Donald Trump in stunning live break-up with Elon Musk
Tensions between Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into public view on Thursday, as the US president said he was 'very disappointed' by his billionaire former aide's criticisms and Musk hit back in real time on social media.
'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after Musk slammed his tax and spending mega-bill as an 'abomination'.
The world's richest man responded by live-tweeting on his X social media platform as Trump spoke on television, saying that the Republican would not have won the 2024 election without him and slamming him for 'ingratitude.'
In an extraordinary rant as visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sat mutely beside him, 78-year-old Trump unloaded on SpaceX and Tesla boss Musk in his first comments on the issue.
'I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here… All of a sudden, he had a problem,' Trump said when asked about Musk.
The clash comes less than a week since Trump held a grand Oval Office farewell for Musk as he wrapped up his time leading the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
South Africa-born Musk, 53, hit back minutes later, saying Trump's claims he had advance sight of the bill were 'false.'
'Whatever,' he added above a video of Trump saying Musk was upset about the loss of subsidies for electric vehicles.
Musk then ratcheted up the public spat even further, saying the Republican would have lost the election without his support. He was the biggest donor to Trump's campaign, to the tune of nearly $300 million.
'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk said on X.
'Such ingratitude.'
Tesla shares fell sharply on Wall Street, down eight percent, after his comments, in a sign of the huge stakes for a falling out between the world's richest man and its most powerful.
A wistful-sounding Trump took reporters through the break-up with Musk on live television, in what at times sounded more like a therapy session than a meeting with a foreign leader.
Trump talked about Musk's farewell appearance in the Oval Office on Friday, when he turned up with a black eye that he said was caused by a punch from his son.
Musk at the time was also facing reports of drug use on the Trump campaign trail.
'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, you want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup,' Trump said.
'But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is.'
Trump said he could understand why Musk was upset with some steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the NASA space agency whom the tech tycoon had backed.
Through it all, the visiting German chancellor sat silently.
Merz had prepared to avoid a repeat of the ambushes that Trump unleashed on the Ukrainian and South African presidents in the Oval Office – but in the end it was Musk that the US president ambushed.
At the centre of the bitter row is Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on tax and spending.
The centrepiece of his domestic agenda, it aims to continue tax cuts from his first term – and could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk however called it a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday, on the grounds that it will increase the US deficit.
A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to 'kill the bill,' and for an alternative plan that 'doesn't massively grow the deficit.'
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
How Ukraine's drone attacks jeopardise peace efforts with Russia
Since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. Image: Tetiana Dzhafarova / AFP IN a much-anticipated telephone call this week, US President Donald Trump was at pains explaining to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, that Washington absolutely had nothing to do with Ukraine's astoundingly provocative drone attacks on five Russian airbases. The airbases, attacked simultaneously, house Russia's strategic bomber fleet. The attacks appear to put a spanner in the works for Trump's strenuous efforts to broker a peace deal between Moscow and Kyiv. The timing is also curious. The well-orchestrated drone attacks took place at a time when the light at the end of the tunnel was beginning to beam with brightness. Despite the deep-seated mistrust and tension between the two next-door neighbours who've been at war since February 2022, the latest round of rare face-to-face talks between the two nations has taken place in the Turkish capital, Istanbul. Trump had been visibly encouraged by their direct negotiations, which resulted in the mass exchange of prisoners of war. A leading German-based civil society organisation, the Schiller Institute, has been vehemently campaigning for an end to the war, actively supporting dialogue in an effort to give peace a chance. Responding to Ukraine's provocative attack on Russia on June 1, Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute wrote: 'Whether 40% or only 10% of Russia's airborne nuclear capability was destroyed in the attack is irrelevant; the fact is that whoever prepared, trained and gave the final green light for Kiev's drone operation was itching to unleash a nuclear-strategic conflict between the world's two greatest nuclear weapons superpowers.' Trump told Putin that the White House was not even given any prior warning about the attacks. Therefore, like most of the international community, Washington was caught off guard, totally taken by surprise. Now, since the outbreak of the war, the US has been the biggest supporter of Ukraine through military hardware, capital injection and international diplomatic offensive that has seen Ukraine's now acting President Volodymyr Zelensky treated with pomp and ceremony across many capitals, particularly in Europe. NATO has also been visible and loud in defence of Ukraine, supplying intelligence and weaponry to Kyiv, among others. All this support was provided on the back of the imposition of an unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions on Moscow. As things were, the entire script was written by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who had vowed that the West would support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. When Biden and his Democrats lost the elections last November, Trump's Republican Party was determined to end the war in Ukraine. 'This is a war that would never have started if I were in office,' Trump has said repeatedly. It is therefore no wonder that since assuming office at the beginning of 2025, Trump has prioritised peace in Ukraine. He came into office at a time of great antagonism and mistrust between Washington and Moscow. In the midst of it all, he managed to re-establish contact with the Kremlin, leading to the accentuation of bilateral diplomacy between the two nuclear powers. Through it all, some in Europe had not been too pleased about the looming brokering of peace between Ukraine and Russia. Key EU powers in the form of the UK, France and Germany have publicly displayed displeasure at Trump's approach and efforts. As Washington was pushing too hard to bring a reluctant Zelensky to the negotiating table, the three European powers stated above were actively mobilising for an 'alternative' approach. They birthed a curious idea labelled a 'Coalition of the Willing', a military force to be deployed to Ukraine in the event Trump succeeded with his peace mission. Their rationale is premised on their deep mistrust of Russia that borders on downright Russophobia. They claim that their mooted indefinite military presence inside Ukraine would deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again. The EU's biggest powers are trapped in the Joe Biden war-mongering era that has passed. They speak of no approach to peace, nor how they could engage with Russia at the negotiating table to reach an amicable settlement to the war. Of great interest, the pro-war EU states want Trump's US to guarantee what they call a back-stop, some military assurance that in an event of confrontation with Russia, whilst 'guarding' Ukraine, the US would jump in to defend their Coalition of the Willing. Of course, Trump has already disappointed most of the war-mongering European powers by expressing no taste for military activities inside Ukraine post-war. Trump's offer of a guarantee for the protection of Ukraine will instead come in the form of the economic deal between Kyiv and Washington that includes rare earth minerals. The minerals would contribute toward Ukraine repaying the US for the unconditional assistance Zelensky received during the tenure of Biden, which totalled several billions of dollars. Ukraine's audacious drone attacks of recent days beg for more questions. For instance, where does Zelensky get the guts to launch such a sensitive attack on Russia without informing the White House? As the Schiller Institute puts it: 'Who has the (usurped) power to launch an attack targeting the nuclear deterrent forces of the planet's leading nuclear weapons nation, without telling the of the United States?' Clearly, and surely, an attack of that kind and magnitude would inevitably and logically trigger a response? The Zelensky regime is not politically naive to be unaware of the consequential ramifications of their actions, but then, what is the end-game? The Schiller Institute's conclusion is rather ominous. It read: 'The world may have dodged the bullet of nuclear war — for the moment. But that gun is still loaded, and it is still being wielded by the British and American intelligence circles that are intent on driving a permanent wedge between Trump and Putin, and who are prepared to stage a coup d'état and even assassinate both heads of state, as well as launch another nuclear provocation.' I believe that the UK, France and Germany, that is now under the war-mongering Chancellor Friedrich Merz, need to be confronted by Washington to come out clean about their role in ordering or advising Kiev to attack Russia in this manner. Trump and Putin spoke by phone for one hour and 15 minutes in the aftermath of the attacks. Trump said afterwards: 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked aeroplanes, by Ukraine,' he posted on his Truth Social account on June 4, adding: 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace. Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' In my book, that's the scary part indeed!
