President Trump is appointing a longtime loyalist and budget hardliner, Russell Vought, to take over the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) when Elon Musk leaves.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is expected to cut the federal government with a sharp pen, with even Republicans voicing opposition to his plans for the military.
While Musk's bold, tech-driven approach to reforming government was fast and disruptive, Vought comes with an extensive background in government policy and budgeting that could help DOGE's reforms stick.
Trump acknowledged at a recent Cabinet meeting that Musk is headed back to the private sector, although Trump told the Tesla billionaire he is "invited to stay as long as you want—at some point he wants to get back home to his cars.”
Vought is expected to push for a $9.3 billion rescissions package that would claw back funding from the State Department, USAID, National Public Radio and PBS. Musk has already gutted USAID to a large degree, and Trump has said NPR and PBS should lose public funding because of their left-wing bias.
Vought has shown dedication to Trump's MAGA mission, having worked for Trump in his first term as OMB director before returning to the role this year.
Among Democrats, Vought is a figure both reviled and feared because of his role in crafting the conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025.
Democrats have ripped his hardline approach - which envisions using the impoundment power to claw back federal spending - as a threat to Congress' control over the public purse.
A senior OMB official said during a recent call with reporters that impoundment hasn’t been taken “off the table.”
Vought is also likely to focus on cutting federal regulations and implementing Schedule F, a civil service reform first introduced by Trump at the end of his first term that weakens job protections for federal employees.
But it isn't just Democrats who are voicing concern with Vought's approach. Some Republicans are up in arms over what they argue is a cut to the military.
Trump's 2026 budget proposal gives the Pentagon $1 trillion for the first time. But Republican defense hawks dismiss the number as gimmicky, since it includes a one-time supplement of defense spending through a process called budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to pass Trump's "big, beautiful bill" without Democratic support. The Pentagon's annual budget would otherwise stay flat at more than $890 billion.
Trump's budget calls for a $163 billon cut across the federal government, bringing domestic spending to its lowest level since the 1960s.
On the other hand, the budget surges spending for the Department of Homeland Security by 65% to support Trump's deportation agenda and calls for a 13% increase in defense.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Sonia Sotomayor has a well-established reputation for being a leftist on the Supreme Court, supporting all manner of Democrat causes and opposing President Donald Trump.
But her comments now have moved into new territory, territory in which she is advocating for lawyers to stand up and fight.
Carefully, she did not identify Trump by name, but during a recent address, she left no doubt in the minds of many against whom she advocates opposition.
"Right now we can't lose the battles we are facing," she told a meeting of the leftist American Bar Association.
She was talking to the ABA's Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section, and NBC said she considered her appearance there an "act of solidarity."
Trump, meanwhile, has opposed liberal activists in the judiciary and even has advocated that there be another endorsement organization specified so that law schools would not have to work through the ABA for their graduates' authorizations.
She said, without identifying specific "battles," said, "In all of the uncertainty that exists at this moment, this is our time to stand up and be heard."
"If you're not used to fighting losing battles, don't become a lawyer. Our job is to stand for people who can't do it themselves," she said.
The comment comes amid an extended war against Trump that is being assembled by district court judges across the nation, many of whom have issued nationwide injunctions halting the president's executive actions and imposing restrictions on his executive branch agenda.
The topics on which judges have bashed back have included deporting illegal aliens, limiting American citizenship for babies born to foreigners in the U.S. illegally, a long list of environmental rules, his plans to cut waste, fraud and corruption from the government, his plans to eliminate federal bureaucracies and jobs, and much more.
Actually, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court in constitutional disputes, Sotomayor previously has been scorched for "making public comments that some viewed as overly political or partisan."
That topic included her demands that law students organize to support abortion rights, a subject that has been before the court many times, and undoubtedly will appear there again.
Turley noted Sotomayor's blasts "presumably" targeted President Trump.
"Sotomayor made a number of inspiring comments to encourage lawyers to pursue justice despite the odds or challenges," Turley explained.
