Elon Musk's net worth rises over $100 million after apology to Donald Trump
Tesla CEO Elon Musk's financial standing received a significant boost, with his net worth climbing by $191 million to reach $411.4 billion.This rise in net worth came shortly after Musk publicly expressed regret for his critical social media posts aimed at President Donald Trump.The apology was shared on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and marked a potential reconciliation following a brief but heated dispute between the two high-profile figures. Musk's decision to extend an olive branch seemed to resonate well with the market, reflecting positively on his financial status.advertisement
"I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk said on X. The conflict between Musk and Trump began when Musk criticised a Trump-backed bill, referring to it as "The Big Ugly Bill."This criticism followed Musk's decision to step down from a government role, which escalated into a series of harsh comments directed at Trump on social media.Some of these remarks were later removed by Musk, including those connecting Trump to controversial figures and calling for his impeachment. The tension between the two was palpable, with Musk's comments drawing significant attention and sparking widespread discussions.Prior to his public statement, Musk made contact with Trump via a phone call, which reportedly occurred on a Monday. Following Musk's public apology, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that President Trump appreciated the gesture.advertisementTrump himself commented on the situation, and said, "I thought it was very nice that he did that." This acknowledgment seemed to play a role in influencing market perceptions, resulting in the increase in Musk's net worth. The apology not only served to mend fences but also highlighted the potential for renewed collaboration or at least a more amicable relationship moving forward.Tune In
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump wants to deport foreign students merely for what they say
'EVERY TIME I find one of these lunatics I take away their visa." That is how Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, last month described the Trump administration's push to deport foreign university students who had participated in campus activism. Mr Rubio initially suggested that his department had cancelled at least 300 visas. That number increasingly looks out of date as the deportation campaign has spread beyond elite east-coast schools and for conduct beyond protest and speech. More than 100 students in California alone have had their visas yanked—some of them seemingly for infractions as minor as a speeding ticket. The crackdown combines two of President Donald Trump's campaign promises: to carry out mass deportations and to expel students involved in campus protests that erupted in response to Israel's invasion of Gaza, following the brutal attacks of October 7th 2023. Deportation is no longer just a way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in America and deter more from coming, but a means of punishing those whose beliefs differ from the federal government's. The arrests and visa revocations have created widespread anxiety on campuses already reeling from upheavals. Lawsuits ask whether the government can deport non-citizens in good legal standing merely for their speech. How is the State Department deciding who to target? Officials are reportedly using AI to scour students' social-media accounts for evidence that they have participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests. Betar, an activist group, says it is feeding names to the government. (It is unclear whether immigration officials are working off of such tips.) Locating these students is fairly easy. 'International students are the most tracked of all non-immigrants," explains Fanta Aw of NAFSA, an association that promotes student exchanges. A system created in the 1990s that keeps tabs on foreign students was expanded following the September 11th attacks. When university administrators check the system, called SEVIS, they find that students' permissions have been terminated by the government without warning, leaving them vulnerable to deportation. An early and prominent case involving the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, illuminates the legal arguments the Trump administration is making as it tries to deport protesters. On March 8th Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents hustled Mr Khalil away from his very pregnant wife while saying that his visa had been revoked. (According to court documents they seemed to be unaware he had a green card, which confers permanent residency.) He remains detained in Louisiana while a petition challenging his imprisonment moves through federal court in New Jersey, where he was previously held. On Truth Social, Mr Trump alleged that Mr Khalil is a 'Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student" and that student protesters are 'terrorist sympathisers". Mr Khalil's allies see such presidential targeting of individuals as a throwback to dark chapters of American history. 'We haven't seen a threat to free speech like this since the Red Scare" of the 1950s, says Esha Bhandari, one of his lawyers. The Trump administration is targeting a broad group of foreigners by making aggressive use of a 1952 immigration law. Under it, the secretary of state can decree someone 'inadmissible" whose presence in the country 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign-policy consequences". Further, the government suggests that the courts can't second-guess what constitutes a serious foreign-policy consequence, nor ask for specific evidence of wrongdoing. They are arguing that 'it's a blank cheque to the administration to declare anything contrary to our foreign policy, and then revoke people's visas and deport them", says David Cole, who argued a similar case on behalf of Palestinian protesters that was litigated over two decades. The law has rarely been used in this way. In a court brief, 150 legal scholars reported that the foreign-policy provision had been invoked in just 15 deportation cases since 1990, resulting in only four removals. If its use of the 1952 law fails, the government has also argued that Mr Khalil is deportable for withholding information on his green-card application. For precedent, the government's lawyers