Connect with us

News

No 'going back' for Elon Musk after calling for Trump impeachment, says Steve Bannon

Published

on

No 'going back' for Elon Musk after calling for Trump impeachment, says Steve Bannon

President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Elon Musk in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, in Washington.

Evan Vucci/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Evan Vucci/AP

Elon Musk “crossed the Rubicon” when he echoed sentiments on his social media platform X, calling for President Trump to be impeached, says former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

Trump and Musk have been locked in a very public fight this week after Musk has spent days bashing the “big, beautiful bill” — a multi-trillion dollar spending bill key to unlocking the president’s agenda currently in the Senate. In return, the president threatened to cut the federal government’s contracts with Musk’s companies, including SpaceX.

Bannon told Morning Edition that “there’s no going back” for Musk after his feud with the president. The right-wing populist podcaster was an early Trump backer. Bannon served as the 2016 Trump campaign’s CEO and then went on to become chief strategist and senior adviser to the president.

Advertisement

Bannon went to prison last year for refusing to testify in a congressional investigation of Trump. He also has pleaded guilty to crimes in New York state. In January, Bannon told NPR he believed Trump would listen to the MAGA populist movement that helped him secure two presidencies over the billionaires backing his inauguration – Musk among them.

NPR reached out to Musk for comment but has not yet received a response.

Bannon discussed the public feud between Trump and Musk with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Steve Inskeep: Do you believe it is good for Trump to have this very public breakup?

Advertisement

Steve Bannon: Whether it’s good or not, it’s a reality. The president’s done gone out of his way to make sure that Elon had every opportunity, all the support, admiration, resources. [Trump] took him and his son and some of his children into his family [for] Christmas, all that. Elon asked for an extension to stay and the president denied it. And I think that was the beginning of this friction. And as I’ve said before, since December, this was inevitable. And so I just think the president needs to deal with it as a national security issue now.

Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23 in Washington, DC.

Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23 in Washington, DC.

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images North America

Inskeep: I think that that one thing you said there I had not specifically heard before. You believe that Elon Musk had asked for an extension of his time as a special government employee?

Bannon: Yeah, I think it’s Marc Caputo at Axios, said that Elon had asked for an extension or some sort of workaround to the limitation of his time. And it was denied. And the president said it was time to kind of move on. And also, remember, the president is sitting there saying, like, where’s the trillion dollars? You said you were going to get a trillion dollars of waste, fraud, abuse. And quite frankly, he hasn’t turned up any fraud. So there’s been a lot of tension. And Elon Musk, like the 11 year old child he is, didn’t take it very well.

Note: Axios reported on June 3 that Musk sought to remain working as a “special government employee” beyond his statutorily allowed 130-day contract but was denied. NPR has not independently confirmed this.

Advertisement

Inskeep: Is Trump really going to follow your advice to cancel his government contracts, his companies government contracts?

Bannon: Steve, look, I think that this is not personal now. I think we have as a country a national security issue here. We have an individual that The New York Times has said has a massive drug problem, and that has not been refuted. We have an individual that has a deep financial and business relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. And we know he’s asked for private briefings of top secret information. He’s also somehow involved in this invitation to President Xi Jinping to come to the inauguration. You have someone whose legal status is in question. You can’t deport people from all over the world because the Third World countries that came here at the invitation of the Biden regime and we’ve a white South African who may be here illegally were here. It’s just not right.

Note: Musk has held U.S. citizenship since 2002, according to PolitiFact. The Washington Post reported in October 2024 that Musk worked illegally in the U.S. in the late ’90s; Musk denied his work was unauthorized. The New York Times reported last month that Musk used ketamine, ecstasy, and psychedelic mushrooms during his campaigning for Trump last year. NPR has not independently confirmed the NYT’s reporting.

Inskeep: As dramatic as all of this seems right now, Bill Ackman, another billionaire in the trump coalition, said publicly they should make up. Elon seemed to agree with that. Politico is now reporting that there’s a call of some kind scheduled with the president. Is it possible this whole thing was all just a social media tempest and it’s going to blow over?

Bannon: He crossed the Rubicon. It’s one thing to make comments about spending on the bill. There’s another thing about what he did. You can’t sit there and first or try to destroy the bill. You can’t come out and say kill the present most important legislative occurrence of this first term, number one. Number two, he crossed the Rubicon by this outrageous comparison to the Epstein files about saying President Trump should be impeached, replaced by JD Vance. This is so outrageous. It has crossed the line. He’s crossed the Rubicon and there’s no going back.

Advertisement

Note: Trump is currently serving his second and final constitutionally allowed term as president. Trump told CNN Friday that he won’t speak to Musk “for a while.”

This digital story was edited by Treye Green. The radio version was edited by Reena Advani and produced by Barry Gordemer, Julie Depenbrock and Nia Dumas.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending