In a move that has sparked discussions nationwide, President Donald Trump signed a law nullifying California's policy intended to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
This Trump decision to end the mandate is receiving applause from auto industry leaders, who consider it a win for both manufacturers and consumers alike, as Breitbart reports.
Trump conducted the signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. This legislative action effectively rescinds California's future ban on new gasoline vehicle sales. Attendees of the ceremony included high-profile figures from various sectors of the automotive and energy industries.
Support from industry leaders has been immediate and enthusiastic. Chris Spear, President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), voiced his approval, marking the end of what he called "crippling" and "detached-from-reality" policies. The presence of ATA's leadership in support of the legislation underscored the potential economic impact on the trucking industry from the original mandate.
API President and CEO Mike Sommers also lauded the legislation as an effort to allow Americans the freedom to select vehicles according to personal preferences and needs. According to Sommers, the law restores a sense of certainty that consumers and businesses had been lacking under the previous regulation by California.
One of the prominent voices in the corporate sector, General Motors (GM), echoed similar sentiments. GM emphasized that the law aligns emissions standards with the current market realities, thereby enabling greater consumer choice in vehicle types. GM's statement highlighted the desire for a consistent national standard to maintain competitiveness and support ongoing investments in innovation.
During the ceremony, Trump expressed his determination to protect America’s automotive industry from what he described as overreaching state regulations. He criticized California's regulatory approach, mentioning that it influenced multiple states and created difficulties for manufacturers making cars to suit dual standards.
"With the stroke of his pen, President Trump is restoring certainty," said trucking industry advocate Chris Spear, indicating the broader implications for the trucking industry’s operational stability. This sentiment was reflected across different sectors substantially influenced by this legislative reversal.
Trump voiced his overarching goal to prevent any single state from setting regulatory precedents for others. By dismantling the so-called California mandate, the President contended that nationwide uniformity in emission standards and vehicle sales regulations could be achieved.
The new law significantly impacts both economic and environmental planning across the United States. Opponents might argue that this decision could delay progress towards reducing carbon emissions, while proponents see it as reinforcing economic growth and consumer freedom.
Industry experts emphasize that allowing gas-powered cars to remain part of consumer choice reflects current market demands and realities. With the potential end of California's stringent targets, manufacturers feel more equipped to cater to market dynamics without being constrained by singular state mandates.
Following the president’s remarks, industry stakeholders reiterated their commitment to environmental improvement while balancing economic interests. Aligning emission standards nationally remains a road map that they believe will ultimately foster innovation.
The legislation marks a pivot back towards supporting conventional automotive options alongside the development of alternative energy vehicles. For companies like GM, it equates to an opportunity to provide a broader array of vehicles without the limitations of stringent state-centric restrictions.
President Trump concluded the event by reasserting that the decision symbolized a balanced approach, aimed not at dismissing environmental sustainability but at pacing it with economic realities. This legislative turn, according to supporters, positions the U.S. auto industry for robust future growth and customer alignment.
Critics of California's former mandate maintain that the new law will aid in stabilizing both logistics and freight industries nationwide. By leveling regulations, businesses from coast to coast may find it easier to navigate the complexities previously imposed by differing regional standards.
Former Capitol police chief Steven Sund is setting the record straight after former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) once again accused President Donald Trump of refusing to secure the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Speaking at a press conference, Pelosi described the recent lawlessness in Los Angeles, where rioters have thrown deadly objects at police and torched cars, as people getting lost in "the exuberance of the moment."
Even as she downplayed the anti-ICE riots, Pelosi attempted to paint Trump as being soft on political violence, contrasting his aggressive response to the chaos in L.A. with his actions on Jan. 6.
"In a bipartisan way, on Jan. 6 -- with violence against the Constitution, against the Congress and against the United States Capitol -- we begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard,” Pelosi told reporters. “He would not do it.”
In a series of posts on X, former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund said he made multiple requests for National Guard support before Jan. 6, and they were ignored.
