Bill

They pull giant boxing gloves over aging, sometimes shaking hands.

They approach a black punching bag on weary, sometimes wobbly feet.

Then they wail.

Lord, do they wail.

They hit the bag with a left-handed jab, a right-handed reverse, a hook, another hook, an uppercut, another jab, bam, bam, bam.

They end the flurry with kicks, side kicks, thrust kicks, wild kicks, their legs suddenly strong and purposeful and fueled by a strength that once seemed impossible.

Outside of this small gym in a nondescript office park in Monrovia, they are elderly people dealing with the motion-melting nightmare that is Parkinson’s disease.

But inside the walls of Kaizen Martial Arts & Fitness, in a program known as Kaizen Kinetics, they are heavyweight champs.

Ranging in age from 50 to 90, spanning the spectrum of swift strides to wheelchairs, they are the most courageous athletes I’ve met.

They show up here every couple of days hoping that they’ll move enough to keep the evil Parky at bay. They’re trying to punch him out, kick him off, scare him away, and they’ll endure more than an hour of sometimes painful exercise to make this happen.

They are frail women screaming, “Jab!” and shaky men screaming, “Hook!” and everyone counting with clenched teeth through 75 minutes that stretch the shrinking muscles and test the weary optimism.

Bill Plaschke participates in a boxing class for people with Parkinson’s disease at Kaizen Martial Arts Studio.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

I am in awe of them, perhaps because I am one of them.

I, too, am living with Parkinson’s disease.

The irony, huh? I’ve spent my entire career writing triumphant stories about athletes overcoming illness and adversity, only to reach the home stretch struggling to find a similar triumph in a story about me.

It’s not easy. Now I know what all those subjects of all those feel-good stories understood about the truth behind my positive prose. Degenerative disease sucks beyond any inspirational adjective. Incurable illness stinks beyond any hopeful headline.

I’ve got Parkinson’s, and it hurts to even say it. I’m still mobile, still active, I don’t have the trademark tremors that distinguish the famously afflicted Michael J. Fox or the late Muhammad Ali but, damn it, I’ve got it.

I was diagnosed four years ago after complaining of weakness in my right arm. That weakness has disappeared, but it’s a constant struggle to keep everything else from slowly going to hell.

Every day it feels like I’ve just run a marathon. I move well, my balance is fine, but I’m always tight, always creaking. The amount of medication required to keep me active is so immense, my pills come in gallon jugs and I spend entire Dodger games trying to discreetly swallow them in the press box.

I move slower now. My fiancee Roxana qualifies for sainthood because whenever we go out, she must patiently wait for me to get dressed, which takes forever and is accompanied by the unholy sounds of struggle.

I don’t smile as much now. It’s harder to smile when afflicted with the trademark Parkinson’s masked face. When I FaceTime with my darling Daisy, I worry she won’t see past my dour expression and never know how much her granddaddy loves her.

Until now, my condition has only been known to my family. Not even my bosses knew. I didn’t look like Parky, I didn’t act like Parky, so why should I publicly reveal something so personal and embarrassing?

Yeah, I was embarrassed. I felt humiliated in a way that made no sense and total sense. To me, Parkinson’s implies frailty, Parkinson’s implies weakness.

But let me tell you, a 72-year-old woman pounding the living hell out of a punching bag ain’t weak.

And that’s why I’m writing about this today.

If my boxing classmates can have the strength to sweat through their tremors and wallop through their fears, then I can certainly have the strength to celebrate them without worrying what sort of light it casts on me.

I’m proud to be one of them, and the purpose of this column is to reflect that pride and perhaps make it easier for other folks afflicted with Parkinson’s to come out swinging.

Alan Shankin is assisted by Azusa Pacific University physical therapy student Desiree Alvarado as he participates in a boxing class for people with Parkinson’s disease at Kaizen Martial Arts Studio.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Officially, Parkinson’s is a neurodegenerative disease impacting both motor and non-motor systems. Translated, the brain slowly stops producing dopamine, which is crucial for movement, and the loss of this neuro-transmitter affects everything from your stride to your speech.

Roughly one million people in the United States have it, and there’s no cure for it, and it generally gets worse as one gets older. As Michael J. Fox himself once said, it’s the gift that keeps on taking.

You don’t die from it, but it can be hard to live with it, yet there is one thing that unquestionably helps slow its progression.

Exercise. Movement. Pull your achy body off the couch every day and work those quivering muscles, stretch those tight joints, perhaps join one of the many Parkinson’s programs in town that involve everything from dancing to hiking.

“For people living with Parkinson’s disease, regular exercise can reduce symptoms, help treatments work better and potentially even slow the disease progression,” Rachel Dolhun, principal medical advisor at the Michael J. Fox Foundation, wrote in an e-mail. “For some, exercise can look like participating in boxing classes. For others, it’s water aerobics, dancing or playing pickleball. Just remember that any type of and amount of exercise can positively support your journey.”

If you’re like me and you just want to punch Parky in the face, boxing works best. The 83 tough souls who t pay $179 a month to battle in the Kaizen Kinetics program agree.

“I hit the bag really hard like I’m hitting Parkinson’s,” said Rich Pumilia, 66, a lawyer from Monrovia. “Hitting it back for what it’s doing to me.”

I became aware of Jody Hould’s program, which she leads with the help of husband Tom, son Zac and Anthony Rutherford, shortly after I was diagnosed. I kept seeing their pamphlets in doctors offices and rehab centers. At the time, they were part of the popular Parkinson’s-battling Rock Steady Boxing program that has several locations through southern California. By the time I worked up the courage to fully face my illness and call the number on the pamphlet two years ago, Kaizen had become an independent program with a similar focus on boxing.

”Boxing is balancing, posture, turning, pivoting, extension, range of motion, using your core, everything that’s important to fighting the disease,” said Hould, who started the program nine years ago in memory of her late mother, Julie, who died of complications from Parkinson’s. “Plus, it’s fun to punch something.”

Hould and her team run a fast-moving program, barking out a series of punches and kicks while offering gentle reminders to those who hook when they should jab.

“Parkinson’s doesn’t take any vacations, it doesn’t take any days off, we have to be on top of our game, we have to be proactive in our fight,” Hould said. “Not only is it good for the spirit, it’s good for the mind.”

But it can be tough on the ego, as I quickly learned when a frail white-haired woman out-punched me one day while screaming at the bag. Another time an aging man with tremors and shuffled steps pounded the bag so hard it skidded into my feet.

I once showed up with a cut on my left hand and informed Hould that I would not be boxing that day.

“You still have your right hand, don’t you?” she said. “So you box one-handed.”

Bill Plaschke, right, and Paul Tellstrom team up during a boxing class for people with Parkinson’s disease at Kaizen Martial Arts Studio.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The 75-minute sessions are hard. Every exercise and maneuver are seemingly designed to do something I now have difficulty doing. Sometimes it hurts. Sometimes you want to be anywhere else.

But it works. It can’t kill Parky, but it can quiet him. Hould never promises a cure, but she sees some relief in those who join the battle. There was one boxer who eventually abandoned her walker. Others have seen a reduction in their tremors. Throughout the windowless gym there is real hope that this disease can be slowed.

Pumilia is convinced his condition has improved after attending classes for eight weeks.

“When I was diagnosed, my doctor said you have five good years left before your life is going to be impacted,” said Pumilia. “Now my doctor is basically saying, ‘I don’t know what you’re doing, but keep doing it.’”

Sharon Michaud, 65, a retired insurance executive who has also come to class for eight years, agrees.

“Without a doubt, it’s helped me,” said Michaud, who is noticeable in the class because she moves like a gymnast. “With Parkinson’s it’s easy to get into a funk and get depressed. You come here and it’s nice to know there are other people like you. I’m amazed more people don’t know there’s places like this out here.”

Maybe this story will shed some light on that. Maybe this story will inform a closeted Parkinson’s patient about programs like Kaizen Kinetics and empower them to pick up the phone and join.

If you decide to come to Monrovia, I’ll be the breathless guy in the back still unable to deliver a knockout punch but continually inspired by fellow fighters to keep trading blows with my hardest of truths.

I leave that gym sweaty and sore but uplifted with the reminder that I am blessed to still lead a wonderful active life filled with family and friends and work and travel and so, so much hope.

I have Parkinson’s. But, by God, it doesn’t have me.

WASHINGTON — The clamorous end to President Trump’s alliance with Elon Musk is increasing pressure on the White House over its signature legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — a bill under intense scrutiny in the Senate that Musk wants killed over its price tag, but that Trump views as critical to the success of his presidency.

The bill faces strong headwinds among senators across the Republican spectrum, including fiscal conservatives who say it authorizes unsustainable spending, as well as moderates who fear the consequences of offsetting costly tax breaks in the bill with steep cuts to Medicaid.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin among those seeking to decrease spending in the bill, told NPR this week that it has “no chance of passing” the Senate in its current form.

“It’s easy to be the parent that says, ‘We’re going to go to Disney World.’ It’s hard to be the parent that says, ‘yeah, but we can’t afford it,” Johnson told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday. “To get to yes, I need a commitment to return to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending.”

Trump’s relationship with Musk, the world’s richest man and the largest Republican donor during the 2024 presidential campaign, shattered on Thursday in an exchange of public insults between the two men. After leaving his role in the administration last week, where he was assigned to cut federal spending and government waste, Musk sounded off on the bill as an “abomination” that would cause the national debt to soar.

Trump responded by suggesting Musk opposed the legislation because it includes cuts to energy tax credits that have benefited Tesla, Musk’s electric vehicle company. The billionaire entrepreneur may also be angry, Trump mused, because his recommendation to head NASA was rejected — an important position for SpaceX, another Musk business.

Those comments set off an online tirade from Musk that claimed credit for Trump’s election victory and accused the president of links with Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious child sex offender.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X, his social media platform. “Such ingratitude.”

Musk contributed over $280 million to Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign. But his tenure in the White House has come at a steep cost. Tesla’s profits plummeted 71% over the first three months of the year, with reputation rankings showing a similarly precipitous drop amongst consumers. In Thursday alone, as his feud with Trump escalated, Tesla’s stock price dropped 14%.

“I’m not even thinking about Elon,” Trump told CNN’s Dana Bash in a phone interview on Friday. “He’s got a problem. The poor guy’s got a problem.”

Musk was also quieter on Friday, focusing his social media activity on his companies, a sign that both men see mutual destruction in the fallout from their feud.

But the source of their feud — the bill — remains on thin ice.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill could add $2.4 trillion to annual deficits over the next decade and result in 10.9 million people losing their health insurance, prompting GOP senators like Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, where 28% of the state population is enrolled in Medicaid, to express concern.

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, told reporters that the caucus is open to exploring cuts to another popular health program — Medicare, for Americans 65 and older — if it results in lowering the overall costs of the bill.

“The focus, as you know, has been on addressing waste, fraud, abuse within Medicaid and, but right now, we’re open to suggestions that people have them about other areas where there is, you know, clearly, waste, fraud and abuse that can be rooted out in any government program,” Thune said in a news conference.

Asked whether Medicare cuts are on the table, Thune replied, “I think anything we can do that’s waste, fraud and abuse are open to discussions.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, defended the bill against Musk’s attacks on Friday and said his calls to kill the bill were a “surprise.”

“I don’t argue with Elon on how to build rockets,” Johnson said. “I wish he wouldn’t argue with me about how to craft legislation.”

Johnson has said his goal is to have the legislation passed into law by Independence Day, before lawmakers start traveling home for a series of long summer recesses.

But there are other reasons for the deadline. The Treasury Department anticipates the country could risk default unless Congress raises the debt ceiling by August. And tax cuts passed in 2017, under the first Trump administration, are set to expire at the end of this year, leading Republicans to warn of a 68% tax increase if the bill fails.

June 5 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk‘s government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump’s sweeping legislative agenda bill.

Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending.

“The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon’s governmental subsidies and contracts,” Trump wrote.

Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker.

Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going “crazy” after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration.

“I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. “He just went crazy!”

Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May.

Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help.

He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump’s campaign effort.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X.

Musk has criticized the proposed “one big, beautiful” federal government budget bill as increasing the nation’s debt and negating his work with DOGE.

The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed.

“I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago,” Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon.

“This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress,” he continued. “It’s a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given.”

If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, “and things far worse than that.”

The president said the “easiest way to save money … is to terminate Elon’s governmental subsidies and contracts” with Tesla.

Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is “time to drop the really big bomb” on the president.

Trump “is in the Epstein files,” Musk said. “That is the real reason they have not been made public.”

Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: “Have a nice day, DJT!”

He made a subsequent post that asks: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”

Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.

Two British cruise guests have been arrested in Ibiza for fleeing without paying their onboard expenses.

They cut and ran, leaving an unpaid bill of £2,685, police said.

They were caught about three hours after leaving the ship at the airport and promptly arrested.

“The couple tried to leave the cruise liner in a hurry with their luggage, declining to pay the cost of expenditure linked to their holiday,” a National Police spokesperson said.

They now face charges of defrauding the cruise line.

Neither the cruise line or the passengers have been named.

They were described as a 23-year old male and a 18-year old female.

Police said the outstanding bill relates to ‘several consumptions’ and ‘various items linked to their room.’

Related News Stories:  Dozens fall ill in P&O Cruises ship outbreak     Virgin Voyages back in Portsmouth     Jetline cruise bookings cancelled by Carnival brands     Regent Seven Seas Cruises – TravelMole     Windstar Cruises Names Helen Beck As Managing Director, Global …     Man jailed for cruise ship bomb threat     Carnival Cruise Line UK office to close     Partner News – TravelMole     British Airways suspends more US flights     Princess Cruises to air Hannah Waddingham ‘Love Boat’ ad    

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s friendship and political alliance with Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who fueled Trump’s campaign with record amounts of cash before working at the White House by his side until last week, appears to be over, with both men leveling searing criticism against one another in a sharp public feud.

Musk had been criticizing the Trump administration over its signature legislation, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” for its projected impact on the national debt throughout last week. But his calls to “kill the bill” on Wednesday prompted Trump, speaking to media from the Oval Office, to respond in kind.

“Elon and I had a great relationship, I don’t know if we will anymore,” Trump said Thursday. “And he hasn’t said bad things about me personally, but I’m sure that’ll be next. But I’m very disappointed in Elon.”

Musk, responding on his social media platform, X, took credit for Trump’s election victory. The billionaire entrepreneur, whose companies also include SpaceX and Tesla, contributed over $280 million to Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote. “Such ingratitude.”

The exchange broke open a feud that had been simmering for weeks out of public view. In private, Musk had relayed concerns over the bill to the president, while expressing disagreement with several other policies, including the establishment of an artificial intelligence campus in the Middle East and Trump’s announcement of global tariffs.

“I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion,” Musk said in a more muted tone last week, speaking in an interview with CBS.

“You know, there are things that I don’t entirely agree with. But it’s difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention,” he added. “So then, I’m a little stuck in a bind, where I’m like, well, I don’t wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don’t wanna take responsibility for everything this administration’s doing.”

In the Oval Office, Trump said he believed that Musk had turned on him after he rejected Musk’s recommendation for the head of NASA, a position that could benefit SpaceX, Musk’s spaceship company. He also said that Musk opposed provisions of Trump’s megabill that would phase out tax credits for electric vehicles.

“Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here. Better than you people. He knew everything about it — he had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we’re going to have to cut the EV mandate, because that’s billions and billions of dollars,” Trump said.

“People leave my administration and they love us, and at some point, they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile,” Trump added. “I don’t know what it is.”

But Musk denied he had been shown the bill, responding on X that he wouldn’t mind if the EV provisions remain in the text so long as others, which he said would balloon annual deficits, are cut.

“This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!” Musk wrote. “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an assessment on Wednesday estimating that the “big, beautiful bill,” which has passed the House and is under consideration in the Senate, would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, and result in 10.9 million Americans losing health insurance coverage over the same period.

At the beginning of the administration, Trump put Musk in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, a White House program that intended on cutting federal spending and reducing the deficit. Musk’s tenure in the role, designated as a special government employee, ended last week.

On X, Musk posted a collection of past remarks from Trump warning against growing deficits and congressional actions increasing the debt ceiling, adding, “where is this guy today?”

“Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill,” Musk added. “Slim and beautiful is the way.”

