The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Wisconsin-based Catholic charity group in a case centered on unemployment tax credits for religious institutions – delivering a victory for faith-based institutions, who argued that the state’s decision had violated the religious clauses under the First Amendment. 

In a unanimous opinion, the justices agreed that the state had engaged in an ‘unnecessary entanglement’ in attempting to define whether religious groups should be entitled to an otherwise-available tax exemption based on the state’s criteria for religious behavior.

‘When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,’ Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, writing for the majority.

‘Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.’

The decision could clear the way for more states to broaden their tax-exempt status for religious organizations, with ripple effects that could stretch far beyond Wisconsin. 

The Catholic Charities Bureau asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that had required them to pay Wisconsin’s unemployment tax, after the state determined the group’s activities were ‘primarily charitable and secular,’ and therefore not subject to the exemptions.

Lawyers for the Catholic Charities Bureau argued the ruling was an unconstitutional violation of religious freedoms and amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination, and argued that ‘gospel values and the moral teaching of the church.’

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the group must pay the tax since the nature of their work was primarily secular, since it was not ‘operated primarily for religious purposes,’ and serves and employs non-Catholics.

‘There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,’ Sotomayor said on Thursday. ‘When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.’

The decision comes as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has, in recent years, ruled in favor of religious institutions, including in cases like this one, which center on allowing taxpayer funds to be allocated to some religious organizations to provide ‘non-sectarian services.’

President Donald Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday in a lengthy call amid economic and national security friction regarding trade between Washington and Beijing. 

‘I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal,’ Trump said Thursday in a Truth Social post. ‘The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries.’

Trump said the conversation focused ‘almost entirely’ on trade, and that Xi invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Trump also said he extended an invitation to Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan. 

Chinese media first reported the call between the two leaders on Thursday, and claimed that the call occurred per Trump’s request. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told ABC News on Sunday that Trump was expected to talk with the Chinese president this week. 

The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May, and a day after Trump said Xi was ‘extremely hard to make a deal with’ in a Truth Social post. 

The negotiations led both countries to agree that the U.S. would ramp down its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would cut its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%.

But Trump accused China on Friday of not holding up its end of the bargain, although he refrained from disclosing specifics. 

‘The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,’ Trump said Friday in a social media post. ‘So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!’

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Friday in an interview with CNBC that China had failed to lift its non-tariff barriers, as outlined in the deal. 

‘The United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow-rolling their compliance, which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed,’ Greer said Friday. 

Meanwhile, China pressed the U.S. to reverse course and address its own mistakes. 

‘China once again urges the US to immediately correct its erroneous actions, cease discriminatory restrictions against China and jointly uphold the consensus reached at the high-level talks in Geneva,’ Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said in a Friday statement.

But Trump later indicated that the two leaders ironed out their differences. 

‘We had a very good talk, and we’ve straightened out any complexity, and it’s very complex stuff, and we straightened it out,’ Trump said Thursday during an Oval Office press briefing with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 

‘I think we’re in very good shape with China and the trade deal,’ Trump said. ‘We have a deal with China, as you know, but we were straightening out some of the points… I would say we have a deal, and we’re going to just make sure that everybody understands what the deal is.’

Meanwhile, Trump’s invitation to Xi and Peng to visit the U.S. comes as Trump’s administration cracks down on student visa holders in the U.S. and as Trump has threatened to ‘aggressively’ rescind visas of students from China. 

On Thursday, Trump appeared to take a softer approach though and said that he did want foreign students to come to the U.S. — he just wants them to undergo proper vetting.

‘We want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked,’ Trump said from the White House. 

There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was president in name only during much of his time in office. In his stead, a cabal of top White House staffers appears to have secretly operated a de facto presidency, making crucial decisions without a shred of constitutional authority.  

If proven true, it would call into question the validity of pardons and executive orders issued under his name but without his knowledge or consent. For this reason, it is imperative that Biden’s closest advisers answer questions under oath and others in his orbit be forced to disclose what they knew or observed.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into the pardons, commutations and clemencies granted in the waning days of Biden’s presidency, including preemptive pardons gifted to a half dozen members of his own family along with his shifty son, Hunter Biden. The probe focuses on whether the elder Biden was competent and whether others were taking advantage of his seemingly diminished mental state.  

