logo
Speaker Mike Johnson's bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit: From the Politics Desk

Speaker Mike Johnson's bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit: From the Politics Desk

NBC News16-05-2025

Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
In today's edition, Sahil Kapur explains how a failed committee vote revealed the limitations of Speaker Mike Johnson's tactics for dealing with the hard-right rebels in his conference. Plus, we have a sneak peek of Kristen Welker's 'Meet the Press' interview with former Vice President Mike Pence. And Gary Grumbach answer's this week's reader question on President Donald Trump's efforts to defund public media.
— Adam Wollner
Speaker Johnson's bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit
By Sahil Kapur
House Speaker Mike Johnson's run of (relative) smooth sailing came to an abrupt end Friday when he faced his first tangible setback on a massive party-line bill for President Donald Trump's agenda — a failed vote in the House Budget Committee.
Until now, Johnson had been successful at steering the plan through the narrowly divided House. There was the original budget framework that the House adopted in February, followed by the Senate-approved blueprint that the lower chamber passed in April, despite strong reservations from the hard-liners in Johnson's conference. That allowed the House to actually begin drafting the specifics of the legislation. And this week, Johnson and his leadership team managed to get 11 House committees to approve their portions of the broader package.
The legislation was then sent to the Budget Committee, on the assumption that some revisions would be still needed to send it to the full chamber next week ahead of Johnson's Memorial Day Weekend deadline.
Throughout the process, Johnson often called bluff on the persistent gripes of a group of far-right spending hawks, forcing them to take votes and assuming they would not be willing to stand in the way of Trump's agenda. It's a strategy that proved successful time and again.
But on Friday, four conservatives on the Budget Committee had enough, following through on their pledge to block the measure from reaching the House floor. They slammed the bill for using budget gimmicks to trigger its benefits right away and postpone its painful cuts for years. And they noted that the multitrillion-dollar package would blow up the national debt.
Now comes the moment of truth. And the limits of the slim House Republican majority, where the party has just three votes to spare, are about to test Johnson's prowess like never before.
The hard-liners are demanding that the spending cuts to Medicaid, clean energy funding and other programs take effect sooner. That means imposing political pain on vulnerable GOP lawmakers ahead of the next presidential election — perhaps even before the 2026 midterms — and putting swing districts at risk.
But if Johnson fails to meet their demands, are the hard-liners willing to sink the bill entirely? Or was their vote Friday more of a symbolic protest to gain negotiating leverage? Surely, they'll be hearing from Trump if they persist. (Before Friday's committee vote, Trump called out GOP 'GRANDSTANDERS' on Truth Social.)
The speaker is also feeling the squeeze from another corner of the conference. At least four New York Republicans are threatening to bring down the entire bill on the House floor unless party leaders expand the state and local tax (SALT) deduction that the current legislation sets at $30,000. That demand has caused consternation among other Republicans, who largely represent districts where SALT isn't heavily used.
And even if Johnson steers the package through the chamber, Senate Republicans have already put the House on notice that the legislation won't pass the upper chamber without major changes.
Up next: The House Budget Committee is set to reconvene Sunday at 10 p.m. ET to vote again on the bill.
Pence says it's a 'bad idea' for Trump to accept a Qatari jet for use as Air Force One
By Bridget Bowman
Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that President Donald Trump should not accept a luxury jet from Qatar to use as the next Air Force One, telling NBC News' 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker that the move would raise security and constitutional concerns.
'First we've got to remember who Qatar is. We've got a military base there. I have members of our immediate family that have deployed to the region,' said Pence.
'But Qatar has a long history of playing both sides,' Pence said in the exclusive interview at his home in Indiana. 'They support Hamas. They supported Al Qaeda. Qatar has actually financed pro-Hamas protests on American campuses across the United States.'
Pence added that accepting the plane as the next Air Force One 'is inconsistent with our security, with our intelligence needs. And my hope is the president reconsiders it.'
Pence added that there are 'very real constitutional issues,' noting the part of the Constitution that bars public officials from accepting gifts from a foreign government.
'I think it's just a bad idea, and my hope is the president will think better of it,' Pence said.
✉️
Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's question comes from Polly Moore:
'How can Trump defund programs established by Congress, such as public TV and National Public Radio?'
To answer that, we turned to legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. Here's his response:
President Donald Trump has been attempting to defund programs established by Congress, but he's hitting roadblocks almost every time. Because here's the thing — there are legal ways to defund programs established by Congress.
It happens every year when the budget process gets underway, with input from both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress. But Congress, by law, has to be involved in that process. It's when they're not, and when a program is stripped down beyond its congressionally mandated levels, that we start seeing legal action being taken.
And that legal action has been fast and furious. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have all sued over the Trump administration's attempts to defund or dismantle their organizations that were created and funded by congressional appropriations.
But it hasn't been an easy road. As it stands today, an appeals court has temporarily blocked a lower court's order that would have restarted funding and brought back employees of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, while appeals are underway.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

The National

time2 hours ago

  • The National

Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal

And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.

