Trump-Musk feud escalates
Nick Grimm: The rift is widening between US President Donald Trump and his former close ally, tech billionaire Elon Musk, with the pair trading bitter accusations on social media. The escalating feud comes as the Trump administration attempts to get a mammoth spending bill through the Senate, which is facing fierce opposition from Democrats, some Republicans and Elon Musk himself. Gavin Coote reports.
Gavin Coote: A political bromance that has devolved into an acrimonious divorce. After days of growing criticism from Elon Musk about Donald Trump's signature spending bill, the US president is now hitting back.
Donald Trump: I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people. He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate because that's billions and billions of dollars.
Gavin Coote: The CEO of electric vehicle company Tesla was until recently President Trump's most powerful ally. But the relationship fractured when Elon Musk began attacking the Trump administration's efforts to get a spending bill through Congress that would cut taxes and ramp up spending for border security. The men are now trading insults and accusations with Mr. Musk claiming on social media without evidence that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That's in reference to a large tranche of material relating to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who was accused of abusing underage girls before taking his own life in prison. For many observers, the fallout wasn't a matter of if, but when.
Prof Todd Belt: This was inevitable, but seeing it blow up like this so quickly is actually surprising.
Gavin Coote: Professor Todd Belt is a political analyst with George Washington University. While Mr. Musk only recently left his post as a top advisor in the Trump administration, Professor Belt suspects tensions between the pair have been building for some time.
Prof Todd Belt: There's a very famous photo from behind a door of Trump pointing at Musk, and we never really got the story behind that. I suspect we might now. Elon Musk was walking the halls of power. He was in the Oval Office and now he says he's sleeping in his server farms and conference rooms. So politically, he's really gone from the pinnacle to the pit. And you have to think that this is because he's really concerned about his businesses. He's said as much. The stock prices are down. The sales are down.
Gavin Coote: Tesla's share price plunged by 14 percent on Thursday. While the feud continues to play out on social media, it's unclear where it could go next. Donald Trump has already threatened to cancel billions of dollars in government contracts involving Mr. Musk's companies. Bruce Wolpe is a senior fellow at the U.S. Study Center and a former Democratic staffer.
Bruce Wolpe: It's getting ugly. And the question is, how ugly can it really get? I mean, Musk says that Trump would have lost the election without him. Musk has supported a tweet calling for Trump's impeachment and J.D. Vance become president. Musk has said, I'm dropping the bomb and Trump is in the Epstein tapes. These are the notorious records of Jeffrey Epstein. He's also, Musk is also disconnecting, decommissioning a rocket that's essential to resupplying the International Space Station. And so can it go any worse?
Gavin Coote: The spending bill that sparked Mr. Musk's fury is yet to pass the Senate. And while he's vowed to continue mobilising opposition to it, Bruce Wolpe suspects it will have limited impact.
Bruce Wolpe: When Musk first said this bill does not control the deficit, that is something that a lot of Republicans on the Hill wanted to get some information on and want to support. But when it gets this personal, I think the Republicans on the Hill, they're choosing between Trump and Musk. There's no choice here. And the Republicans are with Trump and everything rides on Trump's being able to pass this big, beautiful mega bill. If he can pass that, then his legacy, at least for the first term, will be sealed.
Gavin Coote: So where does that leave Elon Musk? Do you think he will end up becoming this sort of angry voice out in the wilderness?
Bruce Wolpe: Musk said that Trump has three and a half years left. He says, I'm going to be around for 40 years and he has all the money in the world. And so wherever he applies his brain and his money and his power, he can make a difference. So we will see as to where it goes. But this will go on for a while. And that does not do anything to improve the political culture in the United States. It's ugly. It's going to get worse.
