House Speaker Mike Johnson says Trump is ‘not delighted that Elon did a 180' after the pair spent four months working closely together
President Donald Trump is less than thrilled with Elon Musk since the world's richest man came out against the president's proposed spending bill, which the White House promises would reduce the deficit by $6.6 trillion over the next decade. Despite the two men working closely together for the past four months—an arrangement that ended last week when Musk completed his 130-day term as a special government employee—House Speaker Mike Johnson says he spoke with Trump and 'he's not delighted that Elon did a 180.'
Elon Musk has been busy ripping into President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on his social network, X, over the last 48 hours. He says it's a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled' spending plan and a 'disgusting abomination' that would add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit and undo the cost-cutting work achieved by his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
'This spending bill contains the largest increase in the debt ceiling in US history!' Musk wrote. 'It is the Debt Slavery Bill.'
But Trump, who has been supportive of Musk publicly—he had glowing things to say about the world's richest man when he completed his 130-day term as a special government employee last week—is reportedly not thrilled with Musk's recent online antics. That's according to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who answered a question about Trump's feelings about Musk during his weekly press conference on Wednesday.
'Let me just address the Elon controversy,' Johnson started. 'It's curious to me what happened this week. Full disclosure: Elon and I had a great conversation about a half hour long talk on Monday morning, and we talked about the big beautiful bill… We left on a great note, and then yesterday, 24 hours later, he comes out and opposes the bill.
'It did surprise me, frankly. I don't take it personal; we don't take it personal. Policy differences are not personal. I think he's flat wrong. I think he's way off on this, I've said that publicly and privately.'
When asked what he thought had changed since their conversation, Johnson said he called Musk since he came out against the bill to assure him it 'would be jet fuel for the U.S. economy,' but also noted he had already talked to the president about Musk's about-face.
'I talk to President Trump multiple times a day. Obviously, we've talked about this. As you know, he's not delighted that Elon did a 180 on that,' he said. 'Look, I don't know what happened in 24 hours. Everyone can draw their own conclusions about that.'
Trump and Musk have a complex history, which dates back to Trump's first presidency. Musk joined two of Trump's advisory councils after the real estate tycoon won the 2016 presidential election, but stepped down from both just six months into Trump's first term after the president pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, saying on Twitter (now X), 'Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.'
Things got particularly sour between the two men in 2022, when Trump went in on Musk in a brutal Truth Social post.
'When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocket ships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said, 'drop to your knees and beg,' and he would have done it.'
Trump around that time also called Musk 'a b——t artist' at a rally because Musk had said he never voted for a Republican, 'and I said 'I didn't know that, you told me you voted for me.'' In response, Musk said on Twitter, 'I don't hate the man, but it's time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset.'
Trump and Musk's relationship finally warmed up in 2024, particularly after the failed assassination attempt against the president. Musk made it his mission to reelect Trump: through posts on his social network X, public appearances on TV and at rallies, and his bountiful wealth. Musk donated about $288 million to the campaign through his America PAC, according to estimates.
Later, when Musk joined the White House and became Trump's cost-cutter-in-chief at the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the president defended Musk when he became the target of public ire for laying off thousands of federal workers. When people started protesting at Tesla dealerships and boycotting the company's cars as a symbolic gesture of disapproval, Trump bought a Tesla and made a big show of it at the White House.
But there were signs of a rocky relationship. As Trump was forming his administration, Musk made it clear he had a preference for Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, who he said would 'actually enact change,' for Treasury secretary, compared with Scott Bessent, who he said would be a 'business-as-usual choice.' Trump ultimately nominated Bessent for the role.
And just recently, sources to the Wall Street Journal said Musk was 'infuriated' by Trump's decision to pull Jared Isaacman's nomination to lead NASA; Isaacman is a close ally of Musk's.
The spending package looks to extend individual income-tax breaks that will expire in December while also adding new ones, including no taxes on tips. It also carves out $350 billion to bolster national security, border security, and deportations. But to fund these ideas, Republicans are proposing slashing green-energy tax breaks, which were put in place during President Joe Biden's presidency, and adding new work requirements for some adults on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which would likely result in less spending on those programs.
The package would also boost the U.S. debt limit, currently at $36 trillion, by another $4 trillion to allow for more borrowing. The White House claims the bill would boost GDP by 2.6% to 3.2% in the long term, while median-income households would see a boost in take-home pay in the ballpark of $5,000 a year.
But the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan federal agency working within the legislative branch that's staffed by some 275 economists, estimates the bill would cut taxes by $3.7 trillion but increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The CBO also says the bill would increase the number of people without health insurance by about 10.9 million Americans.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What I'm hearing about NCAA revenue sharing: $40M football rosters, unintended consequences
The House v. NCAA settlement, granted final approval Friday, has been touted as a means of restoring order to this Big Money Era of college sports. Starting this summer, Power 4 and other Division I schools can begin directly paying their athletes via an annual revenue sharing pool capped at roughly $20.5 million per school in year one. But because schools have been preparing to navigate this new world order — and how to gain a competitive edge under it — many in the industry expect the budding NIL arms race to continue at the top of the sport, and at a price point much higher than the cap. Advertisement 'The top (football) teams are going to cost $40-50 million a year,' said one power conference personnel director. 'That's where this is going. Anyone who thinks different is nuts.' That projected 'budget' includes additional NIL (name, image and likeness) payments from collectives and outside organizations to athletes on top of the capped revenue sharing from the school. It would be a steep increase from the market-setting $20 million in NIL money Ohio State funded its roster with last season on the way to a national championship. But most significantly, a number of industry sources believe that $40 million-$50 million rate will continue beyond this upcoming season, where a number of top-end rosters have been uniquely built with front-loaded, pre-settlement NIL deals. This cuts directly against the intent of the settlement, which is designed to stamp out the unspoken pay-for-play deals that have hijacked the NIL marketplace and keep ballooning roster budgets in check. 'No chance,' the personnel director said. Advertisement It's one of the many changes, intended and unintended, coming to college sports under the House settlement. Schools opting in have spent the past year bracing for the financial reckoning this settlement will bring, including where the revenue share money will come from and how it will be distributed. College athletics have been trending in this direction, and to the benefit of most athletes, particularly those in revenue sports who will receive a bigger cut of the billions in television, sponsorship and ticket revenues that pour into power conference athletic departments. Many of those same departments, however, are already struggling with the challenges of this transition. 'We're all just trying to figure it out as we go through it,' said one power conference head football coach. 'The whole deal is to make it a level playing field, but I don't think that will ever be realistic.' Advertisement spoke with more than a dozen sources across each of the Power 4 conferences about how they plan to approach this new revenue sharing model and all that will come with it — including in-fighting between coaches at the same school, why 'tanking' could factor into college sports and how programs will continue to bend rules and find competitive advantages in a post-settlement era. The sources include athletic directors and administrators; coaches, general managers and personnel staffers in football and men's basketball; and others involved in NIL and collectives. All were granted anonymity in exchange for their candor. 'F— Deloitte. This is going to get even crazier' The $20.5 million revenue sharing cap goes into effect July 1 and covers every sport under a school's athletic department. The most prominent football programs expect to have about $15 million of that pool at their disposal, with top programs supplementing that budget with third-party, 'over-the-cap' NIL deals. Advertisement But not so fast, my friends. The settlement includes a new oversight and enforcement arm — named the College Sports Commission — that requires outside deals from collectives and other associated companies and organizations to reflect a valid business purpose and fall within an approved range of compensation. The settlement establishes a clearinghouse, dubbed NIL Go and managed by the accounting firm Deloitte, which instructs athletes to self-report any third-party NIL deals worth $600 or more for review. The idea is that any of those deals that fail to meet a valid business purpose and/or fall within an approved range will be flagged, and must be adjusted or taken to arbitration. From the perspective of the NCAA and power conference leadership, this new enforcement is meant to bring competitive balance and transparency to a lawless, untenable NIL marketplace. But among those who have witnessed the NCAA's inability to police that marketplace in the past, there's a lot of skepticism that the settlement will change things. 'It all sounds great in theory, but how will it actually work?' asked one power conference athletic director. Industry sources familiar with the clearinghouse and enforcement plan insist it will have more (and swifter) latitude and punitive power than the NCAA wielded in the NIL era. Until it actually drops that hammer, it's done little to scare off coaches and recruiting staffs with passionate, deep-pocketed donors. Advertisement A number of sources questioned whether athletes will even report their third-party deals, or do so accurately. Others suggested that deals getting challenged by the clearinghouse — or the fact that they have to be disclosed at all — could spark more antitrust legal action from collectives. Other sources were outright dismissive. 'If you tell a booster or business owner they can't give a star player $2 million, there will be lawsuits,' said the personnel director. 