Trump gives his take on Musk's proposed new third party
The gathering, the six of Trump's administration, was the first Cabinet meeting since Musk left his job as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. It comes after Musk carried out his threat to start an America Party, which he vowed to use to challenge Republicans in the 2026 election . Trump, only two days ago, slammed Musk's move as 'ridiculous,' calling it a 'train wreck' that won't work. But on Tuesday the president sounded more optimistic about the matter.
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how serious Musk is about starting a new political movement, which could prove to be an expensive and logistically challenging matter. The world's richest man is speaking to consultants about the matter, but more in general terms and seeking feedback, according to reports. Establishing a third-party movement is akin to moving a mountain: each state has its own requirements to get on the ballot; it's unclear what the new America Party stands for it - other than Musk being angry at Trump; and it is often easier for candidates to prevail under the current political system.
Musk's best chances in next year's midterm election is to back candidates in a few congressional contests where he could make a difference. It's also unclear just how much of his fortune Musk is willing to sink into the effort. Trump's initial response to Musk's endeavor was one of anger.
'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks. He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States,' he railed on Sunday. Musk spent millions helping Trump win a second term in the White House and served in his administration for a few months but the two men fell out over the president's 'big, beautiful bill.'
The Tesla founder was the leading critic of the legislation and, in retaliation for its passage, started his new party. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump told reporters in New Jersey on his way back to the White House after a weekend at his Bedminster golf club. '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, so he can have fun with it, but I think it's ridiculous.'
Musk vowed vengeance after Congress passed Trump's signature legislation to fund the government. The Tesla founder was angry it contained no federal subsidies for electronic vehicles. And Musk was furious the legislation added to the country's debt. During his time at the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk worked to cut the size and scope of the federal government. He quickly, indirectly, responded to Trump on social media, asking: 'What the heck was the point of @DOGE if he's just going to increase the debt by $5 trillion??'
He then quoted Dune, writing of Trump: 'Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total. Obliteration.' But Trump said Musk knew all along he wouldn't get a subsidies. '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!,' he wrote in his Truth post.
As lawmakers debated Trump's legislation, Musk - the bill's biggest critic - threatened them repeatedly with primaries and then vowed to start his own political movement. It passed last week and Trump signed it into law on the Fourth of July. And, this weekend, Musk carried out his threat. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' he wrote Saturday on X. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'
Musk spent almost $300 million supporting Trump and Republicans in the 2024 election. He and Trump started out close with the president even inviting Musk to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House. But duo got into a social media war during debate on the 'big, beautiful bill,' leading to Musk threatening to use his billions to start a third political party and Trump threatening to deport the naturalized American citizen.
Musk could impact the 2026 midterm elections that determine control of Congress if he is willing to spend significant amounts of money. However, starting a third party has its difficulties. Every state has different requirements to put a candidate on the ballot and the heavily-gerrymandered congressional districts could prove hard for a third-party candidate to penetrate. Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both the House and Senate with just a handful of seats giving them the edge over Democrats.
Out of 100 seats in the U.S. Senate, 53 are held by Republicans. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 220 seats are held by Republicans and 212 are held by Democrats with three seats presently vacant due to members passing away. The margins could easily shift with a few well-placed victories. The world's richest man spent Sunday morning on X taking feedback from users about the party. He indicated he was going to use it in next year's contests. He also vented his anger at Republicans.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
Novartis to pay Matchpoint up to $1 billion to develop anti-inflammatory therapies
July 24 (Reuters) - Swiss drugmaker Novartis (NOVN.S), opens new tab will pay up to $1 billion to U.S. biotech Matchpoint Therapeutics to develop oral drugs for several inflammatory diseases. Matchpoint said on Thursday it will use its technology to develop drugs that block the activity of a specific protein, helping to lower the production of inflammation-causing signals. The company will lead the research and drug development process, using the funding from Novartis. If Novartis exercises its option to exclusively license the program, the drugmaker will have global rights to develop and commercialize all products resulting from the collaboration. Matchpoint said it will receive up to $60 million in upfront payment and research funding, with up to $1 billion in total potential payments, including option exercise fee, and development and commercial milestones.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is the Muhammad Ali Revival Act and how will it affect boxing and fighters?
On Wednesday evening, the boxing world became gripped by conversations about a new bill that could change the sport and the way fighters are paid. Purportedly for the better. Potentially for the worse. The bill, named the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, was introduced to the US Congress by Representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids, with the intention of altering federal regulations around the sport. It is a bill that has been backed by TKO, the UFC ownership group that is crossing into boxing, with UFC president Dana White co-promoting September's seismic Canelo vs Crawford fight in tandem with Saudi adviser Turki Alalshikh. The name of the bill comes from the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 (widely referred to as the 'Ali Act'). The key aims of that act were: '(1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis, by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices; (2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.' Just as the Ali Act sought to amend the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act, so does the Revival Act. On the face of it, the intentions of both acts are noble, so why were there qualms with the former, and why has the latter proven so controversial? Why is the Revival Act controversial, and what criticisms did the original Ali Act face? Well, at the time of the Ali Act's introduction, some questioned what right Congress had to regulate boxing, given it regulates no other sports. There was also the criticism that the Act had laid out a series of rules for Congress to enforce, but without clear methods of how to enforce them. But to a more pertinent point: on Wednesday evening (23 July), there were altogether different criticisms being aimed at the Revival Act, the main one being that it could see UFC's widely derided style of fighter pay cross into boxing, harming the earning ability of athletes while claiming to do the opposite. Why does the UFC receive criticism over fighter pay? The UFC recently settled an antitrust lawsuit, which claimed the mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion suppressed fighters' ability to negotiate; it was suggested that the UFC had essentially forged a monopoly in MMA. In October, the UFC agreed to pay $380m to a group of former fighters who had competed under its banner between 2010 and 2017, with approximately 1,100 deemed as affected and 97 per cent of them applying to receive funds. The fighters in question received compensation payments between $100,000 and $1m, according to the firm that handled the lawsuit. In general, average fighter pay in the UFC is believed to be much lower than in boxing, though UFC president White has continuously insisted that the media does not know the real numbers. The Independent understands that many fighters enter the promotion on a contract where they earn $12,000 to fight and another $12,000 if they win – with those figures increasing after three bouts, and with $50,000 bonuses available (Fight of the Night, Performance of the Night). The UFC antitrust lawsuit also confirmed numerous reports that, in 2010, the UFC took home approximately 80 per cent of its overall earnings, with fighters left with less than 20 per cent. In comparison, basketball's NBA and its players received around 50 per cent each at the time, and they still do. Currently, players in the WNBA (Women's NBA) are pushing the league for a similar pay system. But how does the UFC's track record on fighter pay relate to the Revival Act, beyond the fact that its parent company (as of 2023) is backing the new bill? What specific changes does the Revival Act seek to make? The Revival Act seeks to allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would serve as alternatives to boxing's current sanctioning bodies: chiefly the World Boxing Council, World Boxing Association, World Boxing Organization, International Boxing Federation, and International Boxing Organization. Just as those bodies have their own champions, so would UBOs. One UBO would be Zuffa Boxing, likely overseen by UFC president White and Saudi adviser Alalshikh. The UBOs would also pay a minimum national compensation of $150 per round for professional boxers, a figure that might be seen as substantial by very low-level boxers but pitiful by anyone else. The new system would also bid to improve the minimum health insurance available to boxers and access to anti-doping programmes – which can be costly for promoters. As it stands, the minimums in those aspects are controlled by individual states in the US. Many undercard boxers compete in six-round fights, meaning – if they went the distance – they would be expected to earn $900 under the new system. That is understood to be less than a boxer would earn on most shows now, and the sum would struggle to cover the costs of coaching, sparring partners, travel and/or accommodation. These are expenses that fighters are often expected to pay during camp. So, what now? It is worth stressing that this act has not yet been passed. It is likely to be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the same House that received the 1996 and 2000 acts, with a vote in the House of Representatives being the next step. Thereafter, it would be sent to the US Senate.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Top DOJ official to meet today with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell inside a Florida federal prison
A senior Justice Department official plans to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and accomplice, on Thursday in Florida, where she is serving time for her role in a scheme to abuse girls, according to a report. As questions swirled around the handling of the so-called Epstein files, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Tuesday he planned to meet with Maxwell in the 'coming days.' That meeting is expected to happen Thursday, ABC News reported. Earlier this week, Maxwell's attorneys confirmed their client was 'in discussions' with the government. The 63-year-old was sentenced to 20 years in 2021 for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple girls with Epstein and is serving time at the Florida Correctional Institution-Tallahassee. Her attorneys have taken an appeal of her conviction to the Supreme Court. The development comes amid an uproar around the Epstein files after the Wall Street Journal reported that President Donald Trump was told in May that his name appeared in the files 'multiple times.' The president filed a $10 billion defamation suit against the paper and its owners after it published a report claiming that Trump gave Epstein a bawdy birthday card in 2003; he has vehemently denied the claims. 'This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,' White House communications director Steven Cheung told the paper about the claims Trump was named. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed Trump was told that he is in the files. Being mentioned is not an indication of wrongdoing and officials say hundreds of names appear. Shortly after Blanche's announcement Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee approved a subpoena for Maxwell. Speaking to reporters at the White House later that day, Trump said that the subpoena for Maxwell "sounds appropriate." Last week, Trump requested Attorney General Pam Bondi release 'any and all pertinent' grand jury transcripts related to the Epstein case. Bondi then asked the judges overseeing the cases of Epstein and Maxwell; two judges have so far denied these requests. Trump's request came as the White House attempted to quell the noise following the DOJ's July 6 memo, which stated that no further disclosures were necessary in the Epstein matter.