SACRAMENTO — Nearly six months after a firestorm ravaged communities across Los Angeles, California lawmakers are crafting legislation to try to protect the state insurance program for high-risk homes from financial collapse.

A bill, AB 226, sponsored by Assemblymembers Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and David A. Alvarez (D-San Diego), would make the state’s insurer of last resort, the FAIR Plan, eligible for loans and bonds from the state-backed California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank to avoid running out of money after a disaster.

Alvarez proposed the measure last year but it failed to pass. Despite receiving unanimous support in the Assembly, the bill never reached the Senate floor for a vote before the end of the 2024 legislative session.

If the measure had passed last year and been signed into law by the governor, the FAIR Plan would have had more flexibility to weather the massive number of claims filed after the January firestorms, Alvarez said.

Instead, the FAIR plan was forced to imposed an extra $1 billion in total assessments on insurers that provide homeowners policies in California. To recoup those expenses, insurance companies are expected to hike rates on homeowners through monthly surcharges.

“Had they had this option available to them … they would not be having to hit consumers with price increases on the private market now,” Alvarez said.

AB 226 is one of many wildfire-related bills still winding their way through the slow legislative process. If passed into law, the measures would protect homeowners from price gouging after disasters, streamline the process for filing claims for lost property and offer financial protections for disaster victims.

Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom in January approved $2.5 billion in wildfire aid after the Palisades and Eaton fires killed more than two dozen people and became the second and third most destructive fires in state history. Legislative leaders at the time signaled for a swift, bipartisan approach to the disaster.

“Tens of thousands of our neighbors, our families and friends, they need help. This means that we need to be able to move with urgency, put aside our differences, and be laser-focused on delivering the financial resources, delivering the boots on the ground that are needed and the policy relief that is needed to get neighborhoods cleaned up and communities rebuilt,” Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) said after it passed.

California’s last-ditch home insurer, the FAIR Plan, is meant as a backup for properties deemed high-risk and uninsurable by private companies. A Times analysis found that within the Eaton and Palisades fire zones, the number of homes on the plan nearly doubled between 2020 and 2024 and the plan has become one of the state’s largest insurers.

Amid lawsuits alleging collusion between private insurers and the FAIR Plan and policyholders raising concerns about delays in payments and smoke damage investigations, lawmakers and insurance advocates have repeatedly called for better safety nets — like the one proposed in AB 226 — to keep the insurer solvent in emergencies and viable as a long-term solution to the state’s home insurance problem.

This year, Alvarez was joined on the bill by Calderon, chair of the Assembly’s insurance committee. It passed through the Assembly at the beginning of March but has not yet seen its first Senate committee.

Alvarez celebrated the bill’s swift passage through the Assembly and hopes the Senate will work to do the same, “God forbid, if it has to be used because of a devastating fire this summer,” he said.

Other major wildfire bills being considered by lawmakers include:

• AB 493, which would require lenders to pay policyholders interest on disaster insurance payouts that are held in escrow. The measure, authored by Assemblymember John Harabedian (D-Pasadena) would close a loophole in existing law, which already requires interest payments on other escrowed funds.
• AB 597, also introduced by Harabedian, which would keep public insurance adjusters from gouging homeowners, especially after a natural disaster or state of emergency.
• SB 495, which would prevent insurers from requiring an itemized list of personal property losses from policyholders during a state of emergency, and would require insurers to provide extensions where reconstruction is delayed. The bill, introduced by state Sen. Benjamin Allen — who represents the Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica areas — passed a Senate floor vote on Tuesday and is headed to the Assembly.

Most of the pending legislation won’t directly support survivors of the Palisades and Eaton fires but are still important to the rebuilding process, said Maryam Zar, president emeritus of the Pacific Palisades Community Council and founder of the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

The new laws would help prevent and prepare for future fires, she said, and are a show of goodwill to the communities that are suffering still.

Some other fire relief measures focus on easing the permit process for rebuilding, while others extend provisions set by Newsom during the state of emergency — easing tenancy rights for people staying in temporary housing for longer than 30 days, shortening the permit approval timeline and securing mortgage forbearance for destroyed properties for up to a year after the disaster. Others look to address staffing issues for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as fire season turns into a year-round threat.

“Wildfire survivors continue to face housing insecurity, financial strain, and emotional trauma long after the immediate danger has passed,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said in a statement. “These State bills represent a commitment to meeting people where they are — actively in recovery, rebuilding their lives, and in need of our long-term support.”

A liberal group and social media users shared posts that say President Donald Trump’s “one big beautiful bill” for tax and spending would let him reschedule or eliminate elections.

“If the Senate passes the ‘one big beautiful bill’ and Trump signs it, that’s it. It becomes law,” said the viral graphic on Meta and X. “And here’s what that really means. He can delay or cancel elections – legally.” The post included a long list of other claims about what the bill would accomplish; for this fact-check, we are focusing on the elections claim.

The group Being Liberal, which calls itself “one of the oldest social media liberal political brands”, took down the graphic after we reached out for comment. The group told us it didn’t create the post and removed it because the elections claim wasn’t accurate.

The earliest reference for the graphic we found online was from an anonymous blog post on May 23.

The bill does not give Trump power to delay or cancel elections, an action that would be unconstitutional.

“The bill would not directly give the president any authority over elections,” said Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for voting rights and this year sued the Trump administration over a voter registration executive order.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, Griffin Neal, told PolitiFact, “The bill obviously does not provide the President of the United States with the authority to cancel or delay elections.”

The US House passed the tax and spending bill May 22 and it now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers could make changes. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the Senate majority leader, said he hopes the bill can be sent to Trump by July 4.

The bill includes one provision related to democracy and checks and balances; it would expand the executive branch’s power by curtailing judges’ ability to hold people in contempt of court. Provision critics said it could take away the courts’ power to restrain the federal government if it violates the Constitution or breaks the law.

We found no provision in the bill that says the president can delay or cancel an election.

In July 2020, amid the pandemic and a surge in voting by mail, Trump floated the idea of delaying the election. At the time, he was running for re-election.

But the Constitution empowers Congress to set the date by which states must choose their presidential electors, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found in 2020.

“Since 1845, Congress has required states to appoint presidential electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which represents the date by which voters in every state must cast their ballot for President,” the report said.

Congress still has that power, said Edward Foley, an Ohio State University constitutional law professor.

The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 added a new definition of “Election Day” that makes it clear that a voting extension can occur only through state law specified in advance and under tightly restricted conditions, such as a catastrophe, Foley said.

That means Election Day “cannot otherwise be cancelled or delayed” and the president plays no role in any alteration of Election Day, Foley said.

Congress can change the Election Day date by enacting a new statute, as it did with the Electoral Count Reform Act, Foley said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a University of California, Berkeley law professor, told PolitiFact nothing in the bill lets Trump cancel or delay elections.

“The Constitution provides that elections for Congress be held every two years and for President every four years,” Chemerinsky said. “There is no constitutional authority to cancel elections.”

Bill provision would make it harder for judges to find Trump in contempt of court

The bill includes a different provision that some experts called a threat to democracy, but not at the ballot box.

Section 70302 would make it harder for judges to find a defendant in contempt of court for ignoring a judge’s orders. Here’s how: The legislation would require plaintiffs to pay a security bond before a judge could find the defendant in contempt of court. That would mean judges could no longer waive the security bond requirement, something that frequently happens in cases against the government.

The section references a federal rule that says a court may issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order only if the plaintiff pays a security bond to cover costs and damages by any party “found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained”.

A security bond is an insurance policy to protect someone wrongfully accused of wrongdoing from financial losses during litigation, Kashdan said. The courts can require plaintiffs to pay money that the court holds until the end of the litigation

“If they win, they get their money back,” Kashdan said. “If they lose, and the person they sued had a right to do whatever it was they were prevented from doing during the lawsuit, they get to keep that money to help compensate them for any losses they experienced during the litigation.”

However, “those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunise unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review,” wrote Chemerinsky for the website Just Security, which publishes a Trump litigation tracker. “It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.”

A March White House memo that criticised organisations for suing the federal government said enforcement of the security bond rule “is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice”.

The House bill provision raised concern among groups that have defended the judiciary’s role to provide a check on Trump’s power.