And they "appeared to veer into more partisan territory."
Her reference to "we" was a surprise, he said, and many viewed it as a rallying call for "the left."
He explained, "Clearly, such comments are subject to different interpretations. Newspapers like the New York Times made the obvious connection, stating that it was made 'against the backdrop of immense stress on lawyers and the legal system from the Trump administration,'"
Leftist lawyer Marc Elias, a key part of the fabricated 2016 conspiracy theory assembled by Democrats that alleged "Russia collusion" against Trump's campaign, then credited Sotomayor with "solidarity" to leftist ideals.
"She understands that while we must bring difficult cases and be willing to lose, we must always fight to win. And by lending her voice in 'solidarity,' she affirmed that it is 'our time to stand up and be heard,' he said.
Turley noted that Sotomayor previously lobbied publicly for abortion, telling students, "You know, I can't change Texas' law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don't like. I am pointing out to that when I shouldn't, because they tell me I shouldn't. But my point is that there are going to be a lot of things you don't like," and require public action.
Turley admits he's often been critical of members of the high court for appearing before "ideologically supportive groups."
And he calls this circumstance the "rise of the celebrity justice."
He said her calls to "fight this fight" were injudicious.
"The court is set to hear a number of key cases on the Trump policies, including a key argument next week on the rapidly expanding number of national injunctions imposed by district courts. This is not the time to be seen as speaking in 'solidarity' with one side," he said.
Brianna Lynn explained at The Federalist the dangers of Sotomayor's argument for the benefit of one side.
"The fact that you have a sitting Supreme Court justice [Sonia Sotomayor] saying we have to 'Stand up' and 'Fight this fight' … is reinforcing the criticism that judicial overreach is occurring and that the judiciary is being used as a political weapon rather than the judiciary being used as a neutral arbiter of the law."
She continued, "And the fact that [Justice Sotomayor] said that we have to fight for 'lost causes' — the role of a lawyer is to zealously advocate for a client, of course. But the role of a judge is to zealously advocate for the Constitution, and those aren't always the same thing."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Donald Trump White House already had released a list confirming more than $5 trillion in new investments in the United States that are coming because of his trade policies.
"From advanced manufacturing to cutting-edge artificial intelligence infrastructure, these historic investments – spurred by President Trump's unwavering commitment to revitalizing American industry – will reinforce the U.S. as the global leader in innovation and economic growth," the statement, which estimated the creation of more than 451,000 jobs, said.
For example, some $150 billion is coming through IBM expansion, $900 billion through Amgen's manufacturing expansion, $500 billion through the Project Stargate AI work, $500 billion from Apple, $500 billion from NVIDIA and more.
Now add another $600 billion, at least, to that.
A Fox News report outlined some details of an economic partnership that Trump signed with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during a visit to Saudi Arabia.
Industries in the bull's-eye include energy, defense, mining and space.
Trump said the dozen memorandums of understanding and letters of intent will create many new American jobs.
While specifics haven't been released yet, the report said there will be a $20 billion investment by Saudi Arabia's DataVolt in AI centers, another $80 billion in "cutting-edge transformative technologies," and $142 billion in a defense package.
The report said, "Several of the agreements tracked with previously stated ambitions by both Washington, D.C., and Riyadh, particularly when it comes to defensive deals. While the extent of the details of the agreements remain unclear, there were deals included that had not been previously flagged ahead of the president's visit to the Middle East, like the 'cooperation agreement' between Saudi Arabia and the Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Asian Arts, as well as an agreement established with the Smithsonian Institute National Zoo and Conservation Biology."
The White House issued a statement explaining, "The United States and Saudi Arabia signed the largest defense sales agreement in history – nearly $142 billion, providing Saudi Arabia with state-of-the-art warfighting equipment and services from over a dozen U.S. defense firms."
