Trump Threatens Republican Representative Exposing His Budget Lies

One House Republican is calling out the Trump administration’s lies that the “big, beautiful” budget bill won’t raise the deficit.

Speaking to CNN’s Manu Raju on Tuesday, Representative Thomas Massie said that “Under the policies of this bill, we’re going to add $20 trillion dollars to the debt over the next 10 years, which is three and a half to $5 trillion more than would have been added otherwise.”

When Raju told Massie about the White House’s claims that the bill is deficit neutral, Massie chuckled. 

“That’s a joke,” the Kentucky congressman, whose votes often align with libertarian principles. 

Earlier in the day, President Trump attacked Massie after a meeting with House Republicans on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t think Thomas Massie understands government. I think he’s a grandstander, frankly,” Trump said. “We don’t even talk to him much, I think he should be voted out of office.”  

Trump’s threats to oust Massie may not go very far, as he was able to survive a primary challenge in the 2024 election despite facing attack ads over his criticism of Israel. He ended up winning with 75 percent of the vote, and even stepped up his criticisms over the next year. 

Massie has long been skeptical of the Trump administration claims about fiscal responsibility, and is not likely to cave and vote for the budget bill if there’s any indication that it would increase the budget deficit. With the GOP’s narrow margin in the House, the bill would likely need near-unanimous approval to pass, and Massie’s opposition could inspire other Republicans to join him.

The likely next head of the Internal Revenue Service refuses to say whether President Trump is allowed to use the agency to strip organizations of their nonprofit status as he sees fit. 

Senator Elizabeth Warren had IRS commissioner nominee Billy Long visibly shaken with a series of questions during his confirmation hearing Tuesday regarding the legality of Trump levying the IRS against nonprofit groups he doesn’t like. 

“I sent you the statute, you’ve had three weeks to talk to the lawyers about it. So let’s jump in. Mr. Long, is it illegal for the president to direct the IRS to revoke a taxpayer’s nonprofit status?”

“In the first place, he wouldn’t do that—”

“That’s not my question, Mr. Long, please don’t start down this—”

“Are we on section 72-12 or 72-17?”

“I’m at 26 U.S.C 72-17. Do I need to read it to you?” 

“Prohibits any member of the executive branch to request the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit on a taxpayer,” Long read aloud from the statue. 

“Alrighty. So is it illegal?”

“I’m gonna follow the law, and if that’s the law, yes.” 

“That is the law, so I just want to be clear, is it illegal for the president of the United States to instruct the IRS to remove a taxpayer’s nonprofit status?” 

Long recited the statute again in response. 

“Is that a yes?” Warren pressed.

“I’d have to go to the lawyers at the IRS to tell me.” 

“Come on, you just read it!”

“I know, but see, the instance that you’re speaking about in there, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see …” he tailed off. 

“Look, it says ‘it shall be unlawful for any applicable person’—which in this case includes the president—‘to request directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.’” Warren asked Long once again if what Trump has already threatened to do is illegal. 

“I’m not gonna have the answer that you need, and I apologize, but like I said—”

“Why are you not having the answer? You’ve had three weeks to consult with lawyers, the statute is about as clear as plain English—”

“Well if I say I’m gonna follow the law, why would you need to ask me the question?” 

“Because I wanna make sure that you understand what the law says. If you think ‘follow the law’ means you just get to make it up on the spot, then you don’t get to be the IRS commissioner. The point here is to follow the law as it is written.… Can the president of the United States legally tell the IRS to change someone’s nonprofit status?”

Long again refused to answer. 

Warren and Long continued to spar, with Warren getting more frustrated and Long getting more flustered as neither of them got anywhere with their questioning and Long refused to plainly state that he wouldn’t let his future boss force him to break the law. 

“You know, Mr. Long, you’d have a lot more credibility if you just say ‘yes.’ It’s clear that the statute makes it illegal for the president to direct the IRS vis-à-vis any particular taxpayer. And the fact that you wanna sit there and dance around about this tells me that you shouldn’t be within a thousand miles of the directorship of the IRS.”  

Trump has repeatedly threatened to strip universities like Harvard of their nonprofit status. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are working to give him more power to kill just about any nonprofit he disagrees with .

Did Donald Trump just hurt his own chances of passing his “big, beautiful bill”?

After the president urged Republican lawmakers to get behind his sweeping legislation at the closed-door House Republican Conference Tuesday, several moderate GOP members from blue states messaged House Speaker Mike Johnson to tell him they weren’t on board, according to Punchbowl News.

