For those who have spent time in the lead up to this moment, you may remember our warning that Elon Musk would eventually take a position against President Trump and actively work to undermine the MAGA agenda therein.
Tonight as the Senate debates the Big Beautiful Bill, that does not include subsidies for his electric vehicles and green energy initiatives, Elon Musk promises to organize a third party. This was all predictable.
[SOURCE]
The bill is imperfect, yes. However, the BBB contains the priorities of President Trump and those priorities are the goals and objectives of the people who voted to support his vision. Elon Musk is now actively working against the interests of the Make America Great Again movement, and he is intent on dividing the MAGA coalition.
Sometime around April of 2026 (approx. 15 months), if not sooner, Elon Musk will be in opposition to Donald Trump and demanding people choose.
Today is January 5th, 2025. Bookmark
— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) January 5, 2025
The GOP has a majority in the Senate, but somehow you’re allowing this unelected bureaucrat, Elizabeth MacDonough to dictate policy:
What is this ?
@FarmGirlCarrie
It’s inconceivable @LeaderJohnThune
that you are allowing a Parliamentarian
to dictate what goes into Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ legislation.
https://x.com/i/status/1939905914397671692
I asked about her position at least a week ago. I don’t remember civics including her/him. She made the news under Biden for some reason, now she’s back. When I researched this new addition to the Senate, I found she could be fired by Thune or even overruled by JD Vance. What’s the catch?
Not that it matters, but she has been the parliamentarian since 2012, appointed by Harry Reid.
serious question
has she done something like this previously?
yes, to both sides of the isle. She has probably aggravated Democrats more than Republicans from what I can see.
Notable Controversial Rulings and Actions
1. 2021: Minimum Wage in COVID-19 Relief Package (American Rescue Plan)
• Ruling: MacDonough ruled that a provision to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour in President Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package violated the Byrd Rule, as its budgetary impact was incidental to its policy change. This decision blocked the provision from being included in the reconciliation bill, which required only a simple majority to pass.
• Controversy: Progressive Democrats, including Rep. Ilhan Omar, expressed frustration, with some calling for MacDonough to be fired or her ruling to be overruled by Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris declined to overrule, and the Senate respected the ruling, but the decision highlighted tensions over MacDonough’s influence on progressive priorities. Critics argued her interpretation limited significant labor policy reform, while supporters noted her adherence to Senate precedent.
• Impact: The ruling underscored the parliamentarian’s power to shape major legislation, drawing public and political scrutiny, with some labeling her a “referee” of arcane Senate rules.
2. 2021: Immigration Provisions in $3.5 Trillion Reconciliation Bill
• Ruling: MacDonough advised that a Democratic proposal to provide a pathway to legal permanent resident (LPR) status for millions of immigrants, including Dreamers, could not be included in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. She argued that the policy change was “tremendous and enduring” and its budgetary impact was “merely incidental,” violating the Byrd Rule.
• Controversy: Progressives were outraged, with protests (e.g., blocking the Golden Gate Bridge) urging Democrats to overrule MacDonough. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed disappointment but accepted the ruling, while Republicans, like Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, supported it. Critics questioned whether MacDonough’s reasoning lacked precedent, as she cited no specific Senate adjudication to support her interpretation, but the ruling stood.
• Impact: This decision fueled debates about the parliamentarian’s role in blocking immigration reform and led to calls for procedural changes, though no action was taken to overrule her.
3. 2025: Medicaid Provisions in GOP “Megabill”
• Ruling: In June 2025, MacDonough rejected key provisions in a Republican budget reconciliation bill, including a plan to cap states’ use of health care provider taxes to collect federal Medicaid funding. This provision was projected to save hundreds of billions to offset Trump’s tax cut extensions but was deemed non-compliant with the Byrd Rule for being more policy-oriented than budgetary. She also struck other measures, such as limits on income-driven repayment options and SNAP cost-sharing with states.
• Controversy: The rulings frustrated Republicans, with Sen. Tommy Tuberville calling MacDonough a “WOKE parliamentarian” and demanding her firing, and RepLER: Greg Steube questioning her impartiality, noting her appointment by Harry Reid. Sen. Markwayne Mullin suggested her decisions were politically motivated. However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others, like Sen. John Kennedy, rejected overruling or firing her, citing respect for her role and Senate precedent. X posts echoed this sentiment, with some users like @The_FJC calling her a “liberal hack” with an agenda, though these claims lack evidence.
• Impact: The rulings forced Republicans to rework the bill to meet Trump’s July 4, 2025, deadline, highlighting MacDonough’s influence on GOP priorities. Her decisions were seen as a setback but consistent with her nonpartisan application of the Byrd Rule.