Those requests went to the House Sergeant at Arms, who reported to Pelosi at the time. Sund highlighted a video clip of Pelosi saying she takes "full responsibility" for not doing more to prepare.
"ACT: On January 3, I made multiple requests for the assistance of the National Guard to help secure the Capitol on January 6 and was DENIED each time, leaving us underprepared for the attack," Sund wrote.
According to Sund, Pelosi withheld National Guard support for 71 minutes after he requested it at 12:58 p.m. on Jan. 6. Pelosi has since tried to deflect blame for her failures onto Trump, Sund said.
While they claim Trump was too slow to react on Jan. 6, Democrats are simultaneously denouncing his efforts to restore order in Los Angeles by sending in the National Guard.
They claim Trump is escalating tensions, but it's clear Democrats simply do not see the rioting as a problem. According to Pelosi, the people attacking police are just feeling "exuberant."
The media are also making light of the violence, returning to the "mostly peaceful riots" framing that dominated news coverage in the summer of 2020.
It's clear that Pelosi believes violence is a justified response to the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. Her mollycoddling of the L.A. rioters says it all.
At the same time, Pelosi continues to stoke outrage over the Jan. 6 "insurrection," dredging up old lies to attack Trump over the events of that day. She has no shame.
President Donald Trump shared the "surprising" reason Elon Musk turned against him in a bizarre public meltdown that Musk has since said he regrets.
Trump suggested that his alliance with the Tesla CEO fractured over electric vehicle policy -- with Trump saying he was surprised Musk didn't raise his concerns on the campaign trail.
Trump signed a resolution Thursday that overturns California's electric car mandate, which would phase out all gas-powered cars in the state by 2035.
In comments during the signing, Trump said he was surprised Musk endorsed his campaign in the first place, given Trump's public opposition to the mandate.
“This has been there from day one [that] we’re going to abolish the EV mandate. And Elon still endorsed me,” Trump said.
“Honestly, he never ever spoke to me about that. And I used to say, ‘I’m amazed that he’s endorsing me because that can’t be good for him," he went on.
Trump said he brought it up with his "friend," and the Tesla CEO told him that he had no issue, as long as all electric car companies would be treated the same.
“And I once asked him about it… He said, ‘Well, so long as it’s happening to everybody, I’ll be able to compete.’ It was a very interesting answer. I thought it was a very honest answer.”
It seemed that everything was "cool," Trump said... until it wasn't.
"I said, 'That's very cool. It's very good.' That was my answer. After that, he got a little bit strange… over much smaller things," Trump recalled.
When he suddenly turned against Trump last week, Musk cited concerns with the federal deficit, ripping Trump's reconciliation bill as a "disgusting abomination" -- but the vicious nature of the insults that followed pointed to something personal.
Trump reacted, mostly, with restraint as Musk called for Trump's impeachment, took credit for his election win and claimed, without proof, that Trump is implicated in the Epstein files.
As their relationship unraveled in public, the president expressed disappointment that Musk did not object to the "Big, Beautiful Bill" sooner, with Trump accusing Musk of being upset that the bill removes electric car tax credits.
"I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office at the time. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem."
Musk has since expressed regret for his erratic meltdown, but the president doesn't seem to be in a big hurry to reconcile.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is calling for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign as Democrats widen their attacks on the Trump administration's immigration agenda.
Noem was in Los Angeles to address the anti-ICE riots there when Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) disrupted her. He was detained and forcibly removed from the press conference.
The Trump administration says Padilla did not identify himself before he stormed in and "lunged" towards Noem, causing a scene. But Democrats dispute this, calling his expulsion an affront to democracy.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that Secret Service agents thought Padilla posed a threat after he ignored "repeated commands" to back away.
Noem later met with Padilla in private to discuss his concerns.
"I wish he would've acted that way in the beginning rather than creating a scene," she said in a social media post.
Still, Democrats have raised an outcry over Padilla's treatment as they ramp up attacks on Trump's immigration agenda.
