Trump suggests slashing Tesla subsidies, Musk says 'cut it all'
Trump's remarks came after Musk, a Republican mega-donor, renewed his criticism of the sweeping tax-cut and spending bill and vowed to unseat lawmakers who supported it despite campaigning on limiting government spending.
Tesla shares fell more than 6% before the market open as the feud could add fresh hurdles for the business empire of Musk, whose main source of wealth, the electric automaker, is betting on the success of robotaxis being tested in Texas.
The US Transportation Department regulates vehicle design and will play a key role in deciding if Tesla can mass-produce robotaxis without pedals and steering wheels, while Musk's rocket firm SpaceX has about $22 billion in federal contracts.
'Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to SA,' Trump said in a Truth Social post, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency.
'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 response, Musk said on his own social media platform X, 'I am literally saying CUT IT ALL. Now.'
Trump said Musk was upset because he lost the EV mandate in the recent tax and spending bill and warned the Tesla CEO 'could lose a lot more than that'.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also pushed back on Musk's criticism that the bill would balloon the deficit, saying, 'I'll take care of' the country's finances.
Trump had in early June threatened to cut Musk's government contracts when their relationship erupted into an all-out social media brawl over the tax-cut bill, which non-partisan analysts estimate would add about $3 trillion to the US debt.
The rift had resulted in Tesla shares erasing $150 billion in market value, as investors feared a tougher regulatory road for the self-driving robotaxi that underpin much of the company's valuation.
The stock recovered after Musk walked back some of his jabs, saying he had gone 'too far'.
'Musk cannot stop himself. He is getting on Trump's bad side again. Tesla international sales have fallen significantly and if he loses US subsidies, US sales are likely to fall as well,' said Stock Trader Network Chief Strategist Dennis Dick, who holds Tesla shares.
'Musk needs Trump, Trump does not need Musk,' he said.
Tesla sales have dropped for a sixth straight month in Sweden and Denmark in June, data on Tuesday showed. Analysts expect the company to report a drop in second-quarter delivery figures on Wednesday.
SHORT-LIVED TRUCE
After weeks of relative silence, Musk rejoined the debate on Saturday as the Senate took up the package, calling it 'utterly insane and destructive' in a post on X.
On Monday, Musk said lawmakers who campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill 'should hang their heads in shame!'
'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth,' Musk said.
He also called again for a new political party, saying the bill's massive spending indicated 'that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!!'
The criticism marked a dramatic shift after the billionaire spent nearly $300 million on Trump's re-election campaign and led the administration's controversial DOGE initiative.
Musk has argued that the legislation would greatly increase the national debt and erase the savings he says he achieved through DOGE.
It remains unclear how much sway Musk has over Congress or what effect his opinions might have on the bill's passage. But Republicans have expressed concern that his on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
The Doge monster that Musk bred may soon be set on him as his fallout with Trump unfolds
GET HIM! "Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon (Musk)." That is what his former friend US President Donald Trump posted on social media as their fallout unfolded. The gift that keeps on giving that is tech billionaire Elon Musk continued to 'entertain' the masses around the globe this week. And now following the passing of his former bestie's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' – central to the end of his bromance with US President Donald Trump – things are bound to get more interesting. What's more, the American gubernatorial and state elections season is around the corner. One social media user joked that the two billionaires should grow up and stop arguing 'nonstop over the smallest things – and the whole world ends up knowing about it'. But the 'smallest things' are also 'big, beautiful' and expensive – or 'insane' – things with a potential to disrupt the already chaotic American politics and global trade. The very public and nasty feuding between the two previously inseparable "best friends forever" may be providing us all with free entertainment, but we must remember that it's the grass that suffers when elephants fight. Unfortunately, all we can do is watch this soap opera whose most recent episodes involved Musk threatening to start a national political party to rival the Democrat-Republican 'uniparty' while Trump cautioned that he could set the Doge 'monster' on him and his electric car company. "Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon," Trump said in a social media post. I can't wait for that episode of this free reality show a social media user likened to a daily streaming of 'How Billionaires Argue'. But what would be more interesting for us stuck in beautiful but boring Mzansi would be to see our prodigal son deported back home. And that is not beyond Trump. The two billionaires are neck-and-neck at the moment. Trump is still ruling the roost from the White House, while Musk seems to be playing his political cards well, using some valuable experience gained while supporting his old friend to the tune of over $200bn in last year's election race. But starting a new political party is not child's play, even for billionaires. But expect some more terrible, horrible things to follow between these two in the coming days and months. Let's all just watch this tragicomedy – from a safe distance.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US participation in G20 Summit in Johannesburg ‘remains very important and critical', says Lamola