4. 2025: California Clean Air Act Waivers
• Ruling: MacDonough affirmed a Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision that California’s Clean Air Act waivers, which allow stricter air quality standards, were not “rules” under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Thus, CRA resolutions to overturn them required 60 votes, not a simple majority.
• Controversy: Senate Democrats, including Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Padilla, and Chuck Schumer, warned that Republican attempts to overrule MacDonough would set a “nuclear option” precedent, potentially undermining Senate procedure. Republicans pushing to overturn the waivers argued it was necessary to align with Trump’s agenda, but no overruling occurred. This sparked debate about the parliamentarian’s role in environmental policy and Senate norms “‘Once you give a mouse a cookie, it never ends,’ said Whitehouse.”
• Impact: The ruling preserved California’s environmental standards and reinforced MacDonough’s adherence to precedent, but it intensified partisan tensions over her influence.
5. 2017: Affordable Care Act (ACA) Repeal and Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
• Ruling: MacDonough ruled against including provisions to repeal parts of the ACA and the Johnson Amendment (allowing churches to support political candidates) in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act via reconciliation, as they violated the Byrd Rule. However, she allowed Republicans to reduce the ACA’s individual mandate penalty to $0, effectively neutralizing it.
• Controversy: These rulings frustrated some Republicans, who saw her as obstructing their agenda, but her compromise on the individual mandate showed flexibility. Democrats praised her impartiality, while Republicans consulted her to adjust their strategy, demonstrating her influence.
• Impact: MacDonough’s decisions shaped the final tax bill, balancing strict rule enforcement with practical outcomes, but they drew criticism from those seeking broader ACA repeal.
6. 2020: WTO Withdrawal Resolution
• Ruling: MacDonough initially ruled that Sen. Josh Hawley’s resolution to withdraw from the World Trade Organization was in order, but reversed herself two weeks later after new arguments from Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden, citing timetable requirements.
• Controversy: The reversal sparked debate about consistency, with some questioning whether external pressure influenced her. However, her willingness to reconsider based on new evidence was praised by others, like Sen. Richard Shelby, for her diligence.
• Impact: The episode highlighted the complexity of her role in navigating competing Senate interests, though it was less politically charged than other rulings.
Possibly. Both House and Senate have a parliamentarian that reviews legislation. As I recall, Pelosi made sure to have the House parliamentarian review ObamaCare.
But both usually operate on the sidelines. If the current Senate parliamentarian had previously made any similar recommendations, they didn’t get the media attention like they are now. All part of the Uniparty agitprop against President Trump.
Are these parliamentarian jobs allowed in the Constitution? Or are they a creation of, say, FDR’s brain fevers?
“serious question”
serious answer: What she has done in the past is moot…
Presently she is interfering in the passage of a bill the President has requested…
But, as usual, the spineless republicans, who are supposedly in control of the “Senate” and could easily fix the problem, are instead helping the dims/commies interfere with the President’s plans to “Make America Great Again”…
Heard someone claim on the news that it’s “hard to fire the parliamentarian because there are so few people who can do that job”.
Apparently there have only been 3… and… we’re worried we won’t be able to find a replacement. This is literally the dumbest take I have ever heard.
FIRE HER… run her right out of town and install a new person to do the job. Seems pretty easy.
There have been 6 Senate Parliamentarians; the first held the position for ~30 years, two served non-consecutive terms. There have been 21 House Parliamentarians (although that title wasn’t adopted until 1927).
The “catch” is: the republicans are protecting the dims/commies, as usual…
I’ve read this blog dailyfor 11 years and this is my first comment. Wasn’t sure what a parliamentarian was so I asked Grok, see below. If a parliamentarian is appointed by the Senate leader, and they feel she is not interpreting the rules correctly. Why don’t they just over rule or replace her?
The Parliamentarian of the United States Senate is a nonpartisan official appointed by the Senate Majority Leader to advise the Senate on the interpretation of its rules, procedures, and precedents. The role is critical in ensuring that Senate proceedings adhere to established protocols. Here are the key responsibilities:
• Advising on Senate Rules: The parliamentarian provides guidance to the presiding officer and senators on the application of Senate rules, often during debates or legislative processes, ensuring compliance with procedures like those governing debate, amendments, and voting.
• Interpreting Precedents: They interpret past Senate practices and precedents to resolve procedural disputes, offering clarity on complex or ambiguous situations.
• Budget Reconciliation Process: The parliamentarian plays a significant role in the reconciliation process, determining whether provisions in reconciliation bills comply with the Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in such legislation to avoid extraneous matters.
