Trump responds after Musk's 'Epstein files' allegations
Trump responds after Musk's 'Epstein files' allegations originally appeared on TheStreet.
The Trump–Musk feud has officially gone nuclear.
Speaking aboard Air Force One on Friday, President Donald Trump said he has 'no plans' to speak with Elon Musk, after a week of fiery online exchanges that began over Trump's proposed 'big beautiful bill' and quickly spiraled into personal jabs and political threats.
Trump didn't mince words when asked if he was still in contact with Musk. 'No, I don't,' he said. 'I hope he does well with Tesla, but we're going to take a look at everything. It's a lot of money.'
The president's comments come just days after Musk blasted Trump's sweeping tax and spending proposal, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and warning it would add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. debt. He also replied 'Exactly' to a post suggesting Trump had retaliated against him personally. Musk later floated the idea of launching a new political party, posting, 'It's time for a new party – one that actually represents the people. Not the far left or far right, but the 80% in the middle!'
The falling-out marks a sharp turn from their once-friendly dynamic. Trump had recently appointed Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, a symbolic role that ended with modest results.
Bitcoin fell sharply after Trump threatened to cut off Elon Musk's government contracts, intensifying their public feud.
The uncertainty rattled markets, leading Tesla shares to drop 14% and dragging crypto sentiment down with them.
Investors feared a political crackdown on Musk-linked ventures could spill into broader risk assets like Bitcoin.
Trump responds after Musk's 'Epstein files' allegations first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025
This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump admin cracks down on antisemitism as DOJ official exposes 'violent rhetoric' of radical protesters
The Trump administration has taken a more aggressive approach than its predecessor toward addressing the nationwide surge in antisemitic incidents, launching investigations, punishing elite universities, and intensifying its immigration enforcement practices. President Donald Trump, through his Department of Justice (Doj) and other agencies, is using law-and-order tactics that his deputies say are necessary, but that critics say could constitute overreach. Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ's assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News Digital she has not seen any "close cases" when it comes to weighing antisemitic behavior against First Amendment rights of those who oppose Israel or Judaism. Biden Education Dept Put Priority On Pronouns, Left Backlog Of Nearly 200 Antisemitism Complaints: Official "Criticizing the government of Israel is not what I'm typically seeing here," Dhillon said. "I'm seeing an intifada revolution. I'm seeing blocking Jewish students from crossing campuses and destroying property on campus, which is a crime. … Quiet, polite conversation and disagreement with Israeli policy is not really what's happening here. It's literally people saying Israel shouldn't exist — and bringing the revolution to the United States." Dhillon added that "that type of violent rhetoric has led to violent acts in our country." Read On The Fox News App After Hamas's deadly terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the FBI's hate crime statistics showed a sharp spike in anti-Jewish incidents in the U.S. The data runs through December 2023. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) data from 2024 and high-profile incidents this year suggest the trend is continuing. An Egyptian national in the U.S. illegally in Boulder, Colorado, is facing state and federal charges for allegedly injuring 15 people, including elderly victims and a dog last weekend with Molotov cocktails during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration in support of hostages being held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Suspect Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, stated to authorities "he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead," according to an FBI affidavit. During the attack he allegedly yelled "free Palestine," the agent said. In May, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, who worked at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., were gunned down outside the Capitol Jewish Museum in D.C. Suspect Elias Rodriguez of Illinois shouted "free Palestine" as he was detained, and Interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro said her office is investigating the case as a hate crime and act of terrorism. Suspect Charged With Murdering Israeli Embassy Staff Could Face Death Penalty In another incident, a man allegedly set fire to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence on the first night of Passover. Emergency call logs released by local authorities revealed that the suspect, Cody Balmer, invoked Palestine after the arson and blamed Shapiro, who is Jewish, for "having my friends killed." Tarek Bazrouk, who identified himself as a "Jew hater" and said Jewish people were "worthless," allegedly carried out a series of assaults on Jewish New Yorkers in 2024 and 2025, according to an indictment brought against him in May. Bazrouk wore a green headband that mimicked Hamas garb and a keffiyeh during the attacks, and he celebrated Hamas and Hizballah on his social media, according to federal authorities. Trump warned in an executive order at the start of his presidency that foreign nationals participating in "pro-jihadist