At the same time, the House Oversight Committee is intensifying its own inquiry into the alleged ‘cover-up’ of Biden’s cognitive decline. Of particular interest in both investigations is ‘the potential unauthorized use of autopen’ for many executive actions, said Oversight Chairman James Comer.

Did rogue actors commandeer the device from a clueless Biden to advance their own political and personal agendas? Was national security jeopardized in the process? Let’s call it, ‘The Case of the Runaway Autopen.’ Solving it won’t be easy, given Washington’s proclivity for concealment, deception, obstruction and lies.       

Comer has requested that five former Biden aides, including his physician Kevin O’Connor, sit down for transcribed interviews.  If they resist, subpoenas will be issued. While Biden might assert Executive Privilege to keep them mum, President Trump could override the privilege just as Biden did to Trump after his first term. Assuming he is sentient, Joe might now wish he had not done so.  

The issue of whether pardons and executive orders could be invalidated is not as simple as some legal experts have opined. They assert, for example, that nothing can be done because there is no constitutional mechanism to revoke or overturn pardons once granted. That is only half true.

There is a well-established legal basis for annulling documents. It is founded in common law.  It is called fraud. Under statutory law, it is known as forgery. (See 18 USC 471 and 495). Each are crimes that would render the signed instruments inoperative and unenforceable.    

Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court, which long ago declared unanimously, ‘There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.’ (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, (1878))  There exists no exception for presidential documents.  

But let’s back up.

An autopen is a mechanical device that activates a robotic arm with a pen attached. It imitates a person’s signature, although it is identifiable by a consistent impression on the paper. Past presidents have utilized the autopen for a variety of documents. It is perfectly legal but with an important caveat —there must be consent by the purported ‘signator.’ In this case, that’s Biden.     

If the 46th president never consented or, worse, had no knowledge of the autopen’s use for any given document bearing his signature, it could be deemed null and void under law. If Biden was not even competent or mentally fit to provide knowing consent, the result is the same. 

Two decades ago, the Justice Department formally approved presidential deployment of the autopen, but only if a President personally ‘directs’ a subordinate to affix his signature to a specified document. However, the DOJ cautioned that the chief executive may never ‘delegate’ the actual decision to approve and sign any document with the device. That right rests exclusively with a president.   

The sheer volume of suspected Biden autopen usage merits closer scrutiny. The growing number of descriptive accounts of his worsening mental infirmities and incoherence magnifies the need for an intensive investigation. 

If his aides deliberately obscured their boss’s health problems, did they also circumvent his permission for orders issued under his name? Did they act on their own because they knew Biden was not cognizant or otherwise feared his confused response? Americans deserve honest answers. But expecting to get them from highly secretive political operatives is fanciful at best.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently recounted his first private meeting with Biden last year during which the President had no idea that he signed an executive order weeks earlier pausing the exports of liquified natural gas. When Johnson pressed him, a stunned Biden insisted, ‘I didn’t do that!’ The speaker patiently explained that he did and a copy could be retrieved, yet the President insisted, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’  

‘He genuinely did not know what he had signed,’ said Johnson later. ‘And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, ‘We are in serious trouble —who is running the country?’ Like, I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know.’  

It is possible that the executive order was signed by autopen without the consent or knowledge of the president. In the alternative, did Biden sign something that he was incapable of understanding? Perhaps his aides willfully misrepresented its contents. Or maybe Biden was so mentally impaired that he couldn’t remember what he had for breakfast, much less having signed an export ban that cratered American GDP by upwards of $200 billion.

It is beyond curious that the preemptive pardons handed out like Halloween candy to Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the J-6 committee and six of Biden’s immediate relatives all bear the unique marks of an autopen. By contrast, Hunter Biden’s pardon almost certainly resembles his father’s genuine and shaky signature. Why the difference? Did Biden verily approve or direct the group pardons? Or did someone command the autopen without assent?

There is substantial and compelling evidence that Biden was sliding further and further into mental decay as his presidency progressed. Americans are right to wonder just who was running the country. Biden himself seemed to answer the question during several of his rare public outings.  

