Trump slams Musk over ‘massive' government subsidies after spending bill spat
Image: Graphic/Se-Anne Rall
US President Donald Trump once again targeted former aide Elon Musk on Tuesday, attacking the amount of government subsidies the entrepreneur is receiving, after the tech billionaire renewed criticism of the president's flagship spending bill.
"Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far," Trump said on social media.
"And without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa."
Musk -- who had an acrimonious public falling out with the president this month over the bill -- reprised his sharp criticisms and renewed his calls for the formation of a new political party as voting got underway.
US President Donald Trump once again targeted former aide Elon Musk on Tuesday, attacking the amount of government subsidies the entrepreneur is receiving, after the tech billionaire renewed criticism of the president's flagship spending bill.
Image: Donald Trump/Truth Social
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Trump responded by suggesting his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)-- which Musk headed before stepping down late May -- train its sights on the SpaceX founder's business interests.
"No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE," the president said. "Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!"
Trump is hoping to seal his legacy with the "One Big Beautiful Bill," which would extend his expiring first-term tax cuts at a cost of $4.5 trillion and beef up border security.
But Republicans eyeing 2026 midterm congressional elections are divided over the package, which would strip health care from millions of the poorest Americans and add more than $3 trillion to the country's debt.
As lawmakers began voting on the bill on Monday, Musk -- the world's richest person -- accused Republicans of supporting "debt slavery".
"All I'm asking is that we don't bankrupt America," he said on social media Tuesday. "What's the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?"
Musk has vowed to launch a new political party to challenge lawmakers who campaigned on reduced federal spending only to vote for the bill.
"VOX POPULI VOX DEI 80% voted for a new party," he said.
AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Higher Education Minister Nkabane defends her budget against party criticism
Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane accused parties of being anti-transformation, misogynistic, and doing a disservice to South Africans when they rejected her department's budget. Image: Facebook Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane has lashed out at political parties that rejected the 2025/26 budget for her department in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Tuesday. Nkabane accused the parties of being anti-transformation, misogynistic, and doing a disservice to South Africans. 'It is a pity and unfortunate that today we are witnessing some of the honourable members not actually accepting and adopting this budget vote. Those who are actually rejecting the budget are rejecting the transformation of the post-school education and training sector in South Africa,' she said. 'They are not rejecting the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane. This is not the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane and it is the budget of the people of South Africa.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading This was after the DA led the charge in rejecting the budget during a debate in the NCOP following the laying of criminal charges against her for allegedly misleading Parliament on the 'independent panel' for Sector and Education Training Authorities (SETA) board chairpersons. The second biggest party had threatened not to vote in favour of budgets of departments that were led by 'compromised and corrupt ANC ministers and deputy ministers', whom President Cyril Ramaphosa did not remove from the Cabinet. DA MP Jean Adriaanse said it was time for Ramaphosa to fire Nkabane and clean out the ANC's criminal network at the heart of government. 'The DA will not allow Parliament to be treated with contempt, and we will not tolerate corruption disguised as governance,' Adriaanse said. He also said Nkabane brazenly appointed her comrades to SETA boards in an act of blatant cadre deployment intended to serve political interests rather than the public good. 'When this list was leaked, she swiftly revoked these appointments, attempting to cover her tracks. But her deception did not go unnoticed. The minister's refusal to take responsibility was equally brazen — she shifted blame onto an 'independent' appointment panel, refusing to disclose its members. Only under pressure did she reveal some names, but she concealed at least one.' Adriaanse said the panel she named was not independent at all. 'It was littered with cadres, proving she lied to Parliament. To make matters worse, she named Adv Terry Motau as the panel chair, only for him to publicly dispute her claim, further exposing her dishonesty. This scandal is not isolated. It underscores a pattern of corruption and reckless governance that must be rooted out. The minister's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for honesty, transparency, and accountability,' he added. Freedom Front Plus MP Tammy Breedt said Nkabane's controversial decision to appoint politically connected people to chair the boards of SETAs was not the smartest move. 'We must do what is right for the country as a whole, not just what is good for the ANC and the political elite they serve,' Breedt said. She charged that the truth was that decades of ANC corruption and cadre deployment have crippled even some of the most basic skills development programmes. 