Trump-Musk feud reignites over the ‘big, beautiful bill'
Musk on Monday said he would back primary challengers to any Republicans who supported Trump's megabill and promised to donate to lawmakers who have drawn the administration's ire like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Trump then threatened to cut government contracts for Musk's companies and left open the possibility of deporting the South African CEO.
Trump and Musk both had signaled they were ready to move on from their bitter fight nearly a month ago, but the president's megabill that Musk has called 'political suicide for the Republican Party' has brought the two men back to snipping.
'I think Washington is confused by the on-off again relationship between Trump and Musk. It looked like they had patched things up around a month ago,' said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, adding that the tech billionaire's X posts 'came out of nowhere for most people' after it seemed like he was 'looking to bury the hatchet' in recent weeks.
Trump on Tuesday shrugged off concerns that the GOP could be swayed by Musk's megabill criticism, but doubled down on his suggestion that the federal government take a look at the contracts Musk's companies have. Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years, according to a February Washington Post analysis.
'No, I don't think so. I think what's going to happen is DOGE is going to look at Musk. And if DOGE looks at Musk, we're going to save a fortune,' Trump said during a visit to a new migrant detention facility in Florida. 'I don't think he should be playing that game with me.'
It's a sharp change in tone from the president, who had previously said he thinks he could make amends with Musk after their nasty disagreement last month.
Asked on Tuesday morning what happened to Musk, Trump replied, 'nothing.'
'He's upset that he's losing his EV mandate and he's upset. He's very upset about things. But he could lose a lot more than that. I can tell you right now, Elon can lose a lot more than that,' he said, arguing that Musk's criticism of the bill is over a key provision that takes away the tax credit for electric vehicles that benefited his company.
The president also signaled he would consider deporting the South African-born U.S. citizen, whom he had elevated to lead the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until late May.
'I don't know. I think we'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible,' Trump said.
The president has praised the massive cuts and sweeping changes to the federal government under DOGE, despite pushback over job losses and service disruptions, and gifted Musk a gold key to the White House in May as recognition of the billionaire's work.
But now, Musk is arguing that Trump's ambitious tax and spending package undermines DOGE efforts to rein in spending.
As senators squabbled over the bill this past week, Musk blasted the spending package as 'utterly insane' and 'political suicide' for the GOP. On Monday, he renewed his calls for a new political party as he lamented estimates for how much the bill would raise the debt ceiling.
'Musk is unique in that he has enough money to probably actually impact a two-party system,' said a former Trump campaign official.
'Republicans obviously face challenges in their ability to govern, and so do Democrats, but right now all Trump wants is a bill with his name on it that he thinks is a good bill. A lot of Republicans in Congress know this isn't a good bill, but fear is a motivator,' the former campaign official said. 'We're a two-party country pure and simple. Musk is probably the only person that could change that given his money, but he'd have to find unique, credible candidates to attract the disillusioned voter who thus far has leaned Trump.'
The Senate's version of the bill, which narrowly passed earlier on Tuesday, would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion between 2025 and 2034, roughly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk wrote on X.
'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.'
The promises to back primary challengers against Republicans who support the megabill come after Musk – the world's richest man, with a staggering $397 billion net worth, according to Forbes – signaled plans this spring to step back from political spending after injecting hundreds of millions into the 2024 election.
'He could absolutely become a thorn in the side of the Republican Party by funding primary challengers. That would cause some headaches, no question about it,' Bonjean said.
But Trump 'holds most of the cards,' Bonjean said, pointing to Trump's comments on the possibility of deportation and his authority over contracts that Musk and his companies touch.
'I don't think any candidate wants to have the world's richest man open up his war chest against him. But I think most members of Congress would rather have Trump's endorsement than Musk's millions,' said GOP strategist Alex Conant.
But, one source who worked in Trump's first administration described the situation with Musk as not overly concerning, giving the support the president has from GOP lawmakers.
'The White House doesn't love the renewed back-and-forth, but no one sees this as a major political threat. It looks more like a flare-up than a serious inflection point,' the source said. 'This is Trump's party. The idea that rank-and-file Republicans would suddenly abandon him because of a feud with Elon just doesn't hold water.'
Musk spent at least $250 million through his America PAC on Trump's election. During his tenure with DOGE, he kept an office in the White House complex, slept over in the Lincoln bedroom and touted that he and Trump were 'good friends.'
Trump also consistently defended Musk while he faced backlash over his work to make cuts to federal spending and as Teslas were vandalized around the country.
When asked about the reignited feud, the White House argued that the president is saving money for taxpayers with his policies.
