Connect with us

News

Donald Trump attacks ‘crazy’ Elon Musk as relationship implodes

Published

on

Donald Trump attacks ‘crazy’ Elon Musk as relationship implodes

Donald Trump has attacked Elon Musk as “crazy” and threatened to rip up his government contracts, as the spat between two of the world’s most powerful men erupted into an all-out public feud.

In a flurry of bitter comments in the Oval Office and online on Thursday, the US president said he was “very disappointed” in Musk for criticising his signature tax bill, suggested he had “become hostile” after being turfed out of government, and accused the billionaire of intervening in politics to serve his business interests.

Musk, who spent more than $250mn bankrolling Trump’s re-election bid last year and said in February that he loved the president “as much as a straight man can love another man”, returned fire on X.

The billionaire called for Trump to be impeached, suggested his trade tariffs would cause a US recession, threatened to decommission SpaceX capsules used to transport Nasa astronauts and insinuated the president was associated with the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The enmity deepened through the day, opening a breach that could widen long into Trump’s presidency and even influence US electoral politics, with Musk talking of starting a new party and removing Republicans from office.

Advertisement

Trump, who had previously defended Musk against charges of corruption and self-dealing, said the Tesla boss had soured on his “big beautiful bill” because it would end policies that benefited the electric-car maker.

“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday afternoon.

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget . . . is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” he added, in an apparent threat to end billions of dollars’ worth of business between the US government and Musk’s companies, including SpaceX and Starlink.

Musk, who is upset that the tax bill now before the Senate would increase the US deficit, accused the president of lying about his motives.

The exchanges were an extraordinary escalation of the feud between Trump and Musk, who had refrained from criticising the president directly even as he opposed the White House’s trade and tax policies.

Advertisement

The billionaire, who in April began his retreat from politics because of the “blowback” against his businesses, also suggested that he now regretted backing Trump during last year’s White House race.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” he posted on his social media site X soon after the Oval Office tirade. “Such ingratitude.”

Shares in Tesla fell by almost 11 per cent following Trump’s remarks and were down 13.5 per cent on the day, wiping more than $150bn from its market valuation — its biggest one-day drop in value ever.

Musk, the US’s largest political donor, also suggested that Republican lawmakers should side with him over the president.

“Some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,” the billionaire wrote on X.

Advertisement

He also hit back at Trump’s suggestion that he had opposed the “big beautiful bill” because it axed tax credits for electric vehicles and clean energy, which have long benefited Tesla in the US.

“Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,” Musk posted.

The deepening discord between Trump and “first buddy” Musk has in recent days spread through Washington.

Last week, Trump pulled the nomination of billionaire astronaut Jared Isaacman, a close ally of Musk, to lead Nasa, ostensibly over contributions he had made to Democratic candidates in the past.

Isaacman, who was on track to receive bipartisan support from the Senate, disputed the White House’s justification for the decision.

Advertisement

“I don’t think the timing was much of a coincidence,” Isaacman told the All-In podcast on Wednesday. “There [were] some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good, visible target.”

Musk had already announced that he was stepping back from his involvement in the Trump administration, where he had led the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).

Steve Davis, one of Musk’s lieutenants at SpaceX who led Doge on a day-to-day basis, had also now left the administration, according to a government official.

More senior figures close to the billionaire were set to abandon the initiative in the coming days, the official said.

Musk himself has suggested that the tax bill would wipe out any savings made by Doge, which claims to have identified roughly $180bn in cuts to date. On Wednesday, the congressional fiscal watchdog said the legislation would add $2.4tn to the US debt by 2034.

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Published

on

Supreme Court financial disclosures reveal how their books add to their income

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks at the Reagan Library on Sept. 9, 2025, in Simi Valley, Calif. Barrett discussed and signed copies of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

Mario Tama/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court was handing down one legal thunderbolt after another last week, the justices were quietly releasing their annual financial reports. Justice Samuel Alito was the only sitting justice to request an extension, which he has done for 15 years. The disclosures do not give a complete account of the justices’ total income and wealth, but they give insights into their concertgoing, guest professorships and even their involvement in youth sports.

In addition to their salaries, much of the justices’ reported income came from their book deals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the pack earning more than $1.1 million last year for a total of roughly $4 million since her memoir, Lovely One, was published in 2024.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy also reported income from published books. Earnings from their books ranged from $849,000 for Barrett, to $300,000 for Gorsuch and $88,000 for Sotomayor, whose books include her 2013 autobiography and five children’s books. Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously earned $1.5 million for his 2007 memoir, listed no publisher payments last year, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of 13 co-authors of a 2016 legal treatise, also received no payments last year. Kavanaugh is said to be working on a memoir but he listed no payments for the anticipated book. Alito does have a book coming out in the fall, but with his financial report still outstanding, there is no data on how much he was paid for the work in 2025.

Advertisement

The only two sitting justices who have not written books are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan.

Many justices also earned income from teaching at law schools. Roberts reported income from New England Law, located in Boston, and Gorsuch reported teaching income from George Mason University in Virginia. Thomas taught classes at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and Barrett and Kavanaugh taught at Notre Dame Law School. Barrett graduated from the school and began teaching there 23 years ago; Kavanaugh has family connections to Notre Dame.

Continue Reading

News

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending