❓What Happened: President Donald J. Trump has denied reports he will hold a call with former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman Elon Musk on Friday, saying he is “not particularly interested” in making peace with the South Africa-born tech mogul, as he has “lost his mind.”
👥 Who’s Involved: Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Jonathan Karl.
📍 Where & When: Comments made during a phone call Friday morning; reports of a planned meeting or call surfaced Thursday.
💬 Key Quote: Trump stated Musk has “gone crazy” and expressed disinterest in speaking with him, though he claimed Musk wants to talk.
⚠️ Impact: Trump has suggested Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla, may be deprived of government contracts and subsidies to address Musk’s concerns about government spending.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump has rejected reports he will hold a call with former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman Elon Musk on Friday, describing the tech mogul as “the man who lost his mind” in a telephone conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl.
Trump suggested on Thursday that Musk had “gone crazy” and questioned whether the Tesla and SpaceX founder, who is attacking the amount of government spending in the Trump-championed “big beautiful bill,” should continue receiving significant federal contracts and subsidies.
Musk, in turn, endorsed a social media post advocating for Trump’s impeachment and replacement by Vice President J.D. Vance, and insinuated the Epstein files have not been released in full because they contain incriminating information about the President.
“As for reports that there is going to be a Trump/Musk call scheduled for today, Trump told me he is ‘not particularly’ interested in talking to Musk, although he says Musk wants to talk to him,” Karl reported following his conversation with Trump.
Reports from POLITICO and Reuters on Thursday indicated that a meeting or phone call between Trump and Musk was planned for Friday, possibly aimed at easing tensions. Karl’s reporting suggests this is unlikely.
Previously, President Trump suggested that Musk was against the “big beautiful bill” because it cuts government support for electric vehicles, which Musk’s Tesla company manufactures. Musk responded by claiming he won the election for Trump and the GOP in November, excoriating the America First leader for his “ingratitude.”
❓What Happened: Nathan Simington, a Federal Communications Commissioner, is leaving his position, as revealed in an internal memo. The vacancy could clear the way for Siminton’s chief of staff, Gavin Wax, to be nominated to fill the seat. Wax has been a long-standing contributor to The National Pulse, advocating on behalf of President Donald J. Trump’s America First agenda.
👥 Who’s Involved: Nathan Simington, Gavin Wax, President Donald J. Trump, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
📍 Where & When: Simington’s resignation is effective Friday, June 6; Wax’s potential nomination could occur soon after.
💬 Key Quote: “Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source close to the FCC stated, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”
⚠️ Impact: If nominated and confirmed, Wax would become the youngest FCC commissioner and the youngest presidential nominee confirmed by the Senate in U.S. history, filling the GOP seat on the five-member commission.
IN FULL:
Nathan Simington’s announcement that he will be resigning as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at the end of this week leaves a vacancy that could soon be filled by Gavin Wax, who currently serves as Simington’s chief of staff. The 31-year-old Wax, a New York native, has been a long-time contributor to The National Pulse and a staunch ally of President Donald J. Trump.
“Gavin Wax is being seriously considered by the White House to fill the vacancy that Commissioner Simington’s departure will leave,” a source with knowledge of the plans to replace Simington at the FCC said on Thursday, adding: “He’s seen as a strong conservative voice on tech and media policy, with close ties to key figures in both the policy and political arenas.”
If nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Wax would become both the youngest commissioner in FCC history and the youngest Senate-confirmed nominee in U.S. history. As Siminton’s chief of staff, the 31-year-old New Yorker has already worked to lay out a bold agenda at the commission. Last month, writing in The National Pulse, Wax and Simington laid out a bold plan to bring the fight to the corporate media, pushing to cap the reverse retransmission fees that major networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC use to funnel money out of local media markets to fund their woke agenda.
Before joining Simington’s staff at the FCC, Wax served as President of the New York Young Republican Club, an organization that has hosted a number of America First figures at its annual holiday galas. The 2023 gala, of which The National Pulse was a sponsor, was the largest in decades, with President Donald J. Trump headlining what was dubbed a “black tie rally” for the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
Wax will not be the first friend of The National Pulse to join the Trump administration, however. Last month, Kingsley Wilson, née Cortes, was announced as the Department of Defense’s new Press Secretary. Wilson had previously served as a writing fellow at The National Pulse.
❓What Happened: Far-left U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, a new but frequent foe of President Donald J. Trump, has ruled that illegal immigrants—alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua—who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison must be granted habeas relief by the U.S. government to challenge their removals.
👥 Who’s Involved: Judge James Boasberg, illegal immigrant members of Tren de Aragua, President Donald J. Trump, the U.S government, the government of El Salvador, and El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was made late Wednesday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Fortunately for the American people, Judge Boasberg does not have the last word,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson in a statement on Thursday responding to the ruling.
⚠️ Impact: Boasberg’s ruling could lay the groundwork for activist judges to extend deportation appeals rights to other individuals who have already been removed from the United States. According to the ruling, the Trump White House has one week to formulate a plan for allowing several hundred illegal immigrants held at CECOT to seek habeas relief.
IN FULL:
In a ruling late Wednesday evening, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg once again intervened in President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to remove criminal illegal immigrants from the United States. The far-left judge found in favor of a group believed to be several hundred illegal immigrant members of the violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, who were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in March and are now demanding habeas relief to challenge their removal.
The ruling applies only to illegal immigrants deported to El Salvador and held at the country’s CECOT facility who were removed under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act targeting Tren de Aragua members. “Defendants plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States—a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition,” Judge Boasberg wrote. He continued: “Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But—and this is the critical point—there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.”
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower courtruling that blocks the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings by an appeals court. Boasberg explicitly cites the Supreme Court order in his ruling, noting that the high court agreed “that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported.”
The Trump administration will have one week to formulate a way for several hundred illegal immigrants in CECOT, and under the jurisdiction of the Salvadoran government, to seek habeas relief appealing their deportation per the ruling. Notably, Kilmar Abrego Garcia—an illegal immigrant and member of MS-13—who has drawn significant attention from Democrats and the media for his deportation to CECOT—is unaffected by the ruling.
❓What Happened:WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon is calling on federal officials to launch an investigation into Elon Musk’s immigration status and whether he concealed material facts or made false statements on his naturalization application. If it is found that Musk did obtain his citizenship through illegal means, Bannon says the billionaire tech mogul should be deported from the United States.
👥 Who’s Involved: Stephen K. Bannon, Elon Musk, Kimbal Musk, and President Donald J. Trump.
📍 Where & When: Bannon’s comments were made on Thursday, June 5, after Musk ramped up social media attacks on President Trump and his legislative agenda.
💬 Key Quote: “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said.
⚠️ Impact: As a naturalized citizen of the United States, Musk can have his citizenship stripped through denaturalization if it is found that he obtained the status through illegal means.
IN FULL:
WarRoom host and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon says federal officials should launch a formal investigation into billionaire technology mogul Elon Musk‘s immigration status. If it is found that Musk had resided in the U.S. illegally before attaining citizenship in 2002, Bannon believes that the South Africa-born billionaire should be deported.
“They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday. The former White House Chief Strategist went on to argue that Musk’s alleged drug use and business relations with China should also be the targets of a federal investigation, which could result in his security clearance being revoked along with his ability to bid for government contracts.
The comments about potential investigations come as Musk swiftly turned against President Donald J. Trump over the latter’s budget reconciliation bill, which eliminates an electric vehicle mandate and tax credits that made Musk’s Tesla automobiles more financially attractive to consumers. On Thursday, Musk took to his social platform X (formerly Twitter) to attack Trump and Republican lawmakers, baselessly suggesting the Epstein files have not been released in full because they include America First Leader.
While Musk is a United States citizen, having been naturalized over two decades ago, the billionaire could be denaturalized by the federal government if it is found that he attained the status through illegal means, such as concealing material facts or making false statements on his application.
Notably, Musk’s younger brother, Kimbal, is on film at the 2013 Milken Institute Global Conference saying of investors in a startup he founded with his brother Elon, “When they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants.” Musk quickly corrects Kimbal: “I’d say it was a gray area.”
It remains unclear what visa, if any, Musk held when he and his brother founded their startup, nor is it known what legal pathway he used to attain U.S. citizenship.
WATCH:
Washington Post, trying to woo back viewers after refusing to endorse VP Harris, reported that Elon Musk, enemy of “open borders,” launched his career working here illegally.
❓What Happened: Tesla saw its shares fall eight percent on Thursday after Elon Musk authored a series of erratic posts on X critical of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” working its way through Congress, while claiming credit for Republican victories in the 2024 election.