The Herald
3 hours ago
- The Herald
R200m of taxpayers' money spent on GNU ministers' travel since taking office
'South Africans deserve leadership that puts people before perks and not a R200m travel spree by the world's largest cabinet.' The sport, arts and culture department's travel expenses have also raised concern. Minister Gayton McKenzie said he and his staff undertook 11 international trips costing more than R2m, adding that R164,556 was paid for a trip to Burkina Faso that never took place. 'Not only is this spending exorbitant but it is riddled with red flags, gaps and inconsistencies. The public paid for flights and accommodation for an event that was abandoned, a textbook case of wasteful expenditure, as defined by the Public Finance Management Act,' said Beesley. 'Unless the minister can demonstrate that this loss was unavoidable and efforts were made to recover the funds, this reflects a serious failure of financial oversight and internal control.' ActionSA has introduced the Enhanced Cut Cabinet Perks Bill to address unchecked government spending. 'This bill seeks to slash ministerial perks and restore much-needed fiscal discipline.' TimesLIVE
Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Put an end to four centuries of corporate plundering of Africa
Cecil John Rhodes epitomised the consolidation and expansion of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power. For the past four centuries, corporations have exploited — butchered — the African continent, leaving behind scars, open wounds and entrails which can be seen from space. The history of the continent could be told as one of corporate rule briefly interrupted by colonialism or, as the late novelist and scholar Ngugi wa Thiong'o put it, of 'corpolonialism'. South Africa's past and present exemplifies this. The Cape was colonised by a corporation, which then imported enslaved people to provide labour and enable the Dutch East India Company to lay the material and symbolic foundations for the regime of white supremacy and racial domination that culminated in apartheid. When slavery was no longer profitable, and so the British decided to 'abolish' it, the empire 'expropriated' enslaved people across it colonies and formally freed them — but not before paying £20 million pounds in compensation to white slaveholders and their creditors in the name of 'justice and equity'. These 'reparations', paid to white people for the end of slavery, were then reinvested through the new corporate vehicle of the joint-stock company. They were used to finance further colonial expansion and consolidate white domination over land, labour and lives, globally. In the Cape colony, for example, white compensation for black 'emancipation' quintupled the money in circulation in the economy; more than doubled imports and exports; financed the violent settler expansion on the colony's eastern 'frontier' and led to the establishment of its first private bank in 1837. The number of joint-stock companies in the Cape doubled, as white beneficiaries of 'emancipation' pooled their compensation to generate more wealth. White former slaveholders leveraged their land, capital and credit to re-subordinate the newly freed 'apprentice' labourers and become rent-seeking slumlords. The greatest beneficiary of the trade in compensation claims — the London-based merchant house of Phillips, King & Co. — financed the exploration of copper in Namaqualand, drawing a line from 'compensated emancipation' to the mining and extractive monopolies that emerged after the discovery of diamonds and gold. The consolidation and expansion of this three-headed hydra of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power throughout the latter half of the 19th century is epitomised in the figure of Cecil John Rhodes. This race-state-company nexus was also central to the system of colonial apartheid that emerged over the course of the 20th century. Rhodes's successors — who controlled as much of the economy as the apartheid state — were joined by the various corporations established under the volkskapitalisme, many of which dominate the continent today. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded: 'Business was central to the economy that sustained the South African state during the apartheid years. Certain businesses … were involved in helping to design and implement apartheid policies … Most businesses benefited from operations in a racially structured context.' This unholy trinity of white supremacy, corporate interest and state power is not unique to South Africa. Its global articulation was on full display in the White House two weeks ago as the world's most powerful statesman, the world's wealthiest man and rich white men who chase white balls around for a living put on a spectacular performance of ignorance, entitlement and victimhood. One after another, US President Donald Trump invited each of these unelected white men to roll back the years and weigh in on the present conditions and future prospects of the majority of people in South Africa, who were once again being held hostage to the delusions of a white minority. The ball-hitters obliged, literally speaking over Cyril Ramaphosa, the democratically elected president of South Africa, and Zingiswa Losi, the leader of the country's largest trade union federation, Cosatu. It was all too much for golfer Ernie Els, who momentarily forgot which side he was on and thanked the US for its support in maintaining apartheid. It was the most honest moment of the whole spectacle. President Trump's corporate handler, Elon