Elon Musk rips Trump's 'big beautiful bill' as a 'disgusting abomination'
Elon Musk is unloading on Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" like never before.
He called the legislative package a "disgusting abomination."
"Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk said.
Elon Musk is unloading on President Donald Trump's"Big Beautiful Bill" like never before.
"I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore," Musk wrote on X on Tuesday afternoon. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination."
"Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk continued. "You know it."
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that the bill would add $2.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
"It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt," Musk wrote in another post on X, adding in a third post that "Congress is making America bankrupt."
Musk's post happened just as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was delivering a briefing to reporters. She dismissed Musk's criticism when asked about it by a reporter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?
Can Musk kill the budget bill? Elon Musk hasn't stopped criticizing the budget bill that he has called a 'disgusting abomination.' In fact, he appears to be just getting started. The debate in Washington now is how far Musk will go to try to defeat a bill that — by the assessment of Musk, several Republicans and now nonpartisan watchdogs — will vastly add to the federal debt. 'KILL THE BILL,' Musk posted on X on Wednesday, a message he urged followers to press with members of Congress. He has turned a majority of his feed into a stream of reposts of content criticizing the legislation and denouncing its effect on the nation's $36 trillion debt load. A string of assessments suggest that the bill will add to the debt. The most consequential, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the House version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion over the next decade, given both the roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core and additional spending. (Other estimates are even higher, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model's: $2.8 trillion.) A Republican counter: Attack the messenger. The Trump administration advanced hard-to-believe claims about C.B.O. staff members' partisanship, and arguments that its analysis ignores projected economic growth. That said, a previous nonpartisan analysis of the House bill found that the tax cuts would generate nearly no additional economic growth, and even conservatives found the budget office's analysis credible. 'When all the models are in unison,' Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, told The Times, 'it really doesn't make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
E&E News
22 minutes ago
- E&E News
House Republicans see ‘massive grift' in EPA climate grants
Republicans tore into the EPA green bank program Wednesday as part of a 'massive grift' and 'revolving door' that directs taxpayer money to Democratic causes and groups. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion program created by the Inflation Reduction Act, was a main focus of a hearing meant to example nonprofit organizations that get federal money. It was in the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, the panel formed to further the causes of the Elon Musk-founded U.S. DOGE Service, also known as the 'Department of Government Efficiency.' Advertisement Musk's relationship with Republicans is now strained over his criticism of the party's tax megabill, a fact Democrats pointed out frequently in Wednesday's hearing.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Party Primaries Need Ranked Choice Voting
Democratic voters in New Jersey must choose a nominee for governor next week from a crowded and contentious field - and polls show no one truly catching fire. The front-runner polls at about 30% of the vote. At least three other candidates can fairly claim that theyre in second place. Two more appear to have double-digit support. Meanwhile, a quarter of New Jersey Democrats remain undecided - and the race just keeps getting more negative. Its a textbook example of an election that would benefit from ranked choice voting. RCV is the tool that solves precisely this problem: how to determine a majority winner with the strongest support from a field of several candidates. And while 2025 is a quieter election year, well surely see this same problem - with RCV as a clear solution - in dozens of marquee races in 2026, with large candidate fields already forming on both the Republican and Democratic sides to fill open gubernatorial and Senate seats. Voters demand elected officials who are accountable to a majority of us, not just a narrow base. But they also deserve choice, and New Jersey Democrats have a lot of it here. The Garden States gubernatorial field is a deep one with two members of Congress, the mayors of the states two largest cities, a longtime senate president, and a union leader all representing a variety of ideologies and backgrounds. With the June 10 primary fast approaching, several recent polls show that U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill holds the lead - but her advantage differs widely in each, and so does the candidate in second. Emerson shows Sherrill at 28%, and three candidates tied at second with 11% - Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, and U.S. Rep. Josh Gottheimer. Teachers union leader Sean Spiller and former senate president Steve Sweeney follow close behind. An InsiderNJ poll finds Sherrill with 31%, Baraka at 21%, and Fulop at 19%, with the others closely clustered around 10%. Rutgers found things even tighter: Sherill with 17%, followed by Fulop with 12%, then Spiller at 10%, with Baraka and Gottheimer tied at 9%. Its entirely possible that the "winner" could end up somewhere in the low 30s - meaning nearly 70% of voters preferred someone other than the nominee. What a mess for voters. There are several distinct groupings of candidates, some more moderate, some more progressive, some more inclined to work with the Trump administration and some vowing to fight it. Theyre all dividing the vote. The polls are so scattered as to be no help at all. Voters are stuck trying to guess the strongest among their favorites. But what if there were an election with multiple candidates, satisfied voters, and a united and strong party? Ranked choice voting makes it possible. Instead of voting for just a single candidate, voters have the power to rank the field in order: first, second, third, and so on. If someone wins a majority right away, they win. If no one does, the candidates at the bottom are eliminated. If your candidate is still in the race, your vote stays with them. If theyre knocked out, your vote simply counts for your second choice. The "instant runoff" continues until someone wins 50%. Its a nonpartisan solution that protects choice and majority winners, and puts voters first. Unsurprisingly, its good for parties too: Research shows that candidates who win a majority in their primaries - which RCV delivers - do better in competitive elections. And instead of a brutal campaign leaving bruises and hard feelings, the party is united heading into the fall. Everywhere RCV is used, from Maine to Alaska, from New York City to Utah, voters say that they like it and find it easy to use. Four years ago, Virginia Republicans faced a similar textbook case: a crowded primary for governor, candidates from multiple wings of the party, even the threat of a divisive third-party challenge from one candidate if they didnt win the nomination. The party turned to ranked choice voting to solve this problem. Glenn Youngkin was the majority winner. He had a unified party behind him - and in November, he defeated the former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe (who had trouble unifying Democrats after winning a four-way primary without RCV). If theres one thing voters want more of these days, its choice. Poll after poll finds huge majorities of us frustrated with the candidates were given and longing for more options. But we also need the tools to make the most of greater choice - instead of it causing its own problems, like driving further polarization, frustrating voters, and making our campaign cycles ever more toxic. Ranked choice voting allows lots of choices and majority winners to go hand in hand. In the end, that leads to stronger nominees, more unified parties, and most importantly, more satisfied voters. Meredith Sumpter is president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections.