'There's no enforcing this. Fair market value? F— Deloitte. This is going to get even crazier.' A legit enforcement arm with some teeth — perhaps in the form of suspensions or ineligibility — might change that sentiment, and multiple athletic directors suggest that if the clearinghouse merely serves as a minor deterrent to egregious pay-for-play payments, it will be better than pre-settlement circumstances. But others think the undertow of NIL and collectives is too strong to turn back now. 'There are a lot of rich people that can't buy a professional sports franchise, but they can give a ton of money to their alma mater,' said a power conference administrator. 'And if you're telling millionaires and billionaires what they can and can't do with their money, you're probably going to lose that battle.' Finding the money The over-the-cap arms race is for high rollers only. It will attract the premier programs that expect to win national championships, but for most schools, even in the power conferences, their focus is on how they will fund a new $20 million budget item. Advertisement Power conference athletic departments operate as self-sustaining organizations with $100 million budgets, where expenses more or less line up with revenues. Operating this way, even as millions upon millions in annual television revenue flowed in, is how the conferences and NCAA became ensnared in so much legal trouble to begin with. Untangling those norms is an admittedly first-class problem, but will require significant budgetary adjustments, including new revenue growth and cost cutting. Most schools are leaning on fundraising and seeking new or increased assistance from campus subsidies or student fees. Virginia Tech, for example, recently announced it will increase student fees and direct a larger portion to athletics to help fund revenue sharing, a path plenty of other schools are considering. Iowa State athletic director Jaime Pollard referenced as much in a recent interview, while noting that Cyclones athletics receive no financial subsidies from the university. 'Iowa State does not have that (additional) $20 million, but if we don't pay it for this coming year, we have big problems, right? So we're going to pay it,' said Pollard. 'Would you pay a bigger fee (as a student) … to go to school here so that a member of our men's basketball team could get paid $1.5 million in addition to their scholarship, their room and board, and all the services they get for being a student on campus? That's the fundamental question we're going to have to ask ourselves. Because if we don't do that, then what we're saying is that we're not going to have the athletics program that we're having.' Even with increased fees and fundraising, there will also be widespread belt-tightening on things like administrative staffing and athlete benefits within athletic departments, such as eliminating Alston payments and reevaluating meal offerings in the facility. Advertisement 'If a player is making $500,000 a year, why am I still paying for three meals a day?' said another power conference administrator. There could be new revenue streams from things like on-field logos or naming rights. Long term, departments might get creative, whether that's an in-stadium restaurant that's open year-round, purchasing its own housing complexes for athletes or inviting private equity. Last December, Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy and Florida State coach Mike Norvell each restructured lucrative contracts, returning a portion of their salary to the school after disappointing seasons. Kentucky recently announced it is transitioning its athletic department to a nonprofit LLC. Fans will feel it too. Schools such as Tennessee and Arkansas have already increased ticket or concession prices to fund revenue sharing. Some may pass processing fees onto customers, or explore local restaurant and hotel taxes. And the fundraising calls won't stop. Fully eliminating non-revenue varsity sports is another last-resort option for most athletic directors, but it's already begun, at least outside the power conferences. UTEP discontinued women's tennis. Cal Poly did the same with men's and women's swimming and diving. Saint Francis (Pa.) announced plans to reclassify all athletics from Division I to Division III, just one week after its men's basketball team played in the NCAA Tournament. Utah shuttered its women's beach volleyball program, though it did not mention the House settlement and rather cited conference realignment. Advertisement 'I know for a fact schools are definitely talking about it,' said an administrator. By any route, the ability for schools to spend the full amount of that annual revenue sharing cap — which will be essential to staying competitive, particularly at the highest levels — is a significant financial undertaking, and one few athletic departments can cobble together without upending their standard operating procedure. 'Right now it feels like Monopoly. We're planning to spend to the cap, but we have to figure out how we're getting there,' said the power conference athletic director. 'If you cut a million somewhere, sure that helps, but if you cut $5 (million) or $10 million, you're really hurting your department.' Everyone wants their share Generating the money is the first hurdle. Then schools have to decide how to distribute it among their sports. Most FBS athletic departments plan to use the settlement's backpay formula as a blueprint, with roughly 75 percent earmarked to football ($15 million), 15-20 percent to men's basketball, 5-10 percent to women's basketball and whatever is left to the non-revenue sports. Advertisement Certain universities, like Texas Tech, have been transparent with the percentage of funds going to each sport and how those are calculated. But because there are no stipulations for how the pool must be allocated, it will vary between schools. And could create some dicey internal dynamics. 