Trump signals openness to forgiving Musk
Published: | Updated:
Donald Trump weighed in on his very public feud with billionaire Elon Musk and claimed he is open to forgiving his former 'first buddy.' The president said he has 'no hard feelings' but was 'surprised' when Musk turned against him over his massive proposed spending legislation dubbed the Big Beautiful Bill.
Asked by Pod Force One host Miranda Devine if he could forgive Musk, Trump said: 'I guess I could.' 'I have no hard feelings,' he admitted. 'But I was really surprised that that happened.'
'He went after a bill that's phenomenal, it's the best thing we've ever signed in this country,' Trump told the New York Post podcast host . 'And when he did that I was not a happy camper. So, it's too bad.'
Musk admitted overnight that he was wrong to publish some of the posts he made last week that kicked off a civil war within the MAGAverse. 'I regret some of my posts about President Donald Trump last week.
They went too far,' the SpaceX and Tesla boss posted to his social media platform X just after 3:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. He did not specify which posts he regretted making but the pair of billionaires exchanged multiple insults as their spat exploded publicly earlier this month.
The signal of contrition from Musk brings some relief to Republicans on Capitol Hill, who are desperate to avoid divisions as they continue work on Trump's signature tax‑and‑spending legislation.
During their row Musk even claimed on X that Trump didn't want to publish the Epstein Files fully because he is named in them. He also posted support for impeachment, but has since deleted that one.
Trump told ABC News that Musk had 'lost his mind.' Devine pressed Trump in the podcast interview, published on Wednesday, on what he thinks is wrong with the tech billionaire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inside Putin's phone call with Kim Jong Un
Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held a phone call to 'reaffirm' their close relationship and discuss mutual concerns. The call took place ahead of Putin's scheduled summit with Donald Trump in Alaska, where a ceasefire in Ukraine is expected to be discussed. During the conversation, Putin reportedly shared 'information in the context of the upcoming talks' with Donald Trump, though North Korea's statement did not mention this. Putin commended North Korea's support for Russia and praised the "bravery and heroism" of North Korean soldiers deployed to the Kursk region in Ukraine. North Korea has provided significant military support to Russia, including troops and equipment, and is expected to send more construction workers and deminers to Kursk.
The Guardian
3 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump alone in a room with Putin is a recipe for disaster – just look to their last meeting
The lessons of Helsinki are clear: putting Donald Trump alone in a room with Vladimir Putin is an unpredictable – and often dangerous – affair. It was 2018 when the two leaders met at the invitation of Sauli Niinistö, the Finnish president, to discuss a collapse in US-Russia relations, accusations of elections interference, and the grinding war in east Ukraine, among other topics. By the time he came out of the room, Trump looked dazzled by the Kremlin leader. Asked at a press conference about the conclusions of the US intelligence community that Russia had interfered in the elections, Trump said: 'President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be.' Fiona Hill, Trump's senior Kremlin adviser on the US national security council, later said that she had considered pulling a fire alarm or faking a medical emergency to end the press conference. Somehow, the stakes are even higher as Trump and Putin plan to meet on Friday in Anchorage, Alaska, where Trump has said the two will discuss 'land swapping' in Putin's first meeting with a G7 leader since his invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. European leaders are fearful that Trump could once again emerge from a closed-door meeting preaching the Kremlin gospel. The White House has been lowering expectations for the summit – a sign that no concrete deal is on the table. 'This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit,' Trump said during a news conference on Monday. He said he would know within the first few minutes whether or not Putin was ready for a ceasefire and would pass that on to Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders. 'I may say, 'Lots of luck, keep fighting.' Or I may say, 'We can make a deal,'' he said. But Putin will still try his luck to shape Trump's image of what a peace deal could entail in a way that will bring maximum benefit to the Kremlin. Putin 'wants a deal with Trump that will be presented to Kyiv and other European capitals as a fait accompli,' wrote John Herbst, senior director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center and a former ambassador to Ukraine. The lack of invites for European leaders 'has the smell of the Yalta Conference in 1945 … where the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom decided the fate of half of Europe over the heads of those nations'. Europe and Ukraine have pushed back. Ahead of the summit, Zelenskyy said that Ukraine would not cede Russia territory that it could use to launch a new offensive, effectively ruling out Trump's predictions that 'there will be some [land] swapping'. The ad-hoc nature of Trump's approach to foreign policy can play into the hands of the US's foreign adversaries – but it has frustrated them too. Leaders like president Xi Jinping of China are said to prefer more advance work before getting into the room with Trump specifically because of his unpredictability. Russia too has become frustrated with the lack of process in the Trump administration. But that has not stopped Putin from taking his chances by stepping into the ring with Trump for their first one-on-one meeting of this administration. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that the meeting between Trump and Putin would be one-on-one, and a 'listening exercise' for Trump during which he could suss out the Russian point of view. 'That's the way Trump does it. He just wings it,' said Hill, the former presidential aide. 'And Putin likes sparring … he prides himself on being able to be light on his feet in these kinds of settings,' she said. The lack of advisers in the room has raised a key question: will any agreements made in a private setting, even if interpreters or other notetakers are present, lead to lasting outcomes? 'It's kind of like a meeting falling in the forest,' said Hill. A similar event took place during the Helsinki summit, when Trump exited the room and said that he had made an agreement with Putin for US law enforcement to have access to the GRU operatives accused of influencing the US elections. Putin later said in turn that he would have access to Americans responsible for pushing for the anti-corruption Magnitsky Act. 'Of course, that went nowhere,' Hill said. 'Trump hadn't fully understood what Putin had said to him.' 'In other words, you know, there is a meeting or something, it doesn't solidify into something,' she said.
