Rep. Scott Perry Flamed For Publicly Trashing A Bill He Voted For
Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry is the latest Republican member of Congress who is trashing a bill they previously voted for.
In the process, he seemed to be more interested in staying inElon Musk's good graces than pleasingPresident Donald Trump.
It all started Tuesday morning when Perry shared a post by Musk that referred to Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Billas 'a massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill' and 'a disgusting abomination.'
Musk has suddenly shown aggressive opposition toward the bill and is asking people tocall their senators to prevent its passage. He's also suggesting to 'fire all politicians' who voted for the bill and 'betrayed the American people.'
For some reason, Perry agreed with Musk's post ― even though he is one of the people who voted for the BBB:
I wish I had a nickel for every time the @freedomcaucus sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way we were right all along.
We expect MASSIVE improvements from the Senate before it gets back to the House.
So @elonmusk is right to call out House Leadership. I wish I had a nickel for every time the @freedomcaucus sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way we were right all along.We expect MASSIVE improvements from the Senate before it gets back to the… https://t.co/sVnAzh6C8H
— Rep. Scott Perry (@RepScottPerry) June 3, 2025
If Perry was fawning over Musk in order to possibly keep from being primaried, he didn't get any help from other social media users who pointed out the hypocrisy of trashing a bill you voted for. A community note added to his tweet made sure to remind people: 'Rep. Scott Perry voted Yes for the bill.'
Others joined in as well and ― spoiler alert ― it got brutal.
Hi....YOU VOTED FOR IT...YOU MASSIVE DIPSHIT
— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) June 4, 2025
I'm done with all of you. You literally voted for this bill. You've lost are the problem you are trying to solve for. Look in the mirror.
— Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) June 4, 2025
I wish I had a dime for every time you guys took a month vacation and cried on social media, but didn't do anything.
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) June 4, 2025
Explain This! 👇 pic.twitter.com/ymrSzfrgjZ
— Lucas Sanders 💙🗳️🌊💪🌈🚺🟧 (@LucasSa56947288) June 3, 2025
Hypocrisy right here 😂😂😂
— Fish (@FishxCD) June 4, 2025
It says a lot about your character that you are criticizing others when you voted for the bill yourself. That's the problem with republican reps, they lie to their constituents and think they can get away with it. Those days are over. BTW - I'm a republican.
— Jane (@DebrasLilSis) June 4, 2025
You voted for the fucking bill you idiot!!!! FFS you guys are dumb as hell!
— Joyful Laughs (@snarkandliberty) June 4, 2025
HuffPost reached out to Perry's office for clarity on why he is attacking a bill he voted for, but no one immediately responded.
Flip-flopping and hypocrisy seem to be in Perry's wheelhouse, however.
Back in April 2024, Perry claimed he didn't support a nationwide abortion ban despite repeatedly supporting legislation that would make that happen.
And last October, during a tight reelection race, Perry suddenly stopped advocating for Project 2025 and claimed he was unaware of the plan.
Perry is not the only Republican representative who has come under fire for things they did or said after the bill was passed.
Late last month, Nebraska congressman Mike Flood admitted at a town hall he was unaware of some of the things in the bill that passed, but said he didn't support it.
On Tuesday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene went scorched-earth on the bill in an X post where she admitted not reading the bill before her vote.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Freaks Out After She Finally Reads Bill She Voted For
Elon Musk Goes To War Against Big Beautiful Bill: 'KILL the BILL"
Democrat Asks Trump If Elon Musk Was On Drugs In The White House
Elon Musk Takes A Chainsaw To The GOP's False Deficit Claims
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7 minutes ago
Germany's Merz says he found Trump open to dialogue and committed to NATO
BERLIN -- German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Friday, a day after meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, that he encountered a U.S. administration open to discussion and returned confident that Washington remains committed to NATO. Merz described his Oval Office meeting and extended lunch with Trump as constructive but also candid, noting that the two leaders expressed different views on Ukraine. "Yesterday, in the meeting at the Oval Office, I expressed a distinctly different position on the topic of Ukraine than the one Trump had taken, and not only was there no objection, but we discussed it in detail again over lunch," Merz said in Berlin after his return. Thursday's White House meeting marked the first time the two sat down in person. Merz, who became chancellor in May, avoided the kind of confrontations in the Oval Office that have tripped up other world leaders, including Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa. The two leaders opened with pleasantries. Merz presented Trump with a gold-framed birth certificate of the president's grandfather, Friedrich Trump, who emigrated from Kallstadt, Germany. Trump called Merz a 'very good man to deal with.' The American administration, he said, is open to discussion, listens, and is willing to accept differing opinions. Add he added that dialogue should go both ways: 'Let's stop talking about Donald Trump with a raised finger and wrinkled nose. You have to talk with him, not about him." He said he also met with senators on Capitol Hill, urging them to recognize the scale of Russian rearmament. 