Connect with us

News

Elon Musk says some of his social media posts about Trump 'went too far'

Published

on

Elon Musk says some of his social media posts about Trump 'went too far'

Elon Musk listens as President Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office on May 30. A week after the two traded social media disses and threats, Musk said Wednesday some of his posts “went too far.”

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Days after the very public breakup of President Trump and his former adviser Elon Musk, the latter appears to be doing damage control.

“I regret some of my posts about President [Trump] last week,” Musk posted on X, his social media platform, just after 3 a.m. ET on Wednesday. “They went too far.”

Trump has been active on social media early Wednesday, but has not responded publicly to Musk’s apology.

Advertisement

However, in a previously recorded podcast interview with the New York Post that aired on Wednesday morning, Trump said he had “no hard feelings” towards Musk.

“I don’t blame him for anything but I was a little disappointed,” Trump said, adding that he had not “thought too much about him in the last little while.”

When asked if he could forgive Musk, Trump said “I guess I could,” but that “my sole function now is getting this country back to a level higher than it’s ever been.”

The president told NBC News on Saturday that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk, saying he assumed it was over.

“I’m too busy doing other things,” Trump said, adding, “I have no intention of speaking to him.”

Advertisement

Trump was critical of Musk in that interview, saying the tech billionaire had been “disrespectful to the office of the president.”

But Trump also appeared to soften some of his stances. He said he hadn’t given any more thought to his earlier threat of canceling Musk’s companies’ federal contracts or investigating Musk’s immigration status, as Trump ally Steve Bannon had publicly suggested.

Meanwhile, Musk quietly deleted some of his more inflammatory tweets from the previous week, including posts endorsing a call for Trump’s impeachment, linking Trump to the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and saying Trump’s tariffs would cause a recession this year.

Trump said on Monday that he had no plans to discontinue Musk’s Starlink satellite internet system that was installed at the White House despite security concerns — though may move his Tesla, which he bought in March, off-site. And he told reporters he would not have a problem if Musk called.

“We had a good relationship, and I just wish him well — very well, actually,” Trump said. A clip of the exchange was posted to X, where Musk responded with a heart emoji.

Advertisement

The alliance that was 

The two had enjoyed a close relationship since 2024, when the tech billionaire poured almost $300 million into backing Trump’s reelection campaign.

Musk went on to join the new administration as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), becoming the public face of its controversial efforts to reshape the federal government even as government lawyers downplayed his role in court filings.

Musk’s whirlwind 130 days as a special government employee were marked by legal setbacks, clashes with Cabinet members and scant evidence to support DOGE’s claims of significant savings. His own business empire took a financial hit, with Tesla’s first-quarter profits plunging 71% compared to the same period in 2024.

Musk announced his departure from the government in late May, citing the end of his “scheduled time” in the position. At a final Oval Office press conference on May 30, Musk stood next to Trump as the president praised him as “one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced.”

But things soured quickly in the days that followed, fueled by Musk’s public criticisms of the president’s sweeping domestic policy bill, known as the “big, beautiful bill.” Musk wasted no time railing against what he called the “disgusting abomination,” saying it would increase the federal budget deficit and undermine DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts.

Advertisement

Trump and Musk’s war of words 

Social media sniping ensued.

Musk said Trump would have lost the election without his support, while Trump wrote that the “easiest way to save money” in the budget would be to terminate Musk’s federal subsidies and contracts, referring to Musk’s companies including Tesla and SpaceX.

Then Musk claimed without evidence that Trump’s Justice Department has not released the full Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump is in them — an allegation that Trump denied and called “old news” in a Saturday interview with NBC News.

While the White House did not directly comment on those allegations, press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement denouncing the “unfortunate episode from Elon” and accusing him of opposing Trump’s bill because “it does not include the policies he wanted.” Trump has suggested Musk was disappointed because the bill proposes cutting subsidies for electric vehicles.

In his NBC News interview on Saturday, Trump suggested the feud with Musk had helped unite the Republican Party and made lawmakers see the benefits of his bill. It narrowly passed the House in May and remains under scrutiny in the Senate, where GOP leaders hope to pass it by July 4.

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