A timeline of the twists and turns in the Trump-Musk relationship
A timeline of the twists and turns in the Trump-Musk relationship

NBC News

time3 hours ago

  • NBC News

A timeline of the twists and turns in the Trump-Musk relationship

The escalating war of words this week between President Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk marked the most contentious chapter in a yearslong and at-times rocky relationship between two of the most influential figures in business and politics. Musk, a former Democrat, has criticized Trump in the past, but over the past year forged a strong relationship with the president that positioned him to wield significant power and influence in the early months of Trump's second administration. Those close ties, though, came after years of ups and downs stretching back to 2016 when Musk accepted a spot on several of Trump's business advisory councils. Here are some of the highlights of Trump and Musk's volatile relationship from the past few years. July 2022: Musk suggests Trump should forgo White House bid Musk, who would ultimately emerge as one of the most loyal contributors to Trump's 2024 campaign, was initially a vocal opponent. Despite a solid working relationship with Trump during his first term, the enigmatic tech leader called on Trump to skip the 2024 race. "I don't hate the man, but it's time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset," Musk wrote on X."Trump would be 82 at end of term, which is too old to be chief executive of anything, let alone the United States of America." The post was not without provocation — Trump days earlier at a campaign rally in Alaska bashed Musk for his effort to purchase X, then known as Twitter, and for saying in an interview that he never voted for a Republican. "He told me he voted for me," Trump said at the rally. "He's another bulls--- artist." Musk in response threw his support behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. "If DeSantis runs against Biden in 2024, then DeSantis will easily win — he doesn't even need to campaign," he wrote on X. November 2022: Musk reinstates Trump's Twitter account Weeks after officially taking control of X, Musk extended an olive branch to Trump by reinstating his account on the social media platform — once his favorite online megaphone — after it was banned following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Musk reinstated the account on Nov. 19, four days after Trump formally launched his 2024 campaign. August 2023: Musk defends Trump as prosecutions pile up By the summer of 2023, Trump had been indicted in three separate criminal cases. Musk, who months earlier predicted Trump would win the 2024 election if arrested, condemned the prosecutions. "I did not vote for him last election, but such aggressive legal action against a former president is not right," Musk wrote. The post served as a shift for Musk, who soon after began posting more sympathetic messages about Trump. March 2024: Trump, desperate for cash, meets Musk in Palm Beach In the first few months of 2024, Trump's campaign found itself in a cash crunch after allocating upwards of $50 million toward his legal defense. So when Trump met with Musk alongside several other wealthy Republican donors in Palm Beach, Florida, most political observers were quick to connect the dots. Musk, the world's richest man, has insisted that the meeting was unplanned and maintains that Trump never explicitly requested funding. 'I'm not paying his legal bills in any way, shape or form … and he did not ask me for money,' Musk said in an interview after the meeting, though he did say afterward that he was at least " leaning away" from President Joe Biden. When asked about their meeting, Trump said he'd "helped" Musk in the past, without providing details. May 2024: Musk establishes a pro-Trump super PAC According to campaign finance documents, Musk created America PAC, a pro-Trump Super PAC, on May 22. Soon after, reports emerged that Trump and Musk had discussed a possible advisory role for the Tesla CEO in a second Trump administration, an effort to ensure Musk would hold a key position in the White House. July 2024: Musk endorses Trump Less than an hour after an assassination attempt on Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania, Musk officially threw his support behind Trump's candidacy. "I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery," Musk wrote on X. Trump responded by touting reports that Musk planned to contribute $45 million a month to his re-election effort and promising to make life "good" for him. "We have to make life good for our smart people. You know, we have some smart people. We have to make life good for our smart people, and he's as smart as you get," Trump said at his first campaign event after the assassination attempt. August 2024: Trump and Musk hold campaign event on X In an event billed by Trump's campaign as "the interview of the century," Trump joined Musk for an online rally on X. The event was repeatedly delayed due to tech issues, but saw the pair bond over their shared disdain for Biden's immigration policies. It also saw Musk unsuccessfully try to prod Trump into prioritizing renewable energy over fossil fuels. October 2024: Musk joins Trump at Pennsylvania rally after spending millions When Trump returned to the site of the first assassination attempt against him, he shared the rally stage with Musk, who accused Democrats of seeking to take away voters' freedom of speech and right to bear arms. Musk emphatically encouraged Trump supporters to "vote, vote, vote." By October, Musk had already given nearly $75 million to the super PAC he created to support Trump, according to campaign finance filings. That money was used in part to fund sprawling get-out-the-vote drives in battleground states, including door-knocking programs in deep-red, traditionally low-turnout areas. November 2024: Trump wins the election, after Musk spends $250 million on the race Trump's striking victory, in which he won all seven battleground states and the popular vote for the first time, came as Musk's spending for the effort surpassed a quarter billion dollars, according to campaign finance reports. Of