
Trump ‘tried to cancel Musk's SpaceX contracts' after fallout
As Mr Trump's relationship with his former 'first buddy' descended into a bitter feud, the US president suggested he could save public money by terminating contracts awarded to Mr Musk's companies.
The relationship between the pair began to publicly sour after Mr Musk criticised the 'big, beautiful bill', describing it as a 'disgusting abomination'.
On June 5, Mr Musk inflamed the tension by claiming in a now-deleted post on X that Mr Trump was named in the so-called 'Epstein files', an apparent collection of documents pertaining to the case of the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Days later, on June 9, a senior official asked the Department of Defence (DoD) to fill out a spreadsheet detailing every SpaceX and other transaction agreements, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Josh Gruenbaum, the GSA's commissioner for the Federal Acquisition Service, also asked Nasa about its contracts with Musk's firm, as well as several other federal agencies, an official told the paper.
The spreadsheets, which were called 'scorecards', included details on how much the SpaceX contacts were worth and whether it would be possible for a competitor to complete the same job more effectively.
The official is said to have relayed that the data they collected would be shared with the White House to await further instruction.
After reviewing the data officials reportedly found that the majority of the deals were critical to the DoD and Nasa, and the contracts remained in place.
The review showed how Mr Musk's agencies currently dominate the space exploration industry, and how there is little competition in the market.
Gwynne Shotwell, the president of SpaceX, is said to have met with White House officials in recent weeks.
White House officials have pushed other space companies to try and step up to create some competition within the industry.
But rival companies have faced delays and technical challenges when working on products to compete with SpaceX.
SpaceX has won several federal contracts in 2025, including a $5.9billion (£4.4billion) deal to conduct 28 national security flights.
Nasa expects SpaceX to fly astronauts to the International Space Station within weeks.
Before the feud, SpaceX launched a GPS satellite for the US Space Force using a Falcon 9 rocket from the Space Force station in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
'Many Presidents have promised, but none other than president Trump has delivered to actually make the government more efficient and root out waste, fraud, and abuse in Washington, and that mission is moving full steam ahead', Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said.
He added: 'Under the president's leadership, every agency and department is executing this mission seamlessly and, as a result, has yielded more than $170 billion (£126 billion) in savings for the American people.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers want to overhaul rules to make it easier to open pubs and music venues
Ministers have pledged to make it easier to open new bars, music venues and cafes as part of plans to rejuvenate the high street. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she wants to 'protect pavement pints' as a new licensing framework will also fast-track permissions for al fresco dining in dedicated areas as the Government looks to modernise planning rules. The Government wants to make it easier to convert disused shops into venues, and dedicated 'hospitality zones' will be brought forward that could see permissions for outside dining, street parties and extended opening hours pushed through quickly. Developers will also be made responsible for soundproofing buildings they construct near pubs or clubs, to protect existing venues from noise complaints. The Government has said the plans will be subject to a call for evidence. The Business Secretary has said that 'red tape has stood in the way of people's business ideas for too long'. Jonathan Reynolds said: 'This Government has a plan to replace shuttered up shops with vibrant places to socialise, turning them into thriving cafes or busy bars, which support local jobs and give people a place to get together and catch up over a beer or a coffee. 'Red tape has stood in the way of people's business ideas for too long. Today we're slashing those barriers to giving small business owners the freedom to flourish.' Ms Reeves said that 'pubs and bars are at the heart of British life'. 'For too long, they've been stifled by clunky, outdated rules. We're binning them, to protect pavement pints, al fresco dining and street parties – not just for the summer, but all year round,' she added. An industry body warned earlier in July that the equivalent of more than one pub per day will close across Great Britain this year, pointing to high bills and taxes. The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) estimated that 378 pubs will close this year across England, Wales and Scotland, which it said would amount to more than 5,600 direct job losses. The projected 2025 figures compare with 350 closures in 2024. Bar chain Brewdog announced this week that it would close 10 of its venues, as chief executive James Taylor told staff it is partly in response to 'rising costs, increased regulation, and economic pressures'. Representatives of the hospitality industry welcomed the changes but said they should go hand in hand with a cut to business rates as cost pressures threaten to 'tax out of existence' some businesses. Kate Nicholls, chairwoman of UKHospitality, said: 'We strongly welcome these proposals to cut red tape and make it easier to open and operate hospitality venues, create jobs and grow the economy. 'But positive and encouraging as these measures certainly are, they can't on their own offset the immediate and mounting cost pressures facing hospitality businesses which threaten to tax out of existence the businesses and jobs that today's announcement seeks to support.' Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, said: 'After bringing together key voices in the pubs and the wider hospitality sector, it's great news that many of the industry's recommendations on how best to cut red-tape and support growth will be acted on. 'These changes must go hand in hand with meaningful business rates reform, mitigating staggering employment costs, and a cut in beer duty so that pubs can thrive at the heart of the community.' Andrew Griffith MP, shadow business secretary, said: 'Though any cutting of red tape for hospitality businesses is welcome, this is pure hypocrisy and inconsistency from Labour.' He said the Government was 'crippling the hospitality industry by doubling business rates, imposing a jobs tax and a full-on strangulation of employment red tape'. 'As the result, shorter opening hours, shedding jobs and expensive pints are becoming the norm.'


The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
New FEMA grants set to hand out $600M to states so they can build migrant detention facilities
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning to give out more than $608 million in grants to states and local jurisdictions to build more immigration detention facilities, as the Trump administration seeks to expand U.S. detention capacity and quickly deport millions of people. 'This will relieve overcrowding in the U.S. Custom and Border Protection's short-term holding facilities, further the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement plans and complement U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operational priorities,' the agency wrote in a notice detailing the new Detention Support Grant Program. The funding will support the creation of more facilities like Florida's ' Alligator Alcatraz ' detention center, a converted swamp airstrip where detainees say they have faced inhumane conditions, abuse, and highly restricted access to legal counsel. The facility has faced legal challenges from environmental, tribal, and civil rights groups. Florida has said it will seek federal reimbursement for the facility, which has already cost the state $245 million in contracts to build and operate. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said the federal government will seek to reimburse Florida through FEMA's $650 million shelter and services program — money outside the agency's disaster budget relief set aside by Congress under Joe Biden's administration to cover the cost of housing migrants. The government has also ramped up spending on federal facilities, awarding a $1.26 billion contract to build a sprawling tent facility at an Army base in Texas that will be the largest immigrant detention center in the country. The Trump administration's One Big, Beautiful Bill spending package awards ICE an additional $45 billion for detaining migrants, a virtually unprecedented funding increase. The detention spending spree comes as the Trump administration has sought to reduce FEMA's federal footprint. In April, FEMA announced it was ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program focused on preventing natural disasters, prompting a lawsuit from Democrat-led states. The Trump administration has also rejected 16 of the 18 applications for FEMA's 'hazard mitigation' funds after flooding across the country this year, according to an analysis from The Hill. However, this week, the White House announced four states that had recently been hit with disasters would get emergency funding: Indiana, which experienced deadly tornadoes in March; Michigan, which experienced ice storms in March; Kentucky, which experienced flooding and tornadoes in April and May; and West Virginia, which experienced flooding and tornadoes in June. The administration said earlier in the year it would eliminate FEMA entirely, moving disaster response to the states, but has since backtracked, saying it seeks a rebranding at the agency rather than a total shutdown.


Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Online Safety Act is an assault on freedom
They told us it was about protecting children. That's how they always do it. Wrap tyranny in the warm fuzz of 'safety', and hope nobody reads the fine print. But let me be clear: the Online Safety Act is not about protecting children. It is a Trojan horse for the biggest assault on free speech in modern British history. And unless we act, it will drag our country into a digital surveillance state worthy of Communist China. This is not hyperbole. This is a blunt reality. Section 179 of the act makes it a criminal offence to say something false that causes 'non-trivial psychological harm'. That's not protecting kids from predators. That's criminalising humour, satire, political dissent and angry tweets. Under this definition, a cutting meme, a sarcastic TikTok or a joke about a government minister could land you in court. This is not a safety law. It's a censorship law. Even George Orwell couldn't scarcely have imagined something so sweeping, so vague and so open to abuse. But it gets worse. Section 44 gives a single government minister the power to rewrite the censorship rules without Parliament. Let that sink in. A single person can direct Ofcom to impose new censorship obligations on the internet, and platforms will be legally forced to comply. No vote. No debate. Just diktat. This is the death knell of democracy. It's already happening. Content critical of government immigration policy – including videos of public protests outside migrant hotels – is quietly being censored from social media. Who can blame them? The act threatens them with fines of up to 10 per cent of global turnover and even criminal liability for their staff if they don't suppress content the Government deems 'harmful'. Faced with that, who wouldn't over-block? That's precisely the perverse incentive the act aims to create. This is not just an attack on public discourse, it's an attack on private conversations too. The act includes your private messages. WhatsApp and Signal have warned that the UK Government is demanding access to encrypted chats. That's right: the Government wants to read your DMs. And if tech companies don't build a back door, they face the full weight of the law. The Government claims it will hold off on this part, 'for now'. Don't be fooled. The Tories put this power on the books for a reason – they intend to use it. Today, they say it's for child safety. Tomorrow, it'll be about 'disinformation' or 'extremism' – code for anyone who challenges the failed policies of the political elite. Even more chilling is the mandatory ID scanning this law introduces. Not just for porn, but for regular social media too. If you're under 18, you'll be blocked from seeing 'harmful' content – which, in practice, means anything critical of the Government. This is especially sinister when you realise that 16- and 17-year-olds are being given the vote. They are being sent to the polls, but not allowed to see a political message the Government dislikes. And here's the final irony: this act won't even protect children. Anyone remotely tech-savvy – and let's be honest, most teenagers are – will use VPNs to get around the filters. Some will end up in the depths of the dark web, where the greatest dangers lie. So we get a censored internet, less privacy and no improvement in safety. This dystopian mess didn't come from Labour – though don't expect Starmer to repeal it. No, it was cooked up by the Tories. The same Tories who pretend to champion free speech and civil liberties when it suits them. Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman – both now trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of British values – voted for this authoritarian legislation without question. No objections. No concern. In many ways this is the most insidious form of politician. One that says what we want to hear, and then sells us all out when it counts. The truth is this: the Online Safety Act is a disgrace to our democracy. It turns Britain into a state where truth is whatever the Government says it is. Where protest is suppressed, dissent is squashed, and your private thoughts are no longer private. Reform UK is the only political force willing to speak out against this. We believe in free speech, even when it's uncomfortable. We believe the role of government is to protect citizens – not to police their opinions. And we believe in repealing this dangerous act in full. Britain must remain a country where people can speak their minds without fear. Where satire thrives. Where criticism of the powerful is not just allowed, but encouraged. Clamping down on the free speech of British people will not succeed. Reform and Nigel Farage will see to that.