'There is absolutely in-fighting (between coaches),' said an administrator. Head coaches at the same school are essentially vying with one another for a bigger chunk of revenue share. One power conference administrator said their school plans to direct as much as 25 percent to men's basketball, which means less for football. There have also been rumblings about how this could benefit the best-resourced basketball programs in the Big East or WCC that don't have to share with football. 'There are going to be some challenging and difficult conversations,' said another power conference AD. 'Coaches will be paying more attention to the revenue figures of their program than ever before. Everybody wants to make a case why their rev share should increase.' Agreements and innovative approaches Once a school allocates its revenue share dollars, it's up to teams to build out the roster accordingly. 'Rev cap management,' as one AD phrased it. Advertisement Many schools have already signed athletes to preliminary revenue share agreements — whether through collectives or the actual university — specifying that payments will transfer to the athletic department on July 1. In addition to the wave of frontloaded NIL deals in recent months, as collectives emptied the coffers ahead of the settlement, schools are inserting notable caveats into these agreements. Some have buyout clauses, where athletes would have to pay money back to a school if they leave before the end of the agreement, similar to coaching contracts. Some suggest that because compensation is based on NIL, it can be adjusted up or down based on performance and/or playing time. Others have strict injury clauses. 'With some negotiations, we were very direct that if you're not healthy, you're not getting the money,' said another power conference personnel director. Whether any of these stipulations hold up in a legal sense remains to be seen, but it's clear that after years of schools and coaches feeling they were on the short end of the NIL power dynamic, they are attempting to wrest back that control. Still, numerous people consulted for this story said the vast majority of initial revenue share agreements will be for one season until there's clarity on how legally binding these agreements truly are. Repeats of the Nico Iamaleava holdout saga might be less likely for the time being, but there could be standoffs over payment disputes. Unlike in the NFL, where there is a rookie salary scale and fairly transparent free agency, college football teams are still navigating best roster-building practices. How much money do you set aside for high school recruits? For transfers? Which positions do you value most in your particular system? How should you structure a player's payments? This could lead to more GM hires in the mold of Andrew Luck or pro-style executives who have administrative power over head coaches and can maintain philosophies across coaching changes. Advertisement Further complicating matters is the fact that the settlement and revenue share calendars operate on the academic fiscal calendar, which runs July to June. This means each football season is split across two separate rev share budgets. 'If you spend all $15 million on players for the 2025 season, then you aren't going to be able to pay anyone for the 2026 season until July 1, 2026,' explained the personnel director. This will require thoughtful budgeting, and could spark some innovative approaches — some more palatable than others. 'Tanking' has been an issue unique to professional sports, but revenue sharing could usher it into the college ranks. If a team has glaring roster holes at quarterback or other key positions, it could elect to save its revenue share money and go all-in on the transfer portal when the season ends, with a bigger war chest than most of its competitors. 'I do think you will see teams try to manipulate the cap in different ways,' said another power conference personnel director. Ongoing issues From a legal perspective, the lawsuits and court battles won't stop in the wake of the House settlement. A number of states already have NIL laws that contradict the settlement, and the Johnson v. NCAA case regarding athlete employment is still ongoing. Advertisement From a competitive perspective, the dollars going up means the competitive imbalance will too. This isn't a new problem in college sports, but a settlement negotiated with heavy input from the power conferences isn't going to change that, regardless of how well the clearinghouse works. 'It's going to separate, even more, the haves and the have-nots,' said an administrator. Big picture, athletic departments will be forced to adapt, financially and operationally, as college sports lean further away from amateurism and toward a more professional model. 'For the longest time, these athletic departments acted like nonprofits,' said another administrator. 'Now they have to act like businesses.' Advertisement In the meantime, power and non-power programs alike are hoping for some degree of stability in an industry that has had very little in recent years. 'At some point,' said a personnel director, 'maybe we'll get two years in a row where we know what's going on.' This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Sports Business, Women's College Basketball 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Pope Leo Sells Out US Event Clashing With Parade on Trump's Birthday
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. Pope Leo XIV has helped sell out a stadium show in Chicago with a promised virtual appearance—scheduled for the same day as a major military parade in Washington, D.C. Within the first 15 minutes of ticket availability, more than 9,000 people requested seats for the Chicago gathering. By the end of the first day, that number had climbed to 20,000. As of Friday, the $5 tickets were completely sold out. The event will be streamed live online, although CatholicTV has not confirmed whether it will air the broadcast. Why It Matters Pope Leo's expected involvement in the Chicago event, which will be streamed online, will draw huge interest and will divide some attention away from the Trump-backed military parade the same day, the president's birthday. The pope, in his first address to world diplomats, said the dignity of migrants had to be respected, potentially putting himself on a collision course with the Trump administration, which has stepped up enforcement of immigration law, arguing voters' concerns on the topic have long been ignored. From left: Donald Trump attends a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025; and Pope Leo XIV leaves after his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square at The Vatican, May... From left: Donald Trump attends a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025; and Pope Leo XIV leaves after his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square at The Vatican, May 28, 2025. More AP What To Know The pontiff is set to appear on big screens at Rate Field, home of Major League Baseball's Chicago White Sox, on June 14. "Although Pope Leo XIV will not be present in Chicago for the event, he has announced that he will be participating remotely from Rome, with a video message to be played at the gathering," the Vatican's news service said in a June 2 release promoting the event. That same date, President Donald Trump's birthday, Washington D.C. will play host to a major military parade celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport will be forced to shut down for several hours on June 14 to accommodate the parade, affecting more than 100 flights and thousands of passengers, according to The Washington Post. The New York Times reports the parade will feature 28 M1A1 Abrams tanks (each weighing 70 tons), 28 Stryker armored personnel carriers, more than 100 other military vehicles, 6,700 soldiers, 50 helicopters, 34 horses, two mules, and one dog. Notably, the Army did not hold a parade for its bicentennial in 1975. While the pontiff's message will be delivered from Rome, commentators noted the symbolism in the timing. "A bit of counterprogramming there," said MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire. "But I will say, when the Pope does come for real in the flesh—Chicago. Millions of people." John Heilemann, speaking alongside Lemire, added: "The counterprogramming point remains, Lemire, because the truth is—for America and Trump's military parade in Washington, if you don't live in Washington, that's a television spectacle. If you don't live in Chicago, the Pope's doing a video mass there at Rate Field. It's the same thing for those of us who live in New York. They're both just TV shows. And, you know, that's the definition of counterprogramming." The parade in Washington, meanwhile, is being promoted as a patriotic tribute to the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. A May 21 statement from the event organizers said it aims to "showcase the Army's modern capabilities" and "inspire a new generation to embrace the spirit of service, resilience, and leadership that defines the United States." Critics say the event is excessive and politically charged. "You know, there are so many reasons that you might want to push back on this military parade. All of them have been discussed before. There's a very kind of Kim Jong Un vibe to it," Heilemann told Lemire. "It's obviously going to be a kind of a nightmare, logistics-wise, for Washington, D.C. The streets are going to get all torn up. They're going to be filling in potholes from the damage that gets done for months to come." Trump and Pope Leo's Clash Over Immigration Since becoming the pontiff, Pope Leo has clashed with Trump—most notably over immigration policy. In one of his first major addresses as pope, U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV signaled a clear break from Trump's immigration stance, urging respect for migrants' dignity and compassion for those seeking a better life abroad. Speaking to diplomats at The Vatican, Leo reflected on his own roots as a descendant of immigrants and a former missionary in Peru. "My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate," he said, adding that all people—"citizens and immigrants alike"—are equally worthy of dignity and protection. Leo's message contrasts sharply with Trump's vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The late Pope Francis also clashed with Trump over immigration, once saying the president was "not Christian" for wanting to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Leo's comments suggest that the Church under his leadership will continue to advocate for migrant rights. Before his election, Leo—then-Cardinal Robert Prevost—had pushed back on U.S. Vice President JD Vance's claim that Catholic theology prioritized caring for one's own over others, a statement Pope Leo reportedly disagreed with. In May, Pope Leo's brother John Prevost told The New York Times that his brother was "not happy" with Trump's immigration policy, adding that he "won't just sit back." "I know he's not happy with what's going on with immigration. I know that for a fact. How far he'll go with it is only one's guess, but he won't just sit back. I don't think he'll be the silent one," John Prevost said. What Happens Next Gates for the Chicago event will open at 12:30 p.m. on Saturday, June 14, with the program set to begin at 2:30 p.m. The day will conclude with a Holy Mass at 4 p.m., led by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. Tickets are still available for President Trump's parade.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk trades threats with Trump: What it could mean for SpaceX launches in California
