words between Trump and Musk ended any hopes that the Tesla CEO would have the leverage with the White House to tip the scales. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump posted on his social media site, Truth Social. That statement was a far cry from three months ago, when Trump made a show of buying a Tesla in front of the White House. That gesture raised hopes among some Tesla shareholders that Republicans would embrace Tesla and compensate for its diminished popularity among Democrats, many of whom had taken to staging protests outside its showrooms. 'I'm going to buy because No. 1, it's a great product, as good as it gets. And No. 2, because this man has devoted his energy and his life to doing this, I think he's been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people,' Trump said at the time about Musk. Now, that's all changed. 'Trump no longer has to say nice things about Tesla and EVs,' said Loren McDonald, an EV analyst at Paren, an EV data shop. 'He and the admin can go back to EVs are evil attack mode.' Critical minerals and beyond The fizzled bromance could also have far-reaching ripple effects on myriad, complex relationships that Tesla has across the globe, as well as its business before the federal government. Musk, for example, will presumably hold no sway over the administration's intended move to impose steep tariffs on imports of Chinese graphite used to make EV batteries. The Commerce Department concluded last month that imported Chinese graphite is receiving unfair subsidizes. The agency laid out a plan to impose tariffs of up to 721 percent on some natural and artificial graphite active anode material from China that's used in batteries. Tesla has fought against the tariffs, with one of the company's attorneys pointing out that U.S. manufacturers don't yet produce anode material that meets carmakers' standards. The fallout could also put a bulls-eye on Musk's financial ties to Beijing, something Democrats have repeatedly railed against. The Trump administration and lawmakers from both parties are pushing to ease China's grip on supply chains, from the production of critical minerals to processing and manufacturing of EV batteries. Yet Tesla has many ties to China, including reliance on graphite imports, a gigafactory located in Shanghai, and ongoing work with Contemporary Amperex Technology. CATL, the world's largest battery-maker, is on a U.S. government list of companies that work with the Chinese military. In short, nothing on Thursday boded well for America's leading electric automaker. 'It's another Twilight Zone moment in this Musk/Trump relationship which now is quickly moving downhill,' wrote Dan Ives, an analyst at investment shop Wedbush Securities who tracks Tesla. But Ives nonetheless remained hopeful. The subject line of his email: 'Friends Again Soon?' Hannah Northey contributed to this report. This story also appears in Climatewire.
E&E News
10 minutes ago
- E&E News
New York's climate goals are teetering. Trump could knock them over.
Donald Trump is stress testing New York's climate goals. The Empire State was already struggling to meet its ambitious climate targets before Trump returned to the White House in January. Renewable deployments lagged. Transportation emissions barely budged. And concerns over rising energy bills pushed emission reductions down state leaders' priority list. Trump has only added to those difficulties. The president quickly took aim at a state plan to limit the number of vehicles entering Manhattan after reassuming office. He followed up by temporarily halting construction of an offshore wind project that would connect to the electric grid in Brooklyn. His price for lifting the halt: building a pair of pipelines that the state had previously rejected. Advertisement The result is a showdown over one of the country's most ambitious climate plans. Trump and business interests contend new gas pipelines are needed to lower energy costs, bolster economic growth and help household budgets. One pipeline developer, Williams Cos., recently refiled a permit with federal regulators for an expansion of an existing line and has signaled it may resubmit plans for a second new line. 'The President is unleashing the might of American energy and lowering costs for the American people,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 'Increasing the flow of U.S. natural gas is vitally important for Americans living in the Northeast, and the President's leadership has successfully driven this critical pipeline to life.' Environmentalist say such moves are folly. Gas already generates roughly half the state's electricity and is the leading heating source for buildings. They maintain that burning more of it will not only blow a hole in the state's climate goals, but in consumers' wallets as well. Trump, a Manhattan real estate magnate, is simply seeking to make an example of his former home state, climate advocates say. 'New York has been a leader on climate and this administration is coming after progressive climate policy,' said Raya Salter, a climate advocate who serves on the state's Climate Action Council. 'That's why we need for our state to fight and push harder than ever and be the model that this country and the world needs.' The seeds of the current conflict were sown during Trump's first term, when New York blocked a pair of pipeline proposals and passed one of the country's most ambitious climate laws. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which passed in 2019, requires the state to cut emissions 40 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050. As part of its climate efforts, New York committed to generating 70 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030. New York City enacted a ban on new gas hookups in new large buildings in 2024, a requirement that will extend to all new buildings by 2027. The state passed a new building code with a similar requirement, halting new gas hookups for most large new buildings in 2026 and nearly all new buildings by 2029. But hitting the state's targets would already be difficult, even without Trump's meddling. New York's greenhouse gas emissions were 9 percent below 1990 levels in 2022, according to the state's most recent figures, meaning the state will have to make huge strides to reach a 40 percent reduction by the end of the decade. Only a quarter of the power online today is considered renewable, and the vast majority of that is hydropower. Gas interests have challenged the ban on new hookups in court — and while New York City won a court challenge earlier this year, appeals are expected. Emissions from transportation, New York's largest single source of climate pollution, have hardly moved. In 1990, New York's transportation emissions amounted to 70 million tons of carbon dioxide. In 2022, they were 71 million tons, or about 40 percent of New York's total greenhouse emissions, according to the state's figures. Rising costs New York's difficulty cutting carbon has been compounded by rising energy costs. While most of the U.S. saw natural gas prices fall in 2024, New York and New England were exceptions. Gas prices in New York increased by 14 percent compared to 2023, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's annual state of the markets report. Electricity prices also increased 17 percent in the New York City area, though they remained below their five-year average. Rising costs have become a pressing political issue in Albany. In a sign of the growing political pressure, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, blasted the utility Consolidated Edison in February for proposing an 11 percent increase in electricity rates and a 13 percent increase in gas rates. The difficulty cutting emissions and Hochul's increasing focus on affordability has caused concern among environmentalists, many of whom were already skeptical of the governor's commitment to climate. 