Elon Musk says he ‘regrets' social media attacks on Trump
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has expressed regret over his broadsides against United States President Donald Trump following the spectacular public falling out between two of the world's most powerful men.
'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far,' Musk said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Musk's expression of regret comes after he made a series of extraordinary attacks on Trump, including an unsubstantiated claim that his administration has refused to release files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in order to protect the president.
More to follow…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
32 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to host ‘unforgettable' military parade in DC, but who is it for?
Washington, DC – Tanks are coming to the streets of the United States capital. Twenty-eight 61-tonne Abrams battle tanks, to be exact, as well as a fleet of 56 armoured Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles, a flock of artillery launchers, 6,600 US troops, 34 horses – plus two mules. And a dog. It is all part of the military celebration on Saturday that has been kicked into overdrive by the administration of US President Donald Trump in recent weeks. June 14 marks the 250th birthday of the US Army and, conspicuously, Trump's 79th birthday. The US president has promised a parade of 'thundering tanks and breathtaking flyovers will roar through our capital city' that will be simply 'unforgettable'. The event comes nearly six months into Trump's second term, during which he has sought to test the limits of presidential power and his legal authority to employ the military as law enforcement force within the US. That was further exemplified in this week's deployment of the US National Guard and Marines to protests against his immigration policies in California. So, who is the audience for Trump's military parade? And what message will it send? 'Obviously, when so much money and resources are put towards an event like a military parade that coincides with a birthday, it must be for a reason,' Irene Gammel, a professor and historian at the Toronto Metropolitan University, told Al Jazeera. 'This will be a grandiose spectacle. It will be choreographed and it will be symbolically charged,' she said. Trump's desire for a flashy military parade, with US war-fighting hardware on full display, has been well documented. It traces back to his attendance at France's 2017 Bastille Day procession, after which, he said, 'We're going to have to try and top it.' Various reports have since detailed the first-term pushback from defence officials, who argued such a cavalcade would constitute an uncomfortable merger of partisan politics and military might. One official, then-Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Paul Selva, even directly warned Trump that such parades were 'what dictators do', according to a 2022 book published by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. To be sure, according to Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia, parades are hardly a rarity in either US civilian or military culture, regularly planned to mark national holidays, local triumphs or historical events. It's right from the 'American songbook', she added, pointing to the 1932 Harry Richman classic, I Love a Parade. But, in addition to the two mules and dog – present as part of the Army's cavalry division, the procession planned for Saturday stands apart for several other reasons. While showing off military assets was more common for presidents during the Cold War, the practice has not been regularly performed for decades. Similar parades have been typically planned to mark US victories, or at the very least the end of involvement, in foreign conflicts, Perry noted, as was the case in the most recent comparison commemorating the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Holding a parade on the president's birthday, regardless of the overlapping Army anniversary, Perry said, also 'tends towards the authoritarian'. 'I feel this takes us from a movement of more innocent patriotism to a show of military might that is not only for enemies abroad, but in the minds of the administration, those within,' Perry said. 'It further moves towards a cult of personality by having it fall on the president's birthday,' she added. 'I'm sure any president would have celebrated this anniversary of the founding of the US Army, but not in this way.' Already criticised by some observers, including top Democratic lawmakers and a handful of veterans groups, as a tribute to the 'egoist-in-chief', Trump's decision this week to deploy the National Guard to the Los Angeles protests without the consent of the state's governor, and his subsequent move to send the Marines to the city, has cast a long shadow over the upcoming pageantry. Trump has, so far, not invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would allow the military to take direct part in domestic law enforcement. But his actions have already sent a message of force that transforms the optics of Saturday's parade, according to Marjorie Cohn, a professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and former president of the US National Lawyers Guild. Prior to sending Marines to California, Trump had already tapped the military to support his hardline immigration policies, including sending Marines to the southern border to support federal agents. 'Trump considers the US military to be his personal police force, as he seeks to use it to 'secure' the southern border and suppress domestic protests against his inhumane policies,' Cohn told Al Jazeera. 'He has considered invoking the Insurrection Act, albeit illegally, to facilitate this agenda.' Trump's approach to the military dovetails with his aggressive stress testing of executive power, which he has sought to use to transform both federal government and civil society, particularly when it comes to education, healthcare, state rights, immigrant civil liberties, and trade with foreign partners. 'He is speaking not just to the US, but to the world as well,' Cohn said, framing the parade as part of Trump's wider mission to cast 'himself as the most powerful person in the world'. For his part, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth indicated the deployment of National Guard troops in California, which local officials have decried as an unnecessary escalation, could be part of a wider pivot in domestic military strategy. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Hegseth said during a congressional hearing on Tuesday. Soon after, Trump promised a broad – and muscular – crackdown on planned constitutionally protected protests on the day of the parade. 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, as he described those who planned to demonstrate as 'people that hate our country'. Amid the criticism, the White House has downplayed the fact that Saturday's spectacle also falls on Trump's birthday. The Pentagon has said there are no plans to acknowledge the personal milestone or to sing Happy Birthday to the president. White House official Vince Haley previously said the programme 'will be a fitting tribute to the service, sacrifice, and selflessness of the brave men and women who have worn the uniform and devoted their lives to defending the greatest experiment in liberty known to man'. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mike Lyons, a retired US Army major and military analyst, also sided with the White House's stance that criticism of the parade has been overblown. 'All Trump is doing is seizing on an opportunity to mark 250 years of the Army,' Lyons said. 'Whether it's his birthday or not, that's just a trolling issue for the people who hate him.' Lyons noted that military equipment is regularly put on display at events 'inside the wire', using a term for military bases both in the US and abroad. He drew a distinction between the plans for Saturday and the notorious military parades held in North Korea, often used to unveil otherwise secret military advancements. 'It's not a sign of a dictator trying to project power, because we're not going to be a North Korea and roll out the latest armed missile, there's no secret equipment rolling out,' Lyons said. 'It's just a celebration that gives the normal citizen an opportunity to see what this equipment looks like up close.' Trump and his administration have also played down the price tag of the event, estimated to be between $25m and $45m, but subject to rise based on the damage the military equipment causes to the streets of the capital. Officials have characterised the spending as in line with the administration's ambition of cutting spending on federal civilian services, while surging military funding, including putting forward a historically high $1 trillion defence budget. Trump has dismissed the price tag as 'peanuts compared to the value of doing it'. Toronto Metropolitan University's Gammel also agreed that the parade could have immense value, not in a commemorative capacity, but as a particularly powerful political tool. The event is fertile ground to shore up not just Trump's domestic base, but also one-time supporters on the fence over the divisive first months of his second term, she told Al Jazeera. Wrapped in military imagery considered sacrosanct to many segments of the US population, the event will be ready-made for an online audience to hit at a 'very emotional level', Gammel said. Those images will help to 'naturalise values not only around military dominance, but also values that conjoin Trump's personal image with the military and with state power. That, to me, is particularly dangerous in all of this'. 'At a time when we have so many controversial elements being dismantled in the democratic system, all Trump needs to do is be present,' she added. 'We don't need to sing Happy Birthday. I think the message is clear enough'.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Ukraine peace talks are failing
This month's peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul have once again failed to bring the war any closer to a ceasefire. The only outcome – a limited agreement on prisoner exchanges – underscores a troubling truth: the current negotiation framework is not working. Meanwhile, military escalation on both sides shows no signs of slowing. In such an atmosphere, diplomacy becomes increasingly difficult. A ceasefire feels out of reach, and uneasy comparisons with the Korean Peninsula's frozen armistice are beginning to surface – a scenario that would only entrench division, fuel resentment, and leave key territorial issues unresolved. That is why we must fundamentally rethink how these talks are structured and led. Yes, a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire – as Ukraine proposed in Istanbul – is the bare minimum needed to create space for diplomacy. Talks must be convened without preconditions, offering all parties a seat at the table on neutral ground. There is no shortage of thoughtful policy proposals in Western circles outlining