Latest news with #Biden-eraInflationReductionAct
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Musk clashes with Trump on spending bill but will he change minds?
Elon Musk is out of the White House but he continues to have influence over some in the Republican Party. It might not be as much as he hopes, however. The multibillionaire has taken to social media to clash with President Donald Trump's spending package and joined forces with conservative spending hawks, including Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul. While Musk has insisted he'll do a 'lot less' spending on politics in the future, he called for the firing of 'all politicians who betrayed the American people' come next November. The sentiment could worry vulnerable Republicans over a possible primary challenge in 2026, but might not be enough to change their vote on the package. So far the president has stayed largely quiet over the disagreement with Musk, while the White House continues to push senators to pass it quickly. The question remains what impact, if any, Musk's outspoken opposition to the reconciliation package will have on GOP lawmakers. Here's a look at what's unfolding as the Senate moves full steam ahead on Trump's 'big beautiful bill.' After weeks of hearings, negotiations and changes to the budget, the House passed Trump's agenda in a razor-thin overnight vote last month. The budget has made its way to the upper chamber, but some senators have shared there must be major changes before they can support it. Both Utah senators expect changes to be made. Sen. John Curtis wants to see changes to provisions that repeal the clean energy tax credits included in the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Curtis said members of the House sent the resolution to the Senate knowing changes would have to be made. Meanwhile, Lee has argued that while there are 'solid victories' in the bill, he doesn't think it does enough to address government spending. In several posts online, Lee said government overspending has put the country on an 'unsustainable path' and said he is fighting back to cut spending as the bill makes its way through the Senate. In his frustration with current spending provisions, the senior senator has made an ally of Musk. Just days after leaving the Trump administration and his leadership position in the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk has ramped up his criticism with Trump's big beautiful bill. In a post on his X platform on Tuesday, Musk slammed the bill for its spending and called out lawmakers who voted to pass it. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk said. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Lee replied to Musk's post, calling on the Senate to 'make this bill better.' Musk later reposted Lee's sentiment that spending has become 'excessive' and the Senate must 'now' improve the bill. Musk also shared a post from Sen. Paul, who has called for cuts to government spending. Wednesday's conversation revolved around the big players in the spending fight in the Senate, but also noted the president's silence when it came to Musk. Paul received overnight criticism from Trump on his Truth Social platform, saying that the Kentucky senator consistently votes no on 'everything,' but never has 'any practical or constructive ideas.' 'His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can't stand him. This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!' Trump said in one post. In another post, Trump said Paul has 'very little understanding' of his big beautiful bill, especially the 'tremendous' growth that would come from it. Paul doubled down on his criticism and called for fiscal responsibility, despite push back from Trump and other party leaders. When Musk departed the White House as a special government employee last week, Trump praised him for his work cutting government spending and said the tech billionaire would stay close with the administration. However, the president has been quiet when it comes to Musk's disparaging remarks about the spending package and reports note that Trump would not like to draw attention to the strain in their relationship. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during Tuesday's briefing that Trump already knew where Musk stood on the bill, but it 'doesn't change the president's opinion.' During a House GOP leadership press conference on Wednesday morning, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he spoke with Musk on Monday and had a good conversation. Seeing him do 'a 180' by publicly slamming the package online on Tuesday came as a surprise, Johnson said. Trump has not made public remarks about Musk's opposition, but Johnson said the president is 'not delighted' that Musk is opposing the spending. 'I don't know what happened in 24 hours. Everybody can draw their own conclusions about that,' Johnson said. Johnson said he looks forward to speaking with Musk, who he called his friend, again about the package sometime on Wednesday. Still, Musk charged forward on social media over the last few days, even calling for lawmakers who supported the spending to be fired in the 2026 midterm elections. Shortly before Musk left his posting at DOGE to return focus to his companies, he shared that he thought he has 'done enough' political spending and said he would do a 'lot less' in the future. While he didn't rule out additional political spending entirely, Musk is making his financial influence known, even from outside of the White House. In a post Wednesday, Musk called for the firing of lawmakers who support the spending package. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' he said. Johnson brushed aside concern that Musk's threat would impact the thin GOP majority in the House come 2026. 'Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not. Let me tell you why. Because when the big, beautiful bill is done and signed into law, every single American is going to do better,' Johnson said Wednesday at the House GOP press conference. 'This bill is geared for middle and working class Americans and they are going to feel the effects of it.' 'And they are going to feel it before the midterm elections,' he continued. 'So, I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we're going to win the midterms and grow the House majority.' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., expressed a different view. He was one of three House Republicans to vote against the spending package last month. On Wednesday, he shared support for Musk helping primary nearly every GOP lawmaker who voted through the reconciliation bill. There are a few House Republicans that 'should be spared' from a challenge in the midterms, Massie said, noting that he wouldn't push for that himself. 'I don't primary my colleagues, but I feel pretty good about him doing it,' he said of Musk creating 'term limits.' In December, Musk used similar techniques to tank a bipartisan continuing resolution spending bill and upended House Republicans' deal just before a government shutdown deadline. The Senate has set a deadline of July 4 as a goal to pass the bill and get it to Trump's desk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged that it's going to be a busy June as the upper chamber works to revise the package and vote through the changes. Thune can afford to only lose three Republican votes on the bill, since all Democrats are expected to vote against it. However, as it stands, it may not earn enough GOP support. Paul said on CBS' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday that he and at least three other Republican senators are against the bill in its current form. He doubled down on the sentiment in a post Tuesday. 'I want to see the tax cuts made permanent, but I also want to see the $5 trillion in new debt removed from the bill,' he said on X. 'At least 4 of us in the Senate feel this way.' Musk is hoping to increase that number by ramping up messaging online. In a Wednesday afternoon post, he told people to call their senators and congresspeople because 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok!' He added, 'KILL the BILL.' It's unclear if Musk's threat about firing the bill's supporters is having an impact on vulnerable Republicans this far out from the 2026 election, or if he will succeed in actually killing the bill. But largely the sentiment on Capitol Hill is that while Musk is outspoken against the package, he may not have that much sway anymore — for now. Contributing: Cami Mondeaux
Mint
a day ago
- Business
- Mint
Why Elon Musk turned against Donald Trump and his ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' - Here are the 5 reasons
Once close allies, now at odds: Elon Musk's once-robust relationship with Donald Trump appears to be crumbling amid growing policy clashes, public criticism, and mounting fallout for Musk's companies. The turning point seems to be Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping Republican legislative package that Musk claims undermines innovation and economic discipline. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons behind the falling out: Elon Musk's sharp break from Donald Trump finds its most immediate pain point in Tesla's bottom line: the proposed elimination of federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. Under current policy, buyers of new EVs are eligible for up to $7,500 in federal tax credits, with an additional $4,000 available for used EVs. These credits, part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, have been a critical incentive driving EV adoption—and by extension, Tesla's sales. But Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' backed by GOP lawmakers, aims to gut those incentives entirely for manufacturers that have already sold over 200,000 qualifying vehicles between 2009 and 2025. Tesla, by far the EV market leader, is directly in the firing line: the company sold over 336,000 vehicles in just Q1 of 2025 alone. According to JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman, the removal of these credits could represent a $1.2 billion headwind for Tesla—a significant blow as the company battles slumping demand, falling profits, and political backlash from Musk's government role. So, Musk became increasingly vocal in criticising Trump's massive federal spending bill—nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk called the bill 'a disgusting abomination' and accused GOP lawmakers of abandoning fiscal responsibility. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly… which increases the budget deficit… I don't know if a bill can be big and beautiful,' Musk told CBS previously. Musk's discontent escalated after Trump abruptly withdrew the nomination of private astronuat and his ally Jared Isaacman—as NASA Administrator. Trump cited 'prior associations' in his decision, which Musk might have seen as a betrayal. Isaacman had broad support in the space community and was seen as Musk's pick to align NASA policy with SpaceX's interests. His removal coincided with Musk's own exit as a 'special government employee' running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk said in support of Isaacman, signaling the depth of his frustration. Elon Musk's foray into federal governance as a 'special government employee' under the Trump administration has left a lasting dent in his personal and public image. What began as a high-profile effort to 'streamline government efficiency' quickly turned into a political and reputational minefield for the billionaire CEO. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk was tasked with cutting what the Trump administration called 'wasteful spending.' But the resulting actions—including mass layoffs in federal departments, rumored threats to Social Security and Medicare programs, and abrupt budget slashes—sparked widespread backlash. Despite Musk's repeated clarifications that DOGE had no authority over entitlement programs, public anger snowballed. 'It's a bit unfair because DOGE became the whipping boy for everything,' Musk told CBS. 'I've had people think DOGE is going to stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.' The political blowback triggered a sharp decline in Musk's public approval. Protests, online campaigns, and lawsuits followed, along with a string of death threats and acts of violence targeting both Musk and Tesla facilities. As public anger grew, Tesla became a target: Showrooms were vandalised Tesla vehicle sales plummeted Shares fell 50% from record highs Net worth dropped by $100 billion Musk lamented being made the scapegoat: 'DOGE became the whipping boy for everything... People thought it would stop their Social Security checks.' His candid remarks reflect a man caught between two identities—visionary entrepreneur and political appointee. 'I don't want to speak up against the administration,' he said, 'but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything this administration is doing.' Musk recently escalated pressure on the FAA to drop Verizon's $2.4 billion contract for air traffic control upgrades, claiming the system is failing. He offered Starlink as an emergency solution, suggesting the FAA should shift the contract to SpaceX. But critics flagged this as a possible conflict of interest—especially since Musk had been advising on federal spending.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Small Farmers Are Struggling With Trumpian Chaos—and Bracing for More
Fielding phone calls from concerned growers has become a commonplace occurrence for Nick Levendofsky, the executive director of the Kansas Farmers Union. The upheaval in the U.S. Department of Agriculture since President Donald Trump took office in January has left many farmers with unfulfilled contracts and broken commitments. Grants that once offered vital financial lifelines have been frozen. Programs that once provided assistance and aid have been eliminated. Uncertainty about the future has become the bumper crop. 'It's just been a barrage from the very beginning,' said Levendofsky of the changes made by the Trump administration. 'We were getting phone calls from not just members of ours, but farmers and ranchers in general, saying, 'What do we do?'' He recalled a recent conversation with the owner of a vineyard in northeastern Kansas who had been promised a loan to build solar panels and an electric vehicle charger. But with USDA freezing funding for the renewable energy projects guaranteed by the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, the farmer was stuck with the bill for the already completed project. 'He had a $55,000 USDA-guaranteed loan that now USDA said, 'We're not going to pay,'' said Levendofsky. In April, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release the previously authorized frozen funds. That same month, however, the USDA canceled the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a separate grant program intended to promote sustainable farming and forestry practices. The administration repackaged that grant as 'Advancing Markets for Producers,' with existing agreements under review. The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, or MOFGA, was among the organizations affected by these changes. The group had a multiyear grant from the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, said executive director Sarah Alexander. Along with another Maine-based group, MOFGA was slated to work with 200 farms in the state to assess whether they met certain criteria to receive funds for improving climate resiliency. 'That money has gone away, and that's been really devastating,' said Alexander. 'That's a really direct impact that's both on our budget and work this year with our staff's [ability] to provide direct training and technical assistance to those farms, but then also the farms ultimately losing out on that money.' The USDA announced in March that it would issue up to $10 billion in relief for commodity producers for the 2024 crop year, and the White House has mulled additional financial assistance for farmers to mitigate potential effects from tariffs. During Trump's first term, USDA doled out roughly $23 billion in aid to farmers amid retaliatory Chinese tariffs on certain American imports, including wheat, soybeans, and corn. Given the current uncertainty surrounding the tariffs that Trump can and may impose—and the status of ongoing trade negotiations with China—it's unclear what kind of financial assistance farmers can expect this time around, if any. But Erin Foster West, policy director at the National Young Farmers Coalition, said that programs intended to help commodity farmers have less of an impact for smaller-scale producers. Meanwhile, the USDA has eliminated the Local Food Purchase Assistance program, which connected small farmers to community food pantries and anti-hunger organizations, as well as the Local Food for Schools program, which allowed schools and childcare facilities to purchase food from local farms. West said that the LFPA had been particularly helpful for members of her organization at the beginning of their careers. 