Elon Musk says he'll keep helping Trump even after ramping up his criticism
Elon Musk's tone on politics has changed dramatically over the past couple weeks. Although he remained gracious and supportive in his farewell Oval Office event with President Donald Trump on Friday, Musk has recently ramped up his criticism of the president.
Gone is the 'first buddy' chainsaw-brandishing crusader, set to save the country through the Department of Government Efficiency. In its place: An Elon Musk with a much more subdued tone, more willing to publicly disagree with the man who gave him his White House perch.
'It's not like I agree with everything the administration does. I mean I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion,' he told CBS this week. 'I'm a little stuck in a bind, where I'm like, well, I don't wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I … also don't wanna take responsibility for everything the administration's doing. So I'm, like, kinda stuck, you know?'
Musk has been circumspect – admitting he 'probably spent too much time on politics,' he told Ars Technica this week.
Musk now says he'll spend '24/7' at his companies, sleeping on factory floors as he's been known to do – although Trump said Friday that he'll remain a good friend, gifting Musk a golden key to the White House.
'I expect to continue to provide advice whenever the president would like advice. I expect to remain a friend and adviser, and if there's anything the president wants me to do, I'm at his service,' Musk said alongside Trump.
The departure was 'music to the ears of Tesla shareholders with a crucial few months ahead,' Dan Ives, Managing Director at Wedbush Securities wrote in a memo on Friday. 'While Trump mentioned that Musk will stay on as an advisor, we believe that Musk's days in politics is essentially over after this experiment that clearly morphed into brand damage for Tesla and took on a life of its own.'
Musk seems to have learned Washington will not bend to his will like one his companies' employees.
'He was going to get frustrated because he doesn't own the federal government,' Musk biographer Walter Isaacson said on CNBC this week. 'Focusing back on his companies again, he needed that.'
As he has stepped back from the White House, Musk has also drawn some lines in the sand with the Trump administration, telling CBS News he is disappointed in the GOP policy bill that raises the deficit and 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.'
It's not the first time Musk has diverged from the Trump administration, having also expressed differences on issues like tariffs and visas for highly skilled foreign workers.
This week Musk has been more vocal on X, his social media platform, where he's reposted criticism of how the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' cuts electric and solar energy tax credits that directly affect Tesla's businesses.
'Abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid,' a post from Tesla Energy said, which Musk re-posted.
One of the biggest questions hanging over Musk's future in politics is whether he'll invest anywhere near the hundreds of millions he plowed into electing Trump and other Republicans.
Although Musk has said he'll spend 'a lot less' on politics, Trump seemed to suggest on Friday he doesn't think he'll be able to stay away.
'Elon is really not leaving. He's going to be back and forth, I think, I have a feeling – [DOGE is] his baby,' Trump said in the Oval Office. 'Americans owes him a great debt of gratitude.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
What To Know About The IRS's $4 Billion Tax Assessment On Yum! Brands
KFC Taco Bell (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The IRS has assessed $4 billion in taxes, penalties, and interest on Yum! Brands. The issue stems from a tax-deferred reorganization in 2014. Yum! Brands is now suing to prevent the IRS from collecting these funds. M&A is often among the most complicated tax issues large corporations face, which can often lead to uncertainty and scrutiny from the IRS. In this article, I discuss the Yum! Brand corporation, what happened in 2014, and why they are facing such a steep tax penalty now over a decade later. Yum! Brands is the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Habit Burger & Grill. As noted by The Washington Post, this corporation spun off from PepsiCo in 1997 to become among the largest set of restaurant chains in the United States and the world. While it currently features those three staples, the corporation has also previously held other chains, such as A&W and Long John Silvers. Yum! Brands has been known to be innovative by having combination restaurants. In these situations, customers can order from a KFC or Taco Bell (or both) at the same location. What makes Yum! Brands particularly impactful is their international appeal. As stated on the Yum! Brands website, the brands total over 61,000 locations and can be seen in 155 countries. According to CNN, KFC has blossomed to become an international staple in countries like Japan, where people often have KFC as their Christmas dinner. Yum! Brands is also no stranger to tax-related news. In early 2025, the company announced a different restructuring. While the company is famously headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky (hence, Kentucky Fried Chicken), Fortune reported that it will be relocating to Plano, TX, due to, among other things, taxes. Kentucky is a state that levies a corporate income tax (5% in 2025). Meanwhile, Texas famously has a 0% tax rate on corporate profits. Individual income tax is also not levied in Texas. Newsweek suggests that Texas has become a bit of a tax haven for new corporate headquarters such as Tesla, Toyota, Charles Schwab, Chevron, and now Yum! Brands. Prior to 2014, Yum! Brands was made up of separate legal entities based on brand and region. For example, there were separate legal entities for KFC Asia and KFC Europe. According to court filings, On November 30, 2013, Yum! Brands publicly announced a corporate reorganization. In this reorganization, the company would no longer be broken out into segments based on geography. Instead, it would focus its organization based on brands (i.e., KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut). It would also have separate divisions for China and India. The goal of this reorganization was to drive growth. To help facilitate the reorganization, the new subsidiaries issued stock in exchange for stock in the previous subsidiary. This stock for stock reorganization often falls under the Internal Revenue Code Section 