There's been plenty of talk about Trump vowing to leave Social Security and Medicare alone.

There's been far less discussion about his congressional Republican allies saying the opposite.

Part of the problem is that there’s often an enormous gap between what the president-elect says he’ll do and what he actually does. Making matters worse, his record on the issue isn’t nearly as sterling as he likes to pretend.

And then, of course, there are congressional Republicans to consider.

Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri appeared on Fox Business this week, for example, and talked about his ideas for tackling the national debt:

And so we’ve got to right the ship, and it’s going to mean cuts. It’s going to mean cuts to the 24 percent of the discretionary spending that we have, and it’s also going to mean looking long-term at the front end of some programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Literally one day after Trump said, in apparent reference to Social Security, that he’s against “raising ages or any of that stuff,” Alford went on to say during the same on-air interview, “[O]n the front end on Social Security, I think there’s a way, when people are living longer, they’re retiring later, then on the front end we can move that retirement age back a little bit.”.....

What’s more, my MSNBC colleague Ryan Teague Beckwith noted that Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah published a lengthy social media thread last week, questioning the constitutionality and practicality of Social Security, while comparing the program to a “Ponzi scheme.”

The claims were quickly amplified by conspiratorial billionaire Elon Musk, who’s helping lead the incoming White House’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

So where does that leave us? Americans can apparently listen to Trump, whose record on Social Security and Medicare is littered with contradictions and flip-flops, or they can listen to the president-elect’s allies, many of whom seem awfully eager to cut the popular social insurance programs now that Election Day has come and gone.

House Republicans' weird fixation on energy efficiency standards — which used to enjoy relatively bipartisan support — has gone from dishwashers to refrigerators to washers and dryers.

Remember when home appliances weren't part of the culture war?

As recently as April, Axios reported that there was some “frustration” among House Republicans over their party’s focus on home appliance–related legislation, especially given the obvious fact that the Democratic-led Senate would ignore the GOP’s measures.

In the months that followed, however, Republican leaders in the chamber ignored those concerns, apparently seeing this as a winning issue. Those attitudes continue to linger — even now in the wake of Election Day. The Washington Examiner reported:

The House of Representatives passed a Republican bill Tuesday preventing new energy efficiency standards for washing machines unless new regulations are ‘cost-effective or technologically feasible.’ The measure adds to recent efforts by the GOP to highlight opposition to new regulations for home appliances and advance legislation to block such rules implemented or considered by the Biden administration.

The final tally in the floor vote was 215 to 200. House Republicans were, predictably, unanimous in their support for the legislation, which was championed by Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee. All but six House Democrats opposed the bill, and 15 members skipped the vote entirely......

A PunchBowl News report published earlier this year helped summarize matters: “These are all part of the Republican culture war clash over energy efficiency and climate change. It’s similar to the gas stove hysteria or Trump’s war on low-flush toilets and light bulbs.”

During a floor debate on one of these home appliance measures, Democratic Rep. Katie Porter of California described the effort as “ridiculous,” adding, “It is Congress at its worst.”

That was true when the congresswoman made the comment in July, and it’s every bit as accurate now.

As for whether Republicans will keep this crusade going in the next Congress, when the GOP controls the levers of power, stay tuned

Tom Cotton's stated rationale for derailing the bipartisan PRESS Act was so foolish, it seems implausible that the senator actually believed it.

The more obvious explanation: He killed the bill because Trump wanted him to.

The legislation was written by a Democrat and a Republican, and it enjoyed equal numbers of Democratic and Republican co-sponsors in the House. For those who assumed that bipartisan policymaking was simply impossible in 2024, especially in the lower chamber, this one bill offered at least some evidence to the contrary.

That is, until this week. The Hill reported:

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blocked a federal shield law that would protect journalists from revealing their sources and material to the government. In the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, known as the PRESS Act, and Cotton objected.

By way of an explanation, the Arkansas Republican told his colleagues on the Senate floor, “The liberal media doesn’t deserve more protections.”

The argument was so absurd that it seems implausible that Cotton actually believed it......

But if Cotton’s official explanation is simply too foolish to take seriously, why did the Arkansan derail the PRESS Act? It might very well be because Donald Trump told him to.

In fact, it was just a couple of weeks ago when the Republican president-elect issued an online edict that said GOP senators “MUST KILL” the legislation.

As we discussed soon after, it wasn’t altogether clear why. One possible explanation was that Trump did a detailed and thoughtful analysis of the bill and had concerns about how the policy would be implemented. The far more likely explanation was that Trump saw a headline about protections for journalists, remembered that he hates the free press, and responded reflexively without doing any research or even taking the time to understand the bill at its most basic level.

Either way, the incoming president called for the demise of the bipartisan measure — and Cotton played his part, support for the bill from the right notwithstanding.

Once in a great while, however, the Republican president-elect is able to find someone who manages to check more than one box. NBC News reported:

President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday that he would nominate former Fox News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle and his longtime billionaire friend Tom Barrack to be ambassadors to Greece and Turkey, respectively. ... In a separate post announcing his selection of her for ambassador to Greece, Trump referred to Guilfoyle, who announced in 2022 that she was engaged to his son Donald Trump Jr., as a yearslong ‘close friend and ally.’

I’m mindful of the latest reporting suggesting that Guilfoyle might no longer be engaged to the president-elect’s oldest son, but I neither know nor care about their personal lives.

What I do care about is the frequency with which Trump chooses people of dubious qualifications for prominent governmental posts based on their closeness to members of his family. The growing list now includes:

Charles Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law, whom the president-elect intends to nominate as the next U.S. ambassador to France.
Massad Boulos, Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law, whom the president-elect tapped to serve as a senior White House adviser on Arab and Middle Eastern affairs.
Adam Boehler, Jared Kushner’s college roommate, whom the president-elect tapped to serve as the special U.S. envoy for hostage affairs.

And we can now add Guilfoyle, who was apparently close to Donald Trump Jr., to the mix.

The former Fox News personality, who does not appear to have any background in diplomacy, will require Senate confirmation. Watch this space.

BEIJING (The Borowitz Report)—Mar-a-Lago descended into crisis on Wednesday after the proposed tariff on Chinese goods sent the price of a Trump Bible soaring from $60 to $1000.

In a brief statement on the matter, Chinese President Xi Jinping said, “It is what it is.”

Acknowledging that Trump’s supporters might be inconvenienced by the Holy Book’s bloated price tag, Xi added, “Perhaps they should have googled ‘tariff’ before voting.”

In a panic, Trump is reportedly mulling a number of cost-cutting measures, including slashing the number of Commandments to five.

Trump has declared that he considers Jan 6 committee members to be criminals. He's also said he expects his loyalists to honor his wishes and act on his preferences.

Whether he literally directs the FBI or the DOJ to launch investigations is irrelevant.

But as part of the same interview, the Republican didn’t just defend Jan. 6 rioters, he also lashed out at those who investigated the assault on the Capitol. The New York Times’ report noted:

“For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail,” Mr. Trump said of [former Rep. Liz] Cheney, a Republican who represented Wyoming, and the rest of the bipartisan House committee that looked into the attack.

It’s important to emphasize that the president-elect, during the same “Meet the Press” appearance, said that he wouldn’t direct the Justice Department or the FBI to prosecute Jan. 6 committee members — none of whom have been credibly accused of any wrongdoing.......

On the surface, Trump was effectively arguing that he thinks the bipartisan Jan. 6 panel is filled with criminals, but he would refrain from siccing federal law enforcement on the committee’s former members. But just below the surface, there are key details that deserve attention.

First, there are ample reasons to believe the Republican will do the opposite, because his record is littered with allegations that he did, in fact, give explicit directions to prosecute his perceived political opponents.

Second, in the “Meet the Press” interview, Trump said, in reference to FBI officials, “If they think that somebody was dishonest or crooked or a corrupt politician, I think [Kash Patel] probably has an obligation to do it.” The president-elect has, of course, falsely accused Jan. 6 committee members of being dishonest, crooked and corrupt.