• Nonpartisan Expertise: The parliamentarian remains impartial, providing technical and procedural advice without regard to political outcomes, ensuring fairness in Senate operations.
• Drafting and Reviewing: They may assist in drafting resolutions or reviewing proposed legislation to ensure procedural compliance.
The parliamentarian’s rulings are typically advisory, but they carry significant weight, as the presiding officer (often the Vice President or a senator) usually follows their guidance. In rare cases, the Senate can overrule the parliamentarian’s advice by a majority vote, but this is uncommon due to the role’s respected expertise. The current Senate Parliamentarian, as of recent data, is Elizabeth MacDonough, who has served since 2012
I’d check out her bank account.
US Senate and House have their own rules, but most organizations follow a couple of parliamentary authorities, mostly Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. Having recently been the chair of a political party’s state convention, having a parliamentarian helps prevent meetings from reaching a stand-still from members’ use of “point of order” to block any action. But yes, under Robert’s Rules the chair may make a ruling and a member may “appeal the decision of the chair” which requires a second, is debatable, and requires a simple majority vote to sustain or overrule
But the senate rules for budget reconciliation are much more complex by design. The house has its own “rules committee” under “Jefferson’s Manual” which has much more power in controlling debate/points of order.
Generally correct but I believe that it needs a two thirds to over-ride the ruling of the chair.
a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; or prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; or closes, or limits, or extends the limits of debate; or limits the freedom of nomination or voting; or closes nominations or the polls; or deprives one of membership or office. It will be found that every motion in the following list belongs to one of the classes just mentioned.
http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm#48
But, many are not sure. Generally in meetings there are no parliamentarians and many RINO’s use this to maintain power and prevent the grass roots from taking control because they are unaware of rules. At a local convention I had a point of order because they were not following our bylaws. I was over ruled and I appealed the decision of the chair who promptly called me out of order, and moved on with business after shutting off my microphone.
Not much you can do unless others speak up which didn’t happen because many were unaware of what should have happened. Since moving ahead would have been against our bylaws, “suspending a rule”, there should have been a vote requiring two thirds after debate. I think.
Is the parliamentarian position defined, or allowed, under our Constitution?
Why don’t they write the rules in compliance from the get go?
sounds like, looks like and is a set up of some kind by the uniparty
Parliamentarian is another appointed position that can be used as a choke point/firewall to protect the bureaucracy.
Funny. I don’t remember seeing a choice for Senate parliamentarian on my ballot last election. Or on any ballot for any election. How does this female Boasberg clone claim the power to modify legislation?
Musk is a textbook example of Asberger’s/autism…brilliance in one defined area, and total ignorance and emotional immaturity in many others. His insistence in pursuing the ‘EV/green agenda’ dream, despite its unpopularity and financial issues; his extravagant purchase of Twitter, a platform that had never turned a profit, indicates a tunnel vision based on emotion rather than practicality. And when ‘children’ don’t get their own way, tantrums ensue. Is it beyond the pale to imagine that, at some point, Musk will turn on all those with contrary political beliefs who came back to Twitter? Who knows, but Musk’s current ‘tantrum’ is textbook.
Autism didn’t force Elon to go on Twitter and tell Americans that supported him to go “F ourselves in the face” while declaring that he’s “going to war for H1B.” He’s just a globalist scumbag. Enough with the excuses. Writing off Elon’s anti-American posturing is an insult to the millions of American autists who manage to get by just fine without this ugly behavior.
Just a big baby having a tantrum.
Yeah, actually it did.
My kids school is full of students with all this stuff, kids on the spectrum in some way, shape or form.
They have big issues with discipline, first of all and that certainly then impacts everything else.
They have huge blind spots for all that doesn’t interest them, which can be manners, personal hygiene, anything-this is why many of these kids, people wind up socially very awkward, if not even anti-social.
They have big, wide spanning issues and yet can be brilliant..
So to say millions manage it all just fine without the ugly behavior, sure, but millions also do not.
Lets remember here that every single person is unique, there is only one of each of us.
To lump people with serious mental issues into one group and say they are fine and then say the other group should also be fine because the other group is- this is entirely a wrong way of looking at this- it’s naive and uninformed.
I watch the students in my kids school have a serious struggle just to get through each day- many are not fine, can’t be fine and never will be fine and this is the reality- and there are millions of people like this.
Elon is Elon, like everyone, it’s a mixed bag we get.
We all have no idea at all what Elon can control and not control and to sit here guessing and deciding from the couch and posting it online is ridiculous.