protests" would be deported, and he specifically highlighted college campuses as being "infested with radicalism." Unlike the Biden administration, the Trump administration has since gone to war with elite universities, some of which have been roiled by disruptive pro-Palestinian protests that involve occupying academic buildings and installing encampments. Leo Terrell Says Trump Admin Willing To Take Harvard Antisemitism Fight All The Way To Supreme Court Harvard and Columbia, in particular, are now engaged in litigation after Trump moved to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the universities and ban Harvard's foreign students. The embattled schools have been successful in winning temporary pauses to Trump's sanctions through the courts, but litigation is pending and legal experts have said they face an uphill battle. The Trump administration has zeroed in on non-citizen students and activists who it has accused of supporting Palestinian causes in ways it deems hostile to U.S. interests. Amid Trump's pursuit of visa and green card holders, Mahmoud Khalil's case has become a flashpoint. Khalil was arrested in March and detained after the administration accused him of violating immigration laws by engaging in anti-Israel activism. This week, Khalil said in court papers the administration's claims against him were "grotesque" and that his activism involved "protesting this Israeli government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians." Civil rights groups have warned that the government's hardliner posture risks violating free speech and protest rights. A coalition of 60 groups issued a joint statement this week on antisemitic hate crimes in which it warned the Trump administration not to over-correct because it would "make us all less safe." "As we condemn these heinous [antisemitic] acts and those who perpetrate hate and violence, we also recommit to ensuring that these events — and the legitimate fear in the Jewish community — are not exploited to justify inhumane immigration policies or to target Arab Americans and those who peacefully and nonviolently exercise their First Amendment rights in support of Palestinian human rights," the groups said. Dhillon told Fox News Digital: "It's not my responsibility to balance free speech issues on campus. It's my responsibility to enforce the federal civil rights laws. And my opinion, there's really no conflict." When he took office, Trump vowed in a string of executive orders to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to "aggressively prosecute terroristic threats, arson, vandalism and violence against American Jews." Trump appointees at the DOJ then moved quickly to convene an antisemitism task force. Dhillon said there is also frequent communication between the White House, the DOJ, and Jewish leaders about addressing antisemitism. Jewish Students Welcome Trump Admin's Crackdown On Antisemitism, Hamas Sympathizers On Campuses "We have heard from the Jewish community, and I've probably met with — I think there's at least two dozen rabbis who have my number on speed dial now. I literally sent three emails to rabbis in the last hour," she said. She said her division has opened several investigations involving land use for religious purposes under a law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), including five related to Judaism. The administration is also notifying Jewish communities of grants available for added security at synagogues, and she said campuses are a "significant focus" for her. After reports surfaced that Dhillon's shakeup in the Civil Rights Division led to a mass exodus of more than 100 attorneys leaving the division, she told the media she was unfazed by the departures and that her focus remains on launching the division's work toward combating antisemitism. Testing the limits of his subordinates and the courts, another top DOJ official, Emil Bove, launched an internal investigation into Columbia student protesters early this year. The probe caused concern among line attorneys, who felt it was flimsy and was also met with multiple reprimands from a magistrate judge, according to the New York Times. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement in May that the New York Times' story was false and fed to the newspaper "by a group of people who allowed antisemitism and support of Hamas terrorists to fester for years." Blanche confirmed the veracity of the investigation and said it involved, in part, a probe into a Hamas-linked image on Columbia University Apartheid Divest's social article source: Trump admin cracks down on antisemitism as DOJ official exposes 'violent rhetoric' of radical protesters
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. State Department Now Scrutinizing All Visa Holders Associated With Harvard "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Read On The Fox News App Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."Original article source: Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP Fears Trump-Elon Breakup Might Get In ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill's Way