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's military takeover of Washington DC is a sheer demonstration of power
President Trump imposed a military takeover of the nation's capital on Monday, sending National Guard troops to Washington. He also seized control of the DC municipal police department, invoking an obscure section of the 1973 D.C. Home Rule Act which allows the president to take control of local law enforcement in the district for a period of one month in times of emergency. That there is no emergency is irrelevant: Trump has declared one in order to exercise powers that are only available to him in a state of exception, which is, of course, what the whole country increasingly finds itself to be experiencing as the president expands the powers of his office from those of a constitutional executive into something more like the power of authoritarian control. The move follows the Trump administration's deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles earlier this year; in a press conference announcing the move on Monday, Trump suggested that he also intends to deploy the military to cities such as Baltimore, Oakland and New York. 'This will go further,' he said. 'We're starting very strongly with DC' The deployment reflects Trump's continued determination to further erode the longstanding American taboo against deploying military personnel for domestic law enforcement. It hardly matters what the pretext for such moves are. In LA, Trump claimed that protests against his administration's kidnapping of immigrants was causing unsustainable disorder in the city; it wasn't. In DC, Trump is likewise claiming that crime is out of control; it is not. (Crime has in fact dropped precipitously in Washington over the past decade, with violent crimes declining by more than half since 2013; there has been an especially steep decline in the crime rate since 2023.) In a bit of dark comedy, attorney general Pam Bondi appeared at the press conference and stood at a podium to declare that crime in DC would soon come to an end, all while flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump, two men accused – and, in Trump's case, convicted – of numerous crimes themselves. But no one is really supposed to believe that the deployment of troops to America's most liberal, most racially diverse, and most culturally thriving cities is an actual response to an actual crisis. Rather, the thinness of the pretext is itself a demonstration of power. The Trump administration, and national Republicans more broadly, have increasingly been willing to argue that Democratic rule is illegitimate even where Democratic politicians are duly elected; the nationalization of law enforcement in DC follows from this premise, seizing authority that rightly belongs to the Democratic local officials and distributing it to the Republican national figures who will brook no disagreement and tolerate no imposition of policies with which they disagree. Such a move may not, in the end, lead to widespread violence: aside from the lack of much actual crime for them to respond to, the capital is unbearably hot in the summertime, and one imagines sleepy-looking National Guard troops wandering aimlessly around the National Mall in the August swamp heat, wilted and sweaty in their tactical gear. But the imposition should, in a country with sufficient civic virtue, spawn mass protests all the same. The troops, after all, are not there to solve a real problem; there is no actual crisis for Trump to exploit. They are there, instead, because the president wants to send a message: that cities and states that are not sufficiently deferential to him in law will have his will imposed on them by force. The result is the same politics of shakedown and threat that Trump has wielded so successfully against universities and major businesses: he will impose suffering on anyone who does not defer to his will. One strange facet of the Trump era is the continually receding horizon of terms like 'dictatorship' and 'authoritarianism.' Is it an 'authoritarian' move for Trump to seize control of the DC police force if a statute technically grants him the legal authority to do so? Is it a 'dictatorship' if the mechanisms used to extend presidential control into things like private university admissions policies partakes of the nominal consent of administrators? Is it really a collapsed democracy if the soldiers marching down the streets of the capitol haven't actually wound up shooting anyone yet? These are the kinds of questions that sound ridiculous and naïve when you say them out loud; they sound like the kind of excuse-making one engages in when the effort to maintain denial has become desperate. They are also, often, debates involving the sort of semantic questions that are a bad sign when they come up at all: if the answer was good, no one would be asking the question. But the militarization of DC also illustrates a core feature of fascist regimes, which is their collapse of rhetoric and reality. Symbolism, language, images: these are core to Trump's political project, which is as much mythic as it is material. Trump's claims about crime and disorder are plain lies. But the ability to make your lies have the force of fact is a terrifying power. No one can doubt that Trump has seized it. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