👥 Who’s Involved: Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla.
📍 Where & When: Musk made the posts on Thursday, June 5, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
⚠️ Impact: A political falling out between Trump and Musk could pose significant problems for the Tesla chief’s business interests, with his prior support for the America First leader having already alienated many liberals.
IN FULL:
Tesla shares plunged eight percent Thursday afternoon as the electric vehicle company’s CEO, Elon Musk, authored a series of erratic posts on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), attacking President Donald J. Trump and taking credit for his 2024 election victory. “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote, adding: “Such ingratitude.”
In another bizarre post, Musk appears to assert that he should have reviewed the reconciliation bill before it was voted on. Responding to Trump’s assertion that the former DOGE leader was keyed in on the critical details of the bill, Musk wrote: “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”
After leaving his role as an advisor in the Trump White House and frontman for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the end of May, Musk almost immediately began attacking the budget reconciliation bill enacting much of Trump’s agenda that is currently moving through Congress. The attacks drew a response from President Trump on Thursday, with the America First leader telling press in the Oval Office, “I’m very disappointed in Elon; I’ve helped Elon a lot.” Trump noted Musk has not “said [anything] bad about me, personally,” but predicted, accurately, that he was “sure that’ll be next.”
Musk has repeatedly claimed the bill will drastically increase deficits, plunging the federal government further into debt. However, the Trump White House argues that it actually achieves substantial spending cuts, which, when combined with Trump’s tariffs and deregulation agenda, will reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
In one of his posts, Musk, 53, threatened Republicans, “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…”
❓What Happened: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is being urged to relax its export restrictions on rare earth materials, which are essential for various industries. Implemented in response to U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s imposition of tariffs on China, the controls have disrupted production in the U.S. and Europe.
👥 Who’s Involved: Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, U.S. officials, European Union (EU) Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic, European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA).
📍 Where & When: Discussions took place on the sidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conference in Paris on Tuesday. Restrictions were initially imposed by China in April.
💬 Key Quote: “I informed my Chinese counterpart about the alarming situation in the European car industry… rare earths and permanent magnets are absolutely essential for industrial production,” said Maros Sefcovic, the EU Trade Commissioner, underlining the impact of the CCP export restrictions across the West.
⚠️ Impact: Industries in the U.S. and Europe, including automotive and defense, face potential shutdowns due to rare earth shortages. Prices for restricted materials have skyrocketed, with some increasing four to ten times their previous cost.
IN FULL:
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not lifted restrictions on rare earth minerals exports despite agreeing to do so during a tariff truce deal with President Donald J. Trump. U.S. officials are accusing Beijing of violating a trade agreement reached in Geneva, Switzerland. U.S. manufacturers have reported significant delays in securing rare earth shipments, with some suppliers demanding sensitive information, such as photos of end-user facilities, to complete applications. A U.S.-based rare earth trader noted that materials are now being sold at up to ten times their previous prices due to shortages.
The impact extends beyond the U.S., with the European Union (EU) urging China to ease export controls amid severe disruptions to industrial production across Europe. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic raised the issue during a meeting with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao on the sidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conference in Paris. “I informed my Chinese counterpart about the alarming situation in the European car industry… rare earths and permanent magnets are absolutely essential for industrial production,” Sefcovic told reporters on Wednesday.
China, which processes 90 percent of the world’s rare earth materials, introduced stricter export licensing requirements earlier this year in response to tariff measures imposed by President Trump, covering seven types of rare earth minerals and several types of magnets. Since then, only about a quarter of the submitted export license applications have been approved, according to the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA). The group warned that the restrictions are already causing production shutdowns in Europe’s supplier sectors.
Sefcovic proposed a streamlined, annual licensing system to reduce delays and alleviate the strain on industries. However, no immediate resolution was reached, with both sides planning to meet again to reconcile discrepancies in export data.
China’s foreign ministry defended the restrictions, stating they are “in line with common international practices” and not targeted at specific nations. Meanwhile, industries reliant on these materials continue to face mounting challenges as they scramble to secure alternative supplies.
❓What Happened: Texas has decided to end in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants.
👥 Who’s Involved: Texas state officials, Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Department of Justice, and the Trump administration.
📍 Where & When: Texas, lawsuit filed on Wednesday.
💬 Key Quote: President Donald J. Trump issued orders to prevent “benefits or preferential treatments” for illegal immigrants.
