Trump says he'll have to ‘take a look' at deporting Elon Musk amid public feud
'I don't know,' Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday when asked if he would deport the South African-born entrepreneur and US citizen, before adding that 'we'll have to take a look.'
The president's comments are the latest salvo in a renewed feud between Trump and the world's richest person, who has ramped up his criticism of a Republican tax bill that expedites the end of a consumer credit for electric vehicle purchases. Musk is the CEO of electric carmaker Tesla Inc., whose shares weaken more than 4 percent in premarket trading.
Trump has attributed Musk's opposition to the bill to elimination of subsidies that his many business ventures benefit from. Earlier Tuesday, Trump took to social media, threatening to withdraw subsidies from Musk's companies, a warning he reiterated to reporters.
The president said Musk was 'losing his EV mandate' and added that 'Elon could lose a lot more than that.'
The EV mandate generally is a reference to a suