Much has been written in recent days about the war of words between Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown-Jackson in the opinions handed down in Trump v. Casa, Inc., the case involving an injunction issued in a case challenging birthright citizenship.

But as I pointed out in a Post on X Friday morning, Barrett’s decision was written on behalf of herself and the five other justices in the majority. The fact that Barrett was assigned this opinion by the chief judge (the chief judge decides who writes the opinion when he votes with the majority) is a signal that the other five justices turned her loose on Jackson. Such an unsparing smackdown of the most junior justice with a vastly different view of the judicial function would have been received much differently had it come from one of the other five justices in the conservative wing of the Court.

But coming from another female justice, one with only two more terms on the Court than Jackson, it was the least harsh way to deliver the rebuke that the majority opinion represented. But the language was anything but gentle, and the point was anything but subtle. 

If Jackson seems out of her element, there’s a reason. There have been many career paths followed by justices who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. But it is quite uncommon for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court without meaningful experience at the level of an appellate court, as is the case with Jackson.

Justice Elena Kagan charted a very different course to the Supreme Court, largely through academia. However, before joining the court she did serve in various DOJ positions in the Clinton administration, and as the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama. The solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court.  Kagan also wrote extensively on legal issues during the nine years she served as both a professor and dean at Harvard Law School.

Another outlier was Justice Lewis Powell, who joined the Court in 1972 directly out of a large law firm where he had practiced corporate law for 35 years, never having been a judge in any court at any level. 

Jackson did not join the Court with no experience as a judge as was the case with Justices Kagan and Powell. But the judicial experience she had is not necessarily conducive to the largely cerebral approach of judging that happens on the Supreme Court.

Jackson hashad  a distinguished academic career, having graduated from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School with honors. In the 17 years between Harvard Law School and her first judicial appointment, she had several noteworthy positions in various legal enterprises, including five years as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Jackson also served as an assistant federal defender in the District of Columbia for three years, during which she enjoyed success as a trial lawyer.

Her first judicial appointment was to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2014, where she served as a district judge for seven years. In June of 2021, following President Biden’s nomination, Jackson was confirmed to replace Merrick Garland on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

But only eight months later, Biden named her to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. In her eight months on the Court of Appeals, Justice Jackson authored only two opinions. 

The practical reality was that Biden nominated a district court judge to a seat on the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices who decide cases by majority vote. 

District court is where federal cases begin – where ‘cases’ and ‘controversies’ are first decided. The district judges are the ‘referees’ between the litigants, and sometimes they serve as the decision-makers on the outcome of the cases. There is a significant amount of trial work where the district judge presides alone over the proceedings. Many quick decisions and judgments are made during a trial, often with little time for research or considered analysis.   

Even where time and research are available, the district judge is still working ‘solo’ with the assistance of one or more law clerks. The final decision on such motions belongs to the judge alone. 

District judges largely operate independent of their peers in the same courthouse. Their decisions are not binding on each other. They preside over their own dockets and make decisions in the cases assigned to them as they see fit.

Under this system, legal mistakes and errors are inevitable. The only requirement for proceedings at the district court level – including trials – is that they be fair. It is not required that they be ‘error-free.’ Only when errors result in unfairness that prejudices one side or the other is the outcome of the case called into doubt.       

Appellate courts sit in review of the outcomes in trial courts. They focus on the errors in the case presented. While broader legal questions are sometimes an issue on appellate review, the focus is primarily on the presence or absence of errors in the case in the district court, and whether any identified errors justify altering the outcome in that court. 

The Supreme Court plays a very different role. While it does make a judgment about the correctness of the outcome of cases, the focus of the Supreme Court is normally on the broader legal implications for hundreds/thousands of other cases in the future from affirming or reversing the case being reviewed.   

The federal district judge often plays the role of interrogator of the attorneys representing each side. Anyone who has been a trial attorney for any substantial period of time in federal district courts understands this. The questioning by that district judge can be hostile, aggressive, condescending, dismissive, humiliating, etc.  But that questioning is focused on the facts and specific legal issues presented in that case, and not the broader implications of how the outcome of that case might impact other cases. Part of the reason is because that district judge’s decisions are not binding on other district judges.