Trump also said he hopes Saudia Arabia soon will join the Abraham Accords. Those already involve Israel and a list of its Arab neighbors in which the two sides, long at war, essentially are agreeing to normalize relations.
Trump succeeded in establishing a handful of those agreements during his first term, but Joe Biden essentially accomplished nothing to build on the precedent-setting language agreed upon before he moved into White House.
Besides Saudi Arabia, Trump also is visiting the United Arab Emirates and Qatar during this trip.
Previously announced by the White House have been promises of investments of $100 billion from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, $55 billion from Johnson & Johnson, $50 billion from Roche, $27 billion from Eli Lilly and Company, $25 billion from Novartis, $21 billion from Hyundai, $5 billion from Stellantis and more from Corning, GE Aerospace, Schneider Electric, Abbott Labs, AIP Management, Paris Baguette, TS Conductor and Toyota.
At the time, the White House confirmed, "That doesn't even include the U.S. investments pledged by foreign countries, including $1.4 trillion from the UAE and $1 trillion from Japan."
President Donald Trump's administration fired Shira Perlmutter, head of the U.S. Copyright Office, on Saturday, Fox News reported. This comes just days after the Librarian of Congress was given the pink slip.
Perlmutter was reportedly ousted without warning this weekend. She received the news via email that read "your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately."
The White House did not provide a response to media inquiries, but this firing is part of a broader trend of house-cleaning in the government. Trump sees some of these bureaucratic holdovers as obstacles to implementing his agenda.
However, the news came after Perlmutter released a report favoring copyrights for materials used to train artificial intelligence, so the left ran with the conspiracy theories. Some are blaming the Department of Government Efficiency head, Elon Musk, as Democrats cry foul.
The Trump administration has been weeding out officials who are adversarial to the president or simply not doing their job. The White House has yet to explain its reasoning for Perlmutter, but there may be a hint based on what happened last week with Carla Hayden, who was removed as Librarian of Congress.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained the reasons for Hayden's ouster in a news conference Friday. "We felt she did not fit the needs of the American people," Leavitt explained.
"There were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children, and we don't believe that she was serving the interests of the American taxpayer well.So she has been removed from her position, and the president is well within his rights to do that," Leavitt told the press.
Hayden was notified by email as well. "Carla. On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service," the email, sent from the White House’s Presidential Personnel Office, said.
The reasons for firing Hayden have become clear and will likely be similar for Perlmutter. However, Democrats couldn't help but blame Musk for the firing based on Perlmutter's support for copyrights, even with the rise of AI.
According to CBS News, Musk supports abolishing protections for intellectual property based on a tweet he posted. Rep. Joe Morelle, a ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, ran with the idea, calling Perlmutter's "a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis."
The New York Democrat charged that it was "surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk's efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models." There's no telling whether firing one official would end the debate, but it seems Morelle is convinced anyway.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) similarly protested the firing, according to Reuters. They claimed that Congress "purposefully insulated this role and the U.S. Copyright Office from politics."
Without the White House's confirmation, there's no telling what exactly led to Perlumtter's firing. However, leftists will always ascribe the worst motivations to Trump regardless of the truth.
Federal prosecutors reminded jurors that the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs was "not about a private celebrity's sexual preferences" but rather about his "coercive and criminal" behavior, Breitbart reported. The sex trafficking trial began on Monday and could take as long as 10 weeks to decide.
Opening arguments painted a picture of a depraved individual whose fame and money allowed for the worst alleged abuses. Some of the alleged crimes occurred at so-called "freak-outs," which were days-long parties filled with sex and drugs.
Some have alleged abuse, violence, and coercion amid the fetid festivities. "He was… a cultural icon, a businessman, larger than life — but there was another side to him, a side that ran a criminal enterprise," prosecutor Emily Johnson said.
A jury of eight men and four women will hear the details of the case over the course of the trial. While cameras were not permitted in the courtroom, media coverage during this sensational trial reveals dreadful details.
