Will Senate Republicans block the climate law rollback?
This analysis and news roundup comes from the Canary Media Weekly newsletter. Sign up to get it every Friday.
The Inflation Reduction Act has jump-started hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and manufacturing development — and most of its benefits have gone to regions represented in Congress by Republicans.
But House Republicans still chose to pass a budget bill two weeks ago that would crush the bustling clean energy sector by rapidly phasing out incentives for making energy-efficient home improvements, buying EVs, and building solar, wind, and battery projects.
Now, it's the Republican-controlled Senate's turn to consider the bill. Early signs suggest that at least two GOP senators — John Curtis of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — are not on board with the aggressive cuts in the current version of the bill.
Tillis represents a purple state where clean manufacturing and solar project development has boomed in recent years, Canary Media's Elizabeth Ouzts reported this week. He's since said that he wants to revise the House's cut to IRA production and investment tax credits, as well as a provision that bars companies with ties to China from accessing incentives. Tillis and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also said that the Senate is unlikely to stand by the House's provision that would require clean energy projects to start construction within 60 days of bill enactment or miss out on tax credits.
Curtis meanwhile authored a Deseret News op-ed on Wednesday diving into the consequences of a total IRA repeal. While he agrees that some IRA provisions included 'frivolous spending,' he warned against treating 'good policy ideas as guilty by political association.'
'The simple truth is this: many of these credits are Republican policies that we fought to protect,' Curtis wrote. 'We must build a thoughtful, principled bill that doesn't pull the rug out from under American innovators.'
Other Republican senators have expressed reservations too. Chuck Grassley, who represents wind turbine-dotted Iowa, suggested he'll try to find compromise on extending support for wind power. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said he may look to change the House's proposed 60-day deadline for accessing tax credits. North Dakota's John Hoeven wants to preserve some incentives for geothermal; Shelley Moore Capito, from West Virginia, would like to keep hydrogen incentives alive.
We still have yet to hear from Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who in April penned a letter alongside Sens. Curtis, Murkowski, and Tillis defending IRA tax credits.
These public statements in support of some aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act could be read as a signal that the House's 'backdoor repeal' of the landmark climate law will fail at the hands of the Senate. On the other hand, plenty of House Republicans spoke out before the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passed, too. In fact, nearly two dozen signed a letter opposing IRA cuts in late March.
But come time to vote in May, not a single one of those signatories voted against the bill. It passed the House 215-214.
Trump's coal-boosting efforts don't make sense
The Trump administration keeps trying to prop up fossil-fuel power plants. Experts and regulators say it's an uneconomical and unwise mission.
President Donald Trump's coal-boosting endeavors kicked off last month with a slate of executive orders that would let the U.S. Energy Department order power plants to stay open and would exempt some coal plants from air-pollution regulations. Among those facilities targeted for reinstatement is the Cholla coal plant in Arizona, which shut down in March, and which a state energy regulator warned would cost utility customers nearly $2 billion to reopen.
In recent weeks, the DOE has ordered a Michigan coal power plant and a Pennsylvania oil and gas facility to stay open just days before their planned retirements. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis examined the challenges of keeping the Michigan plant open, noting that its power prices were becoming increasingly uncompetitive and that its owner has already been working for years to replace its generation capacity with renewables and gas. And with coal companies laying off miners across Appalachia, keeping coal alive is only going to become more impractical.
Bad news/good news for greener steel
A potential deal between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, backed by President Trump, would likely be bad news for efforts to clean up steelmaking. A week ago, Trump announced that Japan's Nippon Steel was set to acquire U.S. Steel in a deal whose details are yet to be disclosed. Nippon has previously pledged to extend the life of U.S. Steel's coal-burning furnaces, Alexander C. Kaufman reported for Canary Media this week, and to build a new electric arc furnace in the U.S. should the deal go through.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts-based Boston Metal is honing a greener steelmaking process of its own. The start-up is developing a technique that uses electricity to remove contaminants from iron ore, the company told Canary Media's Sarah Shemkus. Refining iron ore is responsible for most of steelmaking's emissions, but in Boston Metal's process, the only greenhouse gas emissions created come from the electricity used to power it.