Musk, loomed large but said nothing. Rather, his ransom was delivered by South Africa's second richest man, Johann Rupert, who declared that he had opposed apartheid from birth — as long as he had benefited from it. He said South Africa must abandon its insistence that corporations operating in South Africa — which for centuries have worked hand-in-glove with colonial apartheid to advance the interests of a white minority — should include a mere 30% ownership stake for the majority of South Africans. This would allow Musk's Starlink — a central part of the US military-industrial complex — to not only colonise space but recolonise the continent. Another demand, made explicit in Trump's recent executive order, is that white beneficiaries of centuries of racial domination who have amassed an absurdly disproportionate amount of the privately owned land (and wealth) should — like their slave-owning forebearers — once more be compensated in the name of 'justice and equity', regardless of whether the land was 'justly' acquired and is being 'equitably' used, or even used at all. Social movements, activists and affected communities have been working to hold corporations to account for their depredations on the continent since the 1900s. An early and instructive example is the work of South Africa's own Alice Kinloch, a pathbreaking pan-Africanist and pioneer of the field of business and human rights, who was born in the Cape in 1863 and moved to Kimberley in the 1870s. In the final years of the 19 th century, Kinloch pointed out that: 'The handsome dividends that a certain company pays are earned at the price of blood and souls of … black men. Shareholders may be in happy ignorance of this, so we would remind them that there are several thousands of fellow-men kept under lock and key for their sole benefit, and that the gems on their wives' hands, and the finery bought by their 'profits' are, to 'seeing' eyes, bespattered with human gore.' Kinloch proceeded to set out 'the state of affairs in South Africa, for which the bloody, brutal and inconsiderate hands of avarice and might are answerable', where '[f]or more than a quarter of a century Kimberley has been the stage for the worst forms of undisguised inhumanity' at the hands of 'their master the Company'. In doing so she pointed to the race-corporation-state nexus, noting that De Beers was 'a company as ostentatiously 'colour-hating' as its chief, Cecil Rhodes'. Kinloch established the African Association in 1897, which organised the first Pan African Conference in 1900. The resolutions of that conference included a call for direct action in respect of 'the situation of the native races in South Africa', including the 'degrading and illegal compound system of native labour in vogue in Kimberley'. The work of Alice Kinloch and her fellow pan-Africans should serve not only to inspire us but instruct us. Last week, social movements, activists and affected communities met in Johannesburg for the 7 th African Regional Indaba on a Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights organised by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Alternative Information & Development Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights. The treaty negotiation process began in 2014 following a resolution by the Human Rights Council — co-sponsored by South Africa — to 'elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises'. The future of the treaty is uncertain, as efforts towards corporate accountability more generally are backsliding everywhere. Both the US and the EU are rolling back what little controls they had in place to regulate the actions of corporations. Countries of the Global South are being put under immense pressure to ease regulations to facilitate the second 'scramble for Africa' under the banner of a 'green transition' that relies on minerals the West has declared 'critical'. In South Africa, the Competition Commission is appealing a decision of the competition appeal court which effectively neutered the commission's capacity to hold companies operating beyond our borders accountable for the negative impact of illegal activities in the republic. The appeal arises from the commission's efforts to prosecute the largest banks in the world — whose market capitalisation exceeds $2 trillion, some of which were founded with the compensation paid to white slaveholders — for the coordinated manipulation of the rand. The competition appeal court's 2024 decision threw out the case against 17 of the 28 banks before they had even responded to the allegations. When the Centre for Applied Legal Studies requested permission to intervene as an amicus curiae to place the banks' conduct within the framework of domestic and international human rights law, the constitutional court refused our application. In the face of these challenges, we must continue to hold the line on corporate accountability for what Kinloch rightly described 'handsome dividends … earned at the price of blood and souls', including through defending the treaty process, which has been led from the outset by the Global South. Like Kinloch, we must also insist on a continental response, including by supporting the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' efforts to draft an African regional treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations. Four centuries of impunity for corpolonialism is enough. Professor Christopher Gevers is the director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and an associate professor at the School of Law, Wits University.