Democrats have blasted Trump's response to the riots in Los Angeles as an "authoritarian" overreach, with Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) suing Trump over his deployment of the National Guard.
In a similar vein, Democrats are invoking democracy as they claim Padilla was targeted to silence dissent against the administration.
Schiff, a notorious Trump critic, says he is "disgusted" by the video of Padilla being detained, and that Noem should step aside.
"Kristi Noem should never have been appointed to that office," Schiff told reporters on Capitol Hill. "She should resign from that office. There ought to be an investigation of the conduct of those officers."
Padilla had "every right to go into that room and demand answers," Schiff added. "That is what a senator does, and for him to get that kind of abusive treatment, every senator who works in this Capitol should be offended by this and outraged by this."
While Democrats focus on the Trump administration's purported misdeeds, the White House says Schiff's anger is misplaced.
"Padilla stormed a press conference, without wearing his Senate pin or previously identifying himself to security, yelled, and lunged toward Secretary Noem," White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson said.
"Padilla didn’t want answers; he wanted attention. Padilla embarrassed himself and his constituents with this immature, theater-kid stunt -- but it’s telling that Democrats are more riled up about Padilla than they are about the violent riots and assaults on law enforcement in LA," she added.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized families and dependents of U.S. military members to evacuate key locations in the Middle East on Wednesday, Fox News reported. This comes as Iran-backed militias increase attacks on the region and tensions flare.
"The safety and security of our service members and their families remains our highest priority, and U.S. Central Command is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations across the CENTCOM AOR," a defense official told Fox News.
The news was shared by military publication Stars and Stripes on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday. "The American military has authorized 'the voluntary departure' of troops’ dependents from locations across the Middle East as tensions with Iran have risen," the publication wrote, noting the directive was from Hegseth.
The American military has authorized “the voluntary departure” of troops’ dependents from locations across the Middle East as tensions with Iran have risen.
One U.S. defense official said the order came from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.https://t.co/CsKrexKKo7
— Stars and Stripes (@starsandstripes) June 11, 2025
It's telling that the order applies to the families of those stationed in Iraq, Qatar, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates. However, it is primarily for those stationed at the U.S. Navy base in Bahrain, which is home to the largest concentration of military dependents.
A defense official noted that this is part of a broader plan. "CENTCOM is working in close coordination with our Department of State counterparts, as well as our Allies and partners in the region to maintain a constant state of readiness to support any number of missions around the world at any time," the defense official said.
This is part of a number of troubling signs for possible military action in the region. It's not unusual for these evacuations, which are funded at the expense of the U.S. government, to occur; however, it certainly signals a possible escalation of tensions.
There is no order for uniformed military personnel in these evacuations, which points to the need for military readiness. According to the Washington Post, there are fears of an Israeli strike on Iran, which could spark an active conflict in the region.
President Donald Trump is in talks with Iran about its controversial nuclear plan, which is at the center of the escalation. Unfortunately, those negotiations seem to be breaking down as other indicators suggest Iran has already violated its longstanding nuclear deal.
The United Nations has found that Iran may have violated its decades-old nuclear nonproliferation agreement. Now it appears the nation may have "stockpiles of near-weapons-grade uranium" in direct violation of previous arrangements.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found Iran in noncompliance because of "undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations." Iran has announced a new enrichment site at a "secure location" without giving specifics.
This move is "concerning" to Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association's director of nonproliferation policy. "If this turns out to be a facility that Iran has already built out, then it could become operational relatively quickly and pose much more of a risk," Davenport said.
Meanwhile, U.S. and Iranian talks are going nowhere despite several attempts. A sixth round will take place in Oman on Sunday with the hopes of diffusing this situation by offering sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for a solid deal to limit its nuclear program.
The world is in a precarious situation with the tension in Iran and the implications of its growing nuclear program. It will be up to Trump and all of those involved to come to a favorable solution before the situation gets out of hand.