Nick Grimm: Bruce Wolpe there from the US Studies Center, ending Gavin Coote's report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
32 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Trump considers selling his Tesla amid dispute with Elon Musk
United States President Donald Trump and Elon Musk were up until recently best of friends but have since parted ways following Trump's proposed 'Big, Beautiful Bill'. It seems Mr Trump and Mr Musk's friendship has collapsed in spectacular fashion, leading to an online dispute between the two. The US President is even thought to be considering selling his Tesla as the pair's public spat deepens.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returns to US to face criminal charges after deportation to El Salvador
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador, has returned to the United States to face criminal charges, according to US Attorney-General Pam Bondi. Mr Abrego Garcia was charged in an indictment filed in the Federal Court in Tennessee with conspiring to transport illegal immigrants to the United States. The indictment was filed on May 21, more than two months after Abrego Garcia's March 15 deportation, court records showed. In a statement, Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. "Today's action proves what we've known all along — that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so," he said. Mr Abrego Garcia was deported despite an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection after finding he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned to El Salvador, court records show. Critics of US President Donald Trump pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. Officials countered by alleging that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers denied that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang and said he had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. His case has also become a flashpoint for escalating tensions between the United States's executive branch and the judiciary, which has ruled against a number of Mr Trump's policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Mr Abrego Garcia's return, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his "warrantless arrest". US District Judge Paula Xinis has since opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration has done to secure Mr Abrego Garcia's return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information. The indictment also charges Mr Abrego Garcia and two unidentified co-conspirators with transporting firearms illegally purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland. It also alleges Mr Abrego Garcia transported illegal narcotics purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland and was on some occasions accompanied on those trips by members and associates of MS-13. Reuters
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
Europe, Indonesia or Japan? Can Australia find other allies to rely on if the US disappears?
Donald Trump's comments, in particular, that Canada should become America's 51st state and threatening to abandon European allies over defence spending have raised concerns about the US' reliability. Source: SBS, AAP For decades, the United States has been a reliable ally to Australia, whose protection has helped to ensure peace in the region. But US President Donald Trump's unpredictable and tough treatment of his nation's allies has raised questions about whether Australia can still afford to lean so heavily on America as a security partner. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters the government will make decisions in Australia's national interest and fund the defence capability it needs . The comments came after US defence secretary Pete Hegseth requested Australia increase its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in a conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last weekend. Australia's defence budget makes up roughly 2 per cent of GDP, which the government plans to increase to 2.35 per cent by 2034. While most experts do not believe the US will withdraw from the Indo-Pacific, Trump's actions raise questions about whether Australia should be seeking to cooperate more with other nations. In May, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, raised the prospect of a formal defence agreement between the trading bloc and Australia. In response, Albanese said he would consider the proposal but noted a similar agreement was already in place with other European countries such as Germany. Without the US alliance, Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Studies Centre at The University of Sydney, says Australia would need to massively increase its defence spending or accept it can't defend its own sovereignty. "If you look at the mismatch between the scale of our territory and the scale of our ability to defend it — it's one of the most glaring mismatches in the world," he says. "[You would] effectively be just hoping for the best." Dean says Australia needs to work hard to maintain its security and that a "community of nations" is necessary to support open and free trade, promote a rules-based international order, and counter the use of coercion, aggression, and military force to achieve political objectives. "If you don't have that community of nations, the example of what's happening in Ukraine is very poignant to everybody," he says. [Russia believes] in a 'might is right' world and they believe in a world where they get to shape those rules and that order, and that is not going to be favourable or in Australia's interests ... or for the majority of states in our region. Dean says Trump is more brutally transactional than previous presidents and an example of the adage in international relations that "you have no friends, you only have common interests". Although it's not always clear what Trump's interests are, Dean believes there's still a common alignment between Australia and the US, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, and in the overall aims and objectives of their security policies. "That simply boils down to — we don't want an Indo-Pacific that's dominated by one particular power — especially China," Dean says. "That is an Australian view clearly articulated in our strategy, and that is a US view, clearly articulated by the US — even under this president." One of the potential problems with a China-dominated region, Dean says, is its desire to "rule by law" and the way in which China would go about setting and enforcing laws. "China particularly wants a hierarchical order where it sits on top and everyone else sits underneath," he says. In contrast, Australia and other like-minded countries support a "rule of law" system in which a community of nations jointly sets the rules through treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But Sam Roggeveen, the director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, says the US has done very little to address China's dramatic military modernisation since the end of the Cold War. No matter who's in charge in the US, I don't think that will rescue Australia from having to think much more independently about its security. "The harsh truth for Australia and for other allies in the region is that the Americans aren't going to do the heavy lifting for us, and want us to do it ourselves." Dean says the alliance with the US is critical for national security, and forming an agreement with other countries would be very difficult. A strategic alliance involves countries committing to help each other out during a crisis, or to act in accord to address a common threat. This would preferably be set out in a treaty. Australia has an alliance with the US and New Zealand, but despite being part of the British Commonwealth, it does not have a formal agreement with the United Kingdom. Given the geographical distance, Dean believes military support from the UK would likely depend on what other conflicts are happening in its part of the world. When it comes to international alliances, arguably the most important is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which commits Europe and North America to protecting each other from any threat. Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at The Australian National University, says there are three crucial elements to establish in alliances. Firstly, there must be clear interests in common. Secondly, the parties must articulate some shared values or political will to provide a foundation for trust. "If their security is threatened, then you have interests engaged," he says. And there must also be mutual capability. "There's not much point being an ally of someone if you bring nothing to the table and they bring everything," he says. Dean says no other state can replace the size, power and influence of the US, which is the world's number one military power. Dean says the US — by partnering with South Korea, Australia, Japan and other states — can aggregate enough power to balance China's influence and there is no "ready-made state" that could easily replace it. Without the US, Medcalf says China would likely seek to dominate countries one by one and break any alliance-like relationships. Even if Australia did more for its own defence, there would still be a good argument for maintaining a close relationship with the US because its military technology is among, if not the best in the world. But Roggeveen says Australia has to accept the US alliance is going to become less important over time. "With that in mind, we have to look geographically much closer to home," he says. While forming a new alliance may prove difficult, Medcalf says it would be possible for Australia to build coalitions with other nations to discourage things like coercive behaviour if there was some degree of confidence the US would still back them up. "It's really about using strategic partnership to make ourselves stronger, rather than building a kind of alliance where we expect to be standing shoulder to shoulder in war," he says. Australia is already part of several small groupings of nations with common interests in the Indo-Pacific, such as The Quad (a diplomatic partnership among the US, India, Japan and Australia) and AJUS (a trilateral partnership among Australia, Japan and the US). Defence cooperation has deepened via AJUS, while the security partnership AUKUS, which exists between Australia, the UK and the US, has laid the groundwork for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and other advanced capabilities. Australia has also entered into limited bilateral agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and others. Medcalf, who is undertaking nationwide consultations to understand Australian attitudes to security, says most of these countries have no prospect of being treaty allies of Australia. But partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam may be possible. All of these countries, apart from Vietnam, are already American allies. "They have different levels of capability that they would bring to the table," he says. "But the ultimate question is how much risk are we all going to take for each other?" Due to the number of member states that would need to agree to it, Medcalf suspects an agreement with the EU would likely be quite vague in its language and commitment. It may focus on increased technology sharing, access to defence industry resources and possibly some intelligence sharing. There could also be some aspirational statements about the rules-based order, or the intent to discourage and oppose aggressive action. "But it would fall far short of anything resembling a treaty commitment," Medcalf says. Dean agrees it's more likely Australia and the EU would support each other diplomatically to uphold rules and standards both in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Medcalf points out Australia and many northern European countries share common values, including freedom of expression, the rule of law and secularism in politics. "[Australia's political values] are much closer to countries like Denmark, Sweden and Finland than to any of our neighbours except New Zealand," he says. Australia has previously manufactured a Norwegian-designed naval strike missile and German-designed armoured fighting vehicles. The EU could offer access to other sophisticated capabilities such as warships, drones and sensors. "The risk is obviously an expectation that Australia becomes more involved in Europe security problems ... obviously that's about confronting Russia," he says. While Medcalf believes Australia should be helping countries like Ukraine to defend themselves, there are limitations. What we shouldn't be doing is ever raising the expectation that we could be a frontline military actor on the other side of the world. Medcalf says Europe is in a different region to Australia, and it would be difficult to deploy troops or aircraft to each other's front lines. But Europe is highly trade-dependent and large countries like Germany and France, in particular, have an interest in maintaining the security of shipping in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, he says, adding that a significant number of shipping companies are also European. Roggeveen says countries in Europe and other parts of Asia are so far away they are never going to share the same vital interests as Australia. But Indonesia's interests are largely the same as Australia's, given they are neighbours. He says Indonesia is also predicted to be a great power by the middle of the century and likely the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world. "We've