Rand Paul Takes Swipe at Elon Musk Over 'Big Not So Beautiful Bill'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Republican Senator Rand Paul took a swipe at Elon Musk's large family over President Donald Trump's top legislative proposal, which he is calling the "Big not so beautiful bill."
Both Musk and Paul have expressed frustration with the bill as it stands, with Paul's dislike being focused on its impact on government debt.
Paul posted on X: "The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is [sic.] that a wise use of our $$?"
How about this: tweak the Big not so beautiful bill so it doesn't add so much to the debt?
The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is that a wise use of our $$? — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025
Paul did not expand on this post. The budget bill as it stands brings the Child Tax Credit (CTC) up to $2,200. This is not directly paying people to have children but is a tax incentive for people making under $200,000 a year.
The libertarian senator from Kentucky may also have been referring to the children's savings program portion of the bill, which would give every child born in America between 2025 to 2028 $1,000 in an investment account. This is putting money directly to a child's account, not to their parents, so would not necessarily benefit Musk, who is father to at least 14 children, directly.
Newsweek has contacted Paul via email for comment outside of working hours.
From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in...
From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in Washington DC. More
Left: Tom Williams, Right: Susan Walsh, File/Left: CQ Roll Call via AP Images, Right: AP Photo
Why It Matters
Paul and Musk have been reposting each other's comments about the impact of the bill on national debt, so Paul's comment on X may have been an effort to highlight how the bill would add billions to the national debt, rather than an insult.
The bill as it stands is not popular with American voters. According to a poll conducted by The Tarrance Group, which Paul has also shared, 58 percent of people agree with Musk's assertion that the budget is a "pork-filled spending bill that will massively increase the budget deficit and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt."
The Trump administration says the bill is needed to address voter priorities. It seeks to permanently extend $3.8 trillion in expiring benefits while funding Trump's mass deportation efforts with $350 billion in national security spending.
Not that we should govern by poll, but it is very clear people don't want this extreme amount of debt and reckless spending https://t.co/3iKPsojyzd — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025
What To Know
Senator Rand Paul has been one of the most outspoken Republican voices against the "Big Beautiful Bill," as it stands.
The bill passed a procedural vote in the Senate on June 28, with Paul and another Republican senator, Thom Tillis, voting against it.
Paul has said he would be open to voting for the bill if it did not increase the debt, but it currently stands to add over $4 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Tax cuts in the budget bill are also expected to provide more tax benefits to the rich than the working or middle class. It will extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts that resulted in reducing taxes significantly more for the top 0.1 percent, per analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, and Brookings Institution.
The White House says that the bill "delivers for the American worker" and will deliver a "Blue-Collar BOOM." It highlights measures such as a 15 percent tax cut for Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 per year, and no taxes on overtime or tips.
Trump has also said that revenue generated from global tariffs will offset the reduction in tax revenue. The tax cuts in the bill as it stands are expected to add $4.6 trillion in debt, and tariffs are expected to generate up to $3.1 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation, and the Yale Budget Lab.
Another Republican and libertarian legislator, Representative Thomas Massie, has criticized the "omnibus" nature of the bill, as it contains everything from tax credits to AI regulation in one package.
Paul has agreed with this sentiment, saying on X: "Break up the bills so we can vote on individual matters, not a bunch of things at once."
What People Are Saying
Senator Rand Paul on X: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a principle."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a… — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 16, 2025
Daniel Hornung, former President Joe Biden's deputy director of the National Economic Council, told The Guardian: "It's really striking that this bill is both as fiscally irresponsible as it is and regressive. People making less than $50,000 a year will actually see their incomes go down, and it's really to finance tax cuts for largely high-income people."
The White House, in a June 24 statement: "President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill lowers tax rates to keep more money in Americans' pockets—PREVENTING THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY."
What Happens Next
The budget bill just passed a procedural vote in the Senate without a single Democrat vote, or Senators Paul or Tillis. It still needs to pass another simple majority vote in the Senate, with Vice President JD Vance potentially needed as a tiebreaker. Then, it will return to the House for a final vote before it can be approved by the president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
Atlantic
32 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Republican Senate tax bill would add $3.3 trillion to the US debt load, CBO says
Advertisement The stark numbers are yet another obstacle for Republican leaders as they labor to pass Trump's bill by his self-imposed July 4th deadline. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Even before the CBO's estimate, Republicans were at odds over the contours of the legislation, with some resisting the cost-saving proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid and food aid programs even as other Republicans say those proposals don't go far enough. Republicans are slashing the programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks put in place during his first term. The push-pull was on vivid display Saturday night as a routine procedural vote to take up the legislation in the Senate was held open for hours as Vice President JD Vance and Republican leaders met with several holdouts. The bill ultimately advanced in a 51-49 vote, but the path ahead is fraught, with voting on amendments still to come. Advertisement Still, many Republicans are disputing the CBO estimates and the reliability of the office's work. To hoist the bill to passage, they are using a different budget baseline that assumes the Trump tax cuts expiring in December have already been extended, essentially making them cost-free in the budget. The CBO on Saturday released a separate analysis of the GOP's preferred approach that found the Senate bill would reduce deficits by about $500 billion. Democrats and economists decry the GOP's approach as 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. In addition, Democrats note that under the traditional scoring system, the Republican bill bill would violate the Senate's 'Byrd Rule' that forbids the legislation from increasing deficits after 10 years. In a Sunday letter to Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Phillip Swagel said the office estimates that the Finance Committee's portion of the bill, also known as Title VII, 'increases the deficits in years after 2034' under traditional scoring.