The nature of Diddy's case includes sordid details about the music mogul's decadent lifestyle and its darker side. The prosecution has instructed jurors not to be dazzled by celebrity in this case but to focus on what constitutes a crime.
"He was… a cultural icon, a businessman, larger than life — but there was another side to him, a side that ran a criminal enterprise," prosecutor Emily Johnson told the courtroom. Johnson shared that Combs allegedly "brutally" beat ex-girlfriend Cassandra "Casssie" Ventura.
The prosecutor also alleged that Combs threatened to use videotapes of Ventura performing sex acts during one of his parties as a means to control her. Johnson noted that Combs was known for this sort of behavior with his lovers.
The prosecution painted Combs as a violent individual who was used to getting his own way through threats. "Let me be clear… this case is not about a celebrity’s private sexual preferences," Johnson said.
"It’s coercive and criminal," Johnson went on. With so much stacked against him, Combs' team will mount a defense that acknowledges his poor behavior while explaining away anything alleged to be criminal.
Teny Geragos, an attorney for Combs' defense, said that the "case is about love, jealousy and infidelity and money." Geragos tried to make it seem like the alleged victims were nothing more than jilted lovers.
She said the women who would testify against Combs are "capable, strong, adult women," perhaps attempting to make it seem impossible for them to have been victimized by the likes of Combs. As for ex-girlfriend Ventura, Geragos said theirs was a "toxic relationship between two people who loved each other," she claimed.
"Being a willing participant in your own sex life is not sex trafficking," Geragos said. She added that while the defense would not deny there was domestic violence, it's not one of the charges the jury will be asked to deliberate.
Ventura testified on Tuesday about the violent encounter that went viral last year after surveillance video surfaced. "I chose to leave. I got out and Sean followed me into the hallway, and grabbed me, shoved me to the ground, kicked me, and dragged me back to the room and took my stuff," Ventura explained, according to NBC News.
The trial ahead promises many more horrifying and disgusting details of alleged crimes. Combs will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars if convicted, but he is still innocent until proven guilty.
A senior staffer for Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) had her car stolen in an armed carjacking on Friday in a Washington, D.C. neighborhood where many congressional staffers live.
Katie Heller was carjacked at a Harris Teeter in Navy Yard. Her work laptop, phone, iPad, staff identification, and bag were all stolen along with her car.
Two males ages 14 and 15 were arrested Saturday for the crime, and two firearms were recovered. It is not known whether the car or other items were also recovered.
The 15-year-old was charged with carjacking, and the 14-year-old was charged with carrying a pistol without a license and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
Jacobs's office has not commented on the incident so far.
Navy Yard has been the scene of a number of high-profile crimes in recent months.
While overall violent crime is down 22%, vehicle crimes are up 10%.
Residents have been documenting the crimes on an X account called Navy Yard Crime.
The most recent post on the account said there were a large number of car break-ins on April 29. The carjacking was not included in the posts.
In 2025 so far, there have been 104 carjackings in D.C., and 79% of them involved guns.
More than half of arrests this year were of juveniles, with most of them living at a D.C. address.
In 2023 and 2024, there were two carjacking incidents involving politicians.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was carjacked at gunpoint near his home in Navy Yard in 2023, and in 2024, former Trump administration official Michael Gill died from his injuries after being shot during a carjacking.
In other crimes, Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) was assaulted in her D.C. apartment. Most people have long known that D.C. was out of control due to longtime Democrat-dominated government, but it seems like things are getting worse than ever.
Senator Amy Klobuchar has stirred political discourse with her recent remarks about former President Joe Biden's candidacy in the 2024 presidential race, Breitbart reported.
She suggested that Biden should have exited the race earlier, which might have allowed the Democratic Party to benefit from a competitive primary.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Klobuchar shared insights into the potential ramifications of Biden's decision to remain in the election. Her comments have generated considerable conversation as they touch on strategic decisions within the Democratic Party.