Jackson just completed her third term on the court. This chart, which is from the 2024-2025 term, is highly revealing in terms of one of the issues that stands between her and her colleagues – her conduct as a justice is still influenced by her eight years as a district judge, i.e., she spends much more time examining the attorneys before the court than do her colleagues.

The same source has a similar chart for the 2023-2024 Term of the Court, and the numbers are no different.

Setting aside this quantitative measure, in listening to many oral arguments of the Court this past term, one gets the very familiar vibe from Jackson of a district judge interrogating one counsel or the other to wring out admissions or concessions about the specifics of the case. The focus is on the outcome of the case, and not the broader implications that the outcome might foretell.       

Justice Samuel Alito can often present in the same manner, but he spoke less than half the number of words as Jackson. She separates herself from her colleagues both in terms of how much time she is involved in the dialogue and her sharply partisan tenor that gives away what her likely vote will be in pretty much every case with any political implications.

Her rhetoric in dissenting from the Trump v. Casa – ‘With deep disillusionment, I dissent’ – seems an almost unintended peek behind the curtain of her thinking.  What the majority did was take away one of the most powerful weapons possessed by a district court judge to shape how a case goes forward from the outset. 

The progressive activist inner district judge in her – who seeks only to ‘do right’ – is protesting that loss.

The Senate has completed consideration of President Donald Trump’s $3.3 trillion, 940-page agenda bill, sending it back to the House of Representatives to sync up before hitting the commander in chief’s desk for his signature.

It first passed the House by just one vote in late May, and now it must advance through the chamber one more time before it can be signed into law.

That’s because the Senate made some key changes to the legislation, chiefly to pass the ‘Byrd Bath’ process in which its various measures are weighed for whether they adhere to the strict guidelines of the budget reconciliation process.

Republicans are using budget reconciliation to pass Trump’s agenda on taxes, the border, energy, defense and the national debt. It allows the party in power to pass fiscal legislation while sidelining the minority – in this case, Democrats – by lowering the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 to 51. 

Here are some of the key changes between the two versions:

Medicaid

Stricter work requirements have been the crown jewel for the GOP, being included in both versions. The bill would require ​​able-bodied, childless adults between the ages of 18 and 64 to work at least 80 hours a month to maintain their benefits, or by ​​participating in community service, going to school or engaging in a work program.

But there are more divisive changes, like tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate. The rate change would, year-by-year, lower the provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6 %to 3.5%. The plan was tweaked to comply with Senate rules, and now starts in fiscal year 2028. 

The House bill, in comparison, would have frozen states at their current rates and placed a moratorium on new provider taxes.

It’s a sticking point for moderate House Republicans who could see their states be forced to foot more of the bill for Medicaid than they currently do, risking politically damaging cuts to the program.

The Senate bill also includes a $50 billion fund to help rural hospitals in a bid to ease the concerns of Republicans in their own chamber.

Debt ceiling

The Senate bill aims to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, $1 trillion higher than the House bill called for.

The U.S. national debt is currently just over $36 trillion.

A failure to raise that limit – also called the debt ceiling – before the U.S. government runs out of cash to pay its obligations could result in a downgrade in the country’s credit rating and potential turmoil in financial markets.

Trump has made it a priority for congressional Republicans to deal with the debt ceiling and avoid a national credit default.

A bipartisan agreement struck in 2023 suspended the debt ceiling until January 2025.

Multiple projections show the U.S. is poised to run out of cash to pay its debts by sometime this summer.

Taxes

The Senate version of the legislation provides more generous corporate tax benefits than the House version, while placing limits on Trump’s newer policies, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay.

Both bills sought to permanently extend the income tax brackets of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

The Senate bill makes permanent some corporate tax breaks that the House bill only temporarily expanded. It also makes permanent the standard deduction for personal income taxes, while the House bill only extended it through 2028.