In one memorable appearance he said, ‘Sorry, but I’ll get in trouble with my staff if I don’t do this the right way.’  In another, a confused Biden turned to staffers and asked, ‘Am I allowed to take questions? Where’s my staff?’ On a still another occasion he mumbled with regret, ‘I thought when I got to be President, I’d get to do things I wanted to do, but my staff tells me what I can’t do.’ These are stunning confessionals.   

There is no need to recite the myriad of instances where Americans witnessed a faltering and enfeebled Biden wandering around a stage lost and bewildered. He was not ‘compos mentis.’ His mental faculties dwindled. His ability to think and communicate vanished. It all came crashing down on the night of June 27, 2024. The disastrous presidential debate reinforced the truth of his withering condition.     

It is increasingly apparent that a coterie of unelected White House aides who connived to hide Biden’s declining state were the ones making vital decisions behind the scenes. They reportedly called themselves the ‘Politburo,’ a nod to the ruling committee of the communist party in the former Soviet Union. The symmetry is not coincidental; it is revealing. They maneuvered and manipulated in a culture of dishonesty.

With Biden mentally incapable of fully performing the demanding duties of his high office, it seems that others took it upon themselves to arrogate his authority. This would constitute a shameful abuse of power that contravenes our constitutional framework. It merits comprehensive investigations by both Congress and the Department of Justice.

In responding to the probes, Biden issued a statement on Wednesday insisting, ‘I made the decisions about pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,’ adding that ‘any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.’ The denial is no surprise. But is it more of the same pretense and cover-up that came to define his presidency? Did Joe even write that statement?

Almost five years ago in my August 2020 podcast, I warned that if Joe Biden was elected, he would become a ‘Marionette President’ controlled by unscrupulous White House puppeteers making critical decisions for the nation. I wasn’t prescient, only paying attention to what was plainly visible.

What is so confounding —and equally alarming— is how long the deceitful charade lasted. As it slowly unravels, we are reminded that calculating lies rarely endure the engine of truth.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth kicked off Pride month this year with a shot across the bow of wokeness, as his plan to rechristen a Navy ship honoring gay rights icon Harvey Milk has emerged.

Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978, and in that same year he was gunned down, leaving him a legacy as a martyr to the cause of gay liberation.

Let’s be clear about two things. First, Hegseth is absolutely trolling the woke left with this move and its timing. Secondly, he is absolutely right to do so, because a navy vessel has nothing to do with men having sex with each other and that is the only thing painting ‘Harvey Milk’ on the side of the ship implies.

Harvey Milk is not a hero to everyone in the United States. One can wholeheartedly support equal rights without celebrating homosexuality, and asking naval officers and civilians to serve on the USNS Harvey Milk does just that.

The ship, which transports oil, isn’t named after Milk, who happened to be gay; it’s named after Milk because he was gay, and Hegseth is correct that this is wildly inappropriate. 

Why not the USNS Liberace? Think of the boon it would be to the domestic chandelier industry.

Progressives seem deeply confused these days about why they don’t appeal to young men, and I would like to submit that the USNS Harvey Milk is a pretty good example of why. 

You take some 18-year-old guy, maybe he watched ‘Top Gun Maverick’ a few too many times and wants to be a warfighter, then you point and say, there’s your ship, it celebrates dudes making out with dudes.

Let’s face it, most sailors in the Navy do not want to be sitting in a diner in 25 years wearing a ballcap that proudly states they served on the ‘Harvey Milk,’ and that’s OK.

Predictably, former House Speaker and San Francisco’s own Rep. Nancy Pelosi decried the decision to rename the ship, calling it, ‘a shameful vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers…’

Is there an element of revenge in Hegseth’s action? There might be, because for decades now Americans have been forced to swallow the bizarre notion that who you have sex with is something to be proud of, as if we should all applaud.

For decades now, every June at ballgames and in TV ads, on municipal buildings and subway trains the rainbow flag has been everywhere, demanding your consent to celebrate gayness.

