Elon Musk Issues Statement As He Prepares To Exit White House
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Billionaire and Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to social media Wednesday night with a message to thank President Donald Trump for his White House tenure, noting that his "scheduled time" has come "to an end."
Why It Matters
Since his January inauguration, Trump has enacted sweeping cuts across the federal bureaucracy, mainly through executive orders and creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The task force has been spearheaded by Musk, during which time the Tesla and SpaceX CEO pushed for DOGE to gain access to the most sensitive and confidential information about American taxpayers, leading to a slew of lawsuits that accused Musk and the Trump administration of violating the law.
Musk has also faced fierce backlash amid his drastic cuts to the budget, including thousands of federal jobs, and the dismantling of entire agencies.
Amid the uproar, Tesla cars and property have been targeted and torched across the United States as protesters demonstrated against Musk's appointment as an unelected official.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that the attacks are "nothing short of domestic terrorism."
What To Know
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Musk praised the president saying, "As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending."
Musk continued, "The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government."
The billionaire CEO had previously announced that he was preparing to step down from his role in government by the end of May, noting to Fox News' Bret Baier that his goal was to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget during his stint as a government employee.
This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US pushes security ally Australia to spend more on defence
By Kirsty Needham SYDNEY (Reuters) -U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked security ally Australia to increase defence spending in a meeting with Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday in Singapore. The defence chiefs also discussed the need to significantly lift U.S. submarine production rates to meet AUKUS targets. Australia is scheduled to pay the United States $2 billion by the end of 2025 to assist its submarine shipyards, in order to buy three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032 -- its biggest ever defence project. The defence ministers meeting on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia's premier security forum, is only the second between the security allies since the Trump Administration took office. Hegseth had "respectfully" said Australia should increase defence spending, Marles said in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television interview after the meeting. "Clearly we have increased defence spending significantly and that is acknowledged, but we want to be making sure we are calibrating our defence spending to the strategic moment that we need to meet," he said. "We are very much up for the conversation, and the American position has been clear," he added. Marles said they did not discuss a number, although a Pentagon official had previously said Australia should spend 3% of gross domestic product. Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who was re-elected this month and is yet to meet U.S. President Donald Trump, did not raise defence spending in this year's national budget, saying his government had already announced a A$50 billion boost over a decade. Albanese said on Thursday defence spending would rise to 2.4%. "In a rational world defence spending is a function of strategic threat - there is definitely strategic threat in the world today and we are rational people," Marles said. The AUKUS submarine partnership and working together to provide stability in the Indo-Pacific were also discussed, Marles said. "AUKUS is happening and we talked about the need to maintain the momentum," he said. "We want to be seeing a significant increase in the production and sustainment rate, the availability of Virginia class submarines for the United States fleet." U.S. production of Virginia class attack submarines has fallen behind U.S. Navy targets, and concern has been raised in Washington over selling used submarines to Australia under AUKUS if this reduces the fleet size.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Irrelevant' ceasefire proposal may be exactly what Israel needs, military expert says
Lt. Col. (res.) Amit Yagur argued that so long as the Witkoff proposal doesn't interfere with the civilian campaign against Hamas, it may be worth accepting. The new Witkoff Proposal's "apparent irrelevance" may actually be the reason Israel should accept it, Lt. Col. (res.) Amit Yagur, former deputy head of the Palestinian Arena in the IDF Planning Directorate, suggested in an interview with Maariv on Friday. "Yesterday, we opened with headlines that the US and Hamas are close to agreeing on the Witkoff Framework, which includes a new proposal. Without delving into the specifics, it involves a ceasefire, the release of about half the hostages, the release of prisoners in exchange, and guarantees for continued negotiations,' Yagur said. 'However, a framework that was appropriate and useful a month or two ago, focused on the military-security aspect, now operates within a completely different strategic context in Gaza—a civilian one." 'The new food distribution mechanism that began operating this week in the Gaza Strip is a major strategic turning point. For the first time, it strips Hamas of its main elements of sovereignty and begins to liberate the population from its grip, while preparations are underway for the implementation of a voluntary emigration plan,' Yagur explained. 