that total, $120 million came in the final weeks of the race. In his election night speech, Trump praised Musk, saying, "A star is born." One week after the election, Trump appointed Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head up a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, fulfilling a campaign promise to allow Musk to oversee cuts to government spending. Ramaswamy later left to pursue a gubernatorial bid in Ohio. Toward the end of the month, Trump traveled to Texas to watch the launch of Musk's SpaceX Starship rocket, despite previously ridiculing the company. January 2025: Musk speaks at Trump's inauguration rally Musk spoke at Trump's inauguration rally at Capital One Arena, emphatically lauding Trump's victory, jubilantly raising the prospect of taking DOGE to Mars and thanking the crowd for voting to guarantee "the future of civilization is assured." "My heart goes out to you," Musk said before forcefully touching his heart and raising his hand in a gesture some critics likened to a Nazi salute. Musk has denied that assertion. Among the first executive orders Trump signed on Jan. 20 was one that formalized the creation of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency. The White House officially announced Musk's role in early February, clearing way for him to oversee a wide-ranging effort to reduce to the size of the federal government through mass job cuts, the cancellation of research programs and grants and the dismantling a federal agencies. March 2025: Trump publicly limits Musk's authority amid clashes with Cabinet In an early sign of tensions between Musk and several Cabinet members, Trump placed limits on his adviser, making clear in a Truth Social post that staffing decisions across the federal government will be determined by agency heads, not Musk. The Tesla CEO had been exercising authority over rank-and-file federal workers, including a threat to fire them if they didn't respond to inquiries regarding their work output. The new publicly established guardrails appeared to do little to hurt the pair's relationship, with Trump a week later turning the South Lawn of the White House into a Tesla show room to demonstrate support for Musk amid slumping sales for his electric vehicle company. May 2025: Musk exits the White House amid simmering tensions On the first day of May, Musk told reporters at the White House that he would soon step back from DOGE to focus on his companies, comparing the shift to going from full-time to part-time work. The announcement came after Tesla reported a drop in its first-quarter profit and revenue. By the end of the month, Musk's exit was formalized. The White House on May 28 confirmed that Musk's tenure as a special government employee, a temporary role that he soon would legally have to exit anyway, had come to an end. Musk thanked Trump "for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending," and the president at a news conference with Musk days later said, "Elon's service to America has been without comparison in modern history." Trump presented Musk with a gold-colored key at the event. But underneath the polite exchanges hid simmering tension: Musk days earlier appeared on CBS' "Sunday Morning" and bashed a massive Republican bill, designed to fund much of Trump's domestic agenda, by condemning the expected impact of the legislation on the national debt. Trump soon after pulled the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman, an associate of Musk, to be NASA administrator. June 2025: Tensions boil over and spill into public Days after formally departing the White House, Musk launched a scathing attack on the Trump-backed bill making its way through Congress. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote in a post on X. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Asked about those criticisms, Trump expressed disappointment. "Elon knew the inner workings of this bill,' Trump told reporters, before suggesting Musk's opposition to the bill was personal. 'Elon is upset because we took the EV mandate which was a lot of money for electric vehicles. They're having a hard time the electric vehicles, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy," Trump said. The attacks quickly grew more personal. Musk called out Trump's "ingratitude," arguing that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without his support. Trump in response said Musk "went crazy" after being asked to leave his White House role, and he toyed with the idea of severing government ties with Musk's companies. Musk replied by claiming Trump was in what are known as "the Epstein Files," and said Trump's tariff policy would cause a recession. He also amplified a post calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance. A day after the barrage of attacks, Trump told reporters he's no longer thinking of Musk. "Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran, working on so many — I'm not thinking about Elon. You know, I just wish him well," he said.

The World Tonight  No sign of reconciliation between Trump and Musk
The World Tonight  No sign of reconciliation between Trump and Musk

BBC News

time4 hours ago

  • BBC News

The World Tonight No sign of reconciliation between Trump and Musk

US President Donald Trump is "not particularly interested" in speaking to Elon Musk after the tech billionaire and former close political ally turned on him in a bitter and public war of words. Initial reports that the pair had scheduled a phone call came to nothing. With some among the MAGA branch of Trump's supporters rounding on Musk, we explored the factional infighting and what impact it might have on the Big Beautiful Bill which Trump wants the Senate to pass, but which Musk opposes. Also on the programme, can supporters of the European Convention on Human Rights head off criticism by adapting the treaty? That's what the Secretary General of the Council of Europe seems to suggest. We hear from former Attorney General Dominic Grieve. And we speak to the Hollywood actor turned cryptocurrency sceptic about his new documentary on the phenomenon, premiering at the SXSW festival in London.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store