'Please take a look at how far Russia's armament is going, what they are currently doing there; you obviously have no idea what's happening,' he said he told them. 'In short, you can talk to them, but you must not let yourself be intimidated. I don't have that inclination anyway.' Merz, who speaks English fluently, stressed the need for transatlantic trust and said he reminded Trump that allies matter. 'Whether we like it or not, we will remain dependent on the United States of America for a long time,' he said. 'But you also need partners in the world, and the Europeans, especially the Germans, are the best-suited partners. 'This is the difference between authoritarian systems and democracies: authoritarian systems have subordinates. Democracies have partners — and we want to be those partners in Europe and with America.' He reiterated that the U.S. remains committed to NATO, particularly as Germany and others boost their defense spending. Trump has in the past suggested that the U.S. might abandon its commitments to the alliance if member countries don't meet defense spending targets. 'I have absolutely no doubt that the American government is committed to NATO, especially now that we've all said we're doing more. We're ensuring that we can also defend ourselves in Europe, and I believe this expectation was not unjustified," Merz said. "We've been the free riders of American security guarantees for years, and we're changing that now.'
7 minutes ago
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON -- Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially." Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Pride Flags Displayed Across Red States in Defiance of Bans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Local leaders in several Republican-led states are pushing back against bans on pride flags being hung from government buildings by creating legal loopholes to allow for LGBTQ+ displays. From city halls to public monuments, these acts of defiance come in the face of increasingly common legislative efforts to limit or ban pride flag displays on government property. While some states have codified such bans—citing neutrality or uniform flag policies—cities like Missoula, Salt Lake City, and Boise have found legal or procedural workarounds to continue public expressions of support for LGBTQ+ communities. Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Legal Policy, Cathryn Oakley, told Newsweek: "It has never been more important for everyone—especially local governments, and especially in states that are overtly hostile to equality—to share their support for LGBTQ+ people." Director of Communications at The Trevor Project Zach Eisenstein told Newsweek: "The Trevor Project's most recent national survey listed 'having or displaying Pride flags' as one of the top ten ways in which people can best show their support and acceptance for LGBTQ+ youth, according to the young people themselves. Pride flags can be a simple but effective way to signal a welcoming space—not just for LGBTQ+ people, but for everyone." A flags flies at the Salt Lake City and County building showing support for the LGBTQ+ community in Salt Lake City on May 7, 2025. A flags flies at the Salt Lake City and County building showing support for the LGBTQ+ community in Salt Lake City on May 7, 2025. Melissa Majchrzak/AP Photo Why It Matters Pride flags exist to both celebrate and show acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community. Over the past few months, several Republican-controlled state legislatures have banned them from being flown from state buildings, but small pockets of local officials have been pushing back against the bans. This comes as the Trump administration has issued several executive orders and policy changes within executive governments targeting gay rights and transgender people, including officially defining sex and gender as biological, limiting access to gender-affirming care for young people, and planning to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, named after the gay rights campaigner. What to Know Missoula, Montana Missoula Representative Zooey Zephyr, right, and her fiancée Erin Reed, left, wave to supporters during the Missoula Pride Parade in in Missoula, Montana, on June 17, 2023. Missoula Representative Zooey Zephyr, right, and her fiancée Erin Reed, left, wave to supporters during the Missoula Pride Parade in in Missoula, Montana, on June 17, 2023. Ben Allan Smith/The Missoulian via AP, File Pride flags are banned from government offices in Montana because of House Bill 819, which bans all flags that "represent a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender or political ideology." However, the Missoula City Council notices that the bill allows for "official historical flags of the United States." On June 3, they voted 9-2 to classify pride flags as an official historical flag of the city, meaning they can be flown from all municipal buildings. Leah Ore who runs the political action group Missoula Resists was quoted by Montana Public Radio, saying: "Having a symbol like a pride flag shows them that they are safe, they are loved, and if they are feeling scared or they need extra help, they know who they can go to. I say Pride is suicide prevention. Our pride flags are suicide prevention." Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, however, said the city council "should be ashamed" of their action. Salt Lake City, Utah The Salt Lake City flag is seen imposed onto transgender flag colors at the Salt Lake City and County building on May 7, 2025, in Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake City flag is seen imposed onto transgender flag colors at the Salt Lake City and County building on May 7, 2025, in Salt Lake City. Melissa Majchrzak/AP Photo Utah issued a similar ban on "non-government" flags flying from government buildings in February 2025. The bill calls for a $500 fine on state and local governments that fly any flag other than the U.S. flag, the state flag, a city or county flag, military flags, Olympic and Paralympic flags, official college flags or tribal flags. Salt Lake City Mayor, Erin Mendenhall, spearheaded a campaign to impose the city's official flag design of a sego lily onto flags including pride, transgender, and Juneteenth colors. This motion passed with unanimous consent from the city council, allowing Salt Lake City to fly flags with the Pride colors as official government flags for the city. Mayor Mendenhall told The Guardian: "We are not violating the order. We've made it a part of our official government identity." Boise, Idaho The city council of Boise, Idaho, took a similar approach to Missoula and Salt Lake City officials, voting 5-1 in favor of a proclamation made by Boise Mayor Lauren McLean making the pride flag, which has flown above the city hall for several years, an official city flag. This vote occurred after Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 96 in April 2025, which banned flags other than the U.S. flag, flags of Idaho colleges, state flags, universities and public schools, and the official flags of military branches. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador wrote in a letter to Mayor McClean: "Governmental officials may hold personal beliefs that would be represented on flags with other messages such as 'Make America Great Again' or 'Don't Tread on Me,' but, after passage of House Bill 96, flying such flags by government entities is against the law. What if citizens of Boise acted as you have by refusing to follow the municipal laws with which they disagree…based on the same logic? How do you ensure your citizens' respect for the rule of law if you are not following the law yourself?" Council member Meredith Stead told The Guardian: "Removing the flag now after years of flying it proudly would not be a neutral act. It would signal a retreat from values we've long upheld and send a disheartening message to those who have found affirmation and belonging through its presence at city hall." Jacksonville, Florida Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' Department of Transportation banned cities across the state from lighting up their bridges in any colors other than red, white, and blue. The ban was introduced in 2024 when cities were forbidden from lighting up their bridges with rainbows for Pride, red for sickle cell awareness, and/or orange for gun safety awareness. DeSantis also introduced a 2023 executive order banning non-official flags from government buildings. In defiance of that ban, LGBTQ+ campaigners lit up the Acosta Bridge in Jacksonville with rainbow colors on Sunday, June 1. What People Are Saying Director of Communications at The Trevor Project Zach Eisenstein told Newsweek: "It is difficult to see some lawmakers prioritize writing and passing legislation that makes a symbol of acceptance illegal, out of all the other issues they could act on. Efforts to ban pride flags accomplish nothing aside from attempting to tell a group of already marginalized people, 'you don't belong here.'" Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Legal Policy, Cathryn Oakley, told Newsweek: "Flags are a declaration of acceptance, and LGBTQ+ pride is all about showing defiance of oppression by displaying acceptance and love across differences. Pride flags are important symbols for the LGBTQ+ people, including youth, who are constantly receiving messages of being less-than and are scared about the future. It is meaningful that these cities are willing to take a risk to show their support for our community." A Missoula community member told KPAX: "Never been prouder to say that I'm in Missoula. The action was quick. It was devastating to hear that colleagues were being told to take their pride flags down. And I was feeling a moment of serious despair and, how quickly we all organized." Council member Sandra Vasecka who voted against the Missoula resolution was quoted by Montana Public Radio, saying: "It does choose sides, and we do need to remain neutral as a local governing body." Idaho Rep. Ted Hill, a Republican who sponsored House Bill 96 said: "The best way to do it is to get rid of everything. So the only thing you have in the classroom is the American flag, the state flag. And people will say inclusivity and all this. Well, the American flag is as inclusive as it can get." Amy Glassman, an organizer of the event in Jacksonville, told "As I have said millions of times before and will continue to say — lights or no lights, there will always be rainbow colors on the Acosta Bridge." Florida State Senator Randy Fine said of the bill to effectively ban displaying pride flags:"The idea here is that the government should not be in the political message business." What Happens Next Residents in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin — both states that voted for Donald Trump in 2024 — attended pride flag-raising ceremonies in their cities. In Cincinnati, a cheering crowd collected at the courthouse to see the pride flag flown. Democratic mayor, Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval, said: "Cincy Pride is one of those times when the Queen City gets to really show off who we are." Similarly, the Democratic mayor of Madison, Satya Rhodes-Conway, said: "It matters that we communicate to all…that here we respect people's rights." These community events, and continued defiance of pride flag bans, show resistance to efforts to diminish LGBTQ+ visibility in the US.
