Elon Musk and Sam Altman have something else in common: Dissatisfaction with politics
The two tech billionaires are both disenchanted with US politics.
Both posted about their political frustrations on X this Fourth of July.
Forget fireworks and cookouts: Elon Musk and Sam Altman are spending their Fourth of July sharing their frustrations about US politics.
The rival tech billionaires each celebrated Independence Day with social-media posts in which they vented about the state of the 50 states.
Musk rekindled his idea of starting a new political party called the "America Party" in an X post. This comes after a falling out between the Tesla CEO and his former ally, President Donald Trump.
"Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!" Musk wrote on X.
Musk's musings may have been prompted by Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill," which the billionaire slammed as being full of bloat.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also expressed dissatisfaction with politics, specifically with the Democratic Party. Once a Democratic mega-donor, Altman wrote on X that he's now "politically homeless."
Altman's missive started as a love letter to the US. "I'm not big on identities, but I am extremely proud to be American," he wrote. "This is true every day, but especially today — I firmly believe this is the greatest country ever on Earth."
But don't expect Altman to host fundraisers for Democrats anytime soon. The tech mogul said he's a believer in "techno-capitalism," where wealth flows from innovation, entrepreneurship, and education. In his view, the Democratic Party is now out of step with that mission.
"The Democratic party seemed reasonably aligned with it when I was 20, losing the plot when I was 30, and completely to have moved [sic] somewhere else at this point," Altman wrote. The billionaire added that "I care much, much more about being American than any political party."
Altman's shift may come as anti-billionaire sentiment among Democrats, including New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, is on the rise.
"I'd rather hear from candidates about how they are going to make everyone have the stuff billionaires have instead of how they are going to eliminate billionaires," Altman wrote.
Musk is also a former self-identifying Democrat who became alienated from the party and eventually threw his support behind Republicans, culminating in his former leadership role in Trump's DOGE project.
Despite his frustrations, Altman might not join Musk's America Party, given their squabbles.
But if Altman and Musk do squash their beef, it could be because of this Fourth of July — and it won't be because they're grilling.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
31 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hysterics at Reason Cat Owner Has To Keep Camera Off for Work Meetings
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. In a viral TikTok video, a cat owner reveals the reason he always keeps his camera off during work meetings, and internet users can't cope with it. The clip, shared in July under the username @projectliryc, shows the poster working at his desk, with multiple screens open, while his feline companion lies on him, expecting love and cuddles all through the call. "Camera off during meetings [because] I have to hold my cat while working from home or else he'll yell at me," reads layover text in the clip. The caption says: "CFO: chief feline officer." Since COVID-19 hit back in 2020, it shifted workplace dynamics, allowing millions of Americans to work from home. Five years on, according to Statista, only about 1 in 5 American employees work from home regularly. Remote work has been found to make people more content. It is estimated that over 74 percent of employees feel happier when working remotely, mostly because it cuts travel times and allows them to spend more time with family. American employees are so excited about working from home that about 50 percent are happy to take a pay cut just to have the option of continuing to work remotely. Employees who have children are more likely to work in hybrid settings, splitting their workweek between home and employer's location, while those without children are more likely to work fully remote or fully on-site. While most employers struggle to believe that their employees are being productive working from home, studies have found that those with full schedule flexibility report 29 percent higher productivity and 53 percent greater ability to focus than those with no ability to shift their schedule. Stock image: A man sits on the floor while working from home on his laptop. Stock image: A man sits on the floor while working from home on his laptop. getty images The video quickly went viral on social media and has so far received over 1.8 million views and more than 374,400 likes on the platform. One user, True Crime with Tonia, commented: "When my husband works from home he has to put a blanket on the counter, where his computer sits, for one of our cats. If he doesn't this little menace spends the whole day trying to do a collapse on the keyboard." Temptations posted: "Being a cat dad is your primary job anyway." Made by Nacho added: "Wait is this not normal? Asking for a friend." Newsweek reached out to @projectliryc for comment via TikTok comments. We could not verify the details of the case. Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details about your best friend, and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.
32 minutes ago
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organizations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions 'shameful,' but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection. 'Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,' Mehta wrote in his ruling. 'But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.' The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling. The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers. Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others. The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was 'no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.' Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a 'run-of-the mill contract dispute' and said it belonged in a different court.
Axios
34 minutes ago
- Axios
The paradox of Trump's tariff policy
U.S. trade policy has entered the great in-between, a liminal state in which high tariffs on major trading partners are ostensibly imminent, yet also forever just over the next horizon. Why it matters: The good news for American consumers and businesses is that potential price shocks and other disruptions from an all-out global trade war remain at bay — and Wall Street is taking this confusing landscape in stride. The bad news is it's hardly the kind of policy landscape conducive to companies making long-term investments. State of play: With a much-balleyhooed 90-day negotiation period set to expire Wednesday, President Trump issued a slew of letters announcing new tariffs on major trading partners that are close to those originally announced on the April 2 "Liberation Day." The most economically consequential are 25% tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea, major trading partners and traditional geopolitical allies. But they are not set to go into effect until Aug. 1, three weeks away. Driving the news: On Tuesday morning, Trump insisted that the onset of higher tariffs is real this time, suggesting it's not just a negotiating feint. "TARIFFS WILL START BEING PAID ON AUGUST 1, 2025. There has been no change to this date, and there will be no change," he wrote on Truth Social. "No extensions will be granted," he added. Zoom in: Markets have largely shrugged off those threats, betting that Trump envisions further deal-making — and, implicitly, further punting of tariffs — ahead. Stock, bond, and currency markets have seen only modest moves on the news, in contrast to their early April sell-off. Meanwhile, inflation data came in soft for April and May, contrary to warnings from business leaders and economists that tariff-fueled price spikes and shortages could loom. Between the lines: The combination of a booming stock market and lack of evident economic damage from the earlier rollout of tariffs seems to have empowered Trump to keep pushing tariff talk, rather than strike quick deals and move on. What they're saying: These are, as Bob Elliott of Unlimited Funds wrote, "Schrodinger's Tariffs," simultaneously alive and dead. The administration "has had room to swing back to a more aggressive policy stance on the trade war because so far the effects are not being felt significantly across the economy," he wrote in his newsletter, Nonconsensus. "But a big reason why there has been no impact here is simply because it's taking time to ramp up the prospective tariff collection, and that then is taking time to flow into the real economy given normal lags," Elliott argued. The fact that negotiations with countries like Japan and South Korea were at such a stalemate that Trump has reignited the trade war is a sign of a new normal. "At a very basic level, nothing actually happened based on Trump sending these letters, so there's no reason to panic over headlines," wrote Tobin Marcus at Wolfe Research in a note. "But we think these moves do contain some signal about where the trade war is heading, and that signal is mostly hawkish," he added. By the numbers: If the tariffs announced Monday go into effect and remain in place, it would translate to a 17.6% average effective tariff rate on U.S. imports, the Yale Budget Lab estimates, the highest since 1934. That's up from 15.8% previously and up from 2.4% as of January. If sustained, the currently announced tariff regime would translate to a 1.7% rise in consumer prices, costing the average household $2,300 per year, per the Yale Budget Lab. The bottom line: There is good reason to believe Trump's latest letters to trading partners are a negotiating strategy, but the fact that they exist is a warning sign about the new global trade landscape.