But perhaps most importantly, we’re dealing with a rhetorical shell game. As the Times’ Jonathan Swan summarized, “Trump is sending clear public signals to his nominees that he wants retribution, although he is then saying he will not direct them to act. But by saying that Jack Smith is ‘corrupt’ and that members of the Jan. 6 committee belong in prison, Trump is making no secret of what he wants his Justice Department to do.”

Exactly. The president-elect just told a national television audience that he believes the Jan. 6 committee was comprised of criminals. At that point, whether he literally directs the FBI or the Justice Department to launch investigations is largely irrelevant.

Trump expects loyalists to make him happy — and he just left no doubts as to what would make him happy. The message wasn’t subtle, and it was almost certainly noticed by those eager to do his bidding.

Why would Trump deliberately call the Canadian prime minister "governor"?

It stems from the fact that the president-elect still doesn't quite understand what a trade deficit is.

It started with an odd attempt at humor. A couple of weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago to have dinner with Donald Trump, and while dining, the president-elect apparently suggested that Canada could become the 51st U.S. state.

Canadian officials soon after confirmed that the Republican did, in fact, make the comments, but they assured the public that Trump was merely joking......

It was against this backdrop that the Republican sat down with NBC News’ Kristen Welker and continued to lean into the idea during a “Meet the Press” appearance. Trump claimed:

“We’re subsidizing Canada to the tune over $100 billion a year. We’re subsidizing Mexico for almost $300 billion. We shouldn’t be — why are we subsidizing these countries? If we’re going to subsidize them, let them become a state.”

The day after the interview aired, the president-elect published yet another related item to his online platform, which referred to Trudeau as “governor.” Lest anyone think he simply mistyped, Trump called the Canadian prime minister “governor” twice in the same missive......

First, Trump is under the impression that the United States has a $100 billion annual trade deficit with Canada and an “almost” $300 billion annual trade deficit with Mexico. Those numbers are wildly exaggerated, as he really ought to know.

Second, Trump apparently believes that if the United States has a trade deficit with a country, it necessarily means that we’re “subsidizing” that country. The problem, of course, is that the Republican has never really bothered to learn what a trade deficit is, and his claim is largely gibberish.

Third, Trump also apparently believes that countries that benefit from U.S. subsidies should become states. That’s not how subsidies work, either.

Given all of this, common sense suggests Trump really ought to stop commenting on Canada and statehood, but given everything we know about the president-elect, this seems unlikely.

When Trump hawked a bunch of Trump-branded merchandise ahead of Election Day, it was bizarre but understandable: He was facing a cash-crunch and wasn't sure if he'd win.

The fact that he's *still* doing the same thing during the transition is even weirder.

This wouldn’t be especially notable were it not for the fact that the Republican quickly put an image from the event to unusual use. USA Today reported:

Get a whiff of this: For $199, you can smell the sweet scent of victory. And who can resist that? Not even your enemies, according to President-elect Donald Trump, who is hawking his “Fight Fight Fight” line of men’s and women’s fragrances. In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump shared a picture of himself having a pleasant exchange with first lady Jill Biden with a tongue-in-cheek caption: “A fragrance your enemies can’t resist.”

On Friday, the president-elect used his social media platform to tout the Trump-branded perfumes and colognes, and directed supporters to a sales website. “I call them Fight, Fight, Fight, because they represent us WINNING,” the Republican wrote, referring to the fragrances. “Great Christmas gifts for the family.”

It was two days later, however, when Trump published a follow-up item featuring an image of the president-elect and the incumbent first lady, alongside “A fragrance your enemies can’t resist” text.

It’s unclear whether Dr. Biden approved of her image being used in the Republican’s commercial enterprise, though I have a hunch I know the answer to that question......

On Friday, a half-hour after encouraging supporters to buy Trump-branded fragrances, the Republican also published an item encouraging supporters to buy Trump-branded watches. (The most expensive of the timepieces cost $100,000.)

And did I mention the Trump-branded guitars? Because they became available after Election Day, too.

There’s no modern precedent for anything like this, and it renews questions about the president-elect’s controversial personal finances and the motivation behind the schemes.