As of May 23, at least 177 court rulings have temporarily paused Trump administration actions, according to The New York Times.

Our ruling

Social media posts say the Republican tax and budget bill will let Trump “delay or cancel elections – legally”.

We found nothing in the bill that would let Trump cancel or delay elections. A provision would make it harder for judges to hold people in contempt of court, but that is not the same as cancelling elections.

Only Congress can change a presidential election’s date, not the president, and this bill doesn’t change that.

We rate this statement False.

In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the “big, beautiful bill”, the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it.

Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the “big beautiful bill”.

Here’s a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose:

“They’re opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.”

The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent.

It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

“They’re opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.”

This is true only in their opposition to Trump’s tax and spending bill.

Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously.

“They’re opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens”

Outside of the “big beautiful bill”, Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000.

In 2024, House Democrats introduced the “You Earned It, You Keep It Act”, which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee.

“They’re opposing a boost to the child tax credit.”

Again, they are opposing Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, not objecting to the child tax credit.

In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia’s Raphael Warnock and Colorado’s Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently.

While the “big beautiful bill” would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028.

“They’re opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.” 

In the “big beautiful bill”, House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029.

Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it.

In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023.

“They’re opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.”

This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump’s bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less.

While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“They’re opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.”

Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump’s chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump’s first term.

A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the “big beautiful bill” allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation.

“They’re opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.”

This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid.

“They’re opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.”

In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education.

Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.

The California Public Utilities Commission failed to abide by state law when it slashed financial incentives for residential rooftop solar panels in 2022, environmental groups argued before the California Supreme Court Wednesday.

The commission’s policy, which took effect in April 2023, cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending power they don’t need to the electric grid by as much as 80%.

In arguments before the court, the environmental groups said the decision has stymied efforts to get homeowners and businesses to install the climate-friendly panels.

The commission violated state law, the groups argued, by not considering all the benefits of the solar panels in its decision and by not ensuring that rooftop solar systems could continue to expand in disadvantaged communities.

More than two million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal set by a 2018 law of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

On the other side of the courtroom battle were lawyers from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, arguing that the commission’s five members, all pointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, had followed the law in making their decision.

In briefs filed before Wednesday’s oral arguments, the government lawyers sided with those from the state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mica Moore, deputy solicitor general, said at the hearing in downtown Los Angles that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This was raising electric bills, she said, especially hurting low-income electric customers.

The credits for the energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid are valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commissioners have voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The environmental groups and other critics of the commission’s decision have argued that there is no “cost shift.” They say that the commission failed to consider in its calculations the many benefits of the rooftop solar panels, including how they lower the amount of transmission lines and other infrastructure the utilities need to build.

“The cost shift narrative is a red herring,” argued plaintiff’s attorney Malinda Dickenson, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Moore countered by saying the commission doesn’t have to consider all the possible societal or private benefits of the rooftop panels.

For example, even though the rooftop panels could result in conserving land that was otherwise needed for industrial scale solar farms, the government lawyers argued in their brief, the commission was not obligated to consider that value in its calculation of the amount of costs the rooftop panels shift to other customers.

The government lawyers also said the commission had created other programs beyond the electric bill credits to help disadvantaged communities afford the solar systems.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

During the oral arguments, the seven justices focused on a legal question of whether a state appeals court erred when it ruled in January 2024 against the environmental groups and said that the court must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court concluded in its opinion.

The environmental groups argue the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

Moore told the seven justices that the appeals court had made the correct decision to defer to the commission.

Not all justices seemed to agree with that.

“But we’re pretty good about figuring out what the law says,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said to Moore during the proceeding. “Why should we defer on that to the commission?”

The justices will weigh the arguments made by both sides and issue a decision in the next 90 days.

The big utilities have for decades tried to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

On another front, the state’s three big utilities are now lobbying in Sacramento to reduce credits for Californians who installed their panels before April 15, 2023. The commission’s decision in 2022 left the incentives in place for those panel owners for 20 years after their purchase.

Early this year, Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), a former Southern California Edison executive, introduced a bill that would have ended the program for all solar owners who installed their systems by April 2023 after 10 years. In face of opposition and protests by solar owners, Calderon amended the bill so it would end the program — where credits are valued at the retail electric rate — only for those selling their homes.

Calderon said the bill would save the state’s electric customers $2.5 billion over the next 18 years.

On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. “Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,” he urged in the email.

The Assembly voted 46 to 14 to approve the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to the state Senate for consideration.

The timing of the vote surprised opponents of the bill. They expected a vote late this week because of rules that allow more time for bills to be reviewed after they are amended. Calderon amended the bill late Monday.

Nick Miller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said Calderon had asked for a waiver of the rules so that it could be voted on Tuesday night.

Such waivers, Miller said, are “not uncommon.”

Tucked within the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill”, the more than 1,000-page tax and spending overhaul that United States President Donald Trump wants to see enacted in law, is a provision that is being referred to as a “revenge tax”.

The “Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes” in Section 899 targets countries that the Trump administration believes impose unfair or discriminatory taxes on US companies and individuals, and will allow the US to impose additional taxes on entities from those countries.

The provision calls, for instance, for levies on revenue from digital services, such as data monetisation and online advertising.

The proposal also includes a higher minimum tax on the profits of foreign entities, even if those profits are earned outside US borders. This could impact passive income streams, such as interest and dividends, and may discourage international investors from countries flagged as discriminatory.

The administration’s unpredictable approach to global economic policy has already created uncertainty in international markets. Should this measure be signed into law, it could further erode foreign investor confidence in the US market.

‘This revenge tax move will add to economic uncertainty. It will stop foreign CEOs from investing – the very thing President Trump says he wants. It means more wild economic swings, stock market declines, less stability and a greater chance of recession this year,” Stuart Mackintosh, the executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, told Al Jazeera.

“Every few days, we see a destabilising misuse of US power, more self-inflicted wounds, that look set to drive up prices and slow the economy. America has shredded its political and economic alliances. These revenge taxes underscore that America cannot be trusted.”

Who could be affected

Under the provision, certain foreign governments and international businesses could face an additional 20 percent tax, which would apply to non-US entities earning income from US sources, including interest, dividends and royalties.

Taxes would be hiked gradually at the rate of 5 percent annually.

It would also affect profits earned at US locations, which are transferred to foreign parent companies, as well as income from the sale of US real estate by designated “bad actors”. Trusts, global foundations and partnerships with passive income could also be impacted.

However, exceptions are built into the legislation for foreign pension funds and charitable organisations. The tax would only apply to countries designated as “discriminatory” by the US Treasury Department. Countries not flagged would remain unaffected.

House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, said that while the provision could serve as an effective retaliatory tool, it “will hopefully never take effect”.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the measure could bring in revenue of $116.3bn over the next decade. But it would also lower tax revenue in the long term, by $12.9bn in both 2033 and 2034.

Impacted investment climate

The administration’s shifting trade strategies have already led to legal battles, policy reversals and a climate of unpredictability that has left companies hesitant to make long-term plans.

Companies like toy manufacturer Mattel and automaker Stellantis have suspended financial guidance due to the volatile nature of US tariff policy.

These policies have also contributed to swings in consumer confidence. When Trump announced his series of sweeping tariffs against trade partners on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day”, confidence fell to a 13-year low, only to rebound after the administration paused the tariffs’ implementation.

Analysts warn that provisions like the “revenge tax” could deter foreign investment and strain developing partnerships.

“If you’ve got the headwinds of an extra withholding tax that starts at an extra 5 percent [and] moves up to 20 percent over the subsequent four years, I think [investors would] have second thoughts. In terms of optimising your investment strategy, you’d have a slightly smaller allocation to the US,” Chris Turner, the global head of markets and regional head of research for the United Kingdom and Europe at ING, a financial services company, told Al Jazeera.

There is already evidence that some economies have started diversifying away from the US. Canada, for example, has increased trade with Europe and Asia. Trump’s trade policies have also been cited as a factor in foreign governments divesting from US treasuries, while the European Central Bank continues to promote the euro as a competing global reserve currency.

This measure adds another mechanism to the Trump administration’s broader trade strategy, which has relied heavily on tariffs even as many face legal scrutiny.