'This is a process which, if not stopped now, is irreversible—and it's putting Hamas under extreme pressure. The breach of Hamas flour warehouses by Gaza civilians, among other things, shows Hamas that even what remains of its military power is irrelevant here. The language has changed. This pressure may intensify to the point where Hamas will agree to release hostages just to halt the erosion—and ultimately even agree to exile its members and disarm,' Yagur continued. Despite appearances suggesting that the current situation demands rejection of the Witkoff Proposal, Yagur believed otherwise. 'At first glance, there are plenty of reasons to reject the Witkoff Framework, now that Hamas is with its back against the wall. Under the claim that we must 'finish the job' and dismantle Hamas—a goal we all share and want realized as soon as possible.' 'But,' he added, 'if we dig a little deeper, we find that Israel, despite numerous threats in recent months, has not yet carried out full-scale, irreversible military operations to conquer Gaza. This could be in order to enable the release of more hostages, or perhaps due to a lack of political will, inability to act without incurring heavy costs for the hostages and our forces, or due to American requests in the background.' 'Thus, the so-called 'completion of the mission' through total military effort has not occurred, despite our ability to do so long ago. It's an empty concept at this stage,' he explained. 'We need to look at the issue from a different angle—the strategic shift. The backbone of the campaign against Hamas today is mostly civilian (with military support). So, if the Witkoff Proposal primarily addresses the military-security dimension—an effort that has not significantly advanced on the ground—and does not interfere with the civilian campaign, then it actually serves three goals,' Yagur explained: Free additional hostages (since concessions like prisoner releases no longer impress the Gaza public and won't help Hamas maintain power). Temporarily relieve Israel of the need for ongoing military pressure that has not escalated, allowing focus on the more effective civilian campaign against Hamas, with the military dimension providing security backing. Align with US policy, particularly with Trump's vision of ending military conflicts in the Middle East to make room for regional rehabilitation and a new order. According to Yagur, any move that weakens the civilian mechanism is a strategic error: 'The continued need to provide security coverage for the civilian mechanism in the Gaza Strip and for border communities dictates a continued IDF presence in those areas. Israel must oppose any full withdrawal that could significantly harm the only mechanism currently dealing a severe blow to Hamas—the civilian one.' 'In light of the above,' Yagur argued, 'it's precisely the irrelevance of the Witkoff Proposal to the current context that may make it worth accepting. Hostages will be released alive, while the process of Hamas's civilian erosion will continue at an accelerated pace, and there will be no agreement to end the war.' The security dimension (which the Witkoff Proposal focuses on) would provide security backing and control, while the actual military campaign could be paused. After 60 days, Yagur promises, 'we'll be dealing with a different Hamas—one willing to make very significant concessions, even to the point of disarmament and exile.' However, Yagur emphasized one condition: 'The Witkoff Proposal will only be relevant if it does not halt the civilian process in Gaza. If, on the contrary, it calls for freezing the current aid mechanism, or seeks to revert to old frameworks like the UN or UNRWA and abandon the American-led system, then Israel must reject it outright, as that would not be the right format for dismantling Hamas via the civilian axis.'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NATO expansion 'fair' concern for Putin, Kellogg says
NATO's eastward expansion is a "fair" concern for Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Donald Trump's Special Envoy Keith Kellogg said in an interview with ABC News on May 29. As one of the conditions for ending the full-scale war against Ukraine, Putin demanded a written pledge by NATO not to accept more Eastern European members, which would effectively block Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova from joining, Reuters reported earlier this week. Moscow has claimed that Ukraine's NATO aspirations were one of the key causes of its invasion. Russian aggression against Ukraine began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the war in Donbas, a time when Kyiv had little prospect of joining the alliance in the foreseeable future. When asked whether Trump would commit to halting NATO expansion, Kellogg replied that "it's a fair concern." Trump's special envoy also reiterated that Ukraine's membership in the alliance "is not on the table," adding that Washington is not alone in its hesitation, as several other member states share similar doubts about Kyiv's accession. "And that's one of the issues Russia will bring up... They're also talking about Georgia, they're talking about Moldova, they're talking — obviously — about Ukraine. And we're saying, 'Okay, let's address this comprehensively,'" Kellogg said. According to him, a decision of NATO's expansion would ultimately be up to the U.S. president, and any agreement would likely involve negotiations between Trump, Putin, and President Volodymyr Zelensky to reach a settlement of the Russia's war. Trump has repeatedly echoed Moscow's narrative that Ukraine's efforts to join NATO have been one of the root causes of the full-scale invasion. In March this year, Ukrainian foreign minister Andrii Sybiha rejected restrictions on joining international alliances and organizations — namely, NATO and the EU — as part of a potential peace deal. Ukraine applied for NATO membership in September 2022, months after the outbreak of the full-scale war. The country has not received a formal invitation, as the 32 members have struggled to reach a consensus. Read also: Why did Russia invade Ukraine? Despite Trump's claims, it wasn't because of NATO We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
