Trump lays into Musk, suggesting he has ‘Trump derangement syndrome'
President Donald Trump appeared to confirm the deterioration of his relationship with Elon Musk, saying he was 'very disappointed' in the tech billionaire after Musk repeatedly blasted the president's sweeping domestic agenda bill in recent days.
'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office less than one week after the two exchanged effusive praise on Musk's last day as a special government employee.
Since then, Musk has strongly criticized what Trump calls his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that has passed the House and faces an uncertain path forward in the Senate. On Tuesday, Musk called the bill a 'disgusting abomination.' Trump and Musk have not spoken since Musk lashed out at the legislation, a source familiar with the dynamic told CNN.
'He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Trump said, adding that while Musk has not yet personally attacked him, the president expected that could be next.
Trump repeatedly claimed that Musk's concerns with the bill were centered on the repeal of electric vehicle subsidies that benefitted Tesla. Musk has admitted his company has struggled in the wake of his political involvement.
Musk didn't wait to respond, posting his reactions in real time on his social media platform X.
'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said. He added: 'Such ingratitude.'
Musk denied Trump's claim that the Tesla CEO knew the inner workings of the bill ahead of time, and countered that the elimination of EV tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to the massive domestic policy bill.
'Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill' Musk in a separate post. 'In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this! Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.'
One Republican strategist who has worked closely with the tech billionaire downplayed the idea that Musk's opposition is only about the EV subsidies, telling CNN that Musk was genuinely troubled by projections of how much the bill would add to the deficit – the reasoning Musk has publicly cited on multiple occasions. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the legislation passed by the House would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.
During Thursday's Oval Office appearance alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump reminisced about his campaign bromance with Musk, who contributed at least a quarter-billion dollars to efforts supporting Trump's 2024 presidential bid and once called himself Trump's 'first buddy.'
'Elon endorsed me very strongly. He actually went up and campaigned for me. I think I would have won – Susie would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway,' Trump said, referring to his chief of staff Susie Wiles, appearing to hint at tensions between Wiles and Musk.
Trump appeared to moderate his tone at times, saying he 'always liked Elon' – before implicitly accusing him of so-called 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.'
'He's not the first – people leave my administration, and they love us, and then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile. I don't know what it is. It's sort of 'Trump derangement syndrome,' I guess they call it, but we have it with others too,' he said.
'They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour is gone,' he continued. 'The whole world is different, and they become hostile. I don't know what it is.'
Kristen Holmes contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court
Jun. 6—A partisan standoff over whether to hold a public hearing on a citizen-initiated red flag referendum is likely to stretch into next week's legislative sessions and could wind up in court. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, tried late Thursday to force Democrats to schedule a public hearing on the referendum, proposing a series of floor motions in the Senate, all of which were rejected. He said Friday that he intends to introduce additional motions next week if Democrats still haven't agreed to hold a hearing on the initiative. "I don't think this thing is over yet," Stewart said. "If I had to wager a bet, there are some other motions I'm intending to make when we get back next week, assuming they still haven't done the right thing." The red flag proposal, if passed by voters, would make it easier to confiscate the guns of a person in crisis by allowing family members to initiate the process and by removing a required mental health evaluation. The proposal came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Meanwhile, the impasse over a public hearing on the proposal has added to tensions at the State House as lawmakers are in the busy final days of the legislative session. Republicans point to a 2019 law that requires public hearings for citizen initiatives that are headed toward statewide referendum votes, unless lawmakers formally vote to waive the requirement. Such hearings have been held on other citizen proposals, but not all: A 2021 citizen initiative never received a hearing or the required waiver and was still sent to referendum and passed by voters. Democrats have so far not backed down, arguing in part that the Maine Constitution does not require the hearing and also citing legislative rules. Gun rights supporters who are opposed to the referendum proposal are pointing to the state law and threatening legal action against Democratic leaders, with one top advocate saying Friday that they have attorneys drafting a lawsuit. "When there's a state law on the books the Legislature can't just ignore it, so that will be the basis for the challenge," said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, an advocacy group for gun owners and sportsmen that is working on the lawsuit. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which initiated the citizen's referendum, said in a written statement Friday that the group is "happy to debate this issue any time" and accused Republicans of playing "political tricks" by waiting until the end of the session to raise questions. "Now the National Rifle Association has joined them, parachuting into our state to muddy our Democratic process," Palmer said. "While they are doing that, we are focusing on the next five months, where we will be having this conversation publicly, talking to voters throughout the state, and in November every Maine voter will have the chance to make their voices heard." Citizens initiatives are brought forward by voters though a signature-gathering and application process. While the Legislature can choose to enact the proposals, they typically send them to statewide referendum votes. Maine's Legislature held a public hearing last month on the only other citizen initiative currently pending. That proposal would require photo identification prior to voting in Maine and put new restrictions on absentee voting. It also is headed for a fall referendum vote. Lawmakers also held a public hearing last year on the only citizen-initiated referendum they received in 2024, LD 2232, to limit contributions to political action committees that make independent expenditures. All four citizen initiatives in 2023 also received hearings. Legislative records, however, show that no public hearing or vote to waive the hearing was held for an initiative in 2021 that was aimed at stopping the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line through western Maine. At a committee work session on that initiative, a legislative analyst did not address whether lawmakers needed to hold a public hearing but did note some unique circumstances. Two weeks after the initiative was handed to the Legislature, lawmakers adjourned and the bill was carried over to a special session. Sen. Dick Bradstreet, R-Vassalboro, the sponsor of the 2019 law to require public hearings, said Friday that the circumstances of the 2021 case were different because lawmakers are supposed to hold the hearing in the same session in which they receive it and in that case they had just received the proposal when they ended up adjourning. He said the reason no hearing was held in 2021 was "kind of a technicality." LD 1378, the bill resulting from the red flag citizen initiative, was transmitted to the Legislature on March 27, during the current session that's scheduled to end June 18. "You really can't compare the two because in this case they're choosing not to have the hearing, even though the legal requirements are there," Bradstreet said. "Before, they could say they weren't in the same session. ... Now they're kind of flouting the law." Bradstreet said he didn't recall any outcry over the lack of a public hearing on the 2021 measure, but said there was less knowledge of the relatively new law at the time. He said he put forward the bill in 2019 because of a handful of initiatives that had been put forward around that time that were generating a lot of advertising. DISCERNING FACT FROM FICTION "I thought, 'How can people discern fact from fiction?'" Bradstreet said. "The only way to do that would be some type of hearing where people could question what the initiative does and what some repercussions would be, and where both sides would have a chance to present their arguments without the propaganda." In a late-night session Thursday, Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, rejected a proposal from Stewart to consider a formal waiver of the public hearing requirement to comply with state law, saying that his proposal was "not properly before the body." Daughtry said the Legislature's rules take precedence over statutes passed by prior groups of lawmakers regarding legislative proceedings and that Stewart's motion was asking for lawmakers to take an "unnecessary vote" on the citizens initiative. Daughtry also noted that the initiative was still before the Judiciary Committee, where she said it could have further action. A spokesperson for Daughtry and Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chair of the committee, said Friday that they would not comment on the calls for a public hearing. Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, the House chair of the committee, did not respond to a voicemail message or email. Trahan, from the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, said his group in conjunction with Gun Owners of Maine and the National Rifle Association will focus their lawsuit on the 2019 law and argue that lawmakers need to either hold the hearing or vote by a two-thirds majority to waive it. The group is also fundraising to support the effort. Trahan said that just because lawmakers "got away with" not holding a hearing on the 2021 initiative, it does not mean it's not required in the law. "Why don't they just make this easy and hold the public hearing?" he said. "There's nothing to hide. Good public discourse adds to the debate." Copy the Story Link
