Snub of Musk's NASA nominee ally preceded sudden 'big, beautiful bill' criticism, Trump feud
A day after the White House held a farewell press conference for SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk to highlight his efforts as outgoing leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), President Donald Trump suddenly pulled Musk ally Jared Isaacman as his pick for NASA administrator.
While the White House released a May 30 video chronicling Musk's contributions to DOGE and several X posts thanking him and listing various "DOGE wins," the gestures were some of the last, final public actions of goodwill between Trump and Musk.
On Saturday, Trump announced in a social media post he was pulling the nomination for Isaacman, a commercial astronaut and founder and CEO of payment processing company Shift4 Payments after "a thorough review of prior associations."
Trump also said he would unveil a "new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space."
Musk Confident Doge Will Save $1 Trillion As Government Cost Cutting Continues
Isaacman's affiliations with Musk include being an investor in SpaceX, in addition to leading two private spaceflight missions with SpaceX, including Inspiration4. The 2021 Inspiration4 mission was the first time an all-civilian crew orbited Earth.
Read On The Fox News App
Isaacman addressed his pulled nomination in an episode of the "All-In Podcast," which is hosted by four venture capitalists and covers business, technology and society, that dropped Wednesday. Specifically, Isaacman said he received a call from the White House May 30 notifying him his nomination wouldn't advance because the White House had "decided to go in a different direction."
Doge Staffing Shakeup As Elon Musk Hangs Up His Hat, White House Confirms
Isaacman said he suspected his ties to Musk were part of the decision, noting the call came the same day Musk's tenure with DOGE concluded.
"I don't need to play dumb on this," Isaacman said in the podcast. "I don't think that the timing was much of a coincidence, that there were other changes going on the same day.
"There were some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good, visible target."
Tensions between Musk and Trump continued to escalate after Musk's departure as a special government employee May 30 and Isaacman's withdrawn nomination the following day.
Although Musk previously told CBS News in an interview clip released May 27 that he was disappointed by the House's passage of Trump's massive tax and spending package, the "big, beautiful bill," because it would increase the federal deficit, Musk's attacks on the measure ramped up exponentially after Trump rescinded Isaacman's nomination.
Specifically, on Tuesday, Musk labeled the measure a "disgusting abomination" and followed up by urging the American public to contact lawmakers to "KILL the BILL" in an X post Wednesday.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that Trump was aware of Musk's position on the bill and that it didn't change the president's stance on the measure. And Trump did not mince words Thursday as tensions between the two men reached a boiling point.
Trump said Musk was irritated with provisions in the bill that would cut an electric vehicle tax credit that benefits companies like Tesla. He also suggested Musk may suffer from "Trump derangement syndrome," a term used to describe deeply negative reactions to the president.
Unfinished Business: The Budget Cuts Musk Couldn't Complete And What's Next For Doge
"I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
"He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to have to cut the EV mandate because that's billions and billions of dollars, and it really is unfair."
Trump also specifically mentioned Isaacman's nomination, claiming Musk recommended Isaacman for the role. But Trump voiced concern about Isaacman's ties to the Democratic Party.
"He wanted and rightfully, you know, he recommended somebody that he, I guess, knew very well. I'm sure he respected him, but to run NASA," Trump told reporters Thursday. "And I didn't think it was appropriate. And he happened to be a Democrat, like, totally Democrat. And I say, you know, look, we won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges is we don't have to appoint a Democrat. NASA is very important."
Trump then said he "understood" why Musk was upset over the pulled nomination.
The White House directed Fox News Digital to Trump's comments Thursday and Isaacman's previous donations to Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
Isaacman told the "All-In Podcast" he doesn't think his past political donations to Democrats were a factor in his pulled nomination, and that he identifies as "right-leaning."
Isaacman and Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Trump and Musk continued to trade barbs Thursday. At one point, Musk urged the removal of the "disgusting pork" included in Trump's tax and spending bill. He also said it was "false" that he was shown the measure "even once."
Musk even went so far as to say Trump wouldn't have won the 2024 election if it weren't for Musk's backing. Meanwhile, Trump accused Musk of going "CRAZY" over cuts to the EV credits and said Musk was "wearing thin."
Although Politico reported that Trump and Musk were slated to speak Friday over the phone, Trump shut down speculation of a call between the two.
"No. I won't be speaking to him for a while I guess, but I wish him well," Trump said, according to CNN.
"I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem," Trump said.
Despite Musk's departure, White House officials have said DOGE's efforts to address waste, fraud and abuse will continue, and Trump and cabinet members will oversee DOGE. The agency is expected to formally shut down July 4, 2026.Original article source: Snub of Musk's NASA nominee ally preceded sudden 'big, beautiful bill' criticism, Trump feud
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Energy Transfer the All-American Dividend Stock for You? Consider This High-Yielder Instead.
Energy Transfer has a lofty 7.4% yield backed by an inherently domestic business. The midstream giant has made some decisions that should leave conservative investors with trust issues. Enterprise Products Partners' 6.9% yield will likely be a better fit for most investors. 10 stocks we like better than Energy Transfer › Dividend investors are always trying to maximize yield, but that requires extra consideration on the risk front. A high yield that isn't backed by a reliable company could leave you in the lurch and, likely, at the worst possible time. This is why investors looking at Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET) and its lofty 7.5% distribution yield will probably be better off taking a little less yield and choosing Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) instead. Here's why. Energy Transfer and Enterprise are two of the largest midstream companies in North America. They both hail from the United States and generate most of their business from the country. The truth is, owning energy infrastructure assets like pipelines essentially forces these two businesses to be American at heart. After all, you can't move oil around the United States on a pipeline that gets built in Europe. That pipeline has to get built on U.S. soil. The midstream is actually the most boring segment of the overall energy sector. That's because businesses like Energy Transfer and Enterprise charge fees for the use of their assets. Although the oil, natural gas, and other products that flow through the system may have volatile prices, midstream companies don't really care about the price of what they move. They just care about the volume of product they move. The higher the volume, the higher the toll-like revenues they generate. Given the importance of energy to the global economy, demand for oil and natural gas tends to remain fairly robust even when commodity prices are weak. Even recessions don't materially diminish demand, since the world would, literally, stop in its tracks without oil and natural gas. From this perspective, Energy Transfer and Enterprise Products Partners are on equal footing. Here's the thing: Energy Transfer doesn't have the same history of treating its investors well as Enterprise does. That difference is why conservative income investors should be happy to trade down to Enterprise's 6.9% yield. The first big issue happened in 2016, during a time when oil prices were weak. At that point, Energy Transfer agreed to buy peer Williams. It got cold feet, warning that completing the deal would require taking on too much debt and could also force a dividend cut. It was the right decision to scuttle the deal. The problem was the way in which it achieved that end. The company sold convertible securities, with a huge portion going to the then-CEO. It appears that the convertible securities would have protected the CEO from the effect of a dividend cut, had a dividend cut been needed. In the end, Energy Transfer got out of the Williams deal, but that convertible decision should leave a bad taste in investors' mouths. Then, in 2020, when the energy industry was hit hard by demand declines around the coronavirus pandemic, Energy Transfer cut its distribution. Again, the decision was probably the right one for the business, which used the freed-up cash to strengthen its balance sheet. But income investors took it on the chin, and that's the key takeaway here. During the last two big energy industry downturns, when income investors were likely hoping for consistency, they had to worry about, and actually experience, income declines if they owned Energy Transfer. Enterprise Products Partners didn't cut its distribution in 2016 or in 2020. It didn't put out any warnings that such an event was possible. It just operated its reliable cash flow generating business. Along the way, it delivered distribution increases. At this point, the U.S. midstream giant has increased its distribution for 26 consecutive years. While trust might be a troubling issue with Energy Transfer, it isn't with Enterprise Products Partners. The long streak of putting unitholders first is a core reason to like Enterprise Products Partners, but it isn't the only reason. Other good reasons to like this midstream giant are its investment grade rated balance sheet, and the 1.7x over that its distributable cash flow covered its distribution in 2024. These are both signs of management's commitment, since they mean there's a lot of leeway before a distribution cut would be in the cards at Enterprise Products Partners. Put it all together, and most investors will probably be better off with all-American Enterprise over all-American Energy Transfer. Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Is Energy Transfer the All-American Dividend Stock for You? Consider This High-Yielder Instead. was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hamilton Spectator
21 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Vance says Musk making a ‘huge mistake' in going after Trump but also tries to downplay the attacks
BRIDGEWATER, N.J. (AP) — Vice President JD Vance said Elon Musk was making a 'huge mistake' going after President Donald Trump in a storm of bitter and inflammatory social media posts after a falling out between the two men. But the vice president, in an interview released Friday after the very public blow up between the world's richest man and arguably the world's most powerful, also tried to downplay Musk's blistering attacks as an 'emotional guy' who got frustrated. 'I hope that eventually Elon comes back into the fold. Maybe that's not possible now because he's gone so nuclear,' Vance said. Vance's comments come as other Republicans in recent days have urged the two men, who months ago were close allies spending significant time together, to mend fences. Musk's torrent of social media posts attacking Trump came as the president portrayed him as disgruntled and 'CRAZY' and threatened to cut the government contracts held by his businesses. Musk, who runs electric vehicle maker Tesla, internet company Starlink and rocket company SpaceX, lambasted Trump's centerpiece tax cuts and spending bill but also suggested Trump should be impeached and claimed without evidence that the government was concealing information about the president's association with infamous pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 'Look, it happens to everybody,' Vance said in the interview. 'I've flown off the handle way worse than Elon Musk did in the last 24 hours.' Vance made the comments in an interview with ' manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the U.S. Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar. The vice president told Von that as Musk for days was calling on social media for Congress to kill Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the president was 'getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon, but I think has been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk.' 'I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine,' he added. Musk appeared by Saturday morning to have deleted his posts about Epstein. The interview was taped Thursday as Musk's posts were unfurling on X, the social media network the billionaire owns. During the interview, Von showed the vice president Musk's claim that Trump's administration hasn't released all the records related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein because Trump is mentioned in them. Vance responded to that, saying, 'Absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein.' 'This stuff is just not helpful,' Vance said in response to another post shared by Musk calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced with Vance. 'It's totally insane. The president is doing a good job.' Vance called Musk an 'incredible entrepreneur,' and said that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, which sought to cut government spending and laid off or pushed out thousands of workers, was 'really good.' The vice president also defended the bill that has drawn Musk's ire, and said its central goal was not to cut spending but to extend the 2017 tax cuts approved in Trump's first term. The bill would slash spending but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Musk has warned that the bill will increase the federal deficit and called it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'It's a good bill,' Vance said. 'It's not a perfect bill.' He also said it was ridiculous for some House Republicans who voted for the bill but later found parts objectional to claim they hadn't had time to read it. Vance said the text had been available for weeks and said, 'the idea that people haven't had an opportunity to actually read it is ridiculous.' Elsewhere in the interview, Vance laughed as Von cracked jokes about famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass' sexuality. 'We're gonna talk to the Smithsonian about putting up an exhibit on that,' Vance joked. 'And Theo Von, you can be the narrator for this new understanding of the history of Frederick Douglass.' The podcaster also asked the vice president if he 'got high' on election night to celebrate Trump's victory. Vance laughed and joked that he wouldn't admit it if he did. 'I did not get high,' he then said. 'I did have a fair amount to drink that night.' The interview was taped in Nashville at a restaurant owned by musician Kid Rock, a Trump ally. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
23 minutes ago
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
