Trump Blasts Musk's New Political Party as ‘Ridiculous'
Musk promised to campaign against Republicans who voted for the bill, and Trump pondered whether to deport the South Africa-born billionaire.
Read More: Can Trump Deport U.S. Citizens Like Elon Musk and Zohran Mamdani?
But after Musk announced over the weekend the formation of his planned third political party, the 'America Party,' Trump seemed to feel less love or hate than pity.
'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday.
Trump told reporters earlier, 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party. The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion. It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked.' He added of Musk: 'He can have fun with it, but I think it's ridiculous.'
On Truth Social, Trump expanded on his political analysis about third parties, writing: 'They have never succeeded in the United States - The System seems not designed for them. The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds! Republicans, on the other hand, are a smooth running 'machine,' that just passed the biggest Bill of its kind in the History of our Country.'
While most Americans seem to disagree with Trump that the Republican Party is running the country smoothly, experts agree that the American political system is not designed for third parties to succeed. Challenges include institutional barriers, such as ballot access, as well as political and financial barriers, though the latter should be of no problem to Musk.
Musk has suggested in posts on X that his party will aim to elect lawmakers in the 2026 midterms who will 'caucus independently' in Congress. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts. Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,' he posted. 'Backing a candidate for president is not out of the question, but the focus for the next 12 months is on the House and the Senate,' he added later.
In response to Trump, Musk mocked, 'What's Truth Social?'—referring to the platform Trump started in 2021 as an alternative to what was then known as Twitter (now X), which Musk bought in 2022. Musk also suggested that Trump is scared, invoking a line from Frank Herbert's epic sci-fi novel Dune: 'Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total Obliteration.'
Trump, despite telling TIME in December that 'Elon puts the country long before his company' and insisting that Musk had the credibility to lead the Department of Government Efficiency amid concerns about conflicts of interest, continued to insist that Musk's opposition to the 'Big Beautiful Bill' is self-interested.
'It is a Great Bill but, unfortunately for Elon, it eliminates the ridiculous Electric Vehicle (EV) Mandate, which would have forced everyone to buy an Electric Car in a short period of time,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'I have been strongly opposed to that from the very beginning. People are now allowed to buy whatever they want - Gasoline Powered, Hybrids (which are doing very well), or New Technologies as they come about - No more EV Mandate. I have campaigned on this for two years and, quite honestly, when Elon gave me his total and unquestioned Endorsement, I asked him whether or not he knew that I was going to terminate the EV Mandate - It was in every speech I made, and in every conversation I had. He said he had no problems with that - I was very surprised!'
While there has never been a federal mandate to buy electric vehicles, Trump's bill does eliminate federal tax incentives for electric-vehicle owners, which is expected to hurt Musk's company Tesla.
Musk insists that his main issue is with the deficit. 'What the heck was the point of @DOGE if he's just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??' he posted Sunday. The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates that the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' as written will add more than $4 trillion to the national debt through 2034, and if various temporary provisions are made permanent, that figure would rise to $5.5 trillion.
Column: The Budget Bill's Big Consequences
Trump also aimed to contrast his own allegiance to the nation with Musk's supposed self interest—and responsibilities to the companies he runs, including Tesla and SpaceX—by referencing, not by name, Jared Isaacman, a Musk associate whom Trump nominated to head the National Aeronautics and Space Administration before withdrawing the nomination after his breakup with Musk.
'Additionally, Elon asked that one of his close friends run NASA and, while I thought his friend was very good, I was surprised to learn that he was a blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before. Elon probably was, also. I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon's corporate life,' Trump ended his Truth Social rant. 'My Number One charge is to protect the American Public!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
21 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tips And Overtime Deductions In Big Beautiful Bill Create Odd Marriage Incentives
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)When President Trump came out for "No tax on tips" during the election campaign, I analyzed two legislative proposals towards that end that were in Congress. So when it came time for me to read the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is where I focused a lot of attention. You can find it on page 247 at the head of Chapter 2 (Delivering On Presidential Priorities To Provide New Middle-Class Tax Relief) - Bill Section 70201 - No Tax On Tips, if you want to follow along. In general, I find the provision very well thought out, except for one very odd thing. There appears to be a marriage penalty for well tipped servers tying the knot with one another and a marriage bonus for well tipped servers marrying industrious blue collar workers. It Is A Deduction The provision adds Section 224 to the Internal Revenue Code which allows a deduction for "qualified tips". The deduction is limited to $25,000. The deduction is phased out starting at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), $300,000 in the case of joint returns. The phase-out rate is $100 per $1,000 of MAGI. The "modifications" that are added are for income excluded because it was earned by working abroad, in US possessions or Puerto Rico. The deduction is not an itemized deduction. You will be able to claim the standard deduction on top of it. If married you have to file a joint return to claim the deduction. Section 225 adds a deduction for qualified overtime compensation. That deduction is $12,500 or $25,000 in the case of a joint return. The phase-out is the same as for the tip deduction. As with the tip deduction married people have to file jointly in order to claim it. Why is the tip deduction limit $25,000 while the overtime deduction limit is either $12,500 or $25,000 depending on whether it is a joint return? I don't know and as a planner I follow Reilly's First Law of Tax Planning - It is what it is. Deal with it. A Get Together There are five high school friends who get together. They are not married but are thinking about it. They each make about $100,000 per year, Robin and Terry are servers in a pricey restaurant. Most of their income is from tips. Blynn and Ashley are electricians who work a lot of overtime, well above the average. Jesse is an enrolled agent. They get together to celebrate the Big Beautiful Bill. Robin and Terry want to know how much no tax on tips is going to save them and Blynn and Ashley are of course interested in the effect of no tax on overtime. It is up to Jesse to explain to them that that is not how it worked out in the Senate. It was converted to a deduction and there is a limitation. Remember they are all single. Jesse makes a big point of that, because Jesse is a bit on the pedantic side. Robin and Terry will each get a $25,000 deduction. Blynn and Ashley will each get a $12,500 deduction. Jesse, of course, gets nothing other than a lot of aggravation. Not that anybody would care about this, but the whole crew will be getting $75,000 in deductions. Since Jesse made such a big deal about them being single, the question of what happens if they get married comes up. And this is where it gets weird. If Robin and Terry get married their deduction drops to $25,000. If Blynn and Ashley marry they get $25,000 on their joint return. So the whole crew now gets $50,000 in deductions - a marriage penalty. But what if Robin marries Blynn and Terry marries Ashley. Now both couples get $50,000 in deductions or $100,000 for the whole crew - a marriage bonus. There Is More A lot of thought seems to have gone into the tips deduction and I think the details of that are worthy of a separate post. For now I will refer you to Reilly's Third Law of Tax Planning - Any clever idea that pops into your probably has (or will have) a corresponding rule that makes it not work. The statute seems to address many of the ways people might try to game the system. The difference in the limit on tips and overtime for single people, but not married people strikes me as possibly unintentional particularly since the phase-our language is identical. The original House bill did not include any limit at all, so that language was dropped in by the Senate. It reminds me a bit of the "grain glitch" in the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017. You probably need to be a real tax nerd or a grain farmer to remember that. That was fixed, but this, if it is not what was intended, may be harder to fix. By the way, there was a reason that I have waited to read the Big Beautiful Bill. Starting in 1984, I deeply studied the proposals which ultimately resulted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That one was really big, which is why we still call it the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. TRA 1986 made my career. There was, however, a downside to all that study. In the years after enactment, I would often have ideas pop into my head based on provisions that were not enacted. So now I don't read them till they are signed.
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Ultralong JGBs Slip Amid Fiscal Worries
0019 GMT — Ultralong JGBs slip in price terms in the morning Tokyo session amid fiscal worries. Campaigning for Japan's upper-house election on July 20 started late last week, with the political parties proposing various stimulus measures that could require increased debt issuance. 'Fiscal concerns continue to put upward pressure on longer-dated rates in many rates markets and will continue to do so,' ING's rates strategists say in a note. Regarding President Trump's tariffs announcement overnight, 'it seems like the market is choosing not to pre-suppose bad-case outcomes. Instead preferring to wait and see what actually happens,' the strategists add. The 30-year JGB yield rises 3.5bps to 3.000%. (
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Colombia's president backtracks on accusations against US officials in letter to Trump
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Colombian President Gustavo Petro attempted to ease tensions with the United States in June by sending a letter to President Donald Trump saying he did not intend to accuse U.S. officials of trying to overthrow his government. The confidential letter, dated June 23, was leaked to Colombian media outlets on Monday. Relations between the two countries are at their worst since the 1990s, when the U.S. stripped a Colombian president of his visa following allegations that his campaign was financed by drug traffickers. In the June 23 letter, Petro appears to backtrack from comments made during a speech on June 11, where he accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio of leading a plot to overthrow his government. Petro had said in the speech that 'a neighboring President' had told him that Rubio was leading a plot against him. 'I would like to clarify that any expression of mine, which may have been interpreted as a direct accusation about participation in a coup attempt in Colombia had no in intention of signaling anyone personally or questioning the role of the United States, without any proof,' Petro writes in the letter. He also suggests that both Presidents should lead a U.S. - Latin America summit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday she was not sure if Trump had seen the letter. Petro did not immediately comment on the letter after it was leaked to the press Monday. Colombia's Foreign Minister Laura Sarabia confirmed the letter was sent last month as part of an effort to 'strengthen" the relation between both countries. On Thursday, the U.S. recalled its top diplomat from Colombia with the State Department citing 'baseless and reprehensible statements from the highest levels' of Colombia's government. Colombia replied by recalling its ambassador from Washington in what Petro described as an effort to review the bilateral relationship, and analyze what kind of progress has been made on issues such as fighting climate change and 'attacking' the international finances of drug traffickers. Colombia and the U.S. have long been partners in the fight against the cocaine trade, with the South American country receiving more than $13 billion in U.S. aid over the past two decades. But the relationship has changed since Petro came into office in 2022, with the Colombian president prioritizing issues like climate change and the transition to clean forms of energy. Petro and Trump clashed in January after Colombia's president refused to accept two deportation flights operated by the U.S. military, arguing that Colombian citizens on the planes were being subjected to inhumane conditions. Trump threatened Colombia with 25% tariffs after the planes were prevented from landing, but the dispute was resolved within hours through a deal in which Colombia agreed to send its own planes to the U.S. to pick up Colombian migrants that have been handed deportation orders. In June, Petro accused U.S. Congressmen Carlos Gimenez and Mario Diaz Balart of trying to overthrow him. The congressmen were mentioned in recordings in which Colombia's former foreign minister, Alvaro Leyva, discusses plans to remove Petro from office, with an unnamed source. Both have denied any involvement in plans to remove Petro. Last week, Colombian prosecutors opened an investigation into the recordings, which were leaked to the Spanish newspaper El País. Tensions between Colombia and the United States come as cocaine production in Colombia reaches records levels, with Colombia's coca crop reaching 253,000 hectares (976 square miles) in 2023, according to the United Nations, a 40% increase from 2020.
