What is the next

Welcome to the online version of Political officeAn evening newsletter that brings you the latest report and analysis of the NBC News Policy team from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign campaign.

In today’s edition, Elon Musk and Donald Trump have farewell to the Oval Office on live television. Meanwhile, Kristen Welker is in the latest social media from Trump to Vladimir Putin and what they could mean for the Russian-Ukraine War. And the main journalist of the Supreme Court Lawrence Hurley answers a question of reader on a notable provision nestled in the Budget Budget Bill which was recently adopted.

Register to receive this newsletter in your reception box every day during the week here.

– Scott Bland

Elon Musk’s missed opportunity

By Jonathan Allen

Elon Musk was held next to President Donald Trump in the oval office on Friday, but physical proximity denied a growing philosophical fracture between two of the most powerful men in the world, which led to a brutal announcement of the technological magnate that he leaves Washington – without having achieved his goal of decimating the federal government.

“He came,” he saw, “he folded,” said Steve Bannon, a principal White House advisor during Trump’s first mandate who has an influence with the worker wing of Maga de Trump, in a text exchange with NBC News.

Musk, who held his arms folded on his chest while he and Trump took up questions, sported a bruise near his right eye – an undoubted metaphor for his tumultuous government service – which, according to him, was hired by playing with his son X.

Trump adopted a more charitable vision of Musk’s mandate at a sprawling press conference in which he also refused to exclude Sean “Diddy” Combs, which is tried for sexual traffic and other alleged crimes; said that he does not like “the concept” of the former first woman Jill Biden being forced to testify before the congress on the mental form of her husband; And predicted again that Iran was at the dawn to conclude an agreement which suspends its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“He had to go through slings and arrows, which is a shame because he is an incredible patriot,” said Trump about Musk.

Trump and Musk both argued that Doge will continue to wipe the savings by eliminating waste and musk -free fraud.

“This is not the end of Doge, but really the start,” said Musk, promising to reach the billions of dollars in Cup In the middle of next year. At the same time, he spoke of cutting public spending, Musk praised the renovation by Trump of the Oval Office.

“I love gold on the ceiling,” he said.

Musk argued that inertia has strangled its efforts to reduce public spending – a conclusion that raises a question if he was naive about the challenge of the mission he has undertaken.

“The situation of the federal bureaucracy is much worse than I did,” he said The Washington Post this week. “I thought there were problems, but it is certainly a difficult battle while trying to improve things at DC, to say the least.”

Learn more →

The next steps like Trump awakens Putin fury

By Kristen Welker

President Donald Trump has intensified the rhetoric attacking Russian President Vladimir Putin, but so far there is no teeth behind.

After months of Putin’s cup on the world scene and to compete with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump has undergone rhetorical change in recent days.

He is taken to social networks to explode Putin to have left “absolutely crazy“And to” unnecessarily kill many people “, including Ukrainian citizens” for no reason. ” He warned What “what Vladimir Putin does not realize is that if it was not for me, many very bad things would have happened to Russia, and I mean really badly. He plays with fire!”

Trump now seems to warm up with the belief that many Western leaders have for years – that Putin has not seriously pushed peace, apart from total Russian victory. In recent weeks, we have seen some of the greatest bombings in the whole war, especially A massive drone attack in Kyiv This came in the shadow of an exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine.

None of this means that Trump is Buddy-Buddy with Zelenskyy now, and he criticized the Ukrainian as “stubborn” during Friday remarks at the Oval Office, even if he underlined his disappointment with Putin.

Meanwhile, the question of sanctioning Russia and sending help to Ukraine obviously divides the GOP, and it is not necessarily fine with the “America First” wing of the GOP that Trump commands. But if Trump wants to act, like the former vice-president Mike Pence told me that he recommended during Our conversation earlier this monthHe has arrows in his quiver.

Earlier this week on “Meet the Press Now”, the former American ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told us that the only way to convince Putin to come to the negotiation table is to convince him that he cannot move forward on the battlefield. Although one can think that the West is exploited with regard to sanctions, McFaul said that there were much more on the table, in particular by entering more assets or by prohibiting the “shadow fleet” of Russia which prevents oil from mooring in Western ports.

And barely a few days ago, the Iowa GOP senator Chuck Grassley, an older man in the Senate, called Trump to be as “decisive” in new sanctions against Russia as in his blow against Harvard University.

So if Putin is short of leash with Trump, then what is the president waiting?

Join us on Sunday when we talk about this and a burst of other important national and international questions with the president of the House Mike Johnson and the Democratic Senator of Georgia Raphael Warnock.

✉️ Mailbag: Congress and the courts

Thank you to everyone who sent us an email! This week’s reader’s question is on a arrangement under the radar in the “big and beautiful bill” of the Republicans.

“I have heard that the bill contains a language that removes the power of a judge to keep someone out of the way when he does not comply with the court orders. Is it true? I saw a lot on the financial implications but nothing about it. ”

To answer this, we turned to a Supreme Senior Court journalist Lawrence Hurley. Here is his answer:

The house bill made indeed include a provision This would limit the ability of federal judges to have outrageous people for violating judicial orders. (Read it here.)

The measure supported by the Republicans comes in the middle Considerable Possorbout on the right Against a certain number of judges who have not only blocked Trump’s administration policies but also wondered if the administration complies with decisions and at least envisaged contempt procedure.

The provision in question would seek to limit the ability of judges to continue outrageous conclusions by retaining federal funds that could be used to enforce such a decision unless the applicant is not deposited when looking for a temporary prohibition order or a preliminary injunction.

But there is no guarantee that the Senate will include the language in its version of the bill, in part because it can drop rules intended to ensure that the provisions of the budget bill have a direct link with federal income.

It’s all of the political bureau for the moment. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Scott Bland and Ben Kamisar.

If you have comments – tastes or don’t like – send us an email to politiquenewsletter@nbcuni.com

And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can register here.