'Many were using that as sort of a bridge as they were growing or expanding, and didn't expect to have that forever but expected to have it for maybe a few more years,' said West. 'Now it feels like the rug has just been pulled out from underneath them without any notice, without any support, without any communication.' Producers also highlight the stalling of farm bill negotiations in Congress as a major source of worry. Typically approved every five years, the farm bill governs the country's nutrition, agricultural, conservation, and forestry policy and is historically passed on a bipartisan basis. However, the 2018 farm bill has been extended twice—most recently at the end of last year—and discussions among lawmakers on crafting the new measure have been largely stagnant. Meanwhile, some of the agenda items that would typically be included in the farm bill are instead being addressed by the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the massive Republican legislative package including tax breaks and dramatic cuts to government spending. The bill, which narrowly passed in the House last week, slashes nearly $300 billion from nutrition programs, but includes roughly $60 billion for farm safety-net programs. The measure—which is moving through a process known as 'budget reconciliation' to avoid the 60-vote threshold for approving legislation in the upper chamber—is now under consideration in the Senate. The changes to SNAP include tightened work requirements, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated would lead to more than three million recipients losing their benefits in an average month. The bill would also push more of the cost of SNAP onto states, which the CBO estimates could lead to reduced or loss of benefits for around 1.3 million people. Alexander argued that the farm bill was the preferred venue for hashing out nutrition and farm policy. 'They are two sides of the same coin because the food that we're producing in this country should be what is feeding our citizens,' she said. 'SNAP at its essence should be supporting what our farmers are producing.' Farmers and their communities are thus concerned not only about changes in the USDA, but how that upheaval might be compounded by changes to SNAP. Nichelle Harriott, policy director at HEAL Food Alliance, a coalition of organizations that work directly with farming and food systems, said that member groups were now floundering amid the uncertainty on the executive and legislative level. 'We have a member in Georgia, for instance, who the entirety of their work is to ensure that vulnerable children in their communities have access to healthy nutrition. And of course, with the absence of federal funding to do that work—as well as the impending cuts of SNAP—they are really seeing increasing challenges,' said Harriott. If would-be SNAP recipients do not have the benefits to spend at their grocery stores, she said, and small producers also cannot share their crops, there will be 'a lot of ripple effects in local communities.' Levendofsky expressed frustration that many of the people who would be most affected by this double whammy of changes live in rural areas—both producers and SNAP recipients. Rural Americans have consistently higher rates of food insecurity, and non-metro areas have higher rates of participation in SNAP than their urban counterparts. 'We're hurting the very people who have voted for so many of these folks in Congress, and even folks that voted for this administration,' said Levendofsky. 'I'm nervous about what's coming because I think, especially, the folks that supported this administration in the last election didn't feel like they were going to be affected. I think they probably felt like this was, you know, a 'safe' bet or vote for them, and that it wasn't gonna be a problem. Well, it's about to be a problem.'
Boston Globe
23-05-2025
- Automotive
- Boston Globe
Under pressure from Trump and manufacturers, Mass. punts on electric vehicle mandate
Despite built-in flexibilities intended to help automakers that aren't as far along with the transition to EVs, the rules have been met with fierce opposition. The announcement by Governor Maura Healey comes after months of challenges at the federal level, as well as from state legislators and auto dealers who have pushed to slow things down. 'EVs should be the most affordable and clean option for cars,' Governor Maura Healey said in a press release announcing her decision. 'We're giving carmakers more runway to invest in their manufacturing and supply chains, which will help ensure customers have additional affordable electric vehicles options at dealerships in the future.' Related : Advertisement It had already been a rough week for EVs. On Thursday, Congress passed a measure that would block California's mandate to phase out gas-powered cars — a mandate that many states, including Massachusetts, were following, too. Advertisement Meanwhile, a US House-passed proposal backed by President Trump would wipe out subsidies for electric vehicles that were approved as part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. In Massachusetts, Healey's announcement Friday sparked disappointment from those who saw the rule as key to reducing emissions from transportation, which is the largest source of climate-warming pollution in the state. Many in the automotive industry, however, said Healey's action represented a reprieve from a policy that demanded too much, too soon. Robert O'Koniewski, executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, said that without less expensive electric vehicles and more charging infrastructure, the state isn't ready to fully commit. But he also said the switch to electric vehicles is 'just common sense.' 