In recent years, as the teal of the trans flag has bled into the rainbow, we have once again been told that we must accept an absurd lie that men can become women, as if this was just some a priori truth.

Not this time, and as America rejects the trans movement, it is also realizing that bending over backwards every June to cheer on homosexuality makes no sense in a society where gay people face little to no discrimination.

A warship has one purpose, to help to destroy our enemies. Everything about the vessel should be directed towards that goal, including the name emblazoned on it. ‘Harvey Milk’ fails that test.

Throughout the first quarter of the 21st Century, progressives have made enormous gains in American society, and they have generally assumed that once their new norms are established, they cannot be undone.

Hegseth, as he has done before by restoring the names of army bases changed by progressives, is showing that we can indeed go back. History is not a one-way ratchet that only turns left.

Progressives are firmly convinced that everything is an occasion for activism, that their preferred lifestyle and worldview should be threaded into every aspect of our lives. This is wrongheaded in general, but especially so in regard to warfare.

Hegseth is popular with soldiers and vets alike because he understands that his primary job is to kill the enemy while keeping his guys alive. It’s not to promote gay rights, it’s not to foster social justice, it is to destroy.

By all means, name a community center or a clinic after Harvey Milk, but not a warship. Those willing to put their lives on the line aboard deserve better.

There is mounting evidence that Joe Biden was president in name only during much of his time in office. In his stead, a cabal of top White House staffers appears to have secretly operated a de facto presidency, making crucial decisions without a shred of constitutional authority.  

If proven true, it would call into question the validity of pardons and executive orders issued under his name but without his knowledge or consent. For this reason, it is imperative that Biden’s closest advisers answer questions under oath and others in his orbit be forced to disclose what they knew or observed.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into the pardons, commutations and clemencies granted in the waning days of Biden’s presidency, including preemptive pardons gifted to a half dozen members of his own family along with his shifty son, Hunter Biden. The probe focuses on whether the elder Biden was competent and whether others were taking advantage of his seemingly diminished mental state.  

At the same time, the House Oversight Committee is intensifying its own inquiry into the alleged ‘cover-up’ of Biden’s cognitive decline. Of particular interest in both investigations is ‘the potential unauthorized use of autopen’ for many executive actions, said Oversight Chairman James Comer.

Did rogue actors commandeer the device from a clueless Biden to advance their own political and personal agendas? Was national security jeopardized in the process? Let’s call it, ‘The Case of the Runaway Autopen.’ Solving it won’t be easy, given Washington’s proclivity for concealment, deception, obstruction and lies.       

Comer has requested that five former Biden aides, including his physician Kevin O’Connor, sit down for transcribed interviews.  If they resist, subpoenas will be issued. While Biden might assert Executive Privilege to keep them mum, President Trump could override the privilege just as Biden did to Trump after his first term. Assuming he is sentient, Joe might now wish he had not done so.  

The issue of whether pardons and executive orders could be invalidated is not as simple as some legal experts have opined. They assert, for example, that nothing can be done because there is no constitutional mechanism to revoke or overturn pardons once granted. That is only half true.

There is a well-established legal basis for annulling documents. It is founded in common law.  It is called fraud. Under statutory law, it is known as forgery. (See 18 USC 471 and 495). Each are crimes that would render the signed instruments inoperative and unenforceable.    

Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court, which long ago declared unanimously, ‘There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.’ (United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, (1878))  There exists no exception for presidential documents.  

But let’s back up.

An autopen is a mechanical device that activates a robotic arm with a pen attached. It imitates a person’s signature, although it is identifiable by a consistent impression on the paper. Past presidents have utilized the autopen for a variety of documents. It is perfectly legal but with an important caveat —there must be consent by the purported ‘signator.’ In this case, that’s Biden.     

If the 46th president never consented or, worse, had no knowledge of the autopen’s use for any given document bearing his signature, it could be deemed null and void under law. If Biden was not even competent or mentally fit to provide knowing consent, the result is the same. 

Two decades ago, the Justice Department formally approved presidential deployment of the autopen, but only if a President personally ‘directs’ a subordinate to affix his signature to a specified document. However, the DOJ cautioned that the chief executive may never ‘delegate’ the actual decision to approve and sign any document with the device. That right rests exclusively with a president.   