never had a great power on our doorstep before, and we want Indonesia to be on our side when that happens," he says. "We have no more important relationship than Indonesia just to our north," he told ABC's 7.30 show. Other experts are sceptical about the potential for a quasi-alliance with Indonesia. While Medcalf agrees Australia should do more with Indonesia — including to help strengthen its navy and air force, and its ability to monitor what's happening in its waters — he notes its policy is to be "friends to all, enemies to none". "Which sounds great but in practice means that Indonesia is working very hard to be as neutral as it can be in future crisis situations." He says Indonesia has not been willing to speak out about China's behaviour in the South China Sea and doesn't have the capability to help Australia build its own defence technology base. Australia also has to accept that China already has a strong influence in Indonesia, he says. "If you're looking for a country that can partly fill the gap that the US may leave — I'd be looking to Japan before Indonesia. But if Indonesia ends up getting closer to our point of view, that would be wonderful," he says. Medcalf says some experts already characterise Japan's relationship with Australia as a quasi-alliance, and it is the most likely country to form an actual alliance with Australia, although the chances of this happening in the short term remain unlikely. He says both Japan and Australia share a strong belief in a rules-based system, and have different strengths they could bring to the table. They need the resources that we have. We need their technology, we need their investment. Medcalf doesn't think Japan's peace constitution — put in place at the end of World War Two to maintain its military for defensive purposes only — would be an impediment because politicians have been reinterpreting it over the last 20 years or so. "Japan is already moving away from 1 per cent, to 2 per cent of GDP, as its military budget," he says, adding that Japanese forces are increasingly training in Australia. However, Dean believes legal and cultural barriers still make it unlikely Japan will form an alliance with Australia. "But I think if the region was to have some type of strategic shock, or it was to really start to deteriorate, that would drive that alignment even closer together," he says. Medcalf says Vietnam is very good at maintaining a balanced relationship with China because it knows how to stand up to China, while also keeping the peace. "They've been doing both for about 1,000 years," he says. "[Vietnam] can defend itself, but it can also do diplomacy well." However, Medcalf says the Southeast Asian country would be very reluctant to enter into a treaty-like commitment with Australia, although there is potential for more cooperation in areas such as military training. Singapore has long been a valuable diplomatic partner for Australia and already cooperates on military training and exchanging information, Medcalf says. "But Singapore is ultimately a very self-interested and neutral country and I think we would work with them as much as we could without the expectation that either would actually take a risk on the other's behalf." He says he would put Malaysia in a similar camp. South Korea is a militarily significant country because it has a lot of capability, Medcalf says. "They now export defence equipment to Europe," he says. "South Korea is one of the few countries in the world that is genuinely able to do rapid military manufacturing at scale." But the problem is it's overwhelmingly focused on defending itself against North Korea. "Yes, they're slightly concerned about ensuring that China doesn't dominate the region. Yes, they're a US ally but they would probably be reluctant to project much further beyond the peninsula," he says. Medcalf says South Korea also has quite deep-seated political problems domestically, and its politics can be unpredictable. Medcalf says Australia's relationship with India has advanced significantly over the past decade — with each country's navy training together frequently and sharing information. Both countries' air forces jointly monitor the Indian Ocean. "[India] will probably be — within the next few decades — one of the three biggest powers in the world militarily, alongside the US and China." However, Medcalf says India is diplomatically very neutral and greatly values its autonomy. They're not going to be forming permanent alliance-like relationships with anyone. While India does not want to witness China dominate the Indian Ocean and would likely align with other countries in the region to balance against China, Medcalf says if it came to war, there would be only very limited circumstances under which it would get involved. "I guess they would certainly contribute to patrolling the Indian Ocean and potentially limiting China's ability to operate there, but I don't think India is going to be taking a lot of risk on behalf of others," he says. India may also expect other countries to come to its aid if there were a conflict with China on its border. "And that would be something that I think would be difficult for other countries to think about." The Philippines is one of the countries that claim parts of the South China Sea, which has led to clashes with China over issues such as fishing rights, islands and territories, Medcalf says. "The Philippines has traditionally been quite a weak military power but they're beginning to modernise their forces and their location is strategically very important — they're right at the heart of the sea lanes of Asia." While the Philippines is an American treaty ally, under former president Rodrigo Duterte, it became closer to China. Medcalf says it would make sense for Australia to have the Philippines as a partner, but caution is needed when considering the limits of its power and whether another change in government could alter dynamics. It's yet another example of how it's a nice idea to try and stitch all of these relationships together into something larger but without the Americans involved somewhere along the line, it still becomes quite flimsy. Like Australia, Canada is a middle-sized power but in some ways, it is militarily weaker. It's also a long way away. But Medcalf points out Canada is technically part of the broader Pacific region as its western coastline borders the Pacific Ocean. It's also surprisingly active in the region — supporting the UN efforts in East Asia to prevent illegal trade with North Korea and the smuggling of parts or precursors for weapons of mass destruction. "There's something to work with there but all of this stuff is only going to work if it's more than simply putting all your reliance on one country — they would be a small part of a much bigger puzzle."
