Trump calls Musk a 'train wreck' and dismisses the idea of a third political party
"I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
"He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States - The System seems not designed for them," Trump continued.
Trump said having a third political party would create "Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS." He added that the GOP, in contrast, is a "smooth running 'machine'" that passed his " One Big Beautiful Bill" last week.
Musk announced the formation of the America Party on Saturday, a day after Trump signed his signature tax bill on July 4. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO had publicly criticized Trump's bill and floated the idea of starting his own party last month.
"It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!!" Musk said in an X post on June 30.
"Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," he added.
Musk revisited the idea on Friday morning, when he conducted a poll on X. The poll obtained over 1.2 million votes, with over 65% of them supporting the creation of the America Party.
"By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" Musk wrote in an X post on Saturday.
Musk previously said on Friday that he envisioned having the America Party "serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws" given the "razor-thin legislative margins" 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," Musk wrote on X on Friday.
Trump's dismissal of Musk's America Party is not without basis. Past attempts at developing a third political party have faltered.
Billionaire Ross Perot ran as an independent presidential candidate for the 1992 election. While Perot did get nearly 19% of the popular vote, he was unable to obtain any electoral college votes.
Perot made a second attempt in 1996, when he ran under the Reform Party ticket, a party he founded in 1995. This time, Perot's share of the popular vote fell to about 8% and he did not receive any electoral college votes.
Perot's party didn't manage to win any House or Senate seats in subsequent elections, though its candidate, Jesse Ventura managed to win the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election. Ventura, however, left the party just a year after taking office.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
21 minutes ago
- USA Today
Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job?
Congress is lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. The legislative branch needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities. The Supreme Court's term may have ended, but we'll still be sifting through the fallout of the justices' final decisions for some time. On June 27, the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions, the controversial orders that judges used to block executive actions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was very combative with her liberal dissenters, namely Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for focusing on the ramifications of this decision, rather than attempting to decipher what the law says. While Barrett is right to be frustrated with her ideological opposites, it doesn't mean that their pragmatic concerns are not very real. The end of universal injunctions opens doors for the executive branch to further expand its power, if Congress does not step up to the plate. Opinion: Supreme Court's birthright citizenship opinion reveals rising hostility, tension Ending universal injunctions has real fallout Not only have recent presidents become more lawless, but they also have become more ambitious in their lawmaking authority. Rather than going through Congress, the constitutionally intended legislative body, the executive has broadly usurped those responsibilities. The result has been a higher volume of executive orders. These orders also continue to push the bounds of what the president can accomplish with the stroke of his pen. As brazenly unconstitutional as the Trump administration's position is when it comes to its redefinition of birthright citizenship, the executive action at the center of this case, I completely understand why President Donald Trump's detractors are genuinely concerned about this Supreme Court holding. The universal injunction had become the primary tool for blocking policies that are as constitutionally suspect as this one, at least until their merits can be evaluated. These injunctions provided instant and broad relief against unconstitutional policies. However, there is another side to that coin, which is that some perfectly appropriate executive actions get blocked under the broad authority of universal injunctions. This problem is exacerbated in that litigants can bring cases in favorable districts anywhere in the country, and have the resulting injunctions impact the entire United States. Presidents like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, who both have acted outright lawlessly, haven't helped their case. Presidents who act lawlessly are obviously more likely to have courts block policies that fit that same pattern, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. Opinion: Trump delaying the TikTok ban is the most lawless thing he's done yet Surely, as injunctions become the chief tool for combating these actions, the system has developed a level of reliance on them. Now, a new framework for combating executive overreach needs to be developed. Alternatives to injunctions are more cumbersome While the Supreme Court said that 'universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,' the majority opinion did not rule out the prospect of similar relief being granted when states sue the federal government. Opinion: Senate just passed Trump's Big Beautiful Bill – and made it even uglier The primary form of relief expected to fill the void of universal injunctions is class action lawsuits, which are more procedurally burdensome