Here's what Trump trade adviser thinks of saga over Musk — who once called him ‘dumber than a sack of bricks'
WASHINGTON — White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Friday sniffed he could care less about Elon Musk — who once mocked him as 'dumber than a sack of bricks.'
'I'm not glad or whatever,' Navarro told reporters when asked about Musk's new persona non grata status with the Trump administration. 'People come and go from the White House.'
Musk was the chief cost-cutter at President Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) before his and Trump's relationship spectacularly flamed out over the past few days.
Advertisement
Navarro appeared to want to stay out of the fray — choosing to ignore Musk rather than give him more attention — when talking to reporters Friday.
'I work with the DOGE folks a lot here,' Navarro said when asked about the tech billionaire.
He pointed out that he is currently working on 'a very special project' to 'save American taxpayers a lot of money.
Advertisement
4 White House trade adviser Peter Navarro essentially ignores the administration's hoopla over Elon Musk when dealing with reporters Friday.
Getty Images
'We've taken a computer program that's very important, that is run like a 1950s IBM punch-card operation at great expense to the American people, and we're going to turn that from a Model T into a Ferrari,' Navarro said.
Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs prompted a spat between Navarro and Musk in April, after the trade honcho suggested Musk wasn't 'a car manufacturer' but 'a car assembler,' implying that the Tesla founder's supply chain relied on importing batteries and other foreign auto parts.
Musk fired back on X, 'Navarro is truly a moron.
Advertisement
'What he says here is demonstrably false. Tesla has the most American-made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks.
'By any definition whatsoever, Tesla is the most vertically integrated auto manufacturer in America with the highest percentage of US content,' Musk contended.
4 President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs prompted a spat between Musk and Navarro in April.
REUTERS
The month before, Trump had announced a 25% tariff on foreign-made cars and parts, though the duties didn't take effect until May.
Advertisement
Some countries such as Mexico, Canada and the UK were granted exemptions because of other trade agreements.
The initial 10% global tariffs on many nations took effect April 5.
4 Musk once dubbed Navarro 'dumber than a sack of bricks.'
Getty Images
'We can have disagreements,' Navarro said Friday when asked about Musk. 'I would simply say that everybody during our first term who said that the tariffs were going to be recessionary and inflationary were obviously, obviously and widely, wrong. All we got was price stability and growth.'
Trump tore into Musk on Thursday after the world's richest man ramped up attacks over his and other Republicans' 'big beautiful' spending bill in Congress, calling it a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill' and a 'disgusting abomination.'
'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot,' the president responded.
Things got even uglier when the SpaceX founder had his government grants and contracts threatened by Trump.
4 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot,' the president said Thursday.
Francis Chung/UPI/Shutterstock
Advertisement
'Elon was wearing thin, I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' the president posted on his Truth Social.
He later suggested: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!'
Musk, in his own posts, indicated the president should be impeached and claimed the administration was blocking files on the notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein from seeing the light of day — because the documents would include Trump's name.
Advertisement
Asked by The Post on Friday about the blow-up, Trump shrugged off the attacks.
'The numbers are through the roof, the stock market is up, billions are pouring in from tariffs, and my poll numbers are the highest they've ever been. Other than that, what can I tell you, right?' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysts Look to Tesla's Robotaxi Launch After Stock Hit From Musk-Trump Spat
Tesla is expected to launch its autonomous ride hailing service later this month, perhaps as soon as this week. The company has yet to confirm or deny a report from Bloomberg that it is targeting a June 12 launch for the robotaxi. The EV maker's stock could use a lift after a week marked by a spat between CEO Elon Musk and President (TSLA) is expected to launch its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, as soon as this week, with the electric vehicle maker's stock in need of a lift after a week marked by political strife between CEO Elon Musk and President Trump. The stock rebounded nearly 4% to close just above $295 Friday, after tumbling 14% on Thursday. They've lost roughly one-quarter of their value since the start of the year. Tesla bulls believe a robotaxi program could drive substantial upside in the company's stock. Bloomberg last month reported that Tesla was targeting a June 12 launch, citing a person familiar with the matter, adding that the date could change. The company has not confirmed that date, and Tesla did not respond to Investopedia's request for comment in time for publication. Musk said in last month's earnings call and a May 20 interview with CNBC that the company was still on track to launch the program by the end of the month. The start of the program, Musk told CNBC, will likely be about 10 Model Y vehicles operating autonomously, with the company later expanding to more vehicles and cities. Tesla owners will eventually be able to add their vehicle to the available fleet of Teslas to rent for a ride, Musk has said, which could help Tesla scale the project before the Cybercab goes into production next year. Oppenheimer analysts recently wrote that the company's ability to get its software to drive fully autonomously with its current suite of cameras could be "key to its technology leadership and stock performance," but added they believe it might take at least one or two more hardware and software updates before Tesla can deliver reliable autonomous performance. More bullish analysts, like Wedbush's Dan Ives, have said they think successful autonomous driving software will be the start of technology that will eventually add $1 trillion in value to the company. Overall, analysts are somewhat divided on Tesla's stock, with 10 of the brokers tracked by Visible Alpha giving the stock a "buy" rating, with four "hold" and four "sell" ratings. Their average price target is about $304, slightly above Friday's closing level, but their price targets range from as low as $120 to as high as $500. Read the original article on Investopedia
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law.
I'm a Florida teacher. My passion to teach could be in violation of the law. | Opinion This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. Show Caption Hide Caption What we know now about President Trump's reshaping of education Education, especially higher education, has been a major focus of President Trump's term. Here is what we know now about his changes to education. As I prepare to teach a new literature course at Palm Beach State College (PBSC) this term, I find myself hesitating over something that, until recently, would have been routine: Selecting the works I assign to my students. The anthology adopted by our department includes powerful selections from African American, Latino, Asian American and LGBTQ+ writers – voices that capture the richness, contradiction and struggle of the American experience. These are voices I have taught for decades. But now I ask myself: Am I allowed to? Florida's 2023 legislation – most notably, Senate Bill 266 – prohibits instruction that espouses theories suggesting systemic racism, sexism or privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and that they were created to maintain social or economic inequities. The language is broad, and the intent seems clear: Restrict the way educators discuss identity, history and power. But what is less clear is what this means in practice for teachers like me, particularly in college classrooms. I am a lifelong educator. I spent 36 years in the New York City Department of Education as a teacher, department chair and supervisor. For the last 12 years, I have taught English literature at PBSC. Does my passion to teach violate the law? My passion has always been to encourage students to read deeply, think critically and reflect honestly – especially about the kind of country we live in and the lives we each bring to the table. That requires a broad and inclusive literary canon. It requires teaching James Baldwin and Langston Hughes not only for their artistry, but also for the searing truths they offer about race and belonging in America. It means examining the cultural double-consciousness in Sandra Cisneros, the generational trauma in Ocean Vuong, the gender defiance in Audre Lorde. Literature becomes real when it speaks both to and through the student reading it. That is the essence of education. Opinion: We desegregated schools 71 years ago. We still have more work to do. But now, when I consider assigning those same texts, I worry: Will presenting such works – even neutrally, even for discussion – be seen as violating this law? If I ask students to consider the historical roots of injustice in a work by August Wilson or Toni Cade Bambara, could that be construed as "promoting a theory" rather than simply exposing students to a reality reflected in literature? Worse, the chilling effect has begun to erode the classroom itself. Faculty colleagues increasingly wonder whether they should self-censor – not out of agreement with the law, but out of a desire to avoid trouble. This is the real damage: When fear begins to replace curiosity, and when silence replaces speech. I do not seek to indoctrinate my students. I never have. I seek to challenge them, to open doors through literature that lead into the complicated, layered and sometimes uncomfortable questions that make up life in a pluralistic democracy. That is not political. That is educational. Opinion: As a college professor, I see how AI is stripping away the humanity in education Forbidding certain materials only limits our understanding Let us be clear: Removing or discouraging the inclusion of marginalized voices in the classroom does not eliminate discomfort. It only eliminates understanding. If our students cannot engage with difficult truths in college classrooms, where are they to encounter them? If we cannot safely present a range of American experiences through our literary heritage, what remains of our intellectual freedom? I do not write this out of defiance, but out of love – for teaching, for literature and for the role education plays in shaping thoughtful citizens. The danger of this legislation is not only in its enforcement but also in its ambiguity. It turns teachers into second-guessers. It turns students into cautious bystanders. And it risks turning Florida's classrooms into places where only the most neutral, safest voices are heard. But the world is not neutral. Literature is not safe. And education, at its best, is a form of illumination, not erasure. Carmine Giordano is an adjunct lecturer in English at Palm Beach State College. This column originally appeared in the Palm Beach Post.
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message' Jackson, one of the court's most liberal justices, wrote that her colleagues may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