The sheer volume of suspected Biden autopen usage merits closer scrutiny. The growing number of descriptive accounts of his worsening mental infirmities and incoherence magnifies the need for an intensive investigation. 

If his aides deliberately obscured their boss’s health problems, did they also circumvent his permission for orders issued under his name? Did they act on their own because they knew Biden was not cognizant or otherwise feared his confused response? Americans deserve honest answers. But expecting to get them from highly secretive political operatives is fanciful at best.

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently recounted his first private meeting with Biden last year during which the President had no idea that he signed an executive order weeks earlier pausing the exports of liquified natural gas. When Johnson pressed him, a stunned Biden insisted, ‘I didn’t do that!’ The speaker patiently explained that he did and a copy could be retrieved, yet the President insisted, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’  

‘He genuinely did not know what he had signed,’ said Johnson later. ‘And I walked out of that meeting with fear and loathing because I thought, ‘We are in serious trouble —who is running the country?’ Like, I don’t know who put the paper in front of him, but he didn’t know.’  

It is possible that the executive order was signed by autopen without the consent or knowledge of the president. In the alternative, did Biden sign something that he was incapable of understanding? Perhaps his aides willfully misrepresented its contents. Or maybe Biden was so mentally impaired that he couldn’t remember what he had for breakfast, much less having signed an export ban that cratered American GDP by upwards of $200 billion.

It is beyond curious that the preemptive pardons handed out like Halloween candy to Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the J-6 committee and six of Biden’s immediate relatives all bear the unique marks of an autopen. By contrast, Hunter Biden’s pardon almost certainly resembles his father’s genuine and shaky signature. Why the difference? Did Biden verily approve or direct the group pardons? Or did someone command the autopen without assent?

There is substantial and compelling evidence that Biden was sliding further and further into mental decay as his presidency progressed. Americans are right to wonder just who was running the country. Biden himself seemed to answer the question during several of his rare public outings.  

In one memorable appearance he said, ‘Sorry, but I’ll get in trouble with my staff if I don’t do this the right way.’  In another, a confused Biden turned to staffers and asked, ‘Am I allowed to take questions? Where’s my staff?’ On a still another occasion he mumbled with regret, ‘I thought when I got to be President, I’d get to do things I wanted to do, but my staff tells me what I can’t do.’ These are stunning confessionals.   

There is no need to recite the myriad of instances where Americans witnessed a faltering and enfeebled Biden wandering around a stage lost and bewildered. He was not ‘compos mentis.’ His mental faculties dwindled. His ability to think and communicate vanished. It all came crashing down on the night of June 27, 2024. The disastrous presidential debate reinforced the truth of his withering condition.     

It is increasingly apparent that a coterie of unelected White House aides who connived to hide Biden’s declining state were the ones making vital decisions behind the scenes. They reportedly called themselves the ‘Politburo,’ a nod to the ruling committee of the communist party in the former Soviet Union. The symmetry is not coincidental; it is revealing. They maneuvered and manipulated in a culture of dishonesty.

With Biden mentally incapable of fully performing the demanding duties of his high office, it seems that others took it upon themselves to arrogate his authority. This would constitute a shameful abuse of power that contravenes our constitutional framework. It merits comprehensive investigations by both Congress and the Department of Justice.

In responding to the probes, Biden issued a statement on Wednesday insisting, ‘I made the decisions about pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations,’ adding that ‘any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.’ The denial is no surprise. But is it more of the same pretense and cover-up that came to define his presidency? Did Joe even write that statement?

Almost five years ago in my August 2020 podcast, I warned that if Joe Biden was elected, he would become a ‘Marionette President’ controlled by unscrupulous White House puppeteers making critical decisions for the nation. I wasn’t prescient, only paying attention to what was plainly visible.

What is so confounding —and equally alarming— is how long the deceitful charade lasted. As it slowly unravels, we are reminded that calculating lies rarely endure the engine of truth.

Elon Musk’s diatribe against President Donald Trump’s ‘one big, beautiful bill’ continued Wednesday as Senate Republicans embarked on their own course to tweak and reshape the gargantuan legislative package.

The former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) rehashed a similar talking point from his takedown of a previous House GOP government funding bill in December, which, after his input, was gutted and reworked.

The nation’s debt sits at over $36 trillion, according to FOX Business’ National Debt Tracker.

‘Call your Senator, Call your Congressman,’ Musk said among a flurry of posts on X. ‘Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.’

Though Musk’s continued tirade against the bill sent House Republicans into a tizzy, on the other side of the Capitol, senators were busy hashing out the finer points of the legislation.

This time around, Musk, who just ended his four-month tenure as a special government employee rooting out waste, fraud and abuse, may not have the same level of impact, given that senators want their chance to shape the bill.

‘I mean, if Elon was going to give me advice on how to get to the moon, I’d listen,’ said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. ‘You know, if he was going to give me advice on how to raise several billion dollars from other billionaires, I’d listen.’

‘But… he doesn’t govern, you know, and so, to be honest, Elon, he’s not that big a factor,’ he continued. ‘I know he’s a glamorous sort of celebrity, but he’s not a big factor.’

Cramer’s comments came after Senate Republicans heard from the chairs of the Senate Banking, Armed Services and Commerce committees on how they would approach their respective portions of the megabill in a closed-door meeting.

After that meeting, members of the Senate Finance Committee, which will handle the tax portion of the package, met with Trump later to shore up support for the tax package.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R.-Kan., said that the president’s main message during the meeting was to ‘pass the damn bill’ with as few changes as possible. When asked if Trump seemed concerned about Musk’s impact on the bill’s fate, the lawmaker said ‘absolutely not.’  

‘It was almost laugh— more of a laughing conversation for 30 seconds,’ he said. ‘It was very much in jest and laughing, and I think he said something positive about Elon, appreciating what he did for the country.’

Congressional Republicans intend to use the budget reconciliation process to skirt the Senate filibuster, meaning they do not need Senate Democrats to pass the package. However, they do need at least 51 Senate Republicans to get on board.

The Senate’s shot at tinkering with the reconciliation package comes after months of deliberations and negotiations in the House that culminated in a package that Trump has thrown his full support behind.

Some lawmakers want higher spending cuts to the tune of $2 trillion, others want a full rollback to pre-pandemic spending. Then there are pockets of resistance solidifying around cuts to Medicaid and green energy tax credit provisions baked into the House’s offering.

Among the green energy provisions on the chopping block are electric vehicle tax credits. Speculation has swirled that their proposed demise could be the driving force, in part, behind Musk’s anger toward the bill.

‘Any senator with a brain sees Elon’s comments for what they are, a CEO worried about losing business,’ a Senate Republican source told Fox News Digital. ‘The only reason he’s causing a fuss is because we’re getting rid of pork that benefits his electric car company.’

Musk had been pushing for deeper spending cuts until his new demand that the bill be nuked. Currently, the House GOP’s offering sets a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade that, coupled with expected growth, would help offset the roughly $4 trillion price tag of making the president’s first-term tax cuts permanent.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, engaged with some of Musk’s posts on Tuesday and appeared to agree with the tech billionaire’s position that the bill had to go further to cut spending.

‘I think most of what he’s saying is he would like it to do more and be more aggressive to try to address the debt and deficit problem,’ Lee said.

However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found in its latest report that the bill would only cut $1.3 trillion, reduce revenues by roughly $3.7 trillion and add in the neighborhood of $2.4 trillion to the deficit.

Some lawmakers who had found common ground with Musk’s earlier anger with the ‘big, beautiful bill’ still found a common ally on the second day of his rant.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reiterated to Fox News Digital that he shared Musk’s ‘skepticism’ of the bill. He would not say whether he agreed that congressional Republicans should start from scratch, but noted that his main objection to the bill was a plan to increase the nation’s debt limit by $5 trillion.

‘My main goal is to say, take the debt ceiling and make it a separate vote, and then vote on a separate bill, and then there’s still a need for less spending,’ he said. ‘But I would be very open to supporting the bill if we had more spending cuts and the debt ceiling was a separate vote.’