The Senate bill would also allow people to deduct taxes on up to $25,000 of tipped wages. That deduction would begin to phase out for people making $150,000 per year or $300,000 as a married couple.

On the House side, the deduction is eliminated for both married and single filers making above $160,000. There is no cap of any kind on the amount that can be deducted, however.

Those same income differences are at play between the Senate and House versions of Trump’s ‘no tax on overtime pay’ promise. Whereas the Senate bill would allow people to deduct up to $12,500 in overtime pay, the House version did not include a stated limit.

Artificial Intelligence

The House version of the bill would have effectively blocked states from implementing their own AI regulations – a provision that was stripped out of the Senate bill even despite negotiations with critics to salvage the measure.

Sen. Masha Blackburn, R-Tenn., led the Senate GOP opposition to the measure, arguing it would prevent states from shielding populations who are vulnerable to the pitfalls of AI.

After talks with key senators fell through, Blackburn and Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-sponsored an amendment to remove that provision. It passed 99 to 1.

Outside of Washington, 17 Republican state governors wrote to Congress objecting to the AI moratorium. 

‘This is a monumental win for Republican governors, President Trump’s one, big beautiful bill, and the American people,’ Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, one of the signatories, wrote on X after it was removed.

USAID will no longer send foreign assistance across the globe, with the State Department taking over any such programs that President Donald Trump’s administration wishes to continue, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Tuesday.

Rubio made the announcement in a Tuesday statement, saying USAID had for decades failed to ensure the programs it funded actually supported America’s interests. The State Department will take over foreign assistance programs beginning July 1, he said.

‘Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown,’ Rubio wrote.

‘This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Under the Trump Administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission in America that prioritizes our national interests. As of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance. Foreign assistance programs that align with administration policies—and which advance American interests—will be administered by the State Department, where they will be delivered with more accountability, strategy, and efficiency,’ he continued.

The move comes after the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gutted USAID as part of Trump’s effort to remove waste, fraud and abuse from the federal government.

The agency came under fire for many funding choices, including allocating $1.5 million for a program that sought to ‘advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’ and a $70,000 program for a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland.

As a result, Rubio announced on March 11 that the State Department had completed a six-week review and would cancel more than 80% of USAID programs — cutting roughly 5,200 of USAID’s 6,200 programs.

Democrats have blasted the Trump administration’s efforts to trim foreign aid programs, and many activists have protested the plans. Actress Charlize Theron lashed out at the administration on Monday.

‘The world feels like it’s burning because it is,’ Theron said at the annual Charlize Theron Africa Outreach Program Block Party, according to Variety.

‘Foreign aid cuts brought HIV and AIDS programs in my home country of South Africa to an absolute standstill,’ Theron said. ‘All of this is not just detrimental, it’s dangerous. People will lose their lives. Many have already, unfortunately, and at a frightening rate. It’s absolutely heartbreaking to see this kind of unnecessary suffering.’

Theron also criticized recent immigration raids in Los Angeles and claimed that women and LGBTQ people are also under threat of ‘being erased.’

‘Here in Los Angeles, in the U.S. and across the globe, we are moving backwards fast. Immigration policy is destroying the lives of families, not criminals. Women’s rights are becoming less and less every day, queer and trans lives are increasingly being erased, and gender-based violence is on the rise. This isn’t just policy, it’s personal. F— them,’ she said.

Theron emphasized, however, that there is hope in ‘standing up, organizing, protesting, voting and caring for each other, and refusing to accept that this is the new normal.’ She touted her charity as an example.

Fox News’ Diana Stancy and Lindsay Kornick contributed to this report

The House of Representatives is expected to take up the Senate’s modified version of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ this week.

The Senate passed the bill after a marathon weekend session, which included Democrats forcing a read-through of the entire 940-page text. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

The bill first passed the House in late May by just one vote – and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will have a margin of just three Republicans to advance it again.