When President Donald Trump took office in January, he began offering plenty of signs that his goals for U.S. spaceflight aligned closely with those of billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk. Now those goals, which included reaching Mars during Trump's second term as a top priority, appear to be up in the air amid an increasingly volatile fallout between two of the world's most powerful men. As insults have turned to threats, Trump has suggested he'd hit Musk where it could hurt most: His wallet. Musk's SpaceX has spent years positioning itself at the center of American civil and military spaceflight – a profitable relationship that has made the company's founder incredibly wealthy. In response, Musk has floated – and then retracted – the idea of decommissioning a SpaceX vehicle critical to NASA's spaceflight program. Serious threats, or empty words? That remains to be seen as Musk and Trump reportedly consider a détente. In the meantime, here's what to know about what's at stake if the U.S. government's relationship with SpaceX were to crumble: U.S. spaceflight: Dozens of NASA space missions could be axed under Trump's budget The feud between Trump and his former top adviser escalated in a dramatic fashion when the president threatened to cut off the taxpayer dollars that have fueled Elon Musk's businesses, including SpaceX. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump said in a post on his social media platform. "I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" In all, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, a Washington Post analysis found. With SpaceX as the fulcrum of much of the U.S. government's spaceflight programs, parting ways with the commercial company would leave a void that would be hard to fill. But NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens said in a post on social media site X that 'NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space.' 'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met,' Stevens wrote. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, founded SpaceX, in 2002. The commercial spaceflight company is headquartered at Starbase in South Texas. The site, which is where SpaceX has been conducting routine flight tests of its 400-foot megarocket known as Starship, was recently voted by residents to become its own city. SpaceX conducts many of its own rocket launches, most using the Falcon 9 rocket, from both California and Florida. That includes a regular cadence of deliveries of Starlink internet satellites into orbit from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County. In the month of May alone, SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket deployed six different deliveries of Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit. Recently, SpaceX has also moved its recovery operations from the Florida Coast to the coast of California for vehicles returning from orbit – with or without a crew. SpaceX also partners for occasional privately funded commercial crewed missions, the most recent of which was an April venture known as Fram2. SpaceX was additionally famously involved in funding and operating the headline-grabbing Polaris Dawn crewed commercial mission in September 2024. SpaceX benefits from billions of dollars in contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense by providing launch services for classified satellites and other payloads. Gwynne Shotwell, CEO of SpaceX, has said the company has about $22 billion in government contracts, according to Reuters. The vast majority of that, about $15 billion, is derived from NASA. SpaceX's famous two-stage Falcon 9 rocket ‒ one of the world's most active ‒ is routinely the rocket of choice to get many NASA missions off the ground. For instance, the rocket is due in the days ahead to help propel a four-person crew of private astronauts to the International Space Station for a venture with NASA known as Axiom Mission 4. NASA also has plans to use SpaceX's Starship in its Artemis lunar missions to ferry astronauts aboard the Orion capsule from orbit to the moon's surface. The rocket, which is in development, has yet to reach orbit in any of its nine flight tests beginning in April 2023. SpaceX's Dragon capsule is also a famous vehicle that is widely used for a variety of spaceflights. The capsule, which sits atop the Falcon 9 for launches to orbit, is capable of transporting both NASA astronauts and cargo to the space station. Under NASA's commercial crew program, the U.S. space agency has been paying SpaceX for years to conduct routine spaceflights to the International Space Station using the company's own launch vehicles. The first of SpaceX's Crew missions ferrying astronauts to the orbital outpost on the Dragon began in 2020, with the tenth and most recent contingent reaching the station in March for about a six-month stay. Standing nearly 27 feet tall and about 13 feet wide, Dragon capsules can carry up to seven astronauts into orbit, though most of SpaceX's Crew missions feature a crew of four. The Dragon spacecraft also was the vehicle NASA selected to bring home the two NASA astronauts who rode the doomed Boeing Starliner capsule to the space station in June 2024. Certifying the Starliner capsule for operation would give NASA a second vehicle in addition to Dragon for regular spaceflights to orbit. Because Boeing is still developing its Starliner capsule, Dragon is the only U.S. vehicle capable of carrying astronauts to and from the space station. It's also one of four vehicles contracted to transport cargo and other supplies to the orbital laboratory. For that reason, Musk's threat Thursday, June 5 to decommission the Dragon "immediately" would be a severe blow to NASA if he were to follow through on it. Musk, though, appears to already be backing off on the suggestion, which he made in response to Trump's own threats. In response to a user who advised Musk to "Cool off and take a step back for a couple days," Musk replied: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' Seven astronauts are aboard the International Space Station, including three Americans. Four of the astronauts rode a SpaceX Dragon to the station for a mission known as Crew-10, while the remaining three launched on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Josh Meyer, USA TODAY; Reuters Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@ This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: SpaceX California rocket launches: Trump-Musk feud's possible effects