The U.S. authorized voluntary evacuations of the embassy in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East on Wednesday as tensions with Iran continue to simmer, Breitbart reported. Diplomats, their families, and dependents are headed back to the U.S. as a nuclear deal stalls.
The action primarily affects personnel and their families in Bahrain, while no such order has been issued for the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. This is happening as President Donald Trump attempts to broker a deal with Iran over its nuclear capabilities.
The government message was shared to X, formerly Twitter, by news correspondent Daniel Cohen with an ominous message. "Monitoring a potential escalation with Iran. The U.S. has ordered nonessential staff to leave the Baghdad Embassy. Not insignificant..." he wrote.
Monitoring a potential escalation with Iran. The U.S. has ordered nonessential staff to leave the Baghdad Embassy. Not insignificant.
The U.S. Embassy in Bahrain - home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th fleet - says rumors about reduction of staff or a change of posture in any way is… pic.twitter.com/i5VINT6nfk— Daniel Cohen (@DanielCohenTV) June 12, 2025
The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is complicated by Israel's involvement in the situation. The nation is at war with Iranian-backed Hamas and has been the target of ballistic attacks from Iran.
Trump has asked Israel to hold its fire against Iran while the talks continue. However, the president has said the U.S. is prepared to take action against Iran if a deal cannot be reached.
However, Israel has already said that it is ready to proceed with attacks on Iran, whether or not the U.S. is on board, NBC News reported. This could bring the U.S. into the conflict as one of Israel's closest allies, even if there's no involvement.
Israel relies heavily on the U.S. for material and intelligence support for its military operations because of an established understanding. Even if the nation acts unilaterally in this situation, it could bring retaliatory attacks down on Americans in the region.
For this reason, the Defense Department is also allowing the voluntary evacuation of families and dependents of U.S. military personnel stationed in the region. It's clear that the U.S. may be bracing for the inevitable in this precarious situation.
Trump is currently in talks with Iran over its nuclear proliferation program. The president is trying to carefully broker a deal that will halt its progress in gaining nuclear capabilities, according to Fox News.
In a House Armed Services Committee Tuesday, General Michael E. Kurilla said he provided Trump with "a range of options" for Iran. However, the outgoing commander of the U.S. Central Command clarified that he was "in all favor of having a negotiated settlement that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon because of the consequences of conflict," hinting at a military solution.
It appears even Trump is concerned with the lack of progress on these talks. "Iran is acting much differently in negotiations than it did just days ago," the president told Bret Baier on Fox News Tuesday.
"Much more aggressive. It’s surprising to me. It’s disappointing, but we are set to meet again tomorrow – we’ll see."
Trump is doing his best to diffuse the situation with Iran and Israel, but it's a bad sign when evacuations are the order of the day. Still, the president is an expert negotiator and notoriously adverse to active war unless completely necessary.
Former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court Gordon R. Hall passed away on June 1, according to an announcement from the Utah Judiciary on Wednesday.
The late justice, known for his contributions in supporting the independence of the Utah court system, was 98 at the time of his death, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported.
According to his obituary, he was born on Dec. 14, 1926, and "enjoyed a lengthy and distinguished legal career.
"He was Tooele County attorney, 3rd District Judge, Justice, and the longest-serving Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court." the tribute went on.
Hall was appointed to the Utah Supreme Court in 1977 and served as chief justice from 1981 to 1993. Serving as part of the state's high court, Hall had the opportunity to leave a lasting mark on the state's rule of law, going forward.
He also served as the President of the Conference of Chief Justices, and led Utah’s Judicial Council, as well as sitting chair for the National Center for State Courts.
Additionally, Hall had the distinction of receiving the Distinguished Jurist Award in 1988, due to his contributions to the judiciary during his time on the bench.
Like many who sit on the bench, he had the opportunity to learn what it means to represent the people of his state prior to taking the Supreme Court position, thanks to Hall's career beginnings in private practice.