Klobuchar offered a nuanced perspective, acknowledging that the Democratic Party could have potentially been strengthened by an early primary. The Senator was clear in her assessment, conveying that the party must not anchor itself in past decisions but instead concentrate on present challenges.
During the interview, Klobuchar emphasized, "You know, everything we look at in a rear-view mirror after you lose an election. Yes, we would have been served better by a primary, but we are where we are."
She further insisted that while there might be benefits from reflecting on past actions, the focus should remain on addressing current issues facing the nation.
In an era where political discourse often revisits previous administrations, Klobuchar urged a shift in focus. According to her, “We’re not on the History Channel right now, and I believe that President Biden can come out and speak and do interviews whenever he wants.” Her statement suggests a belief in Biden's capability to communicate effectively in the political arena.
Senator Klobuchar drew attention to the strategy of their Republican counterparts, suggesting that they might be more interested in revisiting history instead of tackling present-day issues. She challenged this approach, urging a focus on current governmental priorities.
“I will say this, we’re not in the History Channel and our Republican colleagues, instead of dealing with where we are now, think they’re in some kind of a way back zone that they can go in some kind of bring time backwards and blame everything on Joe Biden,” Klobuchar elaborated.
In aligning the Democratic Party's future course, Klobuchar highlighted key initiatives and policy priorities. She stressed the importance of addressing economic and social needs through legislation aimed at lowering costs and increasing the availability of affordable housing.
The Senator also pointed out the necessity for making energy more affordable for Americans, as well as supporting entrepreneurs across the nation. Her vision indicates an intention to cultivate an environment where innovation and economic support are accessible to all.
“Donald Trump is the president right now, and we have to deal with helping the American people,” Klobuchar argued, underlining a critical engagement in present responsibilities over retrospective criticism.
Klobuchar’s comments reiterate a recurring theme in political dialogue: the debate over when to embrace change and the importance of seizing opportunities in the moment. The elements of her message reflect a commitment to addressing tangible needs, fostering entrepreneurship, and maintaining focus on viable policy action.
In closing her statements, Klobuchar affirmed her party’s resolve, “My party, we want to focus on lowering costs and finding ways to build more housing and get more affordable energy, and working with our entrepreneurs all over the country to seize on this moment.”
Chief Justice John Roberts defended the role of the courts as an umpire against "excesses" from the other branches of government, even as he continued to ignore widespread misconduct from rogue judges.
While he did not name President Trump, Roberts clearly took a veiled jab at the President, who has repeatedly condemned activist judges for obstructing his administration.
"Well, I've already spoken to that. You know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions," Roberts said at the event in Buffalo, New York. "That's what we're there for," he said, referring to the Supreme Court.
The courts have issued an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions blocking Trump in various ways from pursuing his agenda. Defending the "independence" of the judiciary, Robert said it is the court's role to correct the "excesses" of the other co-equal branches, but he pointedly failed to mention the excesses of the courts themselves.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president," he said.
"Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence."
Roberts had previously spoken out against Trump in March after an Obama appointee, James Boasberg, took the extraordinary step of ordering Trump to turn back deportation flights.
When Trump called for the judge to face impeachment, Roberts issued a rare public response stating that the normal appeal process is the appropriate avenue for contesting a ruling.
The problem, as Trump and many others see it, is that the courts are engaged in a practice of systematic and abusive meddling that rises beyond a mere "disagreement."
While an independent judiciary is obviously important, judges must also respect the limits of their own power. Roberts' conservative colleague, Justice Samuel Alito, acknowledged this balance in a recent dissent, writing, "Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law."
While Roberts has yet to publicly comment on the judicial activism that is cropping up everywhere, his court has not been able to avoid the issue completely.
Last month, the Supreme Court ordered Trump to "facilitate" the return of Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but the justices also instructed a lower court judge in the case to "clarify" her ruling in a manner that reflects "the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs."