You would be surprised what autism can drive a person to do. I can tell you first hand one of the sensations I STILL feel when frustrated is an intense feeling of skin irritation all over my body. I’m not sure how many other people respond to frustrating circumstances like this, but I can tell you it drive me and people like me absolutely crazy at times. This isn’t merely a matter of self control or personal discipline or emotional stability. It’s like an allergic reaction brought on by what appears to be stressful and/or confusing moments.
I’m closer to 60 than I am to 50 and after ALL these years, I have managed to work out ways to be a bit more normal. And I haven’t given up. But if you think it’s for lack of trying? I’m going to quote Elon Musk saying “Go F* yourselves in the face!” I know it when I see it. His mistake at the moment is not accepting that he doesn’t get along with everyone and should generally avoid certain forms of public presentation. Unfortunately, he sees himself as “unlimited” if only because the hundreds, thousands and millions of people he surrounds himself with all feed his ego beyond reality. He can’t see that in order to grow and continue, he will do best by limiting his public expression.
I think that is adrenaline. I literally “saw red” when an airman called me a liar standing in front of my desk. The accounting sergeant said he was ready to jump over his desk to save the guy.
Elon displays the symptoms of his diagnosis and people don’t get that this is what they are looking at.
” there’s no such thing as a neurotypical, everyone has an issue of some form”……..My totally ignorant and emotionally immature Aspie, though I just call him ..son.
He’s one laboratory accident away from becoming an evil super-villain.
Autistic my ass. Asberger’s my petunias! So sick of this being a badge of allowance and respect and a sign of his intelligence. Elon does something stupid everyone comes to his rescue and explains the stupidity as genius because of autism or aspergers. The signs he shows for either, particularily in his speech, is the fact that he is thinking in one language and translating to speak in another, something a genius does not have a problem with.
Mr. Musk’s divergence with President Trump seems to have started when the H1-B visa problems came up with the use of Indian short-term, lower-cost replacement labor came up.(plus two massive egos)
Our 2-party(?) system is a mess; I don’t believe there is enough civic/religious/or other personal virtues, to support a constitutional republic any longer.
SpaceX go Boom!
Last shot did. He is getting sloppy. Maybe he should work on his family life.
Sloppy? Could be for a wide range of reasons we can’t know about. We know NASA has had more than its fair share of disasters and for SOME reason cancelled its best achievement in the Space Shuttle and instead establishing a dependency on the Russian Soyuz. The woke mind virus has a way of spreading and infecting everything making all things worse whether at the supply side or in the engineering process or in QA. And that’s without going into the obvious motivations for sabotage by various parties who often resort to murdering people who speak out about entities like Boeing.
But before I further criticize your simple summary, do you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your claim of “sloppiness”? Because honestly, your reaction feels like an emotional response to explain technical failures you can’t comprehend.
He is almost 60. It is too late.
Unlike President Trump, so many of the Silicon Valley billionaires they were selected and installed this includes Elon. Their wealth ans station was developed by American taxpayers through DARPA over the last 60+ years.
Like “Life Log” a DARPA creation shuts down on 2-4-04 then presto, becoming Facebook 2-4-04 with the TPTB’s selection of Zuckerberg to be the reigning king of “Social Media”.
I appreciate Elon stepping forward, now I’d appreciate him stepping back.
Ultra-MAGA all the way with our Great American President Donald J Trump.
Third? libertarian party, Green, and more. Launching a party is easy, gaining popularity and ballot access is another. Until the election fraud is cured I don’t see more parties being an answer. After all if the vote isn’t honestly counted another major party probably just helps hide the fraud.
Well, since the Dims are done, the RINOS and some independents need another place. It would be interesting to watch this personality develop a new political party. We do not have kings here.
Musk is so impatient. Lots of the Special Interest in D.C. want it all right now. But Musk is unstable enough to throw billions into creating a new party with dim chance of success at anything other than being a spoiler. Ross Perot tried it. Musk should review history before he’s doomed to repeat it.
I think we can shut him down. We shot down DeSantis and he’s not even on drugs. I hope.
Trump is for America, Elo is for Elon, then America
Beautifully stated.
Trump’s approach to people is much the same as his approach to the governments of nation states. The big difference, Trump never forgets he’s the trustee of the mutual interests of our nation.
What others seem to forget about the BBB? This is a pivot bill. Perhaps it should be branded as The Great Pivot. Debt and spending reduction are important, but not at the expense of overall financial growth arising from the pivot, which needs plenty of liquidity and immediate access to cash to fund the spread and leverage needed.
