The Trump-Musk feud is painfully awkward for the GOP
Republicans on Capitol Hill watched in awe as Trump and Musk feuded with each other on Thrusday.
They're mostly siding with Trump — but they don't want to bash Elon too much.
"I'm sorry that his tour of duty ended that way," one House Republican said of Musk.
Rep. Tom Tiffany seemed to be at a loss for words.
"I don't have anything to say," the Wisconsin Republican told me as we descended the steps outside the House chamber. "Let's wait for the next tweet."
I was hoping for a bit more, so I pressed on. "It is what it is," he said with a slight laugh.
It was the last vote of the day, and House Republicans were eager to get out of there. Their counterparts in the Senate had managed to leave town for the week just as the nasty — and for some, long-anticipated — feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump was getting underway.
What began as a disagreement over the "Big Beautiful Bill" had taken a strange turn. By this point, Musk had replied "yes" to a post that included a reference to impeaching Trump, claimed responsibility for the president's 2024 victory, declared that tariffs would cause a recession, and said that Trump is in the "Epstein files." Trump had floated taking away Musk's government contracts, said that the billionaire "went CRAZY," and insinuated that the tech titan suffered from "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
As Tiffany faltered, a Democratic colleague pounced. "So Tom," Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin interjected as he walked by, "Elon or Trump? Who's gonna win?"
The Republican congressman's tepid laughter grew into a guffaw. We all waited for the response. It never arrived. "I've got the press here," an exasperated Tiffany said. "What do you want me to say, Mark?"
Many Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill found themselves in some version of Tiffany's position, unsure what to say about the vicious war of words unfolding online.
"Is Mercury in retrograde?" asked Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado.
For months, Trump and Musk have appeared largely in lockstep. Republicans had become accustomed to brushing off and explaining away questions about the former DOGE leader's machinations in the executive branch, as they had with Trump for nearly a decade.
Now, with the two men very publicly at odds, it was a time for choosing. But Republicans weren't all that eager to choose. And at least one who did quickly reconsidered.
"Enough Elon. Put the phone down and go outside and play," Republican Rep. Greg Murphy of North Carolina wrote in a post on X that was deleted minutes later.
Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Montana Republican who served as Secretary of the Interior during Trump's first term, initially offered praise for Musk when asked about the feud. "I respect, obviously, the President. I respect Elon Musk," Zinke said. "Very, very bright."
When informed about Musk's response to the post referencing Trump's impeachment, Zinke let out a sharp sigh. "Yeah, that's a bridge too far," he said. "You know, I'm sorry that his tour of duty ended that way."
"This is a sign of the times that you see some of this stuff being done in public," Republican Rep. Scotty Perry of Pennsylvania said. "People over the course of history who wanted to save the republic had different viewpoints about how to do it."
Several Republicans on Thursday used social media to subtly make their allegiance to Trump known, even without explicitly criticizing the world's richest man.
One of them was Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh of Arizona, who posted a photo of himself with Trump on X as the drama with Musk unfolded.
Was it a veiled message? Hamadeh laughed and looked down when asked about it. "President Trump's my president," he told me. "People voted for him. I supported him. President Trump is the reason why we're all here."
He later added that he "appreciated" Musk's contributions.
For Democrats, it was a told-you-so moment.
"None of it surprises me, to be honest," Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the DOGE subcommittee, told me. "You sell your soul to the devil, or you pay your way into it, and this is what you get."
The only Republican who seemed to be genuinely enjoying himself was Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who's had his fair share of feuds with Trump and voted against the "Big Beautiful Bill" for largely the same reason that Musk decided to critique it.
"I tell my colleagues," Massie said, "if I get hit on Independence Avenue, and they have to deliver my eulogy, just say he was having his best day ever."