on those seeking relief than the recent history of universal injunctions, but lawsuits still are an effective way for those impacted by unlawful executive orders to challenge them. However, class actions aren't the only possible alternative. Congressional members, if they ever decide they want to speak up, could also pass legislation clarifying in what circumstances universal injunctions can be levied against executive actions. The Supreme Court has begrudgingly tossed the ball back into Congress' court, but it's unlikely it will do anything productive with this opportunity. Instead, members of Congress are likely to allow more and more power to be ceded to the presidency, because the executive is doing much of the work they should be doing. My thesis for years at this point has been that Congress is outright lazy and will inevitably take the path of least effort. Congress needs to reclaim its role as policymakers, rather than allowing the president to usurp its responsibilities further. However, none of this undermines the idea that the Supreme Court did its job on nationwide injunctions, determining what the law says on the matter. All of this simply reinforces just how damaging it is to our government that Congress refuses to work. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will continue to be blamed by Americans for the problems that are really created by Congress. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Time Magazine
22 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
New Memo Rebuts Epstein Conspiracies: What to Know
The 2019 death in jail of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire financier connected with some of the most powerful people in the world and who was facing trial on sex trafficking charges, has long been the subject of fascination and conspiracy theories, especially by the right. Some were convinced he was killed in an effort to keep concealed a 'list' of his high-profile co-conspirators, despite longtime observers repeatedly indicating that no such list existed. President Donald Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he'd publicly release such records if he was elected again. But after he returned to office, his Administration disappointed anticipators of the so-called 'Epstein Files' when it touted a batch of mostly already public records, despite Attorney General Pam Bondi having previously said that the client list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review.' Bondi at the time blamed the FBI for not abiding by her directive to provide the 'full and complete' set of Epstein-related documents in the government's possession, and right-wing conspiracy theorists have since turned on FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, both of whom had previously promoted Epstein-related conspiracy theories, for supposedly succumbing to the so-called 'Deep State' since taking up their roles. After Trump's ally-turned-critic Elon Musk left the Administration at the end of May, Musk fueled further conspiracy theories and calls for transparency when he suggested that Trump was implicated in unreleased Epstein files. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote in a since-deleted post on X. (Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in his associations with Epstein.) But a new Justice Department and FBI memo, obtained by Axios and ABC News, aims to put the Epstein conspiracy theories to rest, asserting that there is no evidence that the man who 'harmed over one thousand victims' was murdered, engaged in blackmail, or kept a client list. The memo cited and provided links hosted on the website to video footage of the Manhattan facility where Epstein was detained when he died. The Justice Department and FBI did not immediately confirm nor deny the authenticity of the memo, which was unsigned and undated. TIME has reached out to both for comment. 'One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims,' the memo stated. 'Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.' 'We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties,' the memo also stated, adding that 'no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' Already, the memo has incited furious reactions on the right. 'So Epstein was trafficking these underage girls to nobody? Is Pam Bondi serious?' conservative activist Robby Starbuck posted on X. 'What Epstein and his ilk did was pure evil and this memo attempts to just close the book on it like there's no one else involved.' 'At this point, it goes FAR beyond simply being DUPED…' posted The Patriot Voice founder John Sabal, who is also known as QAnon John. 'This is the Trump Administration SPITTING IN EVERYONE'S FACE & CURB STOMPING MAGA/EPSTEIN VICTIMS.'
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
China Reacts to Trump's New BRICS Tariff Threat
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. China said BRICS does not seek confrontation or target any country after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened a new 10 percent tariff. Trump said in a July 6 post on Truth Social that the additional levy would hit any country "aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS," an economic group of developing countries. He said there would be no exceptions. It is formed of 11 countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. "BRICS is an important platform for cooperation among emerging markets in developing countries," said Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for the Chinese foreign ministry, at her press briefing on July 7. "It advocates openness, inclusiveness, and willing cooperation. It is not a bloc for confrontation, nor does it target any country. "On the U.S. tariff hikes, China has made its position clear more than once. Trade wars and tariff wars have no winners, and protectionism leads nowhere." This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
