"Doesn't Change..." How White House Reacted To Musk's Attack On Trump's Bill
Quick Read
Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed.
Elon Musk publicly criticised Trump's spending bill, calling it a "disgusting abomination" that would worsen the budget deficit. The White House dismissed his comments, stating they did not change the president's view of the bill.
Elon Musk, the South African-born tech billionaire has had his first public disagreement with US president Donald Trump, since leaving the government abruptly last week.
He hit Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' with "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," in one of his X posts.
I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore.
This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025
However, the White House does not seem too worked up about his comments, as the press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Musk's stand does not change the president's opinion about it. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the President's opinion. This is one big beautiful bill and he is sticking to it,' Leavitt told reporters.
In another series of posts, he also added that the bill would "massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion" and that "Congress is making America bankrupt."
This is not the first time Musk has spoken against the bill.
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Musk, who recently stepped back from running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), said.
"I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful but I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion," he added.
Musk, who is close to the President but appears to remain at odds with him over the issue, made the remarks during an interview with CBS News.
There has been a lot of criticism going around about the bill, with Republican fiscal hawks saying that the country is careening toward bankruptcy, and independent analysts warning it would increase the deficit by as much as $4 trillion over a decade.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers has, however, made hugely ambitious projections, well outside the mainstream consensus, that the package will spur growth of up to 5.2 percent.
Leavitt claimed the bill "does not add to the deficit," and would actually save $1.6 trillion through spending cuts.
In a Friday press conference, Trump praised the legislation and called the bill "an unbelievable bill" that "cuts your deficits'. He also suggested that he would prefer "a bigger cut in taxes'. Musk who was present in the press conference, did not speak against the topic then.
Per a Politico report, a Republican close to the White House said, 'When businessmen criticize legislation, journalists don't take them at their word, they look at how the legislation would impact their business interests. They should be doing that in this case.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
29 minutes ago
- United News of India
US SC gives Trump admin's DOGE dept full authorisation to access social security data
Washington, June 7 (UNI) The US Supreme Court on Friday authorised officials from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration data, giving it complete access to all sensitive private data of American citizens. The Supreme Court issued the authorisation after allowing an emergency petition filed by the administration of President Donald Trump to ask for a lifting of an injunction issued by a district judge in Maryland, who stated that privacy must be safeguarded, reports said. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order. The order didn't, however, give the reasoning behind its ruling, which has become a very controversial issue. The order was also challenged by the court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all of whom dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The DOGE department, which was created by the Trump administration and was until recently headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, before his resignation following his spat with the POTUS, while not an official government department, was designed specifically to monitor data fraud and misinformation. The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions alleged that allowing broader access to personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no legitimate need to access the specific data in question, according to Xinhua. The 4th circuit court of appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Judge Hollander's decision, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted an additional request filed by the Trump administration, allowing it to shield DOGE from Freedom of Information Act requests for the time being. UNI ANV PRS
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Elon Musk deletes post claiming Trump appears in Epstein files amid ongoing feud
Elon Musk on Sunday deleted a controversial post in which he claimed that US President Donald Trump appears in the unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files, a move that may signal a cooling of tensions after days of public sparring between the two billionaires. 'Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk had posted on X, the platform he owns, on Thursday. In a follow-up, he urged followers to 'mark this post for the future' because 'the truth will come out.' Both posts have been deleted. The accusation marked a dramatic escalation in Musk's ongoing feud with Trump, which began over the president's support for a controversial bill dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk, who has slammed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination,' claimed it was rushed through without proper scrutiny and accused the administration of betraying EV makers like Tesla. Trump, speaking at a press briefing, dismissed Musk's concerns and said: 'Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money… I can understand why he's upset.' The feud spiralled after Trump said he was 'disappointed' in Musk. Musk fired back, saying, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate… Such ingratitude.' Live Events But hours after the Epstein claim, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman publicly urged Musk to reconcile with Trump. Musk's short reply — 'You're not wrong' — coupled with the deletion of the post, has been interpreted by some as a sign of de-escalation. — elonmusk (@elonmusk) Though Trump's name has appeared in various documents related to Epstein, including flight logs and contact books, no charges have been brought against him. The White House reportedly called Musk's comments 'an unfortunate episode,' while Trump, in a call with Politico , played down the spat, saying, 'It's going very well, never done better.' Musk has not explained why he deleted the post, but the timing suggests an attempt to contain the fallout from a claim that could have far-reaching political consequences.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
32 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.