⚠️ Impact: The decision could affect undocumented students and out-of-state American students seeking more favorable tuition policies.
IN FULL:
Texas has agreed to halt its policy of offering in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants following a legal challenge from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The federal lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, alleges that the practice unfairly discriminates against out-of-state American students by granting financial advantages to illegals.
The lawsuit challenges a long-standing Texas education policy, claiming it violates federal law by prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens from other states. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in response, filed a joint motion with the Trump administration to formally end the law.
This move aligns with broader efforts by the Trump administration to tightenimmigration policies and prevent benefits for those residing in the country unlawfully. President Trump has issued two executive orders aimed at curbing preferential treatment for illegal immigrants, emphasizing the importance of fairness in public resource allocation.
The decision could have wide-ranging implications for both illegal alien students who have relied on in-state tuition rates and out-of-state American students who have contested the policy as discriminatory.
Further legal proceedings are expected as the case develops.
President Donald Trump signed a proclamation restricting immigration from nearly 20 countries deemed high-risk due to terrorism ties and visa overstays.
The details: Trump’s proclamation includes 19 countries—twelve with a full ban and seven with partial bans.
Partial ban: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela
Why? When Trump returned to office in January, he issued Executive Order 14161, which ordered U.S. agencies to assess security risks from high-risk nations. They found that the 19 banned countries have:
large-scale presence of terrorists
high rates of visa overstays
an inability to verify identities
poor record-keeping of criminal histories
Some exemptions: The order carves out some exemptions for green card holders, existing visa holders, and national interest cases.
Zoom out: In a video message announcing the travel ban, Trump cited the recent terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, by an illegal alien who overstayed his visa in 2023.
Real talk from G: Trump also said, “We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America.” What happened in Europe? Mass, unvetted migration from the Middle East and Africa has led to daily occurrences of stabbings, vehicular homicide, and rape by foreigners.
❓What Happened: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) says its analysis of President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” finds the legislation introduces historic fiscal reforms, achieving $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings and reducing the deficit by $1.407 trillion. This analysis contradicts a fiscal score released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that claims the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Director Russ Vought, Elon Musk, and the U.S. Congress.
📍 Where & When: The OMB’s top-line numbers were revealed by the agency’s director, Russ Vought, on Wednesday, June 4, after the CBO released its updated fiscal score earlier in the day.
💬 Key Quote: “Even the partisan CBO admits the deficit will be slashed by at least $500 billion over the next ten years,” the Trump White House said in a fact sheet.
⚠️ Impact: According to the Trump White House, the bill enacts permanent savings, extends tax cuts, allocates funds for border security, and sets the stage for further deficit reductions of $6.6 trillion over the next decade.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been revealed to deliver unprecedented fiscal reforms, achieving nearly $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data acknowledged by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This figure marks the highest level of mandatory savings in U.S. history, surpassing reductions achieved by similar reconciliation bills in 2005, 1997, 1993, and 1990 when adjusted for inflation.
Russ Vought, the director of the OMB, notes that the budget reconciliation bill enacts permanent changes to the law, ensuring that these savings extend far into the future. While critics, including Elon Musk, have claimed the bill increases spending and adds to the deficit, Vought argues these assertions have been countered by the facts.
“OMB just reviewed the new CBO score of the One Big Beautiful bill. It confirms what we knew about the bill at House passage. The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO’s one big gimmick–not using a realistic current policy baseline,” Vought wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday, adding: “It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.”
Vought and others in the Trump administration argue that the CBO’s projections of higher deficits are based on the assumption that President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts will expire. This assumption, they contend, creates a false policy baseline and warps the bill’s true fiscal impact. Additionally, the Trump White House notes that the CBO itself forecasts that President Trump’s tariffs will reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Further, the White House officials state that when the legislation’s economic effects are factored in along with tariff revenue and deregulation, the overall impact will be a total deficit reduction of $6.6 trillion over the next ten years.
The analysis contradicts claims by former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) frontman, Elon Musk, who slammed the bill on Tuesday, calling it a “disgusting abomination” and accusing lawmakers of saddling Americans with unsustainable debt. Musk’s turn against the Trump White House has set Republicans on Capitol Hill on the defensive just as the reconciliation legislation begins to work its way through the Senate.