Current Chief Justice Matthew Durrant spoke out about his fellow jurist, talking about his respect for the late judge's dedication to their guiding principles:
“Chief Justice Gordon R. Hall was a visionary leader whose commitment to fairness, judicial integrity, and the rule of law shaped our courts for generations.
"His legacy endures in the independence of Utah’s judiciary and the many lives he influenced,” current Chief Justice Matthew Durrant said.
Hall also served as the Tooele County Attorney and a Third District Court judge in his time before the Supreme Court, working his way through the state court system, winning the respect of many.
Hall's obituary described a personal life full of family who loved the late judge, saying, "He was married to his true soulmate and love of his life, Doris Gillespie, in 1947.
"He is survived by his children, Rick and Craig Hall, grandson Brian Hall, as well as numerous accomplished nieces and nephews who are the enduring legacy of his now deceased siblings Ella Rae and D'Aure 'Buck.'"
The public dispute between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has taken a new turn as Musk expressed regret over his earlier criticisms of Trump’s policies.
The tension, primarily revolving around Trump's tax and budget legislation, saw a shift following recent communication efforts spearheaded by high-ranking officials.
Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of SpaceX, made headlines Wednesday by offering a partial apology on social media regarding his previous comments about President Trump. These comments had added fuel to an already volatile dispute focused on Trump's fiscal agenda. Musk’s online statement marked an attempt to mend the strained relationship with the president following days of discussions.
This move to calm tensions followed a direct phone conversation between Musk and Trump on Monday evening. The dialogue opened with Musk's vocal criticism of Trump's controversial tax and expenditure package, which has drawn a range of opinions over its potential to increase the federal deficit. As someone concerned about governmental budget strategies, Musk publicly voiced his concerns, which sparked friction with the administration.
Earlier in the negotiation process, on Friday, Musk engaged with both White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Vice President Vance. The involvement of these key figures suggested a concerted push to find common ground and reduce the discord. With Vice President Vance's participation—a Musk ally who Musk inspired to pursue the vice presidency—the conversation indicated a step towards reconciliation.
The increasing pressures around the discord were further emphasized by Musk's company, SpaceX, holding substantial federal contracts potentially vulnerable due to the ongoing conflict. Musk's critical remarks about Trump, coupled with his assertions about having influenced Trump’s election, had paved a challenging path for resolution.
Despite the initial hostility, Trump showed a willingness to de-escalate the situation. The president, who had initially threatened to revoke governmental contracts for Musk’s SpaceX, later signaled his appreciation for Musk’s gesture of diplomacy. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt communicated Trump's receptive outlook, noting his appreciation for Musk's statement.
The New York Times, meanwhile, initially reported the private exchange between Musk and Trump, which contributed to the subsequent public developments. By detailing the late-night conversation, the prominent media outlet shed light on the potential thawing of their icy relationship.
Behind the scenes, however, there lurked personal elements complicating the professional landscape. Trump, reportedly more personally disappointed than angered, regarded Musk’s sharp criticisms as a betrayal of their relationship. A Trump confidant suggested Musk's public "I'm sorry" could improve relations, but also warned that things might never be the same.
Adding a layer of complexity to the feud was Trump’s suspicion about Musk’s rumored drug use—a claim Musk vehemently denied. Trump’s longtime associate reflected on the president’s views about abstinence from substances, describing Trump’s unwavering stance on remaining sober as a pillar of his character judgment.
Musk's response to the drug-related accusations was a strong denial aimed at invalidating such claims. He emphasized his presence in numerous public and private engagements each week, suggesting the impracticality of substance misuse given his visible lifestyle.
The intricate narrative of political, professional, and personal dynamics surrounding Musk and Trump's relationship showcases ongoing challenges and efforts at finding equilibrium. From SpaceX's federal dealings to debates over fiscal responsibility, both parties seem to be re-evaluating the basis of their interaction.
As this saga continues to unfold, the implications for key players like Vice President Vance and SpaceX stand as critical factors. Musk’s willingness to apologize indicates a strategic recalibration that acknowledges both the benefits of governmental goodwill and the consequences of estranged political ties.