Breakup of the year: President Trump and Elon Musk start a public fight over the congressional budget bill, leading Tesla shares to drop Friday morning and leaving the EV company with few political allies. (E&E News, Associated Press)
Fading love for renewables: A Pew Research Center survey finds support for solar and wind power has dropped among both Democrats and Republicans over the past five years. (Floodlight)
Can start-ups survive? Cleantech start-ups are 'stress testing' operations to see if they can still move forward after the Trump administration cuts funding for industrial decarbonization and other clean energy projects. (Wall Street Journal)
Routing climate research: The White House's campaign to slash National Science Foundation grants has eliminated funding for more than 100 climate-related research projects, with Harvard University hit particularly hard, a new analysis finds. (MIT Technology Review)
Data centers skip the line: Texas residents grow frustrated as data center developers begin planning and building their own gas-fired power plants instead of waiting to connect to the grid, affecting nearby neighborhoods and locking in reliance on fossil fuels for decades to come. (Texas Tribune/Inside Climate News)
Gas' growing consequences: Gas leaks, which are common in states with aging infrastructure, release hazardous pollutants that can extend far beyond the homes or neighborhoods where they happen and reach neighboring states. (Inside Climate News)
Regulatory switcheroo: President Trump nominates attorney Laura Swett to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who analysts say will likely champion gas infrastructure and fossil fuel projects, in line with the White House's priorities. (E&E News)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how.
A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? Advertisement A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Advertisement Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Advertisement Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. Advertisement
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Andrew Yang Is Ready to Team Up With Elon Musk
Andrew Yang has reached out to Elon Musk with a sales pitch: Let's build a third party together. The former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate has been pushing his independent Forward Party for several years — and he sprang into action after Musk's feud with President Donald Trump erupted and Musk polled X users on whether they wanted a new political party. In an interview with POLITICO Magazine, Yang said he hasn't heard back from Musk yet, but he's optimistic. Yang also acknowledged he doesn't agree with Musk about everything, but said that his Forward Party should appeal to those across the political spectrum. And don't forget that Musk had endorsed Yang's previous presidential bid. Enormous hurdles exist to breaking through in America's two-party system. But Yang argued the American public is ready for a change, particularly if the effort gets help from the richest man in the world — who also happens to control a massive social media platform. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang said. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly.' This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. I saw that you retweeted a post Elon Musk made about needing 'to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle.' Have you reached out directly to Musk about creating a new party or working with your Forward Party? I have reached out, and some mutual friends are also looking to connect us. Have you heard back yet? Not yet, but I assume he's been very busy. We have been of the opinion that America needed a new political party for a number of years, and so waiting another 24 hours is nothing. Is he someone you'd want to work with to build a third party? I want to work with people that recognize that America's political system has gone from dysfunctional to polarizing to even worse. And at this point, the fastest growing political movement in the United States is independents. They feel like neither party represents them, and the two-party system is not delivering what they want to see. And the two of you have seen dysfunction on both sides — you on the Democratic side and Musk on the Republican. If you think about what animates Elon, he wants to get us to Mars, and I feel that he's been driven these last several years by an opposition to 'wokeness,' by what he sees as excessive bureaucracy, and by waste and overspending in the federal government. And in our two-party system, he thought that Trump was the better choice. If you look at Musk's politics over the last number of years, he waited in line to meet Barack Obama, he endorsed me in a Democratic cycle, and even earlier in this cycle — 2024 — he was looking for an alternative to Trump. There are a number of things that I think Elon shares in common with a lot of other folks I talk to who want to see some kind of middle ground or balance. The problem is: In our two-party system, you get whipsawed either one direction or the other. I will say that the deficit in spending, neither party has done a good job of addressing it, because as soon as they're in power, they don't want to make the tough choices. You're coming politically from the center-left; Elon Musk is coming from arguably the hard right. How would you overcome your political differences? If you look at the Forward Party makeup, my