Elizabeth MacDonough - A Hero for the Rest of Us

One of the most powerful women in 2025–you’ve never heard of and why she’s unforgettable 

by Dr. Pru Lee (Pru Pru)

On June 20th, 2025 a woman most of this country wouldn’t recognize in a grocery store walked into the Senate chamber with a stack of rules and a spine made of steel.

Her name is Elizabeth MacDonough.
She’s the Senate Parliamentarian.
Not partisan.
Not elected.
Not loud.
But when it comes to reconciliation bills, her word is law.

And baby, she laid that law DOWN.

Who is Elizabeth MacDonough?
She’s not a senator. She’s not a politician.
She’s the nonpartisan Parliamentarian of the Senate—the official who interprets and enforces Senate rules.

She’s served since 2012 under both parties and doesn’t answer to either. She was just appointed by Thune. He backed her decision. She ruled, decisively, that these provisions in this heinous bill had to go—and following Thune’s lead, the rest of the Republicans backed down from challenging her.

Elizabeth came through like the quiet auntie at the reunion who don’t say much, but when she do, everybody listens and the whole room shifts.

So don’t sleep on Elizabeth MacDonough.
She ain’t flashy. She ain’t partisan.
But that woman will pull out her little rulebook and cut your dreams into ribbons if they ain’t tight with procedure LOL.

Last week, in the Big Beautiful Bill they tried to sneak a 10-year ban on state AI regulation into a reconciliation bill.
They tried to make it harder to stop unconstitutional actions in court.
They tried to defund every watchdog with a spine and punish the Defense Department for being too slow with paperwork.
They tried to kill consumer protection agencies, roll back climate policies, sell off National Park land, make it harder for judges to stop unconstitutional laws, and so much more nefarious shit.

They called it a budget.
We called it a lie.
And she called it what it was: a violation of the Byrd Rule.

They wrapped it in budget language, tied it to random funding, buried them deep in a 1000+ page document and hoped no one would look too closely.

But we looked.
We named it.
We raised the alarm.
We called on our reps to use the Byrd Rule.

So what’s the Byrd Rule?
• Named after Senator Byrd not because of his past (yes, he was in the triple K club)—but because of his obsession with Senate procedure and protecting the budget process from abuse.
• He introduced the Byrd Rule in 1985 to stop Congress from stuffing unrelated junk into budget bills under reconciliation—because those bills can’t be filibustered.
• So ironically, the rule he championed has become a tool to stop authoritarian overreach.
Yes, Byrd was in the KKK.
Yes, he was wrong.
But the rule itself ain’t about him anymore—it’s about the firewall he ironically helped build.
And this week, that firewall held.
And we used it against the very kind of abuse he once participated in.

That’s what makes it powerful.
That’s what makes it full circle.

And so today, what was once used to exclude is being used to protect Black people, poor people, the environment, and civil liberties.

And while our Democratic representatives already knew about the Byrd Rule—we didn’t teach them anything new—they didn’t know how many of US knew about the Byrd Rule.
And that’s the part that changes the game.

Because yeah, senators have legal staff. They got policy analysts. They know the rules.
But when thousands of people flood their inboxes quoting section numbers, naming procedural violations, and saying “we’re watching,” that’s not just noise.
That’s support.
That’s pressure.
That’s protection.
That’s a firewall built out of everyday people who refused to let this slip by in silence.

So no, we didn’t teach Congress about the Byrd Rule.
But we damn sure reminded them they should use it.
We showed them that not only did we support that move, we expected it.

We named the violations line by line.
Thousands of us sent that message to Congress—and it landed.

This win belongs to all of us.
To the ones watching closely.
To the ones refusing to be distracted.
To the ones who still believe rules should mean something.

To every staffer, strategist, and senator who stood up: We see you. And we thank you.

This was not a solo act. It was a full-court press by Senate Democrats—led by Sen. Jeff Merkley and Sen. Elizabeth Warren—with over 60 Democratic staffers filing formal Byrd Rule challenges to expose what we already knew:

This wasn’t a budget bill. It was a Trojan horse.