The Supreme Court has an opportunity to rebuke judicial activism later this week when it hears arguments on birthright citizenship. The Trump administration is using the case to advance its broader objections to the rampant abuse of nationwide injunctions.
Judicial activism is damaging the integrity of the courts, and that ought to concern Roberts, no matter what he thinks about Trump and his rhetoric.
President Trump fired the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter, continuing a purge of suspected "woke" operatives at the Library of Congress.
Perlmutter received an e-mail from the White House explaining that, “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.”
Perlmutter was handpicked by Carla Hayden, an Obama appointee who ran the Library of Congress until her sudden firing days ago.
Both women were identified as "deep state liberals" by a conservative activist group, American Accountability Foundation.
"The President and his team have done an admirable and long-needed job cleaning out deep state liberals from the federal government. It is time they show Carla Hayden and Shira Perlmutter the door and return an America First agenda to the nation's intellectual property regulation," Tom Jones the president of the American Accountability Foundation told the Daily Mail.
Trump's wide-ranging purge of "wokeness" from the federal government has included nominally non-partisan institutions, such as the military, that have been recently ideologized by left-wing activists.
Hayden is a regular Democratic donor who criticized efforts to ban LGBT-friendly literature targeting children. Her ten-year term would have ended in 2026.
Perlmutter used to be a policy director at the Patent and Trademark Office and worked on copyright and other areas of intellectual property, the AP reported.
Her firing comes after the Copyright Office released a report on the use of copyrighted materials to train AI models. President Trump is a big supporter of the AI industry, and his close ally, tech billionaire Elon Musk, has called for intellectual property laws to be repealed.
Democrats have suggested Perlmutter was fired because of her report on AI, which was critical of some uses of copyrighted works.
"But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” the report said.
Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, claimed the timing is "surely no coincidence" without providing anything further to back up the claim.
“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” Morelle fumed.
The Justice Department confirmed Monday that deputy attorney general Todd Blanche, who is also Trump's former defense attorney, has been named acting Librarian of Congress.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Paul Perkins has been named acting register of copyrights, and Blanche's deputy chief of staff Brian Nieves is the deputy librarian of Congress.
A top economic adviser to President Trump said new taxes on the rich aren't likely - despite Trump's suggestion that it would be "good politics" to make top earners pay more.
A day before Republicans released their tax plan, Kevin Hassett said a tax hike on the rich is "probably not going to happen."
“No, it’s not in the plan right now,” Kevin Hassett told Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures.
Trump has floated a tax hike on the rich to help pay for his sweeping agenda, which includes a tax cut for workers who rely on tips - an idea his electoral opponent Kamala Harris adopted.
Republicans in Congress have resisted Trump's push to raise taxes on the rich, which runs afoul of conservative orthodoxy against raising taxes.
Draft legislation released Monday includes many of Trump's tax proposals, including tax cuts on tips, overtime, and Social Security, but the bill does not include a tax hike on the wealthy.
“But it’s probably not going to happen," Hassett had said of the tax hike. "He literally is putting his priorities first and those priorities are in both versions of the bill that I’ve seen.”
Republicans in Congress are trying to pass Trump's agenda in one "big, beautiful bill," with his first-term tax cuts in danger of expiring at the end of the year.
“But the president is clear that he’s got the objectives that he wants to achieve for the American worker like no tax on overtime," Hassett said.
"That no tax on overtime, by the way, it’s a huge benefit. We were doing some estimates that for a typical unionized worker might be 100, 200 dollars a week. He’s got those things as top priorities in the bill.”
Trump has said any tax increase on the rich would be small, and that it would be "good politics" to make the rich pay for tax relief for those earning less.
"I actually think it's good politics to do it where richer people give up. And it's a very small – it's like a point – but they give it up to benefit the people on lower income," Trump told reporters at the White House last week.
Still, in a Truth Social post, Trump said Republicans "should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!”
At this stage, it appears clear that Republicans do not have the appetite for Trump's proposal.