Trump seeking alternative to Musk's SpaceX
Once close allies during the 2024 election campaign, Trump and Musk have had a dramatic falling out in recent months. The rift began over Trump's $5 trillion 'big, beautiful' budget bill, which Musk publicly opposed. In response, Trump accused Musk of benefiting excessively from federal subsidies and threatened to strip SpaceX of its government contracts.
SpaceX has played a central role in US defense communications through its Starlink and Starshield satellite systems, and was expected to build key components of the Golden Dome. Reuters reported in April that the company was a frontrunner for the project, alongside Palantir and Anduril.
However, Trump is apparently following through on his threat to take away Musk's contracts, according to the latest Reuters report. Officials at the Pentagon and White House are now allegedly courting other companies to reduce reliance on Musk's firm.
Amazon's Project Kuiper has reportedly been approached by the administration, despite having launched only a fraction of its planned satellite constellation. Other firms under consideration include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, L3Harris, and smaller rocket startups such as Rocket Lab and Stoke Space.
Despite the shift, Reuters notes that SpaceX may still handle certain parts of the $175 billion program, especially satellite launches, given its record of more than 9,000 Starlink deployments and vast procurement experience.
The breakdown in relations between the two men continued last month when Trump proposed that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk formerly led, should investigate his government subsidies.
'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,' Trump wrote on Truth Social, claiming the US could 'save a fortune' by cutting ties with his companies.
Musk responded by warning that the president's spending plan would 'bankrupt the country' and pledged to launch a new political movement, the America Party, to disrupt the Democrat-Republican 'uniparty' in Congress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Ukrainians can stay in US
Ukrainian refugees will be allowed to remain in the US until the conflict between Moscow and Kiev ends, President Donald Trump has said, reversing concerns that his administration would revoke their protections. Roughly 240,000 Ukrainians have entered the US since the escalation of the conflict in 2022, many under the Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) parole program introduced by former President Joe Biden. After taking office in January, Trump instructed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate all categorical parole programs, including U4U, raising concerns that protections for Ukrainians could be revoked as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. Fears intensified after a public spat between Trump and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office in February. In April, thousands of Ukrainians also received emails from the DHS stating they had to leave the US within seven days. The department later said the messages had been sent in error and did not reflect policy changes. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump was asked by a Deutsche Welle reporter whether Ukrainians would be allowed to stay in the US until the end of hostilities. 'I think we will, yes, I will,' the president replied, noting that 'we have a lot of people that came in from Ukraine, and we're working with them.' Trump's remarks come as he has issued a ten-day deadline for Moscow to agree to a peace deal with Kiev, threatening secondary sanctions if it does not. The Kremlin has said it remains open to talks but dismissed the ultimatum as unconstructive. Several European countries have recently taken a harder line on Ukrainian refugees. In Germany, lawmakers have called for benefits for military-age men to be cut, while in Poland support for accepting Ukrainian refugees has dropped from 81% to 50% since 2023. The UK has begun rejecting asylum claims on the grounds that some regions of Ukraine are safe for return. The EU, meanwhile, is debating long-term plans for the more than 4.3 million Ukrainians who reside there amid rising social tensions and costs.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump to skip G20 Summit in South Africa
US President Donald Trump has said he will probably not attend the G20 Summit in South Africa, citing Pretoria's 'very bad policies' as the reason. Speaking on Air Force One on Tuesday, Trump said he will send someone else because of the 'problems' he has with South Africa. 'I think maybe I'll send somebody else because I've had a lot of problems with South Africa. They have some very bad policies,' he said. 'They have some very bad policies… A lot of people are being killed. I'd like to, but I don't think I will.' This remark reflects Trump's ongoing criticism of South Africa, particularly his repeated references to unsubstantiated claims that Pretoria has targeted white farmers—a narrative the South African government has consistently and categorically rejected. Further signalling strained diplomatic ties, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent did not attend the July G20 finance ministers' meeting in Durban, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly opted out of a G20 foreign ministers' summit in Johannesburg earlier this year. During the early months of his second term, Trump amplified allegations of systematic discrimination against white citizens, a narrative promoted by Elon Musk, a South African-born entrepreneur and then-ally of Trump. The White House has also expressed formal concerns over South Africa's policies, notably the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) framework and controversial land expropriation legislation, the latter of which was enacted in January 2023. Although South African authorities maintained that the law would not be used to unjustly seize white-owned land, it has sparked significant concern in international policy and investment published by IOL