And then Elizabeth MacDonough, the nonpartisan Senate Parliamentarian, said what we’ve been saying from the jump: “This violates the Byrd Rule. Strip it out.”

She pulled provision after provision from the bill—every single one we said couldn’t legally pass under reconciliation?
Gone.
Every provision we flagged?
She struck it.
One by one. Clean. Surgical.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)? Gone.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)? Gone.
AI gag order on every state government? Bond scam where they tried to force people to post a financial bond before they could get a court to block or delay a law they believe is unconstitutional?
Gone. Gone. Gone.

But here’s the part that made my chest burn in the best way: We didn’t just watch this.
We helped shape it.

Thousands of us forwarded the breakdown.
Thousands of us told our Congress: Use the Byrd Rule. Because this bill is illegal AF.

Here’s a rundown of what happened:

Eight MAJOR provisions were stripped because they violated reconciliation rules, including:
• Defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Eliminating the Office of Financial Research
• Cutting Federal Reserve staff pay ($1.4 billion)
• Abolishing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
• Rolling back EPA vehicle emissions standards
• Slashing funding tied to the Inflation Reduction Act
• Triggering Defense Department cuts over delayed reports
• Blocking states from regulating AI for 10 years

      The AI preemption clause (banning states from regulating AI for 10 years) was not struck down. It survived Byrd Rule review and remains in the bill—but it still needs to pass by simple majority. Several Republicans and Democrats have voiced opposition, so it’s on thin ice.

• Requiring court bonds to stop unconstitutional laws
      The judicial bond requirement (which would force people to pay financial bonds to get an injunction against unconstitutional laws) is still pending a final ruling. It may be struck, but as of now, it’s still technically in the bill.

Every single one? Gone.

And dozens of provisions were challenged.

The federal land grab provision—an attempt to sell off public lands to cover budget gaps—was also flagged in the Byrd Rule review.
      The public lands sell-off provision (an attempt to auction off national park land to offset costs) was not struck either. Instead, it was flagged as noncompliant with reconciliation—which means it now requires 60 votes to pass. That doesn’t kill it outright, but it makes it damn hard to sneak through.   

While it hasn’t been officially cut yet, it’s now subject to a 60-vote threshold.
That means Republicans can’t sneak it through with a simple majority.

So while it’s not dead yet, it’s standing on shaky ground.

Is the bill dead?

No—but the worst parts are.

The Parliamentarian didn’t kill the whole bill.
She stripped out every provision that broke reconciliation rules under the Byrd Rule.
And guess what?
Those were the parts with the fangs.
The bans. The defunding. The authoritarian tools.

So what’s left?
Just the stuff that actually affects the federal budget—like basic funding levels and tax adjustments.
The meat of the “culture war” sabotage? Gone.

Can they rewrite it and try again?

Yes, but not easily.
To reinsert the stripped provisions, they’d need 60 Senate votes.
Republicans only have 53.
So unless they flip 7 Democrats—which ain’t happening—they can’t bring that mess back.

What are their options now?
1. Pass the gutted bill as-is—boring, basic, budget-only.
2. Rewrite and break it into multiple bills (which would face public backlash).
3. Try to overrule the Parliamentarian (but Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already said he’s not willing to do that—too risky for their party long-term).

This was their legislative warhead.
And Elizabeth MacDonough just disarmed it.
The reconciliation trick won’t get them their wish list.
They’d have to do it the real way—with votes, hearings, and public accountability.
And they don’t want that smoke.

So while the bill technically lives. Politically? Strategically? Morally? It just flatlined.

Now, to the naysayers. The negative Nellies (you know who you are LOL). The folks who said writing doesn’t matter…contacting Congress doesn’t matter…
Peaceful protesting doesn’t matter…
that rules don’t work…
that knowing the law isn’t a benefit…
that resistance is useless…

Look me in the eye and say it now.

We came together.
We did the research.
We made our voices heard.

And this time—we won.
Not a full win yet, but not a complete loss either.