❓What Happened: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough is set to evaluate the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate rules under the Byrd Rule.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Donald J. Trump, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
📍 Where & When: U.S. Senate, June 2025.
⚠️ Impact: Key provisions of Trump’s bill, including those limiting federal court powers and restricting Medicaid funds for abortion clinics, could be struck down, potentially weakening the legislation.
IN FULL:
President Donald J. Trump‘s budgetreconciliation bill, which implements and funds a large part of the America First leader’s second-term agenda, is beginning to work its way through the United States Senate. However, the legislation, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” will face its most perilous test from one of the Senate’s non-elected officials—Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough.
Serving as the Senate Parliamentarian since 2o12, MacDonough will be tasked with evaluating a bevy of points-of-order raised by Senate Democrats and other opponents of the bill, including Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). These points of order will challenge the legislation’s key provisions on several factors that could disqualify their inclusion, including whether the provision reduces non-discretionary (mandatory) spending, increases the deficit after the 10-year budget window, or if a policy provision is nongermine to the budget change.
The budget reconciliation process gives the Senate Parliamentarian tremendous power over legislation, despite being an unelected official. While the presiding officer of the Senate—technically the Vice President, but in practice usually the Senate Majority Leader—can override any ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian, such instances are beyond rare. The most notable occurrence was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller attempted to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian regarding Senate procedural rules. This led both the Republican and Democrat leaders in the Senate to hold an emergency meeting, create a compromise ruling, and circumvent Rockefeller so as to avoid setting any concrete precedent of the presiding officer actually overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.
WHO IS MACDONOUGH?
Senate Parliamentarians are almost always selected from the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure continuity. The office itself was only created in 1935. The current Senator, Elizabeth MacDonough, has served since 2012, when she was elevated to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Despite being appointed by Reid, MacDonough has been critical of the late Nevada Democrat’s 2013 decision to use a procedural maneuver to alter Senate rules and use the so-called “nuclear option” to abolish the filibuster for lower federal court nominations. MacDonough, along with Republican Senators at the time, warned that setting the precedent could later be used to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations—a prediction which came to pass in 2017.
MacDonough has received high praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle but has repeatedly drawn the ire of progressive Democrats by ruling against some of their more far-reaching policy changes that they’ve tried to include in past reconciliation bills. The Senate Parliamentarian’s rulings on former President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan—a reconciliation bill—saw House progressives, including Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN), demand that MacDonough be fired. Notably, MacDonough ruled against the inclusion of a $15 an hour minimum wage provision, and most significantly, determined that the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the legislation violated the Byrd Rule, stating, “changing the law to clear the way to (Legal Permanent Resident) status is tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”
OVERRULE OR FIRE?
While Senate Republicans currently insist they will not resort to extreme measures should McDonough rule against provisions in the reconciliation bill, they’ve already used a procedural move last month to prevent the Senate Parliamentarian from ruling on a separate piece of legislation. In May, the Senate overturned California’s electric vehicle mandates using a series of procedural votes and then an expedited final vote under the Congressional Review Act, effectively ending the debate and holding a final vote before the Senate Parliamentarian could rule on the matter. While this end-around maneuver worked for a single subject and relatively uncomplicated measure, such a procedural move will not work with the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”
Regarding the reconciliation bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has insisted, “We’re not going there,” when asked whether he or any other Republican acting as the presiding chair would overrule determinations made by the Senate Parliamentarian under the Byrd Rule. In essence, the Senate Republicans appear to be signaling that they will not overturn past precedent nor use any controversial procedural measures to reduce McDonough’s role in the process.
However, two wrinkles could change the current state of affairs. Namely, the constitutional presiding officer of the United States Senate is actually Vice President J.D. Vance. Should Vance decide to arrive at the Senate and assume his constitutional role, there is not much Sen. Thune or other members can do to prevent him from overruling the Senate Parliamentarian, outside of holding a vote to override the Vice President’s decision. This scenario would be similar to the 1975 legislative involving then-Vice President Rockefeller.
Secondly, if MacDonough’s rulings are seen by Sen. Thune or the Senate Republicans as a whole as being too far afield, we could see a situation like 2001 when then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) fired then-Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove over a series of rulings against Republicans on reconciliation and other budget measures. While Thune might not be willing to overrule MacDonough directly, should the Senate Parliamentarian act too partisan with her Byrd Rule determinations, the Senate Majority Leader is well within his right to fire her.
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