'It's unrealistic to think that we're going to be committed to ICE vehicles ad infinitum,' he said. Larry Chretien, executive director of the Clean Energy Consumers Alliance, noted that Massachusetts has been steadily increasing its share of electric vehicles that are sold, and that the announcement by Healey 'will slow down adoption, there's no question about it.' According to state reports, Massachusetts needs 900,000 electric vehicles on the road by the end of this decade to reach its climate mandate — a sixfold increase from today. In the announcement Friday, Healey did not abandon the effort entirely. She said that during the two-year pause, vehicle manufacturers will still be required to send quarterly reports detailing how they are promoting and marketing electric vehicles. Automakers can also earn credits for selling EVs, which will help toward meeting enforcement requirements down the road. Related : Massachusetts is not alone in backing off the EV push. In Vermont earlier this month, Governor Phil Scott issued an executive order pausing its electric vehicle rule until at least the end of 2026. 'It's clear we don't have anywhere near enough charging infrastructure and insufficient technological advances in heavy-duty vehicles to meet current goals,' said Scott. Advertisement Maryland Governor Wes Moore issued a similar order in April, and the state of Virginia said last year that it would completely abandon the California standard. Meanwhile, Massachusetts announced a two-year delay in enforcing the zero-emission mandate for heavy trucks. The move came after the Healey administration in January began requiring that electric vehicles must comprise at least 7 percent of all new medium- and heavy-duty trucks sold in the state. But truck makers said they could not produce enough vehicles to meet the quota unless they reduced the total number of trucks they sold in the state. The resulting vehicle shortages and falling truck sales led the administration to back off. David Muradian, a Republican state representative from Grafton, who filed legislation to delay the mandate, applauded Healey's decision. 'The administration understood that the goals, while laudable, were not realistic at this time,' Muradian said. Sabrina Shankman can be reached at
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Solar stocks hit with steep losses as Trump tax bill threatens clean energy industry
Solar stocks are on track to close out the week with steep losses as Wall Street assesses last-minute changes slipped into the tax-and-spending bill approved by the House this week. Bottom line: The bill is a threat to the industry. SolarEdge (SEDG), Sunrun (RUN), Complete Solaria (SPWR), and Enphase Energy (ENPH) were among the biggest decliners this week. All were down by double-digit percentages despite a mild relief rally in the sector on Friday. Most of the damage came after the House passed Trump's "big, beautiful bill," which proposes ending key investment and production tax credits from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act three years earlier than Wall Street expected. The bill also requires eligible wind and solar projects to begin construction within 60 days of becoming law. While analysts believe the current version of the bill is unlikely to survive intact in the Senate, the prospect of tighter restrictions has spooked investors. To be finalized and signed into law in its current form — that would create a lot of disruption and layoffs, project cancellations, potentially bankruptcies," Raymond James investment strategy analyst Pavel Molchanov told Yahoo Finance. Molchanov expects the industry to ramp up lobbying efforts in the coming weeks to persuade the Senate to roll back the more severe provisions. Key senators representing states with large solar and wind industries are also likely to push for a more measured approach. "Dialing back these last-minute modifications from the last 48 hours, that would be a victory from the perspective of solar and wind," he added. Molchanov noted that the US installed a record 38 gigawatts of solar capacity last year; further records were in sight this year. "After the tax credit expires — whenever that may be — there will be a decline in the amount of wind and solar installations. Will it go to zero? No, absolutely not," he added. "There will always be solar and wind projects getting built. It's just a matter of how many." The clean energy industry has had a volatile year as elevated interest rates have kept borrowing costs high. President Trump's return to the White House has added pressure to the sector, with his administration talking down green energy initiatives in favor of fossil fuels. On the manufacturing side, companies involved with batteries and panels have leaned into plans to onshore operations in response to Trump's tariff policies. In a move welcomed by the solar sector, the US Department of Commerce announced plans to impose tariffs as high as 3,521% on panel imports from four Southeast Asian countries. Despite a recent rally fueled by hopes that clean energy tax credits might be preserved, the Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) is down more than 6% year to date, falling over 7% in the wake of the House vote. Ines Ferre is a senior business reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on X at @ines_ferre. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