'New York has really good climate goals on paper, but the Hochul administration has a long way to go to implement the greenhouse gas commitments the state has already made,' said Judith Enck, who served as EPA Region 2 Administrator in the Obama administration. Those frustrations come with new ones from the Trump administration. The first signs of trouble between the president and his native state came over New York's congestion pricing plan to limit traffic below 60th Street in Manhattan and raise revenue for its ailing public transportation system. Trump rescinded support for the federal program in February, drawing an immediate legal challenge from the state. Last week, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order barring Trump from ending the program while the case is heard. Congestion pricing is not a climate policy, per se. But its backers say it has the added benefit of reducing emissions. A March paper by researchers at Stanford University estimated it had reduced the emissions rates of vehicles traveling in the city's central business district by 2 to 3 percent. As New York works to reduce traffic, it is also attempting to connect a major offshore wind project to Brooklyn homes. Empire Wind 1, which began offshore construction on its 54 turbines in March, is slated to provide enough electricity to 500,000 homes. Offshore wind is a centerpiece of New York's climate and energy plans. The state has a goal of bringing 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity online by 2035. But its plans have been frustrated by rising interest rates and construction costs, which have forced the state to cancel a series of contracts to buy power from offshore wind developments. Empire Wind 1 is one of two offshore wind projects that would add about 1,700 MW of offshore wind capacity to the state's power grid. But in April, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum halted the project, claiming its permit approval had been rushed by the Biden administration. Hochul lobbied Trump hard to lift the stop work order, saying the project was essential for creating jobs and powering the economy. The president ultimately agreed, saying he did so in exchange for permitting new pipeline capacity into the state. Hochul disputes that, even as she signaled she is open to new pipelines that can demonstrate a need for the gas and meet the state's permitting requirements. Many greens doubt Hochul. 'I think this was a deal with the devil that was unnecessary,' Enck said. She predicted the state would have won if it had challenged the stop-work order in court. 'It is deeply disappointing. Of course we want offshore wind, but not at the price of more fracked gas.' Paul DeMichele, a Hochul spokesperson, said the governor 'is embracing an energy policy of abundance to make electricity more affordable and meet the growing demand of businesses looking to expand here — which includes her recent successful effort to save Empire Wind from the federal government's attempt to shut it down.' But if environmentalists saw a sellout, business interests saw a potentially groundbreaking compromise that could end more than a decade of pipeline fights in the Northeast. An attractive gas market A recent S&P Global Study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concluded an additional 0.5 billion cubic feet per day of gas capacity into New York would decrease wholesale gas prices by 17 percent. Williams' Northeast Supply Enhancement project — or NESE — would add 0.4 bcf per day of additional capacity. 'It seems natural to me that we could be arriving at a bargain like this,' said Dan Byers, vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute. 'It's hard to think of a clearer example of a self-inflicted economic pain than blocking pipelines to limit supply of gas to your own citizens.' When Williams' initially proposed NESE in 2017, it struck an agreement to supply a pair of National Grid subsidiaries in the New York City area for heating consumption. Today's push comes at a time when New York is trying to wean itself off gas consumption in buildings. A National Grid spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Williams contends the additional capacity would not only lower gas prices for consumers, but bolster the reliability of the state's electric grid, which can be strained during the winter months when New York's limited gas pipeline network labors to keep up with heating and power demand. Many gas plants in the state are equipped with oil tanks and switch over to the fuel during periods of cold. Williams has also signaled it plans to revive the Constitution Pipeline project, which would run 127 miles from Pennsylvania toward Albany. 'The NESE and Constitution projects are essential to address persistent natural gas supply constraints in the Northeast, constraints that have led to higher energy costs for consumers and increased reliance on higher-emission fuels like fuel oil,' the company said in a statement. Gas drillers in Pennsylvania view New York and New England as attractive markets because the region boasts some of the highest gas prices in the country, said Ira Joseph, a longtime gas analyst and senior research associate at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. New York's relative proximity is also attractive for Pennsylvania producers who now ship much of their gas to the Gulf Coast, where it is liquefied and exported abroad as LNG, he said. New York's electrification mandates could limit gas demand growth in the future. The question is whether they will cause gas demand in buildings to fall, he said, adding,'the goal of moving pipelines into New York state is not to have gas demand fall.' Consumers would likely benefit in the form of lower prices, but it would likely come at the expense of the state's climate goals, Joseph said. 'It's going to be hard to reach the goals if you keep building infrastructure to expand consumption,' he said.