cite several cases from the 1950s when the perceived threats from communism often won out over First Amendment concerns. Yet since then, in large part as a reaction to the trampling of rights during that Red Scare, the courts and Congress have strengthened free-speech protections for non-citizens. The same law Mr Rubio is invoking to deport Mr Khalil was amended in 1990 to prevent deportation based on an immigrant's beliefs, unless the secretary of state tells Congress that there is a compelling reason for deportation. It is unclear whether Mr Rubio has done so, though he asserts that Mr Khalil's presence undermines America's policy of 'combating antisemitism across the globe". In a report explaining these changes at the time, lawmakers expressed hope that 'this authority would be used sparingly and not merely because there is a likelihood that an alien will make critical remarks about the United States or its policies". The First Amendment makes no distinction between non-citizens and citizens. But the Supreme Court has tended to defer to the executive where immigration is concerned. 'For generations, there have been people on both the left and the right who have argued that the ordinary rules that apply in constitutional law generally don't apply when immigration policies are at stake", says Adam Cox of New York University. For example, during Mr Trump's first term the court upheld the third iteration of the administration's travel ban on people from several muslim-majority countries, despite the ban's constitutionally questionable discrimination. There are also doubts about whether the foreign-policy provision is too vague to be enforced. How can an immigrant stay on the right side of the law when they don't know what might get them deported? In a soap-opera-style twist, that was the conclusion of Mr Trump's late sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, then a district-court judge, when she ruled in 1996 that the measure was void because of its vagueness. Her decision was overturned for procedural reasons. But if Mr Khalil's case makes it to the Supreme Court, the justices could rely on her reasoning and avoid confronting the question of whether executive power over immigration takes precedence over the free-speech rights of non-citizens. While Mr Khalil's litigation plays out, Mr Rubio will no doubt continue revoking student visas. Ms Aw says she expects to see students decide that studying in America isn't worth the stress. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Innovation takes a backseat at small companies as tariffs become a full-time preoccupation
Toy robots that teach children to code. Sneakers made in America. Mold-resistant kitchen gadgets. The three items are among new products that have gotten stuck in the pipeline due to President Donald Trump 's unpredictable trade policies, according to the brand founders behind the stalled items. They say that instead of fostering U.S. innovation, Trump's tariffs are stifling it with extra costs and unexpected work. At Learning Resources in Vernon Hills, Illinois, Made Plus in Annapolis, Maryland, and Dorai Home in Salt Lake City, research and development have taken a backseat to recalculating budgets, negotiating with vendors and tracking shipments in the shifting tariff environment. "If we don't have enough cash to cover just the restocks of the things that we know we need, do we want to take a risk on this new thing when we don't know how well it will sell yet?" Dorai Home founder Kelsey O'Callaghan said. O'Callaghan started the eco-friendly home goods company with a stone bath mat and now offers about 50 kitchen and bathroom accessories, which are made in China with a non-toxic material that dries quickly. New launches are critical to increasing sales and attracting customers, she said. As Trump increased the tariff on Chinese goods to 20% and as high as 145% before reducing the import tax rate to 30% for 90 days, Dorai Home postponed introducing new merchandise. O'Callaghan said she had to lay off the CEO as well as the head of product development, who helped the company jump on new trends. "I haven't really put the time or the emphasis on (innovation) because I'm covering too many other people's roles," she said. The company paused shipments from China in early April but resumed some on a staggered basis after the president's rate reduction. On Wednesday, Trump touted progress in U.S.-China trade talks. With details still sketchy and a deal not finalized, entrepreneurs interviewed by The Associated Press said they viewed the tariffs war as an ongoing threat. Tariffs and American innovation The potential stunting of innovation follows an economic slowdown during the coronavirus pandemic, when companies also had to put projects on hold. Some experts think the on-again-off again tariffs may have more enduring consequences because they rewire markets and upend business strategies. "When executive attention shifts from innovation to regulatory compliance, the innovation pipeline suffers. Companies end up optimizing for the political landscape rather than technological advancement," economists J. Bradford Jensen, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics , and Scott J. Wallsten, president of the Technology Policy Institute think tank, wrote in an April blog post. Trump has argued that curtailing foreign imports with tariffs would help revive the nation's diminished manufacturing base. Analysts and various trade groups have warned that fractured trade ties and supply chains may depress R&D activity of U.S. tech and health care companies that rely on international partnerships or foreign suppliers. Small companies, which often drive the innovations that create jobs and economic growth, already are under strain. With fewer people on staff and tighter budgets compared to large corporations, entrepreneurs say they are spending more time on cutting costs, suspending or arranging orders, and deciding how much of their tariff-related costs to charge customers. That means they're spending less time thinking of their next big ideas. Schylling Inc., a Massachusetts company that produces modern versions of Lava lamps, Sea-Monkeys, My Little Pony and other nostalgic toys, has its products made in China. As part of its strategy to account for tariffs, the company put a group of employees on temporary unpaid leave last month to reduce expenses. Beth Muehlenkamp, who was