'SETAs are no exception. We learned from an Auditor-General's report in 2022 that over R2.5 billion was lost to non-existent or ghost skills development projects and institutions that have never existed. Recently, it was reported that NSFAS spent more than R1.3 billion on four IT companies for an online portal for student accommodation and later disbursed payments to companies that were not accredited financial service providers,' Breedt said. MK Party's Sibongiseni Majola said they too did not support the budget because 'it is not pro-poor orientated'. EFF's Laetitia Arries said they rejected the budget because Nkabane, like her colleagues, was not another example of a failure in leadership the country was being subject to. 'You have failed to lead the nation to the realisation of adequate higher education. You have failed to respond to the concerns raised by students across campuses in all provinces,' Arries said. She also said Nkabane failed to account for the cadre deployment, and corruption has become the defining feature of all ANC relationships with public institutions. 'You have failed to account for appointments that are glaring examples of political patronage, where state institutions intended to empower youth and workers, are turning to ANC deployment zones for local cadres and family members of the ruling elite,' Arries added. In her response, Nkabane claimed to be a victim of the attacks for being a woman leading the department pursuing the transformation agenda. 'When you are against transformation, it irritates a lot when you see a young woman leading such a huge ministry in your presence. It is misogynistic,' she said. 'I understand it. I know where it is coming from, and worse, when it is a black woman, it becomes irritation,' she said. She noted that the EFF raised progressive proposals in the debate but its lack of support to the budget was disservice to the South Africans. 'The sad part of it is that now they are not supporting the budget. My question, I am asking myself, is how we are going to address those issues that have been raised.'
The South African
3 hours ago
- The South African
Can naturalised citizenships - like Elon Musk's - be revoked?
After a messy, public fallout last month, US President Donald Trump has threatened to have his former right-hand man, Elon Musk, deported after potentially revoking his naturalised citizenship. The Pretoria-born billionaire boasts three citizenships – South Africa by birth, Canada by parentage, and becoming a naturalised American in 2002. In May, Elon resigned as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) amid public backlash. In recent weeks, Elon Musk has been posting his strong-worded opinions about President Donald Trump's promotion of a controversial tax bill that was recently passed by the US Senate. When asked about Elon's X posts about the prospective legislature, Trump told reporters on Tuesday, 1 July: 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?' Further questioned if Trump was considering deporting Musk, he responded that he would 'take a look'. Trump added that Elon Musk had a 'lot more to lose', referring to his government electric vehicle subsidies. On his Truth Social platform, the president posted: 'Elon may get more subsidies than any human being in history. By far. And without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!' In a memo posted last month, the US Department of Justice vowed to prioritise the denaturalisation of citizens who posed a threat to the country. The list of categories included individuals who had committed a host of crimes, those who had fraudulently acquired their citizenship, and those who threatened national security, particularly with regard to terrorism, espionage, and the unlawful export of technology and information. The department also stated that they could use their discretion to pursue individual cases that they deemed necessary. Could Elon Musk be deported after tiff with Trump? According to a Department of Justice memo, naturalised citizens can have their status's revoked. Images via X: @elonmusk/Canva According to Muzaffar Chishti from the Migration Policy Institute, the process could become complicated. He told The Guardian: '[The administration] can't, on their own, denaturalize people. They still have to go to a federal district court. 'Denaturalisation finally does belong to federal district courts. But they are obviously keen on finding every way they can to denaturalize people they think did not deserve to be naturalized.' In February, Canadian MP Charlie Angus started a petition to have Elon Musk's citizenship revoked. Signed by close to 400 000 citizens, the petition stated that Elon has acted against Canada's national interest and undermined its sovereignty. It also claims that the world's richest man has used his wealth and power to influence their elections. However, it's unlikely that Elon's citizenship will be revoked, as the Canadian legislature states that this is only the case for individuals who commit fraud or misrepresentation. Immigration lawyer Gabriela Ramo told CBC: 'Before they could move to do this, they would need to introduce legislation. There would have to be amendments to the current Citizenship Act. 'There's no provision that would allow them to pursue revocation of citizenship of a Canadian birth, by virtue of his birth to a Canadian mother.' In March, Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) leader Julius Malema also questioned if Elon Musk was still classified as a South African citizen. This after he accused Elon of influencing diplomatic tensions between the US and his country of birth. However, Minister of Home Affairs Leon Schreiber, in a written response, stated that divulging such information would infringe on the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act. Schreiber stated that the party was required to submit an application, including identity numbers, to obtain the information through the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