Both moderate and conservative House Republicans still had various concerns about the bill as of the weekend, but it’s not immediately clear if it will be enough to force GOP leaders to pause their ambitious timeline of getting the bill to the president’s desk by Fourth of July.

‘The House will work quickly to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill that enacts President Trump’s full America First agenda by the Fourth of July. The American people gave us a clear mandate, and after four years of Democrat failure, we intend to deliver without delay,’ House GOP leaders said in a joint statement.

‘This bill is President Trump’s agenda, and we are making it law. House Republicans are ready to finish the job and put the One Big Beautiful Bill on President Trump’s desk in time for Independence Day.’

Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told Fox News Digital on Monday that the House could start voting as early as Wednesday at 9 a.m. on the first procedural hurdle, with final passage possible later that day or Thursday.

House GOP leadership held a brief call with lawmakers on Saturday to discuss their expectations on the timing of the bill, while also urging them to air concerns with their Senate counterparts directly – rather than on social media.

Meanwhile, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and his team began taking temperatures in the House GOP conference remotely on Sunday, even as the Senate still considered the bill.

‘We want to get on this as soon as possible, so be prepared,’ Emmer told lawmakers, Fox News Digital was told.

But a source familiar with whip team operations told Fox News Digital on Sunday that conservative fiscal hawks had concerns about the Senate’s version of the bill, particularly after the parliamentarian said key provisions must be stripped out.

Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to fast-track a massive bill advancing Trump’s agenda on taxes, the border, defense, energy and the national debt. 

Budget reconciliation allows the party in power to sideline opposition – in this case, Democrats – by lowering the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to 51. But the legislation must adhere to certain guidelines, including only adding measures that deal with the federal budget or national debt.

The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan, unelected Senate staffer who helps guide the chamber through its complex procedures. The parliamentarian is chosen by the Senate majority leader, without term limits, and is typically selected from someone already working in the parliamentarian’s office due to their deep knowledge of its mechanisms.

Measures deemed non-germane to the final bill included a provision banning Medicaid funding from covering transgender medical services and a measure aimed at slashing funding to states that allow illegal immigrants to use Medicaid services.

But the Senate made its own changes to the House bill even without the parliamentarian’s input; the Senate added a $50 billion rural hospital fund to offset concerns from Senate Republicans about Medicaid cuts still in the bill.

A provision was also added late Saturday morning that raised tax deductions for whale hunters, an apparent bid to court Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who had various concerns about the bill.

The Senate bill would also increase the debt limit by $5 trillion, compared to the House bill’s $4 trillion. The U.S. debt is currently over $36 trillion.

House Freedom Caucus Policy Chair Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote a lengthy post on X listing his issues with the bill.

‘The Senate BBB has a deficit problem. 1) CBO shows the Senate bill misses the House framework by $651 billion EXCLUDING interest. Even adjusted for dynamic growth revenues – interest in light of front-loaded cost vs. backloaded savings lifts cost to $1.3 Trillion,’ he began.

Among his other issues were the debt limit increase and the added benefit aimed at Alaska.

‘There remain numerous substantive problems – from illegals on benefits to funding sex change operations, no REINS Act regulatory relied,’ he posted.

Roy told reporters on Tuesday that he was not confident in the final vote happening by July 4, ‘I think the odds are hell of a lot lower than they were even 48 hours ago, or 72 hours ago.’

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said on ‘Fox Report’ on Sunday, ‘If it does pass the Senate and comes over with those significant changes, it changes the framework that we agreed upon in the House from a spending perspective.’

‘When you do that, there are a lot of us that are going to have pause because we’re not cutting as much spending as we wanted to cut previously because of decisions that the parliamentarian has made. So it’s going be challenging,’ Steube said.

Meanwhile, multiple House GOP moderates are threatening to vote ‘no’ over Medicaid cuts – specifically, changes that would shift a greater cost burden onto states that expanded their Medicaid populations under ObamaCare.

A source close to Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., told Fox News Digital that she would vote against the bill if the Senate did not adhere to the House’s Medicaid language on Saturday.

Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., said in a public written statement, ‘I’ve been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers across [California’s 22nd Congressional District].’

‘I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R.1 – otherwise, I will vote no,’ Valadao wrote.

On the lawmaker-only call Saturday, both Johnson and Scalise urged Republicans to keep their negotiations and concerns about the bill private.

‘They’re not going to be reading your social media, so putting it there doesn’t help. You need to reach out to them directly, they’re in the thick of it,’ Johnson said, Fox News Digital was told.

Senate Republicans rallied to send President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ back to the House, notching a major victory in their record-shattering march toward getting the legislation signed into law.

Nearly every Republican in the upper chamber coalesced to advance Trump’s $3.3 trillion megabill, save for Sens.Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Rand Paul, R-Ky, and Susan Collins, R-Maine. No Senate Democrat crossed the aisle to support the bill.

Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote was needed to push the bill across the finish line – unlike on Saturday, when the Ohio Republican descended on Capitol Hill in anticipation of a tight vote to proceed with debate on the bill.

That comes after Republican leadership tried to win over the votes of Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, with sweeteners in the final, amended version of the bill. 

The bill now heads to the House, where fiscal hawks in the House Freedom Caucus are frustrated with what they say are shallow spending cuts, and moderates are concerned over cuts to Medicaid. All have warned that they may not support the bill. 

Still, Republican leaders have made clear that they intend to have the bill on Trump’s desk by Friday.

Many House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called on the Senate to change as little as possible. A product that could pass the House was front of mind for some Senate Republicans as the day dragged on. 

‘We’re talking to the House,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said. ‘We know they’re going to have some issues over there, just like we had some issues when it came over here, too. But we think we’re going to pass a bill that they can pass.’

House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, the chief tax writer in the House, said he was ‘optimistic’ about the bill on his way to the Senate floor Tuesday morning. 

‘We’re moving to the point that we’re getting more balance, and what I’ve said all along is let’s have balance in the bill,’ the Missouri Republican said. ‘We’re going to get this done, we’re going to get this to the president by July 4.’ 

Republicans pushed the chamber from the end of June to the beginning of July after a marathon weekend that saw a high drama unfold on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., bleed time, hours of mostly one-sided debate, the occasional protest in the Senate gallery, a grueling blast of amendments and the penultimate vote to move the ball forward for the president’s ambitious agenda.

The blur from Monday to Tuesday, like the weekend slog before it, was not without its own dramatics.  

Senate Democrats tried numerous times to shelve the legislation during the ‘vote-a-rama,’ while Republicans sought to revive certain measures that were scrapped – like provisions that would have booted illegal immigrants from Medicaid – or amendments to sate key Republican holdouts. 

And before the bill was put on the floor for a final vote, last-minute deals were struck and changes made in a ‘wraparound’ amendment to attract holdouts. 

Included was the doubling of the rural hospital fund to $50 billion, which was pushed by Collins, and a rollback of the start date of supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) work requirements for states with higher payment error rates, like Alaska. 

Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ is crammed with his and congressional Republicans’ legislative priorities, including billions for the Pentagon and to bolster the White House’s border and immigration agenda, the permanent extension of his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, deep spending cuts and an effort to reform Medicaid.

Senate Republicans have pitched the bill as a way to both turbocharge the economy and as a means to prevent Trump’s first-term tax cuts from expiring. They have simultaneously used it as a vehicle to achieve deep spending cuts in the neighborhood of $1.5 trillion.

But Senate Democrats have railed against the package for the millions it could boot off of Medicaid and the trillions it could add to the federal deficit.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released two sets of scores Saturday and Sunday that reflected both current policy and current law. Under current policy, the bill would tack on just over $507 billion over the next decade. But under current law, the package would add roughly $3.3 trillion.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., countered that when it came to spending, Senate Democrats were being hypocritical. 

‘I’ve been here a long time,’ Thune said. ‘And I’ve not been involved in a single spending debate and fight in which Republicans were trying to spend less, and Democrats were trying to spend more, with one exception. 