marketing director at the company, was one of them, but now she and several others who were furloughed, were permanently laid off early this month. She noted that she and other staff members typically would have been planning products for the final months of 2026. But Schylling isn't focusing on designing new products given the unstable trade outlook. "It's really hard to focus on innovation and creativity when you're consumed with this day-to-day of how we're just going to balance the books and deal with the changing rates," Muehlenkamp said. An uneven product pipeline Even some companies that do their manufacturing in the U.S. are scaling back investments in new products. Made Plus, a Maryland company that makes athletic shoes at a small factory in the state capital, put a planned golf line on hold because two key components - a foam insole and the tread for the bottom of the shoe - currently are made in China, founder Alan Guyan said. The company customizes its shoes on demand and charges $145 to $200 a pair. The footwear is made from recycled plastic bottles with advanced knitting, 3D printing and computerized stitching techniques. It's looking into getting components from Vietnam instead of China. Embracing new technology is essential to restoring manufacturing capability in the U.S. and competing with Asia, Guyan said. But given ongoing trade frictions, he said he does not want to invest time or money evaluating the latest embroidery and knitting machines, which come from Germany, Italy, China and the U.S. "We're just battening down the hatches a little bit and just hoping that there's enough influence in the community of footwear that it will somewhat change and get resolved and we can move forward," he said of the tariff roller coaster. In contrast, many big companies are forging on. Google parent Alphabet confirmed late last month that it still planned to spend $75 billion on capital expenditures this year, with most of the money going toward artificial intelligence technology. What's next for R&D? Sonia Lapinsky, a managing director at consulting firm AlixPartners, has advised her clients to limit tariff discussions to a small group of executives and to keep their product creation cycles in motion. Businesses have an even greater imperative to come up with attention-grabbing innovations when consumers may be reluctant to open their wallets, she said. Yet smaller companies may struggle to wall off tariff discussions from the rest of the business. Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg said that roughly 25% to 30% of the 350 employees at the educational toy company's headquarters, including product developers, are working at least part-time on tariff-related tasks. The company usually develops 250 different products a year and expects to get half that many off the drawing board for 2026, Woldenberg said. While exploring factories in countries besides China, he said, Learning Resources is delaying the next generation of its interactive robots that help children develop computer programming skills through games and other activities. The family-run business and Woldenberg's other toy business, hand2Mind, are locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration. The jointly owned companies filed a lawsuit accusing the president of exceeding his authority by invoking an emergency powers law to impose tariffs. A federal judge ruled in favor of the two companies last month, and the administration has appealed the decision. Woldenberg said he's ready to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court . "It's a win at the Supreme Court that we need," he said. "And so until then, there will be no certainty. Even then, if the government is bound and determined to keep us in an uncertain situation, they'll be able to do that."
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tesla sues ex-engineer for allegedly stealing humanoid robot tech to launch rival startup
Tesla has filed a federal lawsuit against former employee Zhongjie 'Jay' Li and his startup, Proception Inc, accusing them of misappropriating trade secrets related to the company's humanoid robot project, Optimus. The suit was filed Wednesday in a US District Court in San Francisco, ET Tech reports. According to Tesla, Li, who worked at the EV giant from August 2022 until September 2024, illegally transferred confidential design files to his personal devices just weeks before resigning. Shortly thereafter, he incorporated Proception Inc, which has since claimed rapid progress in humanoid robotics—particularly in robotic hand development. Tesla Alleges Direct Copying of Proprietary Designs The complaint alleges that Li transferred sensitive data related to Optimus onto two personal smartphones during his final weeks at Tesla. Investigations further revealed that Li had been searching for 'humanoid robotic hands' and startup funding opportunities on his Tesla-issued laptop. 'Less than a week after he left Tesla, Proception was incorporated,' the company stated in its filing. 'And within just five months, Proception publicly claimed to have 'successfully built' advanced humanoid robotic hands—hands that bear a striking resemblance to the designs Li worked on at Tesla.' The lawsuit asserts that Proception's current robotic prototypes are unlawfully derived from Tesla's proprietary work on Optimus, the company's ambitious humanoid robot project that Elon Musk has touted as a future cornerstone of Tesla's AI portfolio. The legal action follows a broader leadership transition within Tesla's Optimus team. Milan Kovac, vice president of engineering for Optimus, has stepped down from his role. He will be succeeded by Ashok Elluswamy, the current head of Tesla's Autopilot engineering division, according to Bloomberg. Tesla has not commented publicly beyond the contents of the lawsuit, and Proception has yet to issue a formal response. What's at Stake With humanoid robotics seen as a major next frontier in artificial intelligence and automation, Tesla's Optimus project holds strategic importance. The company has already showcased early-stage prototypes of Optimus and has positioned it as a potential game-changer across manufacturing, logistics, and even domestic use cases. If Tesla's claims prove valid, the case could set a precedent in the highly competitive and fast-evolving humanoid robotics space, where intellectual property and first-mover advantage are critical.