Only a fool or a saboteur demands we throw out the good in the name of the perfect. That’s what some in Congress hope to see happen, and what a pious few in Congress are too vain or too thick to appreciate. Untimely cheapness, doctrinal rigidity and provincialism can sabotage The Great Pivot and wreck the whole show.
We’ll soon enough see if a majority in Congress realize the prime directive in every successful and enduring enterprise: Never, ever, ever, run out of cash. The success of this pivot depends on uninterrupted liquidity and access to cash to fund the scale, momentum and rhythm of real growth and vitality of commerce during the course of each successive day between now and much better.
That’s the only way we get there from here.
If Must establishes a 3rd party then a conservative has no hope for being elected president for decades in the future.
So nothing changes.
Oh, please.
It’ll just be another fringe movement like the Bernie Bros. Musk has already burned bridges with both liberal and conservative groups.
Elon is going to find out just how successful third parties are in America. If he wants to throw $200B into the toilet, so be it.
Tax payer funded.
G’bye Musk. That’s especially easy for me to say. STILL not on Twitter/X. I cannot agree with the terms and conditions of owning a Tesla and I kinda hate that all of their cars look almost identical to one another with only slight adjustments in size proportion — reminds me of modern airliners. All completely the same in a general sense. And most of the other initiatives are quite risky in many aspects.
I actually hope Musk’s hand is being over-played and the public sees it for what it is.
3rd party calling out the uniparty sounds like a winamin to me. Festivus everyday. The continued fraud, waste, and abuse, and constant war is what drove me to Ron Paul back in the day.
This new “Elon party” is essentially an attempt at blackmailing President Trump.
President Trump’s margin of victory in 2024, measured in votes and ballots cast in the Battle Ground States he won, was very small …. any very small percentage shift in votes and ballots cast would have changed the “Large Electoral Voted” outcome in 2024 and can (or will) change the outcome in congressional area votes in 2026, during primaries and the real event.
Elon’s business entities likely controls allot of ballots as well as influences certain types of voters.
It’s all about creating another vote magnet and ballots … this one is tilted decidedly as a potential to draw away the middle ground voters and “MAGA Purist Voters” as well as create opposition ballots.
Then we will add another conservative to splinter Musk’s votes who will throw everything to our real candidate. And another and another, until Musk has disappeared to tinker with his rocket man set.
You have NO idea what you are saying.
What you suggest hurts the same target that Musk is aiming to hurt … anything helping President Trump.
Yes, let’s just add one more divide and conquer party to America’s already divided, thus conquered people.
Musk needs to stay in his lane and avoid becoming enmeshed in politics.
Why do I get the feeling that the Trump, Musk, MacDonough drama is theatre offered as a distraction from something that is really important?
Because you have jumped onto a very well marketed narrative that it is theatre. As long as that floats about, people keep pretending Elon is important to PDJT, and working with him to take down the Deep State.
When presented with demand, imposition or ultimation my gut reaction is a middle finger almost touching their nose with a heart felt GFY!
But that’s just me.
He might start a Second party, I’m not so sure about a Third.
Like some of the Autistic I have worked with, Elon has the “everyone must think like I do” failing.
In some cases I am not certain a conception that others think differently can even get in.
Screw his electric cars. We taxpayers do not owe any subsidies for any specific product type as a matter of right.
His proposed “America Party” is self serving predatory economic cronyism, attempting to hijack our tax monies for his interests.
Not happening.
Outside of being mad that they aren’t being spoon fed sugar plums, they have nothing to say that isn’t already being said more effectively by the MAGA folks.
We should consider though long term how to address the disconnect between the eGOP and MAGA?
If he made a hybrid he could mop up.
Elon’s Asperger’s syndrome is out of control. Has he lost all thinking ability?
Who will join his third party? Democrats have turned their backs on him and Republicans are also pretty much done.
I hope his mental health improves somehow because we need people like him, but with their heads screwed on straight.
Aspberger’s or ketamine use/withdrawal/use/ rince and repeat?
What a hoot Musk is. Does he honestly think MAGA will abandon our leader and support him. He needs his meds adjusted. Total loose cannon
Will he hate Jews?
I didn’t like him from the beginning. You could see he began to think all the crowds were for him. They weren’t. They were there for Trump. He won’t peel off very many.
I believe Elon is more concerned with the excessive pork spending that the RINOs always screw US with. And I agree. They couldn’ even get rid of the excessive medicaid funding to states until 2031????!!!! And so many other blatant kicking the can down the road dates that leaves plenty of room that the spending decreases may never occur. Thune, Johnson and many others need to go. These people got us into this mess and they aren’t going to help get us out as proven last week.