feasible paths to peace. We support calls for stronger international engagement, particularly from the United Nations, the United States and the European Union. What is needed now is urgent, coordinated global action – before tit-for-tat escalations spiral even further out of control. But there is a deeper flaw in the way current negotiations are being facilitated – often by foreign ministers approaching the conflict as a technical problem to be solved: add a concession here, subtract a demand there. Each side calculates whether the outcome adds up in its favour. That arithmetic approach cannot work – not in a conflict defined by trauma, identity, loss and justice. What continues to be absent from these discussions is any real conversation about justice, accountability and healing. There can be no sustainable peace without a process of transitional justice. As scholars and practitioners have long noted, a frozen conflict without accountability only prolongs suffering and sets the stage for future violence. Likewise, there is too little attention paid to societal trauma – the emotional and psychological toll of war on civilians, soldiers and entire communities. Too much blood has been shed to exclude these dimensions from the peace process. A negotiation cannot succeed if one side is focused on saving face at the expense of the truth. A durable outcome is only possible when facts are acknowledged – the aggression, the occupation and the suffering of millions. What is required now is a new kind of diplomacy – one that accounts for the deep trauma of this war. The mood in Ukraine is heavy, haunted by daily reminders of loss: the sirens, the shattered homes, the soldier's coffin quietly passing by on an otherwise ordinary street. Peace must begin with recognition – not only of legal borders and security guarantees, but of pain. This is the essential – and too often overlooked – precondition for any meaningful dialogue, in Turkiye or elsewhere. Recognising the human cost is not weakness; it is strength. Without it, any ceasefire will remain fragile, any agreement incomplete. Peace in Ukraine requires more than a political settlement. It demands social reconciliation – a process as vital as the diplomatic one. History, language, identity: these are not peripheral issues in this war; they are its heart. That means rethinking everything – who hosts the talks, where they happen, and how they are facilitated. We need less of a closed-door negotiation in Istanbul and more of a public-facing truth and reconciliation process, with real international backing. It all hinges on who convenes this process, and how. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead, perhaps more effectively than a divided European Union. But recent statements from the Trump camp – seen by many in Ukraine as indifferent or incendiary – have only inflamed tensions. They do more harm than good. What is needed now is serious, strategic engagement – led by the US, in concert with the EU and UN – that meets this moment with the gravity it demands. This is not a maths problem. It is a matter of justice, healing and human survival. It is time we approached it that way. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
The Democrats' resistance to Trump is a hollow performance
From March 31 to April 1, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker delivered a record-breaking 25-hour filibuster on the Senate floor of the United States Capitol. In his marathon speech, Booker repeatedly chastised President Donald Trump for his discriminatory politics and policies and for his attempts to circumvent the US Constitution. Booker also criticised both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to do more to oppose Trump. 'Do better than me. Do better than we in this body. We are flawed and failed people,' he said unironically, adding, 'My voice is inadequate. My efforts today are inadequate to stop what they're trying to do.' Two days later, he proved himself right. Booker voted against two resolutions that would have limited US arms sales to Israel – just as Israeli forces once again intensified their genocidal campaign in Gaza. In doing so, he aligned himself with one of Trump's most extreme and violent foreign policy positions – and exposed the hollowness of the Democratic resistance. After all, you cannot claim to be fighting Trumpism at home while helping it advance abroad. That contradiction sits at the heart of the Democrats' paralysis. In the five months since Trump began his second term as president, meaningful opposition from the party has been almost nonexistent. The so-called resistance to his authoritarianism has been weaker than the sun over the Arctic in the dead of winter. The reason is simple: On many of the most consequential issues – Israel, immigration, policing – the Democrats are not resisting Trumpism. They are participating in it. A centre-right party that shares core positions with its far-right opponent cannot mount real opposition. It can only pretend to. It doesn't help that the Democratic Party is, in many respects, as beholden to wealthy, right-wing donors as the Republicans. What the party lacks in vision, it also lacks in leadership. As the old saying goes: If you want to understand a politician's priorities, follow the money. Or, in the words of Upton Sinclair in his 1941 novel Between Two Worlds: 'Find out who's putting up the money for a political party, and then you know what it will do.' Take Booker's votes against restricting arms to Israel. Since his first Senate run in 2013, he has received nearly $1m from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) and individual donors. A 2019 report from The Intercept described how Booker regularly communicated with the leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 'like teenagers'. With such a cosy relationship, his votes for genocide may be immoral, but they are not surprising. Then there is Hakeem Jeffries, the most powerful Democrat in the House of Representatives. In April, he and Booker held a two-person, all-day sit-in on the Capitol steps to protest proposed deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and food and jobs assistance programmes. 