co-chairs include Christine Todd Whitman, who was governor of New Jersey and EPA secretary under George W. Bush, and Kerry Healey, who was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. And I would say that the three of us don't line up on every issue, but we're in lockstep on the fact that America's current political system is not delivering real solutions or results, and both parties are captive to perverse incentives. Anyone who wants to modernize and restore the American political system, so that it actually listens to people and communities, we can agree on that. And that is the mission. The fact is that the two parties do a great job of falsely segmenting us along some ideological spectrum, saying, 'Oh, you want this? You're over there. You want this? You're over there,' when in reality the current system is not going to deliver what either of those sides want. Unless what they want is strife and conflict and mistrust. But is that enough to maintain a third party or does there need to be a political or policy goal that propels the party forward? Are there any specific policies that you feel like you agree on with Musk? The three pillars that we're operating on are dignity, dynamism and democracy, which is something that most Americans can get behind. But in practical terms, if you can imagine three or four U.S. senators who are from a new party, they could work with either side to get things done and would become the most powerful legislators in the country, because their votes might be necessary to pass any legislation. And I dare say that you would have a much more interesting and balanced set of solutions as a result. What about his work to dismantle USAID and cause havoc in much of the federal government? Did you agree with that? One thing I found interesting was that a number of moderate Democrats signaled over the last 24 hours that they would be open to receiving Elon as an ally as a result of his feud with Donald Trump, despite him being essentially one of their primary boogeyman over the last number of weeks. I don't have to agree with everyone's past decisions in order to agree that the primary mission has to be getting our political system back in a place where it's actually responsive to both the views and the needs of the American people, and right now, we don't have that. Anyone who's kept up with me over the last number of years knows that I've been driven by the fact that AI is going to transform our economy in ways that push more and more Americans to the side. That is playing out before our eyes right now in real time, with [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei coming out saying that entry-level white collar work is going to be automated, and that we need to think bigger about solutions. I think that Dario is right. I've been making the same case since 2019, 2018. I'd ask anyone who is reading this right now, 'What is the current plan when it comes to the economic changes that are going to be brought by AI?' The answer is, 'Not much.' Because our current political class does not have to address that issue, or any of a panoply of other issues in order to keep power. They have done an expert job of gerrymandering the country into red zones and blue zones, such that all of us are looking up, wondering, 'What the heck is going on?' Speaking of AI, do you think Musk could be a good partner on that? If you look back at the [2020] cycle, he was openly saying that AI was going to have a massive impact, and he did endorse me while I was running as a Democrat on some of those solutions. Musk has become very polarizing to much of the country. Who are the people you think you'd attract if you built a third party with Musk? Again, people have come to the Forward Party from all different walks of life and different ideologies. Elon has a very, very significant following and megaphone, and you can see that with the number of people that have voted on his post about starting a third party. It's about 5.3 million votes, with 81 percent saying yes, it is time to create a new political party, and Forward has gotten thousands of new followers just in the last 24 hours, because we are the preeminent effort to modernize and rationalize America's broken political system. I'm thrilled that others are waking up. Do you think Elon Musk is actually serious about creating a new party? What do you think he wants out of all this? I haven't spoken to Elon recently, but I think there are several things that are animating him, and very, very high on his list is America's financial solvency. I think he's deeply frustrated by the fact that he wanted to reduce waste in government, and then the Republicans turn around and propose a bill that would increase the deficit by two and a half trillion dollars. If your goal is to have the government on a positive fiscal path, that's not the way to do it. I think Elon's frustration is shared by lots of other Americans who realize that when push comes to shove, politicians don't want to make the tough choices that would be necessary to put us on a sustainable path — certainly politicians from the current parties. I saw [JP Morgan CEO and Chair] Jamie Dimon speak the other day, and he seems to share similar concerns and had a number of very sensible proposals. But you realize that it would take a figure, in my view, who's not of the two major parties to make some of these solutions happen. Is that person Elon Musk? I think there are any number of people that if they were