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
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review
Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review Show Caption Hide Caption Smoke drifting into US from Canada wildfires could impact health Smoke from wildfires in Canada has drifted into Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Midwestern and East Coast states, and as far south as Florida. Canadian wildfire smoke hangs over U.S. Skies were looking milky across much of the United States for days as smoke from wildfires raging in Canada drifted into northern and Midwestern states and dipped even as far south as Florida. The Dakotas, Iowa and most of Minnesota and Wisconsin were under air quality alerts, and the haze hung over major cities including New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston. More than 200 wildfires were burning in Canada as of June 3, and more than half were classified as "out of control," Canadian forest fire authorities said. More news about our planet: Sign up for USA TODAY's Climate Point newsletter. Trump pardons Florida divers who freed sharks Presidential pardons have often sparked controversy, but Donald Trump's latest gesture had some teeth to it. Trump granted full clemency to two Florida divers, John Moore Jr. and Tanner Mansell, who were convicted of theft for cutting 19 sharks free from a fisherman's longline in 2020. They had assumed the gear was illegal; it turns out it belonged to a vessel permitted by the federal government to harvest sandbar sharks for research. "Whether people believe in his politics or not, he chose to pardon me ... and only ever wanted to help," Mansell said in a text. "I can't help but feel extremely grateful." A fortune sits in 'lost' 401(k) accounts You might think it would be hard to forget almost $60,000. But at least $1.7 trillion is wasting away in forgotten 401(k) accounts, the financial firm Capitalize found, and the average lost balance is $56,616. How does that happen? People who leave a job "usually have a bunch of things going on,' said David John of the AARP Public Policy Institute, and simply lose track. (More than 47 million Americans quit their jobs in the Great Resignation of 2021.) And someone who leaves a job after only a year or two might be especially prone to overlook a modest balance − which, thanks to the magic of tax-free investment growth, eventually turns into a big balance. Loretta Swit, 'M*A*S*H's beloved 'Hot Lips,' dies Fans, friends and co-stars were remembering Loretta Swit, who starred as Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan through all 11 seasons of TV's hugely popular Korean War dramedy "M*A*S*H" and gave depth and strength to a character who began as an oversexed blond stereotype. Swit, 87, died May 30. "More than acting her part, she created it," star Alan Alda, 89, posted on X. Jamie Farr, 90, who played Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger, told USA TODAY she was his "adopted sister … as close as family can get." The cast was a tight-knit group through the years, Swit once said: "We might as well be joined at the hip." Close isn't good enough for the New York Knicks Some teams just want to win NOW. Maybe that's why the New York Knicks fired coach Tom Thibodeau, stunning much of the basketball world, just days after the franchise flirted with the NBA Finals for the first time in 25 years before falling to the Indiana Pacers. Not bad for a team that had won just 21 games in the 2019-20 season before Thibodeau took over. The Knicks might be forgiven for being a little impatient after their magical run, however: They have not won a title since 1973. (The NBA Finals, with the Pacers facing the Oklahoma City Thunder, tipped off June 5). − Compiled by Robert Abitbol, USA TODAY copy chief
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law.
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law. | Opinion This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. Show Caption Hide Caption What we know now about President Trump's reshaping of education Education, especially higher education, has been a major focus of President Trump's term. Here is what we know now about his changes to education. As I prepare to teach a new literature course at Palm Beach State College (PBSC) this term, I find myself hesitating over something that, until recently, would have been routine: Selecting the works I assign to my students. The anthology adopted by our department includes powerful selections from African American, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ writers – voices that capture the richness, contradiction and struggle of the American experience. These are voices I have taught for decades. But now I ask myself: Am I allowed to? Florida's 2023 legislation – most notably, Senate Bill 266 – prohibits instruction that espouses theories suggesting systemic racism, sexism or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and that they were created to maintain social or economic inequities. The language is broad, and the intent seems clear: Restrict the way educators discuss identity, history and power. But what is less clear is what this means in practice for teachers like me, particularly in college classrooms. I am a lifelong educator. I spent 36 years in the New York City Department of Education as a teacher, department chair and supervisor. For the last 12 years, I have taught English literature at PBSC. Does my passion to teach violate the law? My passion has always been to encourage students to read deeply, think critically and reflect honestly – especially about the kind of country we live in and the lives we each bring to the table. That requires a broad and inclusive literary canon. It requires teaching James Baldwin and Langston Hughes not only for their artistry, but also for the searing truths they offer about race and belonging in America. It means examining the cultural double-consciousness in Sandra Cisneros, the generational trauma in Ocean Vuong, the gender defiance in Audre Lorde. Literature becomes real when it speaks both to and through the student reading it. That is the essence of education. Opinion: We desegregated schools 71 years ago. We still have more work to do. But now, when I consider assigning those same texts, I worry: Will presenting such works – even neutrally, even for discussion – be seen as violating this law? If I ask students to consider the historical roots of injustice in a work by August Wilson or Toni Cade Bambara, could that be construed as "promoting a theory" rather than simply exposing students to a reality reflected in literature? Worse, the chilling effect has begun to erode the classroom itself. Faculty colleagues increasingly wonder whether they should self-censor – not out of agreement with the law, but out of a desire to avoid trouble. This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. I do not seek to indoctrinate my students. I never have. I seek to challenge them, to open doors through literature that lead into the complicated, layered and sometimes uncomfortable questions that make up life in a pluralistic democracy. That is not political. That is educational. Opinion: As a college professor, I see how AI is stripping away the humanity in education Forbidding certain materials only limits our understanding Let us be clear: Removing or discouraging the inclusion of marginalized voices in the classroom does not eliminate discomfort. It only eliminates understanding. If our students cannot engage with difficult truths in college classrooms, where are they to encounter them? If we cannot safely present a range of American experiences through our literary heritage, what remains of our intellectual freedom? I do not write this out of defiance, but out of love – for teaching, for literature and for the role education plays in shaping thoughtful citizens. The danger of this legislation is not only in its enforcement but also in its ambiguity. It turns teachers into second-guessers. It turns students into cautious bystanders. And it risks turning Florida's classrooms into places where only the most neutral, safest voices are heard. But the world is not neutral. Literature is not safe. And education, at its best, is a form of illumination, not erasure. Carmine Giordano is an adjunct lecturer in English at Palm Beach State College. This column originally appeared in the Palm Beach Post.
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message' Jackson, one of the court's most liberal justices, wrote that her colleagues may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