'As Democrats, we're going to continue to stand on the side of the American people, and we will not rest until we bury this reckless Republican budget in the ground,' Jeffries declared. Three weeks later, Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' passed the House 215–214. Although the Senate may revise it, Jeffries's grandstanding had already proven hollow. Jeffries has shown far more resolve against antigenocide protesters. In April 2024 when pro-Palestinian student protests intensified and police raided encampments at Columbia University, he defended the use of New York police to arrest protesters and dismantle the camps. 'The antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation deployed by some students and outside protestors on college campuses in New York City and beyond is completely unacceptable and deeply disturbing,' Jeffries said in a news statement. There was no credible evidence to support his claim. He issued no similar statement in defence of Palestinians nor did he condemn Islamophobia or Zionist attacks on protesters. But he did raise more than $1.15m from AIPAC and other pro-Israel donors during his 2024 re-election campaign. Like Booker and Jeffries, other leading Democrats have chosen to posture against the marginalised rather than confront unjust policies. On January 30, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut posted on X: 'In the first week, Trump removed 7,300 people. On average, Biden was removing 15,000 a week. Under Biden 72 percent of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] arrests were criminals. Under Trump it's dropped to around 50 percent. Trump is removing less people and less criminals.' Whether he intended it or not, Murphy in effect endorsed a mass deportation regime that disproportionately targets migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. Murphy is a leader who equivocates. Just two months earlier, he had written that 'mass deportation is a (terrible) response to Americans' real sense they are helpless in the face of global forces.' Yet by May, he was boasting about supporting the 'toughest bipartisan border security bill in a generation' as part of 'choosing this country over Donald Trump's campaign'. Murphy may be less beholden to corporate donors than others, but his role in leading the opposition is no less compromised. Even on issues on which Democrats have expressed rhetorical opposition – such as cuts to welfare and education – grandstanding has taken the place of real action. Despite Jeffries's occasional calls for a Democratic strategy to organise resistance, many in the party have chosen instead to cooperate with the administration. That explains how the Senate unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio – long an advocate of xenophobic and Islamophobic policies – as secretary of state by a vote of 99–0, including all 45 Democratic senators. It also explains why 10 Democrats (nine senators, one House member), including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, supported a continuing resolution in March that many agreed would hurt ordinary Americans. 'As bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,' Schumer said. With the Democratic Party applying the pressure of an ant on a mountain, the so-called resistance it claims to lead against Trump has been more than futile – it has become a grim parody. Nothing illustrates the party's rightward drift more clearly than its recent push to court billionaire and former Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk. On June 5 after Musk's public falling-out with Trump over the 'Big Beautiful Bill', Representative Ro Khanna said, 'We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,' including 'a commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him'. By 'him', Khanna seemed to mean rich, white, highly skilled migrants – just as Trump's immigration plans have prioritised white South African farmers as 'refugees' and just as Musk has argued that the US should accept only highly skilled immigrants. Khanna's comments – and his campaign donations from individuals affiliated with Apple, Google, PayPal and Stanford University – place him squarely within the bipartisan elite consensus that dominates immigration and economic policymaking in the US. To mount real opposition, a party must have a clear, unified idea of what it would do differently. The Democratic Party has failed to offer such a vision. It continues to stand with Republicans on issue after issue – and when it claims to stand against them, it rarely follows through. It is long past time to stop hoping the Democratic Party will rescue the US from Trumpism. It won't. It can't. The party has become an unreliable and ideologically compromised actor in the struggle for democracy and justice. What is needed now is a mass movement to build a viable, independent, left-of-centre alternative. Because the Democrats have shown, again and again, that they are not it.
