The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently-passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multi-pronged: some are angry that it was tucked away into the Legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up, others see it as nothing more than a quick pay day for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe.

‘I think it was outrageous that that was put in and air dropped in there,’ Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous, and needs to be taken out.’

The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The provision is narrowly tailored to just include senators, and would require that they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future.

Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on, but acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted.

‘I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,’ Thune said.

Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped the blame on Thune, but noted that it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too.

‘Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,’ Schumer said. ‘So we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.’

The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains in the air though.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital that he was neither asked about the provision, nor told about it, and like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill.

‘I just think that, you know, giving them money –- I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,’ he said. ‘I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.’

He also took issue with the fact that the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate, and argued that it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgement in court rather than a monetary one.

‘I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,’ Hawley said. ‘I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?’

The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that he supported repealing the provision, but wanted to fix it.

‘The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,’ he said. ‘The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.’

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital that the provision was a ‘total mess,’ and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis.

Not every Senator was on board with ditching the provision, however.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further.

Graham said that he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation.

‘Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,’ Graham said.

‘If you’ve been wronged, this idea that our government can’t be sued is a dangerous idea,’ he continued. ‘The government needs to be held accountable when it violates people’s rights.’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., was far more succinct. When asked if he would support a repeal of the provision, he told Fox News Digital, ‘No.’

Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘woke’ companies accountable. 

In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025.

It’s aimed at ensuring greater transparency in litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups, including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute and the American Energy Institute, states.

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital Wednesday afternoon there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually proposes to do, and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501(c) privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors.

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written, but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil cases funded by undisclosed third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations that have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements. Some argue there’s a need for more transparency about those who fund litigation and for limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks. Those groups argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well-funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks simply don’t hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit. Instead, they use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds or legal defense trusts that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the investor only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies. And the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation as an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance, which said in a press release it commends the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is linked to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused and could be reformed, it has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.’

The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday, and Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them. You have the right to cross-examine them. You have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation. These things are all important,’ Issa said.

He added the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant, and a judge can review them in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required. And that last part has always been ignored a little bit. We’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘woke’ companies accountable. 

In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald, and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025 and is aimed at ensuring greater transparency in civil litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute, former treasurer of Ohio Ken Blackwell, and American Energy Institute, states. 

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.’

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital on Thursday afternoon that there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually does and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501c privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.’

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors,’ Issa explained. 

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.’

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil litigation funded by undisclosed-third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations who have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements therefore needing more visibility into funders of litigation and limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks, who argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks don’t simply hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit but instead use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds, or legal-defense trusts,  that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the funder only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies and the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital that it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions that he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance who said in a press release they ‘commend’ the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is tied to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused, and could be reformed, it has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.’

The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday and Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them, you have the right to cross-examine them, you have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation, these things are all important,’ Issa said, adding that the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant and a judge can review them in camera, a legal term for in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required — and that last part has always been ignored a little bit, we’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

AT&T turned over private, personal cellphone records belonging to then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to then-Special Counsel Jack Smith in January 2023 amid his investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, Fox News Digital has learned.

Fox News Digital first reported Thursday that Smith subpoenaed AT&T for McCarthy’s records, but AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records.

But Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter AT&T sent to Grassley, R-Iowa, citing the previous reporting, which led the telecommunications company to review the case and change its response.

Smith, on Jan. 24, 2023, allegedly sought the ‘toll records for the personal cell phones of U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (AT&T) and U.S. Representative Louie Gohmert (Verizon.)’

The information was included as part of a ‘significant case notification’ drafted by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division May 25, 2023.

AT&T, though, notified Grassley that the company received a subpoena for McCarthy’s records in January 2023 — separate from the May 2023 subpoena for other toll records, and allegedly inadvertently supplied those personal cellphone records to Smith.

‘AT&T is producing today a January 23, 2023 grand jury subpoena issued by former Special Counsel Jack Smith to AT&T, also accompanied by a non-disclosure order relating to the subpoena,’ AT&T wrote.

AT&T referenced Fox News Digital’s exclusive reporting on the subpoena.

‘We identified (the subpoena) yesterday as such based on the phone number in the subpoena,’ the company continued. ‘Based on this newly found record, we write to correct our October 24, 2025 response, which was based (on) a reasonable review of our records at that time.’ 

‘AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account,’ AT&T explained.

‘Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number,’ AT&T continued. ‘It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress. As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.’

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told Fox News Digital that ‘Jack Smith broke the law and seized my phone records as Speaker of the House.’

‘If corrupt justice will do it to the Speaker, they’ll do it to anyone,’ he said. ‘The DOJ has the authority and responsibility to hold him accountable.’

Lawyers for Smith declined to comment.

AT&T had initially told Grassley that when the company received the May 2023 request for records it ‘raised questions with Special Counsel Smith’s office concerning the legal basis for seeking records of members of Congress, the Special Counsel did not pursue the subpoena further, and no records were produced.’

AT&T had also stressed that the company ‘has not produced any records or other information to Special Counsel Jack Smith’ relating to ‘any member of Congress.’

The revelations come after Fox News Digital exclusively reported in October that Smith and his ‘Arctic Frost’ team investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots were tracking the private communications and phone calls of nearly a dozen Republican senators as part of the probe, including Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.

An official told Fox News Digital that those records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers. 

Smith has called his decision to subpoena and track Republican lawmakers’ phone records ‘entirely proper’ and consistent with Justice Department policy.

‘As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,’ Smith’s lawyers wrote in October to Grassley.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are investigating ‘Arctic Frost.’ 

‘Arctic Frost’ was opened inside the bureau April 13, 2022. Smith was appointed as special counsel to take over the probe in November 2022. 

An FBI official told Fox News Digital that ‘Arctic Frost’ is a ‘prohibited case,’ and that the review required FBI officials to go ‘above and beyond in order to deliver on this promise of transparency.’ The discovery is part of a broader ongoing review, Fox News Digital has learned.

Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request. 

Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million. 

President Donald Trump may have made amends with SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, after referencing the billionaire in a speech Wednesday and after Musk attended a dinner at the White House Tuesday evening. 

While the two publicly exchanged harsh words in the spring after Musk left his post heading up the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tensions appear to have simmered in the following months. 

‘You’re so lucky I’m with you, Elon. I’ll tell you. Has he ever thanked me properly?’ Trump said at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum on Wednesday in Washington. ‘Although I do let him buy other than electric cars, but these are minor details. You know, we had a mandate which even Elon thought was ridiculous, that everybody has to have an electric car by 2030. And once, fortunately, he said, that’s a ridiculous thing.’ 

Trump’s comments came while discussing a portion of his massive tax and domestic policy measure known as the one ‘big, beautiful bill’ that he signed in July, which included a new tax deduction on car loan interest for purchases made between 2025 and 2028 permitting car buyers the ability to write off up to $10,000 annually in interest for certain loans on brand new cars.

After Trump’s speech, Musk posted on X: ‘I would like to thank President Trump for all he has done for America and the world.’ 

Tension between Trump and Musk reached an all-time high in May after the two publicly aired their differences regarding the ‘big, beautiful, bill.’ Musk was highly critical of the measure amid reports the measure would increase the federal deficit, while Trump Musk’s disdain for the bill was due to a provision that eliminated an electric vehicle tax credit that benefited companies like Tesla.

The two hurled insults against one another in May and June, with Musk claiming that Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election without the billionaire’s support. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going ‘CRAZY’ over cuts to the electric vehicle credits, and said that Musk had been ‘wearing thin.’

However, the two were seen together at conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s funeral in Arizona in September. 

Musk also appeared at the White House Tuesday for a dinner during Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington. Other tech executives who attended the dinner included Apple CEO Tim Cook and Dell CEO Michael Dell. 

The White House and Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.