Donald Trump and Elon Musk urged by Republicans to end feud
Republicans fearful about potential consequences of a prolonged feud between US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are urging the pair to call a truce.
At a minimum, the explosion of animosity between the two powerful men could complicate the path forward for Republicans' massive tax and border spending legislation that has been promoted by Mr Trump but criticised by Mr Musk.
'I hope it doesn't distract us from getting the job done that we need to,' said representative Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington state. 'I think that it will boil over and they'll mend fences.'
As of Friday afternoon, Mr Musk was holding his fire, posting about his various companies on social media rather than attacking the president. Mr Trump departed the White House for his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, without stopping to talk to reporters who shouted questions about his battle with Mr Musk.
'I hope that both of them come back together because when the two of them are working together, we'll get a lot more done for America than when they're at cross purposes,' senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, told Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, sounded almost pained on social media as Mr Trump and Mr Musk volleyed insults at each other, sharing a photo composite of the two men and writing, 'But … I really like both of them.'
'Who else really wants @elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump to reconcile?' Mr Lee posted, later adding: 'Repost if you agree that the world is a better place with the Trump-Musk bromance fully intact.'
So far, the feud between Mr Trump and Mr Musk is probably best described as a moving target, with plenty of opportunities for escalation or detente.
Repost if you agree that the world is a better place with the Trump-Musk bromance fully intact @elonmusk @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/ivHNkJQ07J pic.twitter.com/E5H2HE1KtD
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 6, 2025
One person familiar with the president's thinking said Mr Musk wants to speak with Mr Trump, but that the president does not want to do it – or at least do it on Friday.
In a series of conversations with television news presenters on Friday morning, Mr Trump showed no interest in burying the hatchet. Asked on ABC News about reports of a potential call between him and Mr Musk, the president responded: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind?'
Mr Trump added in the ABC interview that he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Mr Musk at the moment.
Still, others remained hopeful that it all would blow over.
'I grew up playing hockey and there wasn't a single day that we played hockey or basketball or football or baseball, whatever we were playing, where we didn't fight. And then we'd fight, then we'd become friends again,' Mr Hannity said on his show on Thursday night.
Acknowledging that it 'got personal very quick,' Mr Hannity nonetheless added that the rift was 'just a major policy difference'.
House of Representatives speaker Mike Johnson projected confidence that the dispute would not affect prospects for the tax and border bill.
'Members are not shaken at all,' the Republican said. 'We're going to pass this legislation on our deadline.'
He added that he hopes Mr Musk and Mr Trump reconcile, saying 'I believe in redemption' and 'it's good for the party and the country if all that's worked out.'
But he also had something of a warning for the billionaire entrepreneur.
'I'll tell you what, do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Mr Johnson said. 'He is the leader of the party. He's the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How can Trump use the national guard on US soil?
Donald Trump said on Saturday he's deploying 2,000 California national guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of the California governor, Gavin Newsom. Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on US soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against US citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism a president can use to activate the military or national guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize national guard troops under certain circumstances. The national guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often, it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes national guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places national guard troops under federal command. The law says this can be done under three circumstances: when the US is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the US government; or when the president is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States', with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States'. It's not immediately clear whether the president can activate national guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Trump's proclamation says the national guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting US immigration officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because national guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the civil rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central high school after that state's governor activated the national guard to keep the students out. George HW Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the Covid pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their national guard troops to Washington DC to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then defense secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations'. Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he had been prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said that if the issue came up again in his next term: 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the national guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser, Stephen Miller, explained how that would be carried out: sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refused to participate, Miller said on The Charlie Kirk Show in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the national guard troops on Saturday, the defense secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues'.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Obama's doctor makes candid confession about Biden's mental decline while in office
The former White House physician to President Barack Obama has broken his silence, candidly admitting that President Joe Biden should have undergone rigorous cognitive testing throughout all four years of his presidency. Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as Obama's doctor from 2009 to 2013, didn't mince words warning that Biden should have been subjected to extensive annual neurocognitive exams and that the results should be made public. 'My position is that a 78-year-old candidate, Trump at the time, an 82-year-old president [Biden], would both benefit from neurocognitive testing,' Kuhlman stated, noting how age-related decline is inevitable. 'Any politician over the age of 70 has normal age-related cognitive decline.' Kuhlman, the author of Transforming Presidential Healthcare, has been making these recommendations for nearly a year - notably publishing them in a New York Times op-ed on the very day Biden bowed out of the 2024 race. Despite multiple detailed physicals during Biden's time in office, Kuhlman pointed out that none included neurocognitive assessments like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) - a basic test famously taken and 'aced' by President Trump. 'I have no doubt that President Trump aced it,' Kuhlman remarked. Yet Biden's evaluations, spanning five to six single-spaced pages and referencing 10 to 20 specialists, conspicuously omitted any serious cognitive screening. Biden's physician, Dr. Kevin O'Connor who also treated Biden during his vice presidency never subjected him to a formal cognitive battery or even the routine MoCA test. Such an omission has become more glaring given the president's visible struggles, culminating in his disastrous debate performance in June 2024 that effectively ended his reelection bid. 'Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest,' Kuhlman said to the New York Post acknowledging his respect for O'Connor's medical judgment but hinting at blind spots that may have endangered the presidency itself. Kuhlman also emphasized that simple cognitive screens like the MoCA are not enough to fully assess deeper mental deterioration. True evaluation requires extensive testing for memory, reasoning, processing speed, and spatial visualization. Such faculties begin to decline starting around age 60. The White House had long insisted Biden was 'fit for duty,' yet Kuhlman's remarks cast fresh doubts on those assurances. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre brushed aside concerns at a February 2024 briefing declaring, 'The president doesn't need a cognitive test. He passes a cognitive test every day.' But the former presidential physician's comments now suggest that claim was complacent. Adding fuel to the fire, White House logs revealed Biden met with Dr. Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson's specialist from Walter Reed, as part of his annual physical in January 2024. While O'Connor insisted the meeting was routine, other medical professionals weren't convinced. 'If somebody turns up a report that Kevin Cannard said he has Parkinson's then that's a completely different story,' Kuhlman said. He did, however, express trust in Cannard's evaluation based on their long-standing professional history. In the past, critics pointed to Biden's stiff gait, slow movement, and shuffling walk as signs of something deeper. 'I could've diagnosed him from across the Mall,' neurologist Dr. Tom Pitts bluntly told NBC in July 2024. In one final blow, Special Counsel Robert Hur's bombshell decision not to indict Biden over his handling of classified documents cited that a jury would likely view the president as 'a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.' The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is now turning up the heat. Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky) has subpoenaed O'Connor to testify under oath on June 27 about Biden's mental fitness. In a pointed letter, Comer raised concerns about O'Connor's 'financial relationship with the Biden family' and suggested there may have been a cover-up to conceal the president's cognitive decline from the American public. Jean-Pierre who has since left the Democratic Party and is preparing to release a scathing tell-all book about the 'broken' Biden administration is also expected to testify. Last month, a new book titled Original Sin by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson hit the shelves with allegations of a vast cover-up of Biden's final years in office. According to the book's authors, O'Connor resisted administering a cognitive test during Biden's last two years. Days before the book's released Biden revealed he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer with the cells having spread to the bone. Kuhlman emphasized that cancer testing protocols should have been maintained after 2014, but hinted that Biden may have been let down even in that regard. 'I hope that Kevin O'Connor had that conversation every year with his patient, Joe Biden, and documented that in the medical record,' he said. 'If he did the PSA and chose not to release it, I don't agree with that.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees to end up less than a decade later talking about their journey on a plush love seat in the family's three-bedroom suburban American home. He and his wife dreamed of bringing her niece to the U.S. to share in that bounty. Maybe she could study to become a doctor and then decide her own path. But that door slams shut on Monday as America put in place a travel ban for people from Afghanistan and a dozen other countries. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' President Donald Trump signed the ban Wednesday. It is similar to one in place during his first administration but covers more countries. Along with Afghanistan, travel to the U.S. is banned from Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump said visitors who overstay visas, like the man charged in an attack that injured dozens of demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, are a danger to the country. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which isn't included in the ban. The countries chosen for the ban have deficient screening of their citizens, often refuse to take them back and have a high percentage of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire, Trump said. The ban makes exceptions for people from Afghanistan on Special Immigrant Visas who generally worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade war there. Thousands of refugees came from Afghanistan Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. It is a path Sharafoddin took with his wife and son out of Afghanistan walking on those mountain roads in the dark then through Pakistan, Iran and into Turkey. He worked in a factory for years in Turkey, listening to YouTube videos on headphones to learn English before he was resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia. His son is now 11, and he and his wife had a daughter in the U.S. who is now 3. There is a job at a jewelry maker that allows him to afford a two-story, three-bedroom house. Food was laid out on two tables Saturday for a celebration of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday. Sharafoddin's wife, Nuriya, said she is learning English and driving — two things she couldn't do in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. 'I'm very happy to be here now, because my son is very good at school and my daughter also. I think after 18 years they are going to work, and my daughter is going to be able to go to college,' she said. Family wants to help niece It is a life she wanted for her niece too. The couple show videos from their cellphones of her drawing and painting. When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, their niece could no longer study. So they started to plan to get her to the U.S. at least to further her education. Nuriya Sharafoddin doesn't know if her niece has heard the news from America yet. She hasn't had the heart to call and tell her. 'I'm not ready to call her. This is not good news. This is very sad news because she is worried and wants to come,' Nuriya Sharafoddin said. While the couple spoke, Jim Ray came by. He has helped a number of refugee families settle in Columbia and helped the Sharafoddins navigate questions in their second language. Ray said Afghans in Columbia know the return of the Taliban changed how the U.S. deals with their native country. But while the ban allows spouses, children or parents to travel to America, other family members aren't included. Many Afghans know their extended families are starving or suffering, and suddenly a path to help is closed, Ray said. 'We'll have to wait and see how the travel ban and the specifics of it actually play out,' Ray said. 'This kind of thing that they're experiencing where family cannot be reunited is actually where it hurts the most.' Taliban criticizes the travel ban The Taliban itself criticized Trump for the ban, with leader Hibatullah Akhundzada saying the U.S. was now the oppressor of the world. 'Citizens from 12 countries are barred from entering their land — and Afghans are not allowed either,' he said on a recording shared on social media. 'Why? Because they claim the Afghan government has no control over its people and that people are leaving the country. So, oppressor! Is this what you call friendship with humanity?'