368(a)(1)(B), which allows for the acquisition of a corporation solely in exchange for all or part of its voting stock. As long as all of the conditions are met, the Yum! Brand legal entities can exchange the stock without recognizing a gain on the appreciated value of the stock. The conditions for this type of reorganization are as follows: Reorganizations under Section 368 are valuable for a company like Yum! Brands because it wishes to restructure the company's organization to enhance future profits. In a normal transaction where Yum! Brands were selling its stock to another company, Yum! Brands would have a gain (or loss) on the appreciated (depreciated) value of the stock. However, Section 368 allows companies to meet certain conditions to defer the gain to a future period. Importantly, companies still have to recognize a gain on the stock's appreciated value, but this gain will not typically happen until the company ultimately disposes of it. In this case, Yum! Brands thought that the conditions under Section 368(a)(1)(B) were met, which would defer the gain, allowing the reorganization to make more sense from a financial perspective. In Yum! Brand's 2024 10-K financial statements, the company notes the following: As reported by Bloomberg Tax, this disagreement comprises over $4 billion dollars in damages: the $2.1 billion in taxes that the IRS believes Yum! Brands should have paid during their reorganization in 2014, $418 million in underpayment penalties and over $1.5 billion in interest on the money that has not yet been paid to the taxing authority. $4 billion is a large assessment for any firm. However, to put it into context, Yum! Brands in 2024 had a pre-tax income of $1.9 billion and paid income taxes of $414 million on that income. Thus, a tax bill of over $4 billion is astronomical for even a company of this size. NRN reports that the disagreement stems from Yum! Brands believe to have met all of the requirements under Section 368 for the reorganization to be tax-deferred, whereas the taxing authority believes that these matters were not all addressed and initiates billions of dollars of income by way of a sale of appreciated value of stock. NRN also reports that Yum! Brands has taken this matter to court and appeals court but was unsuccessful. In turn, Law360 reports that Yum! Brands have taken the IRS to court to sue them over the collections of this $4 billion. While the matter is still uncertain, many in the M&A tax space continue to watch this saga unfold since it represents a significant assessment being levied against some of the U.S.'s most recognizable restaurant brands.
UPI
33 minutes ago
- UPI
Mahmoud Khalil offers declaration, describes damages to his life
June 6 (UPI) -- Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by the Trump administration in March for deportation over his pro-Palestinian views, offered a public declaration that details what he's experienced since his arrest. In a case document filed Thursday, Khalil listed what he described as the "irreparable harms" he has suffered, which he claimed have affected several parts of his life that "include dignitary and reputational harm, personal and familial hardship, including constant fear for personal safety, continued detention, restrictions on my freedom of expression, and severe damage to my professional future." The declaration, which was made from inside the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, La., where Khalil has been held since March 9, puts focus on the birth of his son, which happened during his incarceration. "Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone." Khalil described. "I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep." Khalil described that the first time he saw his son was through a window, and the first time he held him was in an immigration courtroom, to which his wife had to travel ten hours to reach, with their newborn. "I speak to her as often as possible, but these conversations are not private, everything is monitored by the government," Khalil said, which makes it impossible for them to comfortably speak freely. "We leave so much unsaid, and that silence weighs heavily on both of us." Khalil said that not only has the situation been "devastating" for him, but that his wife has dealt with harassment since his arrest. Khalil further described the anguish of seeing Trump administration officials post statements and photos of him on social media that he purports as "accompanied by inflammatory language, grotesque and false accusations, and open celebration of my deportation." Khalil expressed concern for his future as well. He said he was hired by the nonprofit equality-focused Oxfam International group only days before his arrest as a Palestine and Middle East/ North Africa policy advisor, and was scheduled to start work in April, but the job offer was formally revoked. He says "I strongly believe" his arrest and continued detention is the reason for this. He added that should the charges against him stand, "the harm to my professional career would be career-ending." Khalil further worried his arrest would result in a lifetime of "being flagged, delayed, or denied when traveling, applying for visas, or engaging with consular authorities anywhere in the world," and not just him, but his wife and son. His mother had also applied for a visa in March to visit the United States to see their child be born, and although that was approved, the U.S. embassy returned her passport without a stamp, and now her case is under "administrative processing," and remains unapproved. Khalil's elderly father, whom he describes as "severely disabled," lives in Germany, and he ponders whether any country allied with the United States will ever grant him entry should the charges stand. Khalil detailed the allegations under which he has been held for deportation, which not only did he deny as testimony at his May immigration court hearing, at which he purports "The government attorneys did not ask me any questions regarding these issues." However, Khalil maintained his greatest concern of all is a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio based on a law that an "alien" can be deported should his presence in the United States "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." "I understand that the Rubio Determination is not only a ground for deportation, but it is also a bar to entry," said Khalil. "In other words, no matter what happens to the other charge against me, it is the Rubio Determination that will make this country, the country of my wife and child, a country I cannot return to in the future."
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
The AI Paradox: When More AI Means Less Impact
Young business man with his face passing through the screen of a laptop on binary code background AI is in the news every day. On the one hand, this highlights the vertiginous speed at which the field is developing. On the other, it creates a sense saturation and angst that makes business organizations either drop the subject altogether or go at it full throttle without much discernment. Both approaches will lead to major misses in the inevitable AI-fication of business. In this article, I'll explore what happens when a business goes down the AI rabbit hole without a clear business objective and a solid grasp of the available alternatives. If you have attended any AI conference lately, chances are that, by the end, you thought your business was dangerously behind. Many of these events, even if not on purpose, can leave you with the feeling that you need to deploy AI everywhere and automate everything to catch up. If you've succumbed to this temptation, you most likely found out that is not the right move. Two years into the generative AI revolution, a counterintuitive truth is emerging from boardrooms to factory floors. Companies pursuing 100% AI automation are often seeing diminished returns, while those treating AI as one element in a broader, human-centered workflow are capturing both cost savings and competitive advantages. The obvious truth is already revealing itself: AI is just one more technology at our disposal, and just like every other new technology, everyone is trying to gain first-move advantage, which inevitably creates chaos. Those who see through and beyond said chaos are building the foundations of a successful AI-assisted business. The numbers tell a story that contradicts the automation evangelists. Three in four workers say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload, according to a recent UpWork survey of 2,500 respondents across four countries. Workers report spending more time reviewing AI-generated content and learning tool complexities than the time these tools supposedly save. Even more revealing: while 85% of company leaders are pushing workers to use AI, nearly half of employees using AI admitted they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect. This disconnect isn't just corporate misalignment—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI creates value. The companies winning the AI game aren't those deploying the most algorithms. They're the ones who understand that intelligent automation shouldn't rely on AI alone. Instead, successful organizations are orchestrating AI within broader process frameworks where human expertise guides strategic decisions while AI handles specific, well-defined tasks. A good AI strategy always revolves around domain experts, not the other way around. Consider how The New York Times approached AI integration. Rather than replacing journalists with AI, the newspaper introduced AI tools for editing copy, summarizing information, and generating promotional content, while maintaining strict guidelines that AI cannot draft full articles or significantly alter journalism. This measured approach preserves editorial integrity while amplifying human capabilities. AI should be integrated strategically and operationally into entire processes, not deployed as isolated solutions to be indiscriminately exploited hoping for magic. Research shows that 60% of business and IT leaders use over 26 systems in their automation efforts, and 42% cite lack of integration as a major digital transformation hurdle. The most effective AI implementations focus on task-specific applications rather than general automation. Task-specific models offer highly specialized solutions for targeted problems, making them more efficient and cost-effective than general-purpose alternatives. Harvard Business School research involving 750 Boston Consulting Group consultants revealed this precision matters enormously. While consultants using AI completed certain tasks 40% faster with higher quality, they were 19 percentage points less likely to produce correct answers on complex tasks requiring nuanced judgment. This 'jagged technological frontier' demands that organizations implement methodical test-and-learn approaches rather than wholesale AI adoption. Harvard Business Review research confirms that AI notoriously fails at capturing intangible human factors essential for real-world decision-making—ethical considerations, moral judgments, and contextual nuances that guide business success. The companies thriving in 2025 aren't choosing between humans and machines. They're building hybrid systems where AI automation is balanced with human interaction to maintain stakeholder trust and capture value that neither could achieve alone. The mantra, 'AI will replace your job,' seems to consistently reveal a timeless truth: everything that should be automated will be automated, not everything than can be automated will. The Path Forward The AI paradox isn't a failure of technology—it's a lesson in implementation strategy. Organizations that resist the allure of complete automation and instead focus on thoughtful integration, task-specific deployment, and human-AI collaboration aren't just avoiding the productivity trap. They're building sustainable competitive advantages that compound over time. The question isn't whether your organization should use AI. It's whether you'll fall into the 'more AI' trap or master the art of 'smarter AI'—where less automation actually delivers more impact.