‘And that’s national security,’ he continued. ‘Democrats are always willing to cut defense but never want to cut anywhere else.’

But Schumer accused Trump of ‘lying’ about the bill, particularly over the nature of proposed cuts to Medicaid and the economic growth potential tied to the tax package. 

And in one final act of defiance ahead of the bill’s final passage, Schumer had the official title of the legislation ‘The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act’ nixed. 

‘The American people will not forget what Republicans do in this chamber today,’ Schumer said. 

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk threatened to support primary challenges of GOP senators who vote in favor of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ prompting pushback from some senators who spoke to Fox News Digital. 

‘I’ll take President Trump’s endorsement over Elon’s any day of the week back home,’ Kansas GOP Sen. Roger Marshall told Fox News Digital.

‘Look, we need to pass this bill because it helps fulfill President Trump’s agenda. His priorities were to secure the border, bring back prosperity and security. I think if we do those things, if we bring back the prosperity and the security, we’re going to get re-elected. Elon’s continuing his little spat, we are ignoring him. Let’s get this bill across the finish line.’

GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama told Fox News Digital that the ‘bottom line’ is that ’51 of us are going to vote for this tonight.’

I saw some of the things he’s upset over, the subsidies that we’re cutting out of energy, you know, the wind and solar. He thinks that we need to do more with energy, and I agree with that, but we can’t keep funding it through the federal government. We’ve got to go out there and do it the right way through private enterprise like he’s done it.’

Missouri GOP Sen. Schmitt praised Musk’s work at DOGE, saying he has a ‘ton of respect’ for the former DOGE chief and said he should be congratulated for the ‘incredible thing’ he did for the country, finding waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government.

‘Everybody’s entitled to their opinions,’ Schmitt said. 

GOP Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty told Fox News Digital that by the time primary elections come up in 2026, the country will ‘already be seeing the benefits of the bill.’

We’re going to see more growth and more tax benefits, more revenue benefits, I should say, so, I don’t think that the doom and gloom being predicted by many is actually going to manifest itself,’ Hagerty explained. ‘In fact, I think we’re opening the door to a new golden era, as President Trump likes to say.’

South Dakota GOP Sen. Jon Hoeven pushed back on the criticism that the bill would increase the deficit by arguing the deficit would be reduced via revenue growth and savings. 

I think people understand that he, you know, didn’t like the one big, beautiful bill,’ Hoeven said. ‘So I don’t know that people have paid, you know, nearly as much attention to it this time around.’

Marshall, when asked if he thought Musk’s primary threats would hurt Republicans in the midterms, said, ‘I haven’t given it a second thought today.’

It would be a big speed bump in certain states, in Kansas, probably not so much. I think President Trump was wildly popular in most of these states. I think we need to find a way to get Elon back on board. He’s a smart person, brings a lot to our economy. Let’s figure out how to bring Elon back into the fold here.’

Musk intensified his ongoing feud with Trump and his allies this week in a political warning to lawmakers that he would work to unseat them if they voted in support of Trump’s bill.

‘Anyone who campaigned on the PROMISE of REDUCING SPENDING, but continues to vote on the BIGGEST DEBT ceiling increase in HISTORY will see their face on this poster in the primary next year,’ Musk posted to X Monday evening.

The message was accompanied by an image of Pinocchio sitting on fire and the caption, ‘LIAR Voted to increase America’s DEBT by 5,000,000,000.00’

‘Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,’ Musk declared in a post on X on Monday.

On Tuesday morning, as the bill was being debated in the Senate, Trump warned that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a ‘monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.’

‘DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible?’ Trump told the media Tuesday morning as he departed for a trip to the Florida Everglades to visit a new migrant detention center. ‘He gets a lot of subsidies. But, Elon was very upset that the EV mandate is going to be terminated.’ 

His response followed a question regarding whether he would deport Musk, who is originally from South Africa. Trump responded, ‘I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look.’

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.