Last week, the US Court of International Trade blocked the administration’s blanket global tariffs enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A federal district court temporarily halted the block’s enforcement as legal battles unfold.

Experts believe many of these tariffs may not withstand judicial review.

“There’s no statute that provides the president that authority”, to impose sweeping international tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera. “And as the court said, if there were such a statute, it would be unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that responsibility to Congress.”

However, the ruling did not address tariffs on aluminium, steel and automobiles, which fall under a different legal basis – the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Under that statute, Trump recently announced plans to raise those tariffs to 50 percent for most imports.

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already at the briefing room lectern Tuesday when Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a special advisor to President Trump until just last week, launched into a scathing rebuke targeting his signature legislation.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

“Shame on those who voted for it,” he added. “You know you did wrong. You know it.”

It was the latest, sharpest critique of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” making its way through Congress from Musk, who ended his tenure as a special government employee last week despite his efforts to stay on, according to an Axios report.

In a CBS interview aired last week, Musk also called the bill a disappointment. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he said, “but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

The Trump administration had already been on defense over the future of the bill, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a $3.8-trillion increase to the national debt over 10 years.

House Republicans approved the measure in late May. But multiple Republicans in the Senate, where the party holds a slim majority, have balked at its effects on the deficit, as well as several major proposals in the legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing access to Medicaid coverage.

One GOP senator, Joni Ernst of Iowa, drew national criticism over the weekend after responding to constituent concerns regarding Medicaid cuts at a town hall last week by saying, “well, we are all going to die.” The exchange put threats to Medicaid in the legislation back in the headlines, forcing the White House to put out a press release on Monday with the subject line: “MYTHBUSTER: No, People Will Not ‘Literally Die’ with the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

“The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” Leavitt said at the briefing, asked to respond to Musk’s X post. “It doesn’t change the president’s opinion.”

The bill would also cut clean energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration, which have benefited Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.

Trump has also bucked Musk on other matters in recent days. Despite Musk’s opposition, Trump brokered an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the United States with the backing of Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, a Musk rival.

The president also withdrew Jared Isaacman, reportedly an ally of Musk, as his nominee for NASA administrator. Musk’s rocket ship company, SpaceX, relies heavily on government contracts.

Billionaire Elon Musk has renewed his criticisms of United States President Donald Trump’s signature budget bill, calling it a “disgusting abomination” in a series of social media posts.

On Tuesday, just days after leaving his post in the Trump administration, Musk offered yet another broadside against the legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

His subsequent posts laid out the reasoning for his opposition, suggesting that the spending and tax cuts proposed in the bill would balloon the US national debt.

“It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,” Musk said in one post. In another, he wrote, “Congress is making America bankrupt.”

The bill would extend tax cuts established in 2017, during Trump’s first term, and funnel more funds to his administration’s priorities, including $46.5bn for the construction of barriers at the US border with Mexico.

But to accomplish those goals, critics have pointed out that the legislation would lift the cap on the national debt by $4 trillion. It would also limit access to social safety-net programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known colloquially as food stamps.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan bureau that provides research to Congress, estimates that the bill will result in a $698bn reduction in Medicaid subsidies and $267bn less in funding for SNAP.

Those trade-offs have spurred concern on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and some Republicans expressing fears that their constituents may lose their access to vital government services.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, have baulked at the increase to the national debt.

In an early-morning vote on May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by a tight vote of 215 to 214. Republicans hold a 220-seat majority in the 435-member chamber, but several members were either absent or voted “present”.

Only two Republicans — Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio — broke with party ranks to vote against the bill. The House’s 212 Democrats all voted against it as well, in a unified show of opposition.

That sent the bill to the Senate, where Republicans likewise hold a razor-thin majority. Senators are expected to weigh the bill in the coming days.

But following Musk’s criticisms of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Massie chimed in to applaud the billionaire for his frank criticism.

“He’s right,” Massie wrote in a brief post, to which Musk responded that his opposition was rooted in “simple math”.

Musk also called on voters to “fire all politicians who betrayed the American people” during the 2026 midterm elections — referencing what he considered wasteful spending.

Until last week, Musk had served as a special government employee in the second Trump administration, helping to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since the president’s inauguration in January. In that advisory role, Musk was tasked with identifying and eliminating “waste” in the federal bureaucracy.

His and DOGE’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, yank contracts and shutter government agencies, however, made them both a target for widespread criticism and lawsuits. Opponents accused Musk of engaging in conflicts of interest, including by attacking watchdog groups like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Federal law generally prohibits special government employees from serving for more than 130 days in a year, and Musk ended his tumultuous tenure in the Trump administration with an Oval Office sendoff last week.

Trump presented the billionaire with a decorative key to the White House and called his work transformational, crediting Musk with ushering in “a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington”.

But in the lead-up to that goodbye, Musk appeared in previews for the TV show CBS Sunday Morning denouncing the One Big Beautiful Bill. He described its provisions as contrary to the spirit of DOGE’s spending cuts.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

Those comments fuelled rumours of a widening rift between Trump and Musk, who had been one of the president’s most prominent donors and proxies during his 2024 re-election campaign.

Still, the Trump administration has brushed aside reports of tensions between the two men. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, for instance, shrugged off a question about Musk’s latest fusillade from her podium at the White House briefing room.

“ Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn’t change the president’s opinion,” she said. “This is one big, beautiful bill, and he’s sticking to it.”

Leavitt did, however, blast Republican senators who opposed the legislation for “not having their facts together”.

One of those senators is Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voiced his support for Musk’s dissent against the bill on Tuesday.

“I agree with Elon. We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake,” Paul wrote. “We can and must do better.”

Trump, however, lashed out against Paul on social media and defended his budget bill, calling it a “WINNER”.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can’t stand him,” Trump said. “This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!”

MILLIONS of households could slash their water bills by up to hundreds of pounds a year.

But many Brits aren’t aware of the discounts they could be entitled to.

1

All water companies in England and Wales now offer social tariffs to help lower-income customers.

But because each company sets its own rules, the support varies wildly depending on where you live.

Despite the growing cost of living and rising utility prices, millions of eligible people still aren’t claiming the discounts available.

Last year, consumer watchdog CCW said more than two million households had received help with their water bills, but millions more could be saving and aren’t.

Some of the biggest discounts are available through schemes like WaterHelp, run by Thames Water, which offers a 50% reduction.

The reduction is for households earning under £21,749 a year (not including disability benefits), or where bills account for more than 5% of net income.

There’s also WaterSure, a national scheme available to water meter customers on means-tested benefits.

If you have a medical condition that needs extra water or you have three or more children under 19 living at home, you could get your bill capped at the average annual charge.

With Thames Water, for example, that cap is currently £423 a year.

The average annual water and sewerage bill for a Thames Water customer is currently around £864.

So that means if you qualify for WaterHelp, you get 50% off your bill and would therefore save £432 a year.

What’s available at other providers?

Other providers offer even bigger savings.

Southern Water gives customers up to 90% off bills through its Essentials Tariff if they earn under £22,010 and have less than £16,000 in savings.

Wessex Water, South West Water, and Bournemouth Water also offer generous reductions, in some cases 85% or more, depending on your circumstances.

Meanwhile, Anglian Water, Essex & Suffolk Water, and Northumbrian Water offer discounts of up to 50% for households earning less than £23,933 or receiving Pension Credit.

In many cases, discounts kick in if your water bill makes up more than 3% of your income after housing costs.

To find out if you’re eligible, check your supplier’s website or give them a call.

Some schemes ask for proof of income or benefits, while others carry out a short financial assessment.

If you’re unsure who supplies your water, you can find out using this tool.

On top of that, many water firms also offer emergency grants to help with arrears, and free water-saving gadgets like tap aerators and shower timers to help cut your usage.

And with suppliers like Thames Water proposing price hikes of nearly 60% over the next six years, now’s the time to act.

Don’t wait until your bills go up, check if you can get help now and start saving.

If you’re struggling with the cost of living, it’s always worth checking what benefits you could be entitled to.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

California lawmakers on Tuesday moved one step closer to placing more guardrails around artificial intelligence-powered chatbots.

The Senate passed a bill that aims to make chatbots used for companionship safer after parents raised concerns that virtual characters harmed their childrens’ mental health.

The legislation, which now heads to the California State Assembly, shows how state lawmakers are tackling safety concerns surrounding AI as tech companies release more AI-powered tools.

“The country is watching again for California to lead,” said Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, on the Senate floor.

At the same time, lawmakers are trying to balance concerns that they could be hindering innovation. Groups opposed to the bill such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation say the legislation is too broad and would run into free speech issues, according to a Senate floor analysis of the bill.

Under Senate Bill 243, operators of companion chatbot platforms would remind users at least every three hours that the virtual characters aren’t human. They would also disclose that companion chatbots might not be suitable for some minors.

Platforms would also need to take other steps such as implementing a protocol for addressing suicidal ideation, suicide or self-harm expressed by users. That includes showing users suicide prevention resources.

The operator of these platforms would also report the number of times a companion chatbot brought up suicide ideation or actions with a user, along with other requirements.

Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson, one of the bill’s co-authors, said she supports innovation but it also must come with “ethical responsibility.” Chatbots, the senator said, are engineered to hold people’s attention including children.

“When a child begins to prefer interacting with AI over real human relationships, that is very concerning,” said Sen. Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa).

The bill defines companion chatbots as AI systems capable of meeting the social needs of users. It excludes chatbots that businesses use for customer service.

The legislation garnered support from parents who lost their children after they started chatting with chatbots. One of those parents is Megan Garcia, a Florida mom who sued Google and Character.AI after her son Sewell Setzer III died by suicide last year.

In the lawsuit, she alleges the platform’s chatbots harmed her son’s mental health and failed to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to these virtual characters.

Character.AI, based in Menlo Park, Calif., is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. The company has said that it takes teen safety seriously and rolled out a feature that gives parents more information about the amount of time their children are spending with chatbots on the platform.

Character.AI asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, but a federal judge in May allowed the case to proceed.

WASHINGTON — President Trump wants his “big, beautiful” bill of tax breaks and spending cuts on his desk to be signed into law by the Fourth of July, and he’s pushing the slow-rolling Senate to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Trump met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the White House early this week and has been dialing senators for one-on-one chats, using both the carrot and stick to nudge, badger and encourage them to act. But it’s still a long road ahead for the 1,000-page-plus package.

“His question to me was, How do you think the bill’s going to go in the Senate?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said about his call with Trump. “Do you think there’s going to be problems?”

It’s a potentially tumultuous three-week sprint for senators preparing to put their own imprint on the massive Republican package that cleared the House late last month by a single vote. The senators have been meeting for weeks behind closed doors, including as they returned to Washington late Monday, to revise the package ahead of what is expected to be a similarly narrow vote in the Senate.

“Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,” Trump posted on social media. He urged them Monday “to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.”

Thune, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, has few votes to spare from the Senate’s slim, 53-seat GOP majority. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home.

“It’d be nice if we could have everybody on board to do it, but, you know, individual members are going to stake out their positions,” Thune said Tuesday.

“But in the end, we have to succeed. Failure’s not an option. We’ve got to get to 51. So we’ll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks.”

At its core, the package seeks to extend the tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term at the White House, and add new ones the president campaigned on, including no taxes on tips and others. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security.

To defray the lost tax revenue to the government and avoid piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Estimates are 8.6 million people would no longer have healthcare and nearly 4 million would lose Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits.

The package also would raise the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s bill “is ugly to its very core.”

Schumer said Tuesday it’s a “lie” that the cuts won’t hurt Americans. “Behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel and draconian truth: tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of Americans,” said the New York senator.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to soon provide an overall analysis of the package’s impacts on the government balance sheets, particular its rising annual deficits. But Republicans are ready to blast those findings from the congressional scorekeeper as flawed.

Trump on Tuesday switched to tougher tactics, deriding the holdout Republican senators to get on board.

The president laid into Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning deficit hawk who has made a career of arguing against government spending. Paul wants the package’s $4-trillion increase to the debt ceiling out of the bill.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!).” Trump posted.

The July 4 deadline is not only aspirational for the president, it’s all but mandatory for his Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned Congress that the nation will run out of money to pay its bills if the debt ceiling, now at $36 trillion, is not lifted by mid-July or early August to allow more borrowing. Bessent has also been meeting behind closed doors with senators and GOP leadership.

Thune acknowledged Tuesday that lifting the debt ceiling is not up for debate.

“It’s got to be done,” the South Dakota senator said.

The road ahead is also a test for Thune, who, like Johnson, is a newer leader in Congress and among the many Republicans adjusting their own priorities with Trump’s return to the White House.

While Johnson has warned against massive changes to the package, Thune faces demands from his senators for adjustments.

To make most of the tax cuts permanent — particularly the business tax breaks that are the Senate priorities — senators may shave some of Trump’s proposed new tax breaks on automobile loans or overtime pay, which are policies less prized by some senators.

There are also discussions about altering the $40,000 cap that the House proposed for state and local deductions, known as SALT, which are important to lawmakers in high-tax New York, California and other states, but less so among GOP senators.

“We’re having all those discussions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another key voice in the debate.

Hawley is among a group of senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who have raised concerns about the Medicaid changes that could boot people from health insurance.

A potential copay of up to $35 for Medicaid services that was part of the House package, as well as a termination of a provider tax that many states rely on to help fund rural hospitals, have also raised concerns.

“The best way to not be accused of cutting Medicaid is to not cut Medicaid,” Hawley said.

Collins said she is reviewing the details.

There’s also a House provision that would allow the auction of spectrum bandwidth that some senators oppose.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.

What’s in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ budget bill?
Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro breaks down the bill that Donald Trump claims will usher in an economic golden age, whilst others warn it could add significantly to the national debt.

To look inside Julie Celestial’s kindergarten classroom in Long Beach is to peer into the future of reading in California.

During a recent lesson, 25 kindergartners gazed at the whiteboard, trying to sound out the word “bee.” They’re learning the long “e” sound, blending words such as “Pete” and “cheek” — words that they’ll soon be able to read in this lesson’s accompanying book.

Celestial was teaching something new for Long Beach Unified: phonics.

“It’s pretty cool to watch,” she said. “I’m really anticipating that there’s going to be a lot less reluctant readers and struggling readers now that the district has made this shift.”

Engage with our community-funded journalism as we delve into child care, transitional kindergarten, health and other issues affecting children from birth through age 5.

These phonics-based lessons are on the fast track to become law in California under a sweeping bill moving through the Legislature that will mandate how schools teach reading, a rare action in a state that generally emphasizes local school district control over dictating instruction.

Julie Celestial teaches her kindergarten class a literacy lesson at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

The bill is the capstone to decades of debate and controversy in California on how best to teach reading amid stubbornly low test scores. Gov. Gavin Newsom has pledged his support, setting aside $200 million to fund teacher training on the new approach in the May revise of his 2025-26 budget proposal.

“It’s a big deal for kids, and it’s a big step forward — a very big one,” said Marshall Tuck, chief executive of EdVoice, an education advocacy nonprofit that has championed the change.

California has long struggled with reading scores below the national average. In 2024, only 29% of California’s fourth-graders scored “proficient” or better in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Literacy instruction has been controversial in California for decades, but state legislators may have finally decided on a compromise.

The proposed law, which would take effect in phases beginning in 2026, would require districts to adopt instructional materials based on the “science of reading,” a systemic approach to literacy instruction supported by decades of research about the way young children learn to read, from about transitional kindergarten through third grade.

The science of reading consists of five pillars: phonemic awareness (the sounds that letters make), phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

“It’s finite. There’s only 26 letters and 44 sounds,” said Leslie Zoroya, who leads an initiative at the Los Angeles County Office of Education that helps districts transition to a science-of-reading approach. “Phonics isn’t forever.”

After a failed effort last year, the bill gained the support this year of the influential California teachers unions and at least one advocacy group for English-language learners. In a compromise, school districts would have more flexibility to select which instructional materials are best for their students and the option to decline teacher training paid for by the state.

Kindergarten student Annika Esser works on a literacy lesson at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

For decades, most school districts in California have been devoted to a different approach called “whole language” or “balanced literacy,” built on the belief that children naturally learn to read without being taught how to sound out words. Teachers focus on surrounding children with books intended to foster a love of reading and encourage them to look for clues that help them guess unknown words — such as predicting the next word based on the context of the story, or looking at the pictures — rather than sounding them out.