Russia Today
6 hours ago
- Russia Today
The art of the kneel: How Trump's ‘deal' brought Brussels to heel
In history, some things become clear only in hindsight. For instance, German unification all over again – good thing or bad thing? That jury is still out. At this point, it looks as if we'll soon look back with regrets from yet another very bleak postwar situation to ponder that question. But there are also things that are obvious from the moment they start happening. For example, Israel and the West's Gaza genocide, no matter that many talking heads now pretend they've only just noticed. Something else that's as in-your-face obvious as a concrete wall you've just run into is that the EU has just suffered a catastrophic, crippling defeat. As usual with America's European vassals, the defeat is strange. First, it has been inflicted not by an enemy, but by an 'ally' and big-brother-in-'values': This is the moment the NATO-EU underlings are falling over each other to keep paying for the US-instigated and failing proxy war in Ukraine while also building the equivalent of a dozen new Maginot Lines (this time including a 'drone wall') against the big, bad Russians. Yet it is Washington that has struck its eager-to-please sycophants in the back. The EU has also done its very worst to assist in its own trouncing. As Trump retainer Sebastian Gorka – himself, ironically, a European slavishly serving the US empire – has correctly put it, Europe has 'bent the knee.' And once it was all over, with the blood not yet dry on the floor, the EU picked itself up, dusted off its pantsuit and said thank you, in the best tradition of German chancellors who grin and scrape when American presidents tell them they will 'put an end' to Germany's vital infrastructure. We are talking, of course, about the so-called tariff and trade 'deal' just concluded at the Scottish luxury golf resort of Turnberry, between the US, under self-declared 'tariff man' and elected, if by very messy rules, President Donald Trump (also owner of that golf resort) and the EU represented – no one really knows on the basis of what mandate – by the pristinely unelected head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The same one who promised us a 'geopolitical' Commission and EU. If this is your 'geopolitics,' it's suicidal. It was a bloody affair, but we can't even call it the 'Battle of Turnberry' because there was no fight before the EU went down. The gist of what really was an economic massacre is simple. After months of negotiations, seven trips to Washington and over 100 hours of empty talk by its touchingly useless trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic alone, the EU has brought home not a bad deal but pure, total defeat, as if it had been busy distilling the very essence of being on the losing side at Cannae, Waterloo, and Stalingrad: While Trump could enumerate a substantial list of big, expensive concessions made by the Europeans, von der Leyen got nothing, strictly nothing. This is not a 'deal' at all. It is unconditional surrender. Without a preceding war. In essence, the US will now levy 'baseline' tariffs of 15% on most of its massive imports from the EU, including on cars. But there are exceptions! Already punitive American tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum will remain in place. In return, for the US, selling in the giant if decaying EU market will be, in essence, free, at an average tariff rate of zero or, at best, below 1%. And to show its appreciation of such a fine, evenhanded 'deal,' the EU sweetened it by throwing in some extras as if there is no tomorrow. Like at one of those late-night TV direct sales shows. Only that the EU slogan is not 'order immediately and…' but 'ruin us right now and get an extra $1.35 trillion just to make us even poorer and you even richer!' That $1.35 trillion consists of two promises of direct EU tributes (yes, that is the correct, real term) to Washington: an additional – as Trump stressed – $600 billion which EU companies, surely dizzy with gratitude, will invest in the US; and $750 billion of especially dirty and expensive American LNG (liquefied natural gas) which they will buy to feed into whatever will remain of European industry. Meanwhile, Trump is making concessions – again – to China. China, of course, being the sovereign country and economic powerhouse that did what the EU completely failed to do: fight back against the Washington bullies. And now imagine what the EU could have achieved if it had worked with