to be elected as an independent or a Forward Party member, they would then be able to propose the common-sense solutions that most Americans say we need. One figure that I'm very excited about that recently declared that he was running for governor of Michigan as an independent is [Detroit Mayor] Mike Duggan, who has turned around Detroit, and before that, turned around a hospital chain. Someone like Mayor Duggan would make very sensible choices for the state of Michigan, free of party constraints. You can imagine someone doing that at the national level. Millions of Americans would love to see that happen. I have a feeling that the right independent ticket could galvanize a tremendous amount of energy, because more and more Americans sense that the status quo isn't working and that neither party has our interests at heart or wants to solve the tougher problems. Elon Musk is clearly still very new to politics. Why do you think he knows what it would take to build a third party that could actually overcome all the hurdles that exist in our 2-party system? Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach, as evidenced by the overwhelming response to Elon's poll and to every other poll that shows that not only are half of Americans saying they're independent, but more than two thirds are saying that the current political system is not working. I'm happy to spell it out for Elon or anyone else who wants to head down this road: A third party can succeed very quickly. Just to throw some numbers out to you, there are over 500,000 locally elected officials around the country, and up to 70 percent of those races are not meaningfully contested. Up to 10 percent of those positions go unfilled, and thousands of those positions are technically non-partisan, which includes many, many mayors and county executives. So if the Forward Party were to simply start recruiting and contesting at scale, which you could do with a certain level of resources, you could have thousands, even tens of thousands, of locally elected officials within one cycle. You could have several U.S. senators and a very serious presidential ticket within the next several years. At some point you have to wonder, 'OK, when do the American people raise their hands and say, 'I get it. This system is not meant to deliver good things. It's meant to deliver me thinking that my neighbor is bad and out to get me'?' Eventually, enough of us have to get together and say, let's create a positive, independent political movement that can drive us towards solutions, and also is able to say, 'You and I don't agree on everything, but you're a good person. I believe in your good will.' I don't think that goodness or character are somehow confined to any one party or another. I don't think that people on the opposite side are my enemies, and let's create a system that actually will make us feel good about our future. Even if every last measure does not line up with me, I know that the people who are adopting it actually are making earnest, sincere efforts to move us forward. Do you think Musk is a good person? Or does the desire to recruit people who also want to create a third party trump any character assessments? I'm someone who tends to judge people by their actions more than anything else. And Elon Musk has done more for sustainability on this planet than virtually any other human, and that's something that I think is incredibly estimable and admirable. I've been in public life now for a number of years, and I'm sure I've said or done things that people can brandish and say, 'Oh, I disagree with this person.' I live my life trying to use actions as the guiding principle. I try to hold other people to a standard where actions and impacts are much more important than statements or misstatements. If Musk were serious about building a third party, what do you think the path would look like with the help of his money and social media platform? It would be very straightforward. I've spent several years looking at it. You can start with candidates like Mike Duggan, who are running as independents in very significant races, in this case, for the governorship of Michigan. You could energize tens of thousands of local candidates and wind up with thousands of elected officials very, very quickly. You could create a fulcrum in the U.S. Senate. I call it the Legislator Liberation Fund, where you could offer to buy out senators or members of Congress from their contract with their current party by funding their next election, and they could vote their conscience. There are a lot of legislators who are on the verge of retirement who might take that and say, 'Okay, I don't have to grovel before the donors for the last number of years. I can actually try and fix American politics.' There are multiple members of Congress I've spoken to whose ears are very, very open to that kind of offer. In the scheme of things, none of the things I'm talking about are that expensive for someone with a certain level of resources. I'll give you the opportunity to make a direct sales pitch to Musk: What would you say to him in this moment to get him on board and help fund the Forward Party or the creation of a new party? Elon, the political class will never get serious about putting America on a path to sustainability, and you've seen it up close. You know that if it's going to happen, it's going to be from some new force in American politics. Help us build it.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