Thank you to everyone who sent updates and helped me cross-check with care. This is what real-time civic action looks like.

SAD DAYS

 

Courts have been, and will likely continue to be (at least until next year’s elections), the principal check on President Trump’s … casual … relationship with the law. 

But (and largely because of that) they have also become high-level targets for the President and his supporters—both verbally and literally. With such an ongoing assault on judicial independence, now is the time for the justices to remind everyone why we have an independent judiciary—not as an end unto itself, but as a means of preventing tyrannies of the majority. 

The way the courts do that is not just by checking the other institutions of government, but by doing so through a coherent (and publicly articulated) set of principles the neutral application of which ought to provide the very moral authority on which the Court’s power depends.

 By doing nothing to push back against those attacks (indeed, by indirectly incentivizing them in some cases), and by behaving in a way that gives at least the appearance of justices more interested in rationalizing their votes than in reconciling their jurisprudence, the Supreme Court is ultimately weakening the entire institution of the federal judiciary at the worst possible moment. 

The Court may think that all it’s doing is reining in lower courts. But I fear that that, too, is just a vibe.

SCUMBAG TRUMP AND MAGAT FLUNKIES LIKE JOHNSON REFUSE FOR OVER TWO YEARS TO INSTALL THIS PLAQUE IN THE CAPITOL

 

ALLISON GILL

  

John Roberts: "I Never Thought the Leopards Would Eat *My* Judiciary"

The chief justice who handed an oligarch a crown is once again surprised by the consequences of his own actions

Allison Gill Jun 28

 

In many of his pretrial motions - particularly in motions to protect discovery and for narrowly tailored gag orders - Special Counsel Jack Smith laid out a mountain of evidence tying Donald Trump’s rhetoric to threats of violence and intimidation. Yet John Roberts can’t figure out why there are so many threats to judges. Given that Justice Roberts usurped last year’s immunity ruling for himself, and knew how he was going to rule well before he ran out the clock on any chance of a trial before the election, I find it hard to believe he didn’t at least glance at the myriad examples of threats to legal officials and witnesses found in Smith’s pleadings before the court.

To act surprised by the increase in threats of violence toward judges reveals either abject incompetence, or willful blindness on his part. Both of which should disqualify anyone from interpreting the Constitution. But yet again, he is making public comments that illustrate his total inability to read a room.

This time, in an appearance at the Judicial Conference, John sang his usual refrains about threats against members of the judiciary, again without naming Trump.

“If you have somebody who’s expressing a high degree of hostility to the court, on whatever basis … the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work.”

Cue the GIF of Jack Nicholson, wild-eyed and nodding his head as the camera zooms in “YESSSS YESSSS.” John is so close to getting it! But then he says “I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.”

Oh my sweet baby jesus he just both-sidesed violent threats against judges.

But that’s not the worst of it. The seeming inability to self-reflect plumbed new depths. While addressing the pile-up of cases at the end of this term, he said “Things were a little crunched towards the end this year. We’ll try to space it out a little better next year.”

A pile-up, you say? Things were a tad crunched? Now why do you suppose that is, John? Could it be that your actions granting presidents immunity and crowning them kings, postponing if not outright canceling two trials allowing a dictator to be installed who is so fucking lawless that hundreds of his executive orders are being challenged in court, and how maybe that might cause a little bit of a logjam?

I swear to all that is good and holy, I have not seen a man so blithely unaware of the consequences of his own actions since Narcissus.

I suppose next term, we will all be forced to endure incessant John Roberts pearl clutching about the increase in class action lawsuits that will now have to be brought in light of the Supreme Court limiting the use of universal injunctions thereby consolidating power with the high court. “Ohhhh, I never thought it could happen to meeee” he’ll say, as a woman bleeds out in a hospital parking lot after losing her Medicaid and being turned away for religious reasons from the Joel Osteen regional hospital that HealthNet funded to replace the rural hospital that was forced to close under the Billionaire Bailout Bill.

This is your bed, John Roberts. You lie in it. I just wish the rest of us didn’t have to.