“The majority of students require a more intentional, explicit and systematic approach,” Zoroya said. “Thousands of kids across California in 10th grade are struggling in content-area classes because they missed phonics.”

Kindergarten student Tyler Madrid raises his hand to answer a question during a literacy lesson at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

An extended reading war in California

California embraced the whole language approach to literacy, which took hold in the 1970s and 1980s, said Susan Neuman, a New York University professor who served as assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education under former President George W. Bush. The state became a national leader in what was considered a progressive and holistic approach to teaching literacy, with a focus on discovering the joy of reading, rather than learning specific skills, she said.

Bush then incorporated a phonics-heavy approach in an initiative that was part of his 2002 launch of No Child Left Behind, which increased the federal role in holding schools accountable for academic progress and required standardized testing. States, including California, received grants to teach a science-of-reading approach in high-poverty schools.

But many teachers in the state disliked the more regimented approach, and when the funding ended, districts largely transitioned back to the whole language approach. In the years since, science of reading continues to draw opposition from teachers unions and advocates for dual-language learners.

Many California teachers are passionate about the methods they already use and have chafed at a state-mandated approach to literacy education. Some don’t like what they describe as “drill and kill” phonics lessons that teach letter sounds and decoding.

Advocates for multiple-language learners, meanwhile, vociferously opposed adopting the most structured approach, worried that children who were still learning to speak English would not receive adequate support in language development and comprehension.

A 2022 study of 300 school districts in California found that less than 2% of districts were using curricula viewed as following the science of reading.

But the research has become clear: Looking at the pictures or context of a story to guess a word — as is encouraged in whole language or balanced literacy instruction, leads to struggles with reading. Children best learn to read by starting with foundational skills such as sounding out and decoding words.

“Anything that takes your eyes off the text when a kid is trying to figure out a word activates the wrong side of the brain,” Zoroya said.

Los Angeles County renews focus on phonics

In the last few years, several larger districts in California have started to embrace more structured phonics learning, including Los Angeles Unified, Long Beach Unified and Oakland Unified.

Recently, these districts have started to see improvement in their reading test scores.

Julie Celestial teaches her kindergarten class a literacy lesson at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

At Long Beach Unified, for example, the district’s in-house assessment shows significant gains among kindergarten students. In 2023-24, 78% of them met reading standards, up 13 percentage points from the previous school year. Proficiency rates across first and second grade were above 70%, and transitional kindergarten was at 48%. The district’s goal is to hit 85% proficiency across grades by the end of each school year.

In 2019, LAUSD introduced a pilot science-of-reading based curriculum, and adopted it across all schools for the 2023-24 academic year. After the first year, LAUSD reading scores improved in every grade level and across every demographic, chief academic officer Frances Baez said.

From the 2022-23 to the 2023-24 school years, LAUSD’s English Language Arts scores improved by 1.9 percentage points — five times more than the state as a whole, which improved by 0.3, she said.

‘Science of Reading’ makes waves in Lancaster

Teresa Cole, a kindergarten instructor in the Lancaster School District, has been teaching for 25 years. So when Lancaster asked her to try out a new way of teaching her students to read three years ago, she wasn’t thrilled.

“I was hesitant and apprehensive to try it,” she said, but decided to throw herself into a new method that promised results.

Artwork and literacy lessons hang from the ceiling inside Julie Celestial’s kindergarten class at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

Teaching kindergarten is a challenge, she said, because children come in at vastly different stages. Many are just learning to hold a pencil; others can already read. She was seeing many children under “balanced literacy” lessons slip through the cracks — especially those with limited vocabularies. When she asked them to read words they didn’t know, “it almost felt like they were guessing.”

But as she began to teach a phonics lesson each morning and have them read decodable books — which have children practice the new sound they’ve learned — she noticed that her students were putting together the information much faster and starting to sound out words. “The results were immediate,” she said. “We were blown away.”

She was so impressed with the new curriculum that she started training other teachers in the district to use it as well.

Looking back at her old method of teaching reading, “I feel bad. I feel like maybe I wasn’t the best teacher back then,” Cole said. Part of the change, she said, was learning about the science behind how children learn to read. “I would never say to guess [a word] anymore,” she said.

This kind of buy-in and enthusiasm from teachers has been key to making the new curriculum work, said Krista Thomsen, Lancaster’s director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Department. In schools where the teachers are implementing the program well, scores have started to rise. “But it’s a steep learning curve,” she said, especially for teachers who have long taught a balanced literacy approach.

“We are stumbling through this process trying to get it right and making sure that every one of our kids has equitable access to learning how to read,”Thomsen said. “But we have every faith and every intention, and the plan is in place to get it where it should be going.”

A compromise may bring more phonics to the classroom

Kindergarten student Lauren Van De Kreeke answers a question from teacher Julie Celestial as they work on a literacy lesson at Mark Twain Elementary School in Long Beach.

A bill introduced by Assemblymember Blanca E. Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) last year requiring a science-of-reading approach in California public schools did not even get a first hearing. This year, Rubio introduced another version — Assembly Bill 1121 — that would have required teachers to be trained in a science-of-reading approach.

Opponents included the California Teachers Assn. and English-language learner advocates, who said in a joint letter that the bill would put a “disproportionate emphasis on phonics,” and would not focus on the skills needed by students learning English as a second language.

The groups also voiced concern that the bill would cut teachers out of the curriculum-selection process and that mandated training “undermines educators’ professional expertise and autonomy to respond to the specific learning needs of their students.”

Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, said the group opposed both bills because they were too narrow in their focus on skills such as phonics. “They’re essential. But English learners need more, right?” she said. “They don’t understand the language that they’re learning to read.”

Rubio said she was shocked by the pushback. “I was thinking it was a no-brainer. It’s about kids. This is evidence-based.” Rubio, a longtime teacher, was born in Mexico, and was herself an English-language learner in California public schools.

In 2024, just 19% of Latino students and 7% of Black students scored at or above “proficient” on the fourth-grade NAEP reading test.

But with the support of Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), the groups reached a compromise that not all teachers would be required to participate in the teacher training.

Hernandez said she was pleased that the compromise included more of an emphasis on oral language development and comprehension, which is vital for multi-language learners to succeed.

AB1454 requires the State Board of Education to come up with a new list of recommended materials that all follow science of reading principles. If a district chooses materials not on the list, they have to vouch that it also complies. The state will provide funds for professional development, though districts can choose whether to accept it.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

United States President Donald Trump has brushed aside criticism of his wide-ranging budget bill — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — from a high-profile source, government adviser Elon Musk.

On Wednesday, at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump faced questions about Musk’s comments, which suggested the bill would balloon the national debt.

The Republican leader responded with a degree of ambivalence, though he staunchly defended the bill’s tax cuts.

“We will be negotiating that bill, and I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” Trump said. “That’s the way they go.”

The budget bill clocks in at over a thousand pages, and it contains a range of domestic policy priorities for the Trump administration.

That includes legislation cementing some of the tax cuts Trump championed during his first term as president, in 2017. It would also increase the funds available for Trump’s “mass deportation” effort and heightened security along the US-Mexico border.

Some $46.5bn, for instance, would be earmarked to renew construction of the southern border wall and other barriers, another hallmark of Trump’s first term in office.

But to pay for those tax cuts and policy priorities, the bill proposes measures that remain controversial on both sides of the political spectrum.

One provision, for instance, would increase the federal debt limit by $4 trillion. Others would impose strict work requirements on programmes like Medicaid — a government health insurance for low-income Americans — and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), sometimes known as food stamps.

Those work requirements are expected to bar thousands of people from accessing those safety-net programmes, allowing for cost savings. But critics fear those barriers will drive some families deeper into poverty.

In a preview of an interview with the TV show CBS Sunday Morning, Musk expressed frustration with the sheer cost of the bill, echoing criticism from fiscal conservatives.

He also accused the “Big Beautiful Bill” of setting back the progress he made as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force Trump established to pare back “wasteful” spending.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS, dressed in an “Occupy Mars” T-shirt.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

This is not the first time that Musk has spoken out against a US budget bill. In December, under former President Joe Biden, Musk rallied public outrage against another piece of budget legislation that weighed in at over a thousand pages, calling on Congress to “kill the bill“.