'Many Presidents have promised, but none other than President Trump has delivered to actually make government more efficient and root out waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington, and that mission is moving full steam ahead,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an emailed statement. 'Under the President's leadership, every agency and department is executing this mission seamlessly and, as a result, has yielded more than $170 billion in savings for the American people.'
The public nature of Trump and Musk's spat last month and renewed fight this week is one of the more remarkable parts of their friends-turned-foes saga.
'These are not two men who quietly settle their differences in the background. They're content to brawl it out in public,' said Conant.
Musk wouldn't be the first figure in Trump's orbit elevated to a position of power 'only to fire and then fight with,' Conant noted, pointing to Trump's frayed relationship with his first-term Vice President Pence.
'Anybody who's paid attention to Trump over the last 10 years should not be surprised that he's not backing down from a fight with Elon Musk.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill is closer to becoming law - here are the remaining sticking points
Donald Trump's massive tax and spending budget bill is returning to the US House of Representatives - as the clock ticks down to the president's 4 July deadline for lawmakers to present him with a final version that can be signed into law. The bill narrowly cleared the Senate, or upper chamber of Congress, on Tuesday. Vice-President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of debate and resistance from some Republican senators. It could prove equally tricky for Trump's allies to pass the bill through the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to hold a vote as early as Wednesday. The lower chamber approved an earlier version of the bill in May with a margin of just one vote, and this bill must now be reconciled with the Senate version. Both chambers are controlled by Trump's Republicans, but within the party several factions are fighting over key policies in the lengthy legislation. Sticking points include the question of how much the bill will add to the US national deficit, and how deeply it will cut healthcare and other social programmes. During previous signs of rebellion against Trump at Congress, Republican lawmakers have ultimately fallen in line. Facing intense pressure, House must decide if Trump's bill is good enough What's in Trump's budget bill? Trump and Musk feud again over budget plans The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the House. The deficit means the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue it receives. This outraged the fiscal hawks in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who have threatened to tank the bill. Many of them are echoing claims made by Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser and campaign donor, who has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers for considering a bill that will ultimately add to US national debt. Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a Freedom Caucus member, called the move "unconscionable". "What the Senate did, I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor," he added. Norman's colleague from Texas, Chip Roy, was also quick to signal his frustration. "I think the odds are a hell of a lot lower than they were even 48 hours ago or 72 hours ago based on the deal-cutting that I just saw," Roy said in response to a question about meeting Trump's 4 July deadline. Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Tennessee told Fox News that "a group of us are not going to vote to advance the bill until we iron out some of the deficit problems". "Mr Musk is right, we cannot sustain these deficits," Harris continued. "He understands finances, he understands debts and deficits, and we have to make further progress." On Tuesday, Conservative Congressman Andy Ogles went as far as to file an amendment that would completely replace the Senate version of the bill, which he called a "dud", with the original House-approved one. Meanwhile, Ohio Republican Warren Davison posted on X: "Promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending." He added: "We will eventually arrive at the crash site, because it appears nothing will stop this runaway spending train. A fatal overdose of government." Beyond fiscal hawks, House Republican leadership will also have to contend with moderates in their party who represent more liberal-leaning states and key swing districts that helped the party rise to power in the November election. "I've been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers," said Congressman David Valadao, who represents a swing district in California. This echoes the criticism of opposition Democrats. Other Republicans have signalled a willingness to compromise. Randy Fine, from Florida, told the BBC he had frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, but that he would vote it through the House because "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Representatives from poorer districts are worried about the Senate version of the bill harming their constituents, which could also hurt them at the polls in 2026. According to the Hill, six Republicans planning to vote down the bill due to concerns about cuts to key provisions, including cuts to medical coverage. Some of the critical Republicans have attacked the Senate's more aggressive cuts to Medicaid, the healthcare programme relied upon by millions of low-income Americans. House Republicans had wrestled over how much to cut Medicaid and food subsidies in the initial version their chamber passed. They needed the bill to reduce spending, in order to offset lost revenue from the tax cuts contained in the legislation. The Senate made steeper cuts to both areas in the version passed on Tuesday. Changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) in the Senate's bill would see roughly 12 million Americans lose health insurance by 2034, according to a CBO report published on Saturday. Under the version originally passed by the House, a smaller number of 11 million Americans would have had their coverage stripped, according to the CBO. Discussing the Medicaid issue with former Trump adviser and conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was asked whether the House might simply "rubber stamp" the Senate version. The right-wing House member and Trump loyalist responded that there was not enough support to get the bill through the House, using strong language to suggest the situation was a mess. "I think it's far from over," she said. "It's really a dire situation. We're on a time clock that's really been set on us, so we have a lot of pressure." The bill also deals with the question of how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they pay in federal taxes, based on how much they pay in state and local taxes (Salt). This, too, has become a controversial issue. There is currently a $10,000 cap, which expires this year. Both the Senate and House have approved increasing this to $40,000. But in the Senate-approved version, the cap would return to $10,000 after five years. This change could pose a problem for some House Republicans.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Paramount Global Blasted For Settling Donald Trump's '60 Minutes' Lawsuit: 'Threatens Journalists' Ability To Do Their Job,' WGAE Says
Paramount Global is already facing sharp criticism over its decision to settle Donald Trump's lawsuit over the way that CBS' 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris. The $16 million settlement, announced late on Tuesday, came after months of wrangling and protest within CBS News. The lawsuit was seen by many legal observers as meritless, but Paramount Global needs Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media. More from Deadline Paramount Global Settles Trump Lawsuit Over '60 Minutes' Segment For $16M Paramount Settles Donald Trump Lawsuit, Clearing Path For Skydance Merger; $16M Payment But No Apology In '60 Minutes' Affair After Dodgers Incident With Federal Agents, Stephen Miller Co-Founded Legal Group Files Employment Complaint Over Team's DEI Efforts The Writers Guild of America East, which represents writers at 60 Minutes and elsewhere in the news division, said that they stand 'behind the exemplary work of our members at 60 Minutes and CBS News. We wish their bosses at Paramount Global had the courage to do the same. This settlement is a transparent attempt to curry favors with an administration in the hopes it will allow Paramount Global and Skydance Media merger to be cleared for approval. Paramount's decision to capitulate to Trump threatens journalists' ability to do their job reporting on powerful public figures.' Ruth Ben-Ghiant, the author who writes about authoritarianism and propaganda, wrote on X, 'Had they consulted with someone, anyone, who knows about authoritarian shakedown tactics and Mafia states, they would have learned that by paying out they have confirmed their weakness in the eyes of the predator.' One organization, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in May that it planned to file a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the company if there was a settlement. A spokesperson for the organization did not immediately return a request for comment. More to come. Best of Deadline Who Is [SPOILER]? The Latest Big Marvel Reveal Explained 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Key renewables official looks forward to permitting overhaul
A top renewables industry official is looking ahead to overhauling permitting and having wind and solar meet fast-rising demand, even as the House is weighing the Senate bill that would ax incentives. Why it matters: Absent a dramatic plot twist on Capitol Hill, the industry faces a much tougher future, with the GOP yanking unprecedented Biden-era support. There's no sugarcoating it: analysts now see much slower renewables growth. The body blow could have been even worse. But GOP moderates forced the removal of new taxes on wind and solar projects and softened some deadlines. The intrigue: With the "polarizing" reconciliation fight in the rearview, American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet hopes for a revival of permitting legislation that made progress last year. (ACP's criticism of the reconciliation bill is here.) He told me he sees an opening for the wider energy industry to get back to "advocating for shared interests," noting a "shared frustration we have with the inability to modernize the country." "The administration has expressed significant interest in permitting reform. It's going to require the good old-fashioned, 60-vote, bipartisan legislative process," Grumet said. Friction point: The budget bill pares back tax credits just as U.S. power demand is rising quickly after roughly 15 static years. That means renewables will remain needed resources in a country that needs more electricity — and fast, he said. The big picture:"We're not competing with natural gas because every single electron is needed. And we're certainly not competing with future technologies like geothermal or advanced nuclear," Grumet said of renewables. "The incredible economic demand and the fact that electricity is not a nice-to-have, but it's a must-have commodity, gives us confidence that we're going to continue to see clean power be the fastest to market, and in many parts of the country, the lowest-cost resource." Threat level: The increased U.S. demand — fueled in no small part by AI — has changed the landscape, he said. "When we had no real growth in demand, the country could tolerate bad federal policy, because, you know, you could screw up this side of the economy, you could screw up that side of the economy, but there was enough energy going around to kind of cover the gaps," Grumet said. "Going forward, we do not have that luxury. Skyrocketing demand that strains reliability and increases prices focuses the mind." That creates an opportunity to "build upon the closure of this chapter" and begin building more durable policy. Between the lines: I asked Grumet about a theme running through the budget fight: how IRA red state investments and jobs didn't deter major rollbacks. "It's true that the intense polarization actually overwhelmed the rational self-interests of the majority of the Republican members of the Senate," he said. But Grumet sees shared interests exerting more sway going forward — he was quick to note that senators including John Curtis and Lisa Murkowski helped strip some of the harshest provisions even as they backed the broader bill. The bottom line: "That coalition of the pragmatic has actually just started to reassert itself," he said, "and we're going to, certainly with the permitting reform debate and others, try to now grow that ballast in the system."