E&E News
10 minutes ago
- E&E News
Unlikely champion notches green energy win in megabill
Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona has for years been trying to pass legislation to boost solar and wind power on public lands, but has met with little success. Now a little-noticed section of the House-passed Republican megabill includes portions of the House Freedom Caucus member's 'Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act.' Specifically, the bill would share revenues from renewable projects with counties and states where the projects are located. The hope is that spreading cash around will make renewables more attractive for local governments. Advertisement 'I'm a guy that's all about all of the above,' Gosar said during an interview this week. 'Arizona's got great solar. We can't turn our back on it.' Despite that enthusiasm, don't expect him to sign on to the Green New Deal just yet. He's more than happy to see renewable energy tax credits get rolled back in the reconciliation package, known formally as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' H.R. 1. 'As long as nobody's getting any subsidies, and everyone's playing fair and square across the board, I think we win,' he said. The Senate is now working on its own version of the budget reconciliation bill, with the hope of getting it to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Lawmakers there say they have been eyeing changes to some of the rollbacks House Republicans made to energy tax credits. Under budget reconciliation rules, only a simple majority in both chambers is needed to pass the legislation. Renewable energy backers have had little to cheer about in recent weeks. Aside from some nuclear and renewable fuel provisions, Gosar's language is one of the few green energy wins in the megabill. Still, what's in there now is a slimmed down version of the 'Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act,' reintroduced in March as H.R. 1994. Like many previous iterations over the past half-decade, that proposal includes provisions to speed up permitting and create a fund for conservation efforts, neither of which made it into the megabill. The former wasn't included because of Senate procedural issues, Gosar said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office did not give a score for Gosar's portion of the megabill, though it seems likely to increase the deficit because money would be steered away from federal coffers. According to text of the House-passed package, 50 percent of bonus bids, rentals, fees, permits and leases for renewable projects would go to states and counties that host such projects, divided evenly between the two. Currently, 100 percent of that money goes to the federal government. The new revenue-sharing arrangement would begin Jan. 1. 'We wanted people to embrace this at the district and state levels,' Gosar said. 'That way, some of the money came back to them. It's what we call 'sniffle money.'' Group support Advocates like the American Clean Power Association have backed Gosar's past efforts, but they've had little to say this time around. Jason Ryan, a spokesperson for ACP, declined comment, though in March, Frank Macchiarola, chief advocacy officer for the group, hailed H.R. 1994 as 'key to harnessing' renewable energy 'to enhance energy security, improve grid reliability, and boost local economies.' The conservative Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, however, said it was 'pleased' to see a version of PLREDA make it into the reconciliation bill. 'It will be a positive driver of energy projects, especially in the West, that are crucial to securing American energy independence and national security interests,' Heather Reams, president of the group, said in a statement. 'Furthermore, we appreciate the preservation of flexibility for states and localities in how to best allocate funds and hope to see similar language come out of the Senate.' According to House Natural Resources testimony from an Interior Department official last July, the Bureau of Land Management under President Joe Biden had permitted renewable energy projects expected to power about 2.4 million homes. The chair of that committee, Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), deemed the revenue-sharing provision a modest win that should have widespread support. 'It is a bipartisan bill, and it is something Gosar was wanting to see in the package,' he said in an interview. Partisan rift It's not exactly bipartisan anymore. Ever since the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, the main Democratic co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) has refused to join with Gosar on the legislation, instead offering his own version each year. Gosar has called the rioters 'peaceful patriots.' Gosar seems to have moved on from all that, though he did have thoughts on Levin's parallel efforts. 'I think when you copy me, I think that's a … how should I say this? Great admiration. My work is pretty good.' Gosar hasn't exactly been trumpeting his legislative victory. In a statement following the House vote on the bill in May, he lauded the legislation's border security and tax provisions, but failed to mention the provision he succeeded in inserting. When asked if that was an oversight, he responded simply, 'Yeah.'
