Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
In today’s edition, Allan Smith digs into how Donald Trump is looking to reshape the GOP’s relationship with the tech industry amid his battle for Americans’ attention. Jonathan Allen explores the precarious position lawmakers could be put in as they vote to confirm Trump’s budget chief. And we break down the new snags Trump’s policies are hitting in court.
Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.
— Adam Wollner
Trump wants your attention — and the world’s richest men can help him
By Allan Smith
When President Donald Trump was flanked at his inauguration by tech titans Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Sundar Pichai, with the CEOs of Apple and TikTok nearby, he was surrounded not just by a handful of the wealthiest men on the planet — but by executives who oversee platforms that, in some combination, virtually all Americans engage with.
For a president whose rise, fall and comeback are all intertwined with his innate ability to capture attention online and on TV, those executives hold the keys to algorithmic and policy tweaks that could depress or further enhance his political — and financial — standing.
In turn, Trump could influence policy in emerging technologies in ways favorable or unfavorable to the executives and their companies.
In the weeks since Trump has been sworn in, he’s given Musk wide-ranging authority to implement rapid change at federal agencies. And Zuckerberg, who has taken several steps to pivot Meta to the right, was at the White House on Thursday.
The dynamic has the chance to reshape what was long an adversarial relationship between conservatives and Big Tech companies, which has been marked by years of disdain over content moderation practices and threats to strip legal protections.
What Republicans are saying: Conservatives see a chance to advance their tech priorities on a host of fronts where they may not have seen possibilities before. But they say they still harbor skepticism of the platforms that recent policy shifts and photo-ops have not softened. For example, Steve Bannon, the influential former top White House aide under Trump, has continued to rail against the tech leaders and their agenda even as they become cozier with Trump.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said one reason Big Tech leaders are changing their tune is “that they know how to read an election return.” Hawley, who has challenged tech companies on antitrust grounds and data policy, among other areas, said their shift does not mean they should now be fully trusted.
“I’m deeply concerned about their monopolistic power. That hasn’t changed at all, their ability to turn right back on the control of news and information, their control over our personal data — none of that has changed,” Hawley said. “I think it’s a good thing that through the election and through Trump’s influence, they have changed their approach, currently, to political speech.”
What Democrats are saying: Democrats and their liberal allies are trying to figure out how to swing the momentum in tech back toward them, while expressing concern about what the new Trump-tech alliance could mean for everything from control of information online to wealth inequality and the nuts-and-bolts functions of government itself.
“I convened tech leaders over a year ago to discuss the rightward swing in Silicon Valley and the impact it would have,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., whose district includes a slice of Silicon Valley, said in a statement.
“For Democrats to win these leaders back, it is critical for us to prove we are the party of the future, of innovation, and of entrepreneurship,” he continued. “If we fail too, we miss an opportunity to harness tech for our vision and make incredible advancements in personalized medicine, efficient energy use, and building wealth in communities that have been left behind.”
What to know from the Trump presidency today
It’s been a busy 24 hours in the courts, with Trump’s plans for federal worker buyouts, birthright citizenship and DOGE hitting snags, while the DOJ filed suit against Illinois over its immigration policies.
Let’s dive in:
-
A federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked the government from implementing mass buyouts at federal agencies, at least until Monday. More than 60,000 federal workers accepted the buyout offers ahead of what had been tonight’s midnight deadline.
-
Education Department officials told staff members that if they accept the Trump administration’s deferred resignation package, the education secretary may later cancel it and employees would not have any recourse, potentially leaving them without promised pay.
-
The Trump administration ordered all federal departments and agencies to submit, by March 7, lists of employees who received less than “fully successful” job performance ratings in the past three years.
-
A federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order that seeks to limit birthright citizenship from taking effect, one day after another federal judge in Maryland similarly issued a nationwide hold.
-
Trump doubled down on his plans for the Gaza Strip saying the Palestinian enclave would be “turned over to the United States by Israel” once the war there ends.
-
Trump will sign an executive order sanctioning the International Criminal Court, accusing the body of improperly targeting the U.S. and Israel.
-
The administration evicted former Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan from her home with three hours of notice, which wasn’t even enough time to gather her personal effects.
The Constitution gives lawmakers the power of the purse. Will this Congress want it?
By Jonathan Allen
The Senate will vote Thursday night on whether to confirm Russell Vought as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. If he is confirmed, as expected, it will be despite — or perhaps because of — his unorthodox view that the president should be able to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.
This question was at the center of Donald Trump’s first impeachment, when he unilaterally blocked money Congress approved to support Ukraine’s defense. Trump reasoned that the defense package gave him leverage to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open an investigation into Joe Biden, who was then running against him. Trump eventually freed up the money when his efforts were revealed.
That moment has passed, but Trump’s desire to control federal spending from the White House has not abated. Instead, it has increased.
In his opening weeks, he shut off cash for an array of domestic and foreign grant programs established by Congress, empowered billionaire Elon Musk to offer buyouts to federal employees, and claimed emergency powers that allow him to redirect spending approved by lawmakers.
The American Revolution was fought in part to stop the taxation without representation that occurred under King George III. Even in a republic with an elected president, the executive is not the closest representative of the people.
Resting the taxing and spending authority with Congress was such an important idea to the founders that it was embedded in the first article of the Constitution. The legislative branch was given power over the purse, with the House of Representatives — the body closest to the people — holding sole authority to originate tax measures.
“This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers.
The president is, without a doubt, one representative of the will of the people. But members of the Senate and House are also elected — to promote the interests of their states and districts — as part of a system designed to divide power.
Vought’s view is that the Impoundment Control Act, which broadly forbids the president from choosing not to spend money appropriated by Congress, is unconstitutional, even though courts have upheld it for half a century.
That view puts Congress in a precarious position as it considers whether to keep the government funded past March 14. Lawmakers can vote to avoid a shutdown and hand Trump free rein to ignore their spending directives or even shift money from programs they want to fund to operations they don’t. Or, they can let spending authority lapse and incur a shutdown that stops him from spending beyond essential functions of government.
Their decision on Vought’s nomination will go a long way toward demonstrating the degree to which Congress believes it should have the power of the purse granted by the Constitution and whether it believes power should be diffused or more fully concentrated in the hands of the president.
🗞️ Today’s other top stories
-
🔎 ‘Chilling effect’: Current and formerFBI officials say mass firings of agents who investigated Jan. 6 could threaten the agency’s capacity to prevent terrorist attacks, investigate public corruption and retain staff. Read more →
-
➡️ Controversial hire: Trump’s pick to oversee U.S. intelligence on terrorism threats, former congressional candidate Joe Kent, has called Jan. 6 rioters “political prisoners” and has had ties to a man police say was a member of the Proud Boys. Read more →
-
⚖️ Keep your friends close: Trump has tapped his personal lawyers and allies to fill the Justice Department, raising concerns from legal experts that his picks will struggle to remain impartial from the White House. Read more →
-
📝 Mega MAGA bill: As the GOP-led House struggles to begin work on a big-ticket bill to advance Trump’s legislative agenda, the Senate Republican budget chief says the upper chamber will move forward on a distinct two-bill path. Read more →
-
📱New frontiers: A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill to ban China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence software from government devices. Read more →
-
🏛 Back in business: Minnesota lawmakers settled on a bipartisan power-sharing agreement in the state House, ending a weekslong political stalemate that kept the chamber from conducting business for more than three weeks. Read more →
That’s all From the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Faith Wardwell.
If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com
And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