Musk’s latest comments, however, signal a potentially widening fracture between himself and the Trump White House.

Up until recently, Musk, a billionaire thought to be the world’s richest man, has played a prominent role in Trump’s government. He even helped him secure a second term as president.

In 2024, Musk endorsed Trump’s re-election effort, joined him on the campaign trail and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican leader and his political allies.

For his part, Trump returned Musk’s warm embrace. Days after he won a second term as president, Trump announced that Musk would join his incoming administration as head of DOGE.

But Musk’s role in the White House has remained ambiguous, and highly controversial. Though Musk is a regular presence at presidential cabinet meetings, he has not had to undergo a Senate confirmation hearing.

The White House has described him as a “special government employee”, a temporary role given to consultants from business fields. Normally, those employees can only work with the government for 130 days per year, and they are barred from using their government roles for financial gain.

But critics have argued that the length of Musk’s tenure at the White House has not been clearly established and that he has indeed leveraged his position for personal profit. In March, for instance, Trump held a news conference to show off models from Musk’s car company Tesla.

Musk’s other business ventures, including the rocket company SpaceX and the satellite communications firm Starlink, have also raised conflict-of-interest questions, given that they are competitors for government contracts.

Media reports have indicated that there have been behind-the-scenes clashes between Musk and other members of the Trump White House that may have cooled relations between the president and his billionaire backer. But Trump has so far avoided criticising Musk publicly.

On Wednesday, for instance, Trump pivoted from the question about Musk’s comments to attacking Democratic members of Congress, who refuse to back his signature budget bill.

“ Remember, we have zero Democrat votes because they’re bad people,” Trump said. “There’s something wrong with them.”

A version of the budget bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last week. Currently, it is being considered by the Senate. But with a 53-seat majority in the 100-person chamber, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three votes if they hope to pass the bill.

Trump renewed his call for party unity on Wednesday, despite concerns from his fellow Republicans.

“We have to get a lot of votes,” Trump said. “We need to get a lot of support, and we have a lot of support.”

Some Republicans have voiced opposition to the increase in the national debt. Others fear the effects that Medicaid restrictions might have on their constituents.

Trump himself has said he opposes any cuts to Medicaid. But he has tried to frame the bill’s tax cuts as a boon to lower-income people, though critics point out those cuts are poised to deliver the biggest savings to the wealthy.

“We’ll have the lowest tax rate we’ve ever had in the history of our country,” Trump said. “Tremendous amounts of benefits are going to the middle-income people of our country, low- and middle-income people of our country.”

WASHINGTON — Elon Musk is criticizing the centerpiece of President Trump’s legislative agenda, a significant fracture in a partnership that was forged during last year’s campaign and was poised to reshape American politics and the federal government.

The billionaire entrepreneur, who supported Trump’s candidacy with at least $250 million and has worked for his administration as a senior advisor, said he was “disappointed” by what the president calls his “big, beautiful bill.”

The legislation includes a mix of tax cuts and enhanced immigration enforcement. While speaking to CBS, Musk described it as a “massive spending bill” that increases the federal deficit and “undermines the work” of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is not a government agency.

“I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,” Musk said. “But I don’t know if it could be both.”

His CBS interview came out Tuesday night. Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday, defended his agenda by talking about the delicate politics involved with negotiating the legislation.

“I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” he said.

Trump also suggested that more changes could be made.

“We’re going to see what happens,” he said. “It’s got a way to go.”

Republicans recently pushed the measure through the House and are debating it in the Senate.

Musk’s comments come as he steps back from his government work, rededicating himself to his electric automaker Tesla and rocket manufacturer SpaceX. He’s also said he’ll reduce his political spending, because “I think I’ve done enough.”

At times, he’s seemed chastened by his experience working in government. Although he hoped that DOGE would generate $1 trillion in spending cuts, he’s fallen far short of that target.

“The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,” he told the Washington Post. “I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.”

The White House is set to send proposed rescissions, a mechanism used to cancel previously authorized spending, to Capitol Hill to solidify some of DOGE’s cuts.

A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the package will include $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS, and $8.3 billion in foreign assistance.

Musk had previously been energized by the opportunity to reshape Washington. He wore campaign hats in the White House, held campaign rallies and talked about excessive spending as an existential crisis.

He often tended to be effusive in his praise of Trump.

“The more I’ve gotten to know President Trump, the more I like the guy,” Musk said in February. “Frankly, I love him.”

Trump repaid the favor, describing Musk as “a truly great American.” When Tesla faced declining sales, he turned the White House driveway into a makeshift showroom to illustrate his support.

It’s unclear if Musk’s comments about the bill will affect the legislative debate. During the transition period, he helped whip up opposition to a spending measure as the country stood on the brink of a federal government shutdown.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has asked senators to make as few changes to the legislation as possible, saying that House Republicans reached a “very delicate balance” that could be upended with major changes. The narrowly divided House will have to vote again on final passage once the Senate alters the bill.

However, Musk’s criticism could embolden Republicans who want bigger spending cuts. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee reposted a Fox News story about Musk’s interview while adding his own take on the measure, saying there was “still time to fix it.”

“The Senate version will be more aggressive,” Lee said. “It can, it must, and it will be. Or it won’t pass.”

Only two Republicans — Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted against the bill when the House took up the measure last week.

Davidson took note of Musk’s comments on social media.

“Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the Big Beautiful Bill where the House missed the moment,” he wrote. “Don’t hope someone else will cut deficits someday, know it has been done this Congress.”

The Congressional Budget Office, in a preliminary estimate, said the tax provisions would increase federal deficits by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would reduce spending by slightly more than $1 trillion over the same period.

House Republican leaders say increased economic growth would allow the bill to be deficit neutral or reducing, but outside watchdogs are skeptical. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill would add $3 trillion to the debt, including interest, over the next decade.

Megerian and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Elon Musk has criticised one of the signature policies of Donald Trump, marking a break from the US president who he helped to win re-election in 2024.

Last week, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed what Trump calls his “big, beautiful” bill, which includes multi-trillion dollar tax breaks and a pledge to increase defence spending. It will now head to the Senate.

Tech titan Musk told the BBC’s US partner CBS News he was “disappointed” by the plan, which he felt “undermines” the work he did for the president on reducing spending.

Musk was enlisted as Trump’s cost-cutting tsar – ending funds for US foreign aid among other projects – before announcing he would step back.

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,” Musk said in the interview with CBS Sunday Morning, a clip of which was released by the broadcaster before transmission.

He went on to argue that Trump’s plan “increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it”.

It is thought that the legislation could increase the deficit – or the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue that it receives – by about $600bn (£444bn) in the next fiscal year.

Furthermore, the bill “undermines the work that the Doge team is doing”, Musk said, using the acronym of the cost-cutting advisory body the Department of Government Efficiency.

Referring to Trump’s moniker for the legislation, Musk told CBS: “I think a bill can be big or beautiful. I don’t know if it can be both.”

Musk’s intervention highlights the ongoing tension within Trump’s Republican Party over the tax and spend plans, which faced an uneasy passage through the House due to opposition from different wings of the party.

Long a policy priority of Trump’s, the legislation pledges to extend soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during his first administration in 2017, as well as provide an influx of money for defence spending and to fund the president’s mass deportations.

The bill also proposes increasing to $4tn the debt ceiling – meaning the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow to pay its bills.

Musk’s comments on the issue imply a growing distance from Trump, who he helped to propel back to the White House last year with donations of more than $250m.

They come after the billionaire recently pledged to step back from Doge. Musk had stated that he wanted to help the government cut $1tn in spending by cancelling contracts and reducing the government workforce.

As of April, Doge’s website claims around $175bn has already been saved, but a BBC analysis of this figure shows it lacks some evidence.

Musk also said last week that he planned to do “a lot less” political spending in the future, and that he was committed to leading electric car company Tesla for another five years.

Tesla faced protests, boycotts and a drop in sales over Musk’s work as the Doge chief, including his controversial efforts to lay off thousands of federal workers and curb foreign aid.

Musk defended his actions in his comments last week, saying: “I did what needed to be done.” He and Trump previously justified the cuts as a matter of weeding out what they saw as fraud and abuse within federal spending.