Tesla shares plummet as Trump-Musk feud over budget bill escalates
Cracks in the relationship between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, his self-proclaimed 'First Buddy', are scaring Tesla shareholders as the two fired salvos at each other in increasingly heated rhetoric on Thursday.
Shares fell more than 8% on Thursday on a day otherwise devoid of news for the electric automaker, as traders dumped the stock in heavy trading after Musk stepped up his criticism of the president's tax bill.
Trump fired back, alleging Musk was upset because the bill takes away tax benefits for electric vehicle purchases, while investors feared their souring relationship could hurt Musk's sprawling business empire.
'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump said. 'He said the most beautiful things about me. And he hasn't said bad about me personally. That'll be next. But I'm very disappointed.'
Musk, the world's richest man and a key figure in the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) cost-cutting plan for several months, has blasted the bill, after he decided to spend less time in the White House and instead focus on his companies.
On his social media platform X, Musk has called on Congress members to kill the legislation, calling it a 'disgusting abomination'.
'It more than defeats all the cost savings achieved by the DOGE team at great personal cost and risk,' Musk, the largest Republican donor in the 2024 election campaign, said on X on Tuesday.
Musk's leadership of DOGE and his alignment with the Trump administration had put off some Tesla buyers. Sales of his EVs slumped in Europe, China and key U.S. markets like California, even as overall electric vehicle purchases continue to grow.
Musk has slowly started to separate himself from the White House in recent weeks, stung in part by the wave of protests against Tesla.
'Elon's politics continue to harm the stock. First he aligned himself with Trump which upset many potential Democratic buyers. Now he has turned on the Trump administration,' said Tesla shareholder Dennis Dick, chief strategist at Stock Trader Network.
Musk's other businesses, SpaceX and Starlink, dominate their respective markets, but have also come under scrutiny due to Musk's relationship with Trump.
Those two businesses often serve as the default choice for commercial launches and satellite internet deployment, and foreign governments have increasingly looked to Starlink, with regulatory approvals smoothed by Musk's ties.
Tesla shares are down 12% since May 27, roughly coinciding with his decision to pull back from Washington activities. Losses accelerated on Thursday as 100 million shares changed hands, roughly the daily volume over the last 100 days.
The stock has been on a roller-coaster ever since Musk endorsed Trump in mid-July 2024 in his re-election bid, gaining 169% from that point through mid-December. That was followed by a 54% slide through early April as a 'Tesla Takedown' protest intensified.
The House of Representatives version of the budget bill proposes largely ending the popular $7,500 EV subsidy by the end of 2025. Tesla and other automakers have relied on incentives for years to drum up demand, but Trump promised during the transition to end the subsidy.
Tesla could face a $1.2 billion hit to its annual profit, along with an additional $2 billion setback to regulatory credit sales due to separate Senate legislation targeting California's EV sales mandates, according to J.P. Morgan analysts.
'The budget bill contains bad stuff for Tesla with the end of the EV credits, and just generally his falling out with Trump has risks for Tesla and Elon's other companies,' said Jed Ellerbroek, portfolio manager at Argent Capital Management.
Musk's public attacks have upset potential Republican Tesla buyers as well, Dennis Dick said. One White House official on Wednesday called the Tesla CEO's moves 'infuriating.'
The billionaire joined Senate Republican deficit hawks this week to argue that the House bill does not go far enough in reducing spending.
Overall, Tesla shares are down 22% this year, including Thursday's losses. But the company is still the most valuable automaker worldwide by a long shot – carrying a market value of $1 trillion, way above Toyota Motor's nearly $290 billion.
Tesla trades at 140.21 times profit estimates, a steep premium to other Big Tech stocks such as Nvidia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that 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 that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. 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 if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE 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 the 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. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President 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 H.W. 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. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. 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 was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said 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: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, 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.' 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 .
Hamilton Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach , even if that leads to more inmates. The South Dakota State Penitentiary For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's laws mean more people are in prison South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' 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 .
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
IRMO, S.C. (AP) — 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?' 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 .