Trump had specifically pressured Republican members of the SALT caucus, a bipartisan group fighting to restore state and local tax, or SALT, deductions, to agree to legislation that would cap the deductions at only $30,000 for anyone making $400,000 or less.

The group of lawmakers have pushed to significantly increase that limit, arguing that it’s hurting middle-class residents in their high-tax states, such as New York, California, and New Jersey. Trump’s 2017 tax bill had previously capped those deductions at $10,000.

Republican members of the group include New York Representatives Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler, and Nicole Malliotakis, New Jersey Representative Tom Kean, and California Representative Young Kim.

On Tuesday, the president reportedly told lawmakers to “let SALT go,” according to The Hill. One source said that the president had specifically targeted Lawler, who represents New York’s 17th congressional district, just north of New York City. “I know your district better than you do,” Trump said. “If you lose because of SALT, you were going to lose anyway.”

Lawler’s seat goes up for grabs in 2026. He has not yet said whether he will run for reelection.

A White House official told The Hill that Trump’s main message was that Republicans could circle back later on SALT, and should focus on getting the bill passed now. South Carolina Republican Mark Norman told Punchbowl News that he’d gotten a slightly different message from the president: “Forget SALT.”

It seems that Trump’s visit has only caused members of the SALT caucus to dig in even more.

Several world leaders were shocked by how submissive Donald Trump was to Moscow’s demands following a two-hour phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Shortly after hanging up Monday with his favorite autocrat, Trump hopped on the line with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and a few other world leaders to update them on negotiations.

Sources told Axios that some of the leaders seemed “surprised” and “shocked” when Trump reported that Putin had agreed to begin negotiations toward a ceasefire—something that the Russian president had previously done, as talks had already taken place in Istanbul last week.

When Zelenskiy pointed this out, Trump did not respond.

Additionally, Trump reportedly pushed back on commitments to impose penalties on Moscow, after previously discussing levying sanctions on Russia with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer if Russia refused calls for a ceasefire. While Trump declined to ramp up pressure on Putin, Starmer followed through, imposing 100 new sanctions on Russia Tuesday.

It seems that, if anything, Putin was able to come out of the conversation with new economic prospects, rather than penalties, as Trump touted the “largescale trade” Russia could conduct with the U.S. once the “bloodbath” was over.

The leaders were surprised that Trump was presenting his discussion with Putin as a new development, when clearly nothing had been achieved during the discussion, sources said.

Putin seems to have once again succeeded at efforts to prolong peace talks with his latest nothingburger conversation with the U.S. president. After the call, Putin said that his government was prepared to work with Ukrainian officials on a “memorandum regarding a potential future peace treaty,” which means it will present a deal to Ukraine for its approval.

During the group call, Zelenskiy warned Trump that Russia wouldn’t budge on its unacceptable requests, such as obtaining Ukrainian territory, unless the U.S. president started to apply some pressure. One source on the call said that Trump claimed to have told Putin to pitch something that “people can agree to” and not something that will immediately be rejected.

Trump also seemed to want out of negotiations altogether, pitching direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Last week, Russian officials seemed far from ready to make nice, after Putin bailed on talks with Zelenskiy in Istanbul, as did Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who called the jilted wartime president “pathetic.”

Donald Trump seems to think that cuts to food assistance mean cheaper and more abundant food for everyone.

“You campaigned on lowering the price of groceries. How can you justify cutting food assistance in this [budget] bill?” a reporter asked the president, on Capitol Hill Monday, after he emerged from a meeting with House Republicans.

The president’s response didn’t make any sense.

“Let me just tell you, the cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down. Groceries are down,” Trump said. He added, “You know that eggs now? Way down. Everybody’s buying eggs. Grocery’s down. Energy’s down. Gasoline? They’re now buying—they’re buying gasoline now for $1.99.”

First of all, gasoline is not selling for that price anywhere in the United States, except possibly in wholesale markets. And cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, commonly referred to as food stamps, would not lower food prices. As the head of a Nevada food bank told NBC last month, “These reductions don’t just affect people facing hunger—they also hurt the retailers, farmers, and businesses that supply fresh, local food to our region.”

The president’s answer seems to miss the point of the question, which was calling into question Trump’s campaign promise of lowering food prices, in contrast to Republican plans to cut food aid and shift the cost to the states. The Republican budget would threaten benefits for close to 42 million low-income Americans and would have little effect on overall food supply or prices, which the president would know if he understood basic economics.

But Trump’s mismanagement of the economy, as seen in his nonsensical, flip-flopping tariff policies, demonstrate that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. His decisions are already causing food prices to go up, and retailers like Walmart are complaining. Trump and his allies are responding to their concerns with threats and no recognition that they’re responsible for the problems.