House Republicans are hoping the public breakup between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk does not last very long for the sake of the 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill. Thursday's news cycle was dominated by the clash between the President and the world's richest man and their petty attacks on each other — which included mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, black-eye makeup, as well as a back and forth over the contents of the reconciliation package the House recently passed. The showdown between the two appears to have House Republicans worried that more unwanted attention — pointing to the poison pills in the House package — would be on the reconciliation bill they are calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we've been reporting for some time, House Republicans have attempted to disguise their sweeping cuts to the social safety net by referring to the changes as 'reforms' like enacting work requirements for Medicaid, among other things. 'I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told CNBC Friday morning. Other House Republicans are also preaching deescalation for the sake of the bill they spent weeks fighting with each other over. 'Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they're both going to put the country first,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said, according to Politico. 'And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.' Meanwhile, Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Aaron Bean (R-FL) said Friday he was 'shocked and dismayed' to see his 'two friends fighting,' adding that he remains optimistic that the former allies can work it out. 'I believe there's a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,' Bean said. 'We need them together. We need to be united, and we're stronger together. So I'm very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.' — Emine Yücel A look into Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) dirty stalling tactics that helped her ultimately block Democrats on the House Oversight Committee from subpoenaing Elon Musk this week — even though not enough Republicans were initially present to override the effort. Some thoughts on the creator of Succession's new, satirical movie Mountainhead, and what it tells us about our current cultural moment, as the Fox News echo chamber, social media and AI merge to create a society in which reality is elusive. Let's dig in. Washington was consumed with drama related to Elon Musk on Thursday afternoon as the megabillionaire who spearheaded the so-called Department of Government Efficiency launched into a public social media spat with President Trump. But turmoil surrounding the President's former ally actually started earlier that morning when tensions over Musk essentially caused the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to short circuit and grind to a halt. This bizarre scene was a perfect distillation of how Congress is (or depending on your view, isn't) working in the second Trump era, with MAGA partisans going to cartoonish lengths to protect the president and his allies from scrutiny. The episode took place in a hearing that was nominally about the use of artificial intelligence. In his opening remarks, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) noted how Musk, whose DOGE minions have used AI to siphon up federal data and slash government programs, has changed that conversation. 'Optimizing the federal government's use of technology has long been a bipartisan priority of this committee,' Lynch said. 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides.' Following those remarks, Lynch moved to subpoena Musk to appear before the committee. His motion was quickly seconded. After last year's election, Republicans have a majority in the House and its committees. But at the time of Lynch's motion, one Democratic member said only six of the 25 Republicans on Oversight were present. These absences theoretically meant the Democrats had a temporary majority needed to issue the subpoena. However, this effort to have the committee dedicated to oversight provide some actual oversight of Musk was quickly derailed. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who was serving as chairwoman, almost immediately called to 'suspend' the proceedings. She then presided over a more than twenty minute delay as she strained the bounds of normal procedure to buy time for her colleagues to make their way to the hearing. The extended interlude was filled with surreal scenes as Democratic members attempted to question Mace and move forward with business as usual. At one point, even though Republicans were evidently outnumbered and outvoted, Mace declared that they had won a voice vote to consider a motion to table Lynch's motion. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) attempted to speak at this point and was shut down. 'I love you,' Mace said to him. 'This is not debatable.' Mace did not respond to a request for comment. At another point, as she swatted away Democrats' efforts to hold the vote, Mace seemed to wink. She also called Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) 'babe' when the congresswoman asked to do a roll call 'so we can determine if y'all really have the votes.' 'No ma'am,' Mace replied. As Democrats began to openly note that Mace's stonewalling appeared to be a fairly unprecedented effort to allow absent Republican members the time to filter in, Mace continually shut down discussion and efforts to hold a vote. One Republican member responded to an inquiry about whether they were following rules by noting that Democrats had lost the last election. That comment made the situation on Capitol Hill quite plain: After winning the election, Trump and his partisans are willing to throw out any traditional rule book. After about twenty minutes and twenty seven seconds, Mace allowed the vote to proceed. As she checked the numbers with the clerk, it was apparent the Republicans were still coming up short. Mace then allowed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had since slipped in, to vote. With those two final additions and the twenty minute-plus standstill, Republicans were able to table the effort to subpoena Musk by a vote of 21-20. In a statement to TPM, Lynch accused the GOP members of ' refusing to exercise Congressional authority on behalf of the American people to demand answers and accountability for the destruction, chaos, and cruelty Elon Musk and DOGE have unleashed on our government and on communities nationwide.' 