While the public and private reconciliatory signals suggest a shifting trajectory, the intricate web of disputes and alliances ensures more developments may lie ahead. For now, Musk's apology marks a pivotal moment in what has been a high-profile conflict.
Only time will tell if this step toward resolution will yield a lasting improvement in relations or serve merely as a temporary truce in a complicated relationship.
President Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that targets California's unprecedented ban on gas-powered cars.
The move prompted an immediate legal challenge from Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who has maintained California's place as a trendsetter in far-left policymaking on issues like climate and immigration.
California's first-in-the-nation ban was approved in the more favorable regulatory climate of the Biden era. Trump has pledged to end Biden's "Green New Scam," putting California's climate regime on the chopping block.
The ban would require all gas-powered cars to be phased out in the nation's most populous state by 2035. Trump revoked a waiver that the Biden administration granted that allows California to set stricter emission standards than those set by the federal government.
Trump called California's EV mandate a "disaster" that "would effectively abolish the internal combustion engine, which most people prefer."
Republicans in Congress had approved the resolution that Trump signed in May, using a procedure under the Congressional Review Act.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major carmakers, applauded Trump’s move.
“Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,” John Bozzella, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement.
While Democrats hold up electric vehicle mandates like Newsom's as pioneering moves to tackle a warming climate, opponents say they eliminate consumer choice and threaten a reliable technology - the internal combustion engine - prematurely.
Trump's move was swiftly challenged in court by Newsom and attorney general Rob Bonta (D), who accused Trump - who recently deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles without Newsom's approval of an "all-out assault on California" that will result in greater pollution.
"Trump’s all-out assault on California continues, and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement.
"And this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly owned subsidiary of big polluters.”
Trump has taken similar efforts to target pioneering environmental policies like New York's congestion pricing, which is meant to discourage people from using passenger vehicles.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) accused President Trump of revoking his invite to the White House' annual picnic, calling the move "petty" and vindictive - although Paul was in fact included.
Paul has been a thorn in Trump's side lately, targeting the "Big, Beautiful Bill" over concerns with deficit spending. The Kentucky senator has called for the funding on immigration enforcement - Trump's signature agenda item - to be slashed by $75 billion.
The libertarian senator, known for his contrarian streak, said he "lost respect" for Trump and accused him of being "petty."
“I like Donald Trump, but when they want to act this way, it’s where they begin to lose a lot of America who just wonders, ‘Why does everything have to descend to this level?’” Paul added.
The exchange marks a new low in the relationship between Trump and Paul, who notably opposed Trump's emergency declaration for his border wall in his first term, with Paul citing small government principles.
“The level of immaturity is beyond words,” Paul told CNN. “It’s just incredibly petty... I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse. And they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic. I don’t know. I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.”
The senator suggested the invite might have been revoked without Trump's knowledge, pointing to a "paid influencer campaign" involving immigration hawk Stephen Miller, who has been one of the most vocal defenders of Trump's bill, principally because of its massive hike in immigration spending. Paul's main objection to the bill is its increase in the debt ceiling, although he has raised broader criticisms.
"We can cut the proposed border funding in half, from $150 billion to $75 billion, and still secure our border and protect the American people," he wrote on X this week.
Trump can only afford a few defections on the Big, Beautiful Bill, which narrowly passed the House in May and is expected to face more changes in the Senate.
The president has slammed Paul's opposition to the bill, calling the senator "crazy" and an obstructionist who "never has any practical or constructive ideas."
In a Truth Social post, Trump denied that Paul was uninvited, saying "of course" Paul and his "beautiful wife" were included. Trump said it would not make sense to exclude Paul, since Trump is still trying to win his vote.
“He’s the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn’t he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women,” Trump said.
Another Republican critic of Trump, Rep. Thomas Massie (KY) - who Trump has called a "grandstander" - also said he was not invited to the lunch.