China to check US aggression. Instead, the recent EU-China summit in Beijing has shown that the EU is still not ready to abandon its arrogant stance of hectoring and threatening China, in particular in a futile attempt to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow. The other thing the summit has made clear is that China will not budge. And why would it? The absurdity of all of the above is staggeringly obvious, even if there already are quarrels about the details. Because between Team Trump and Team von der Leyen, two card-carrying egomaniacs and narcissists, there was of course no one to take care of those. Regal von der Leyen – with aristocratic nonchalance – besides, never cared to check if she even has a right or the practical means to promise away $1.35 trillion that, actually, only specific companies could make available. Hint: she does not. But what does it all mean? Here are three take-away points: First, we must, for once, agree with American regime change and war addicts, such as Anne Applebaum and Tim Snyder: European appeasement is a real thing. But not of Russia, which has never been appeased but provoked, needlessly fought, and, mostly, systematically denied even a fair hearing. No, what the Europeans appease is, obviously, the US, their ruthless and utterly contemptuous hegemon and worst enemy, from letting America and its cut-outs blow up Nord Stream to the Turnberry Fiasco. Look at the feeble official attempts to sell this exploitation and devastation pact with Washington to the European public: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – only recently the undeserving recipient of exorbitant praise at home simply for not having been humiliated too crassly at the Trump White House – has officially thanked the EU negotiators, especially Sefcovic and von der Leyen, and praised the 'deal' for averting an even worse outcome and providing 'stability.' Likewise, von der Leyen has praised herself for giving us 'certainty in uncertain times.' What a channeling of Neville Chamberlain, the interwar British premier who gave appeasement its bad name by caving in to Hitler! Dear Tim Snyder: We know, for you it's always 1938 somewhere. Here you have a full re-enactment: 'Certainty for our time!' von der Leyen virtually shouted raising not an umbrella but her thumb, while still at the American leader's golf club Berghof in Scotland. Second, there goes the new German 'Fuhrungsmacht' (meaning leadership, and with extra oomph). And we hardly ever knew it. Because – pay attention now, Berlin – here's the catch: One cannot claim leadership in Europe and initiate full self-destruct mode just to please the US at the same time. I know, this is complicated. But people just don't like being led by those who sell them out. In this regard, it is, of course, important that it will be two Germans, von der Leyen and Merz, who will be most associated with the Turnberry Fiasco. They have made sure that Germany does not stand for leadership but for submission to the point of self-harm. The rhetoric of collaboration – 'We are betraying your interests only to avoid even worse things, please be grateful!' – will either not work at all or not for long. In the end, it's the De Gaulles who win, not the Petains. Third, there is a difference between a trade war and economic warfare. Merz may claim that a trade war with the US has been avoided. In reality, we will never know, of course: If the EU had stood its ground – and it had the means and even some plans to do so – there might not even have been a trade war or it might have ended quickly, and with a better outcome for the EU. China, again, is the proof. But one thing is certain: there is ongoing economic warfare, namely by the US against its own European vassals. They have submitted to their own impoverishment and ongoing deindustrialization, but the American laying waste of their economies has not stopped but accelerated again. Europe is under massive economic attack – and it is not fighting back. In an ideal world, the Europeans would now finally see sense: For starters, they would rebel against the EU Commission and its power grab, get rid of Ursula von der Leyen and her team, and disavow their 'deal.' Then they would stop taking over America's proxy war against Russia, cut their ties with the corrupt Kiev regime, and normalize their relationship with Russia – and with China, too. In other words, they would find partners to help them emancipate themselves from an American overlord that is not merely dominating but devastating its 'allies.' None of the above, however, will happen. Witness the sorry spectacle of the last, recent attempt to chase von der Leyen from office. Real change to save Europe from the EU will require tectonic shifts in the continent's politics. Indeed, the EU is probably hopeless and will have to be abandoned first. Europe's current 'elites,' who behave as if they serve the US and not their fellow Europeans, will have to lose power. But how? In late 1916, a Russian politician gave a famous speech. Enumerating the then tsarist government's failures, he kept asking the same simple question: 'Is this stupidity or treason?' Less than half a year after that speech, Russia's Ancien Regime fell. Europeans must wake up at long last and ask the same question about their leaders.