'It is disturbing that Republicans would rather shield the richest man in the world from testifying publicly than fight for the folks who rely on VA health care, Social Security benefits, weather services, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and more vital programs and services that have been decimated by Elon Musk's chainsaw,' Lynch said, adding, 'The Oversight Committee was made for this moment, and Republicans are failing the American people by refusing to do their jobs. Just because Elon Musk has turned in his ID badge does not mean he can walk away from the monstrosity he has created and the permanent damage left in his wake.' — Hunter Walker 'I call this alternate reality, I call this place where these folks live, Bullshit Mountain,' Jon Stewart told the crowd during The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium debate with Bill O'Reilly in 2012. 'On Bullshit Mountain,' Stewart went on, 'our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified.' Bullshit Mountain would become Stewart's enduring metaphor for Fox News in the second half of the Obama presidency. It was a convenient shorthand to explain how Fox pundits could routinely espouse conspiratorial nonsense or fixate on an obscure event with seemingly no broad implications for the American public and use it as proof positive of the country's imminent collapse. Bullshit Mountain was an acknowledgment that the two major political parties didn't merely have different opinions on how to solve the country's problems, but increasingly were living in two different realities with entirely different problems. There was also the non-subtle accusation of cynicism in the name Bullshit Mountain. Maybe the audience believed this crap, but the executives and the anchors knew it was bullshit, right? In Jesse Armstrong's breakout show, 'Succession,' he satirized a fictional version of the Murdoch empire which took us behind the scenes of Bullshit Mountain. In Armstrong's interpretation of this world, there were the serious people who understood how to play the game and accumulate power, and those who were not serious, who didn't know how to play the game, or worse, didn't know it was a game at all. In his follow-up to Succession, HBO's new made-for-TV movie Mountainhead, Armstrong seems to acknowledge that Bullshit Mountain may no longer be a place created and controlled by serious people, that the bullshit from which the mountain is made may have broken confinement and swamped us all. Bullshit Mountain may now be where we all live — our dominant reality. Centered on a foursome of ultrarich tech founders (all men) who gather at a mountain lodge for a poker game as the world falls apart after the release of the AI-powered social network they all had some role in creating, Mountainhead depicts a world where seriousness might be a detriment to world dominance. 'Nothing means anything and everything is funny,' the founder of the AI social network explains when confronted by a litany of abuses enabled by his product, including a video of a kid juggling severed feet. The technology these founders have created has effectively dissolved any sense of shared reality by allowing anyone to create and propagate alternate realities which leads to the unraveling of the global order. But more interesting than the consequences of this technology, which we are in many ways already aware of, is the way in which the founders have isolated themselves from their own reality, both intentionally and unintentionally. After about 30 mins of dialogue laced in the idiomatic gibberish of Silicon Valley … 'first principles' .. 'post-human'… 'decel' … 'p(doom)' … 'game theory' … 'chunky numbers' … you realize these characters have nothing meaningful to say to each other, whether socially or in response to the global catastrophe they helped create. While there is a tinge of the tragic in their inability to communicate emotionally with each other, there is also something powerful in the artifice of their language, which protects them from having to meaningfully take responsibility for their actions. Viewing the potential collapse of the world through their screens, a vantage point from which nothing can be known for certain, the artificiality of their language lends an artificiality to the events, regardless of whether or not they are really happening. The collapse of a country's economy gets referred to as 'de minimis,' news of the mayor of Paris's assassination becomes an example of the 'compound distillation effect of the content.' But when the four characters end up bunkered in the basement, erroneously fearing retaliation from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, it's clear that they are as susceptible to the fake reality their technology has created as any of its users. Whether you find Mountainhead successful satire may depend on your priors. However, in the wake of DOGE, Elon's takeover and remaking of Twitter and the enthusiasm with which our major AI companies are cheerleading a new cold war with China, it's hardly a work of speculative fiction. In Jon Stewart's farewell speech from the Daily Show in 2015, he claimed that the bullshitters were getting lazy and that vigilance was our best defense. But his framing assumed a continued dichotomy between the bullshitters and the bullshited. He didn't offer any advice on what to do when there's no longer a difference. — Derick Dirmaier