Most observers and analysts seem less optimistic than Lamola that the Trump administration can be kept fully on board the G20. They fear that if Trump does attend the summit, he won't sign the declaration. The South African government is still pinning its hopes on full US participation at the G20 Summit, despite intermittent attendance of US officials in the meetings preparing for the summit in Johannesburg in November. International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola said on Thursday that the US participation 'remains very critical and important' as the G20 is a consensus-based organisation and all of its members had to agree on the outcome document from the summit. The US does 'participate … fully in the finance track. And in the sherpa track, not fully; and recently, not at all,' Lamola replied to questions at a press conference in Cape Town. He added that the US had sent an apology for its sherpa not attending last week's third sherpa meeting at Sun City. Lamola's spokesperson, Chrispin Phiri, told Daily Maverick that the reason the US gave was that its sherpa was attending the Nato summit that was taking place in The Hague at the same time. Lamola said that as the G20 had to adopt its summit declaration by consensus, it needed the US vote. 'We continue to call … on the US as a member country of the G20 … to participate and make a contribution,' he said. 'Their participation remains very critical and important.' Lamola has just returned from attending the International Conference on Financing for Development in Spain, which adopted a declaration on increased financing for development, even though there was no consensus because the US didn't support it. Lamola said the difference between this and the G20 Summit was that the Financing for Development conference was not a consensus-based forum. Earlier on Thursday, Alvin Botes, the deputy minister of international relations and cooperation, said: 'It's imperative for the success of the G20 that the US, as the incoming presidency, are part of the November summit.' He appeared to be suggesting it would be critical for the US to attend the November summit to provide some continuity in the G20 agenda. He noted that SA was the last of a group of developing countries — after Indonesia, India and Brazil — that had been chairing the G20 in succession and which together had driven a developmental agenda. He suggested the US's attendance or non-attendance at the Johannesburg summit would define the US outlook for the next few years — through its presidency next year and beyond, when it is part of the troika of present, past and future presidents that helps manage the G20. He echoed Lamola in saying that the US had participated in the finance track, which was encouraging. 'But we require them to engage more deeply in the shepa track, and that is a critical issue.' The sherpa track deals with all G20 issues other than financial ones. Botes was the keynote speaker at a seminar on financial inclusion organised by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. Less than wholehearted Some analysts have pointed out that the US attendance even at finance track meetings has been less than wholehearted. Though the Federal Reserve has attended most meetings, the US Treasury's participation has been patchy. The analysts said it would be interesting to see if the US Treasury attends the meeting of the deputy finance ministers and central bank governors in the week after next. Most observers and analysts seem less optimistic than Lamola and Botes that the Trump administration can be kept fully on board the G20. They fear that if Trump does attend the summit, he won't sign the declaration. This seems a logical prediction, given that SA's G20 themes of equality, inclusiveness and sustainability seem diametrically opposed to Trump's philosophy, as his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, pointed out earlier this year when he refused to attend a G20 foreign ministers meeting. If the US doesn't sign the declaration, that would force SA to either drastically dilute it to get the US in or issue a 'chairperson's statement' on the summit rather than a consensus declaration, diluting the impact of any decisions made. A foreign diplomatic source told Daily Maverick, 'We cannot stop working, or adopt the agenda to the US needs. Thus, we — SA and almost everyone else — want to continue the work, and that is happening. I think the ultimate loser of this strategy is the US. 'They also withdrew from the Financing for Development process in the 11th hour. If you are not around the table, you do not have a voice … the rest of the world moves on.' Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, the national director of the SAIIA, said at the financial inclusion seminar that even if SA could not get all that it wanted at the summit, 'What is critical is to make sure that these things are on the agenda, because they can be picked up at another time. 'We have a responsibility to drive some of these issues forward, to put some interesting ideas and perspectives on to the table and then work towards seeing them actualised, even if they do not actualise by the 30th of November [the summit date].' SA's agenda includes debt relief, reducing the cost of capital for developing countries and providing more financing for climate adaptation and disaster relief. DM
eNCA
9 hours ago
- eNCA
US Supreme Court to weigh transgender athlete bans
The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to wade into the hot-button issue of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. The court said it would hear a case next term challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female competition. More than two dozen US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned male at birth from taking part in girls or women's sports. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes two weeks after it upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors. The Supreme Court has also recently backed a move by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue of transgender athletes, to have transgender troops dismissed from the military. Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls and women's sports. "From now on women's sports will be only for women," Trump said. "With this executive order the war on women's sports is over." The executive order allows federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls or women's teams. In a high-profile case, the University of Pennsylvania agreed this week to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights case stemming from the furor around swimmer Lia Thomas. The Department of Education said that UPenn had entered into a resolution agreement vowing to comply with Title IX, the federal law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program. It follows an investigation by the department's Office for Civil Rights which found the university had violated Title IX by allowing transgender swimmer Thomas to compete in women's competitions. Thomas became a lightning rod around the debate over transgender athletes in women's sport after competing in female collegiate competitions in 2022. She had earlier swam on UPenn's men's team while undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Critics and some fellow swimmers said she should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage. The Idaho case accepted by the Supreme Court stems from the Republican-led state's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act." It was challenged by an athlete at an Idaho university and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The West Virginia case was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban was a violation of Title IX. The Supreme Court will hear the case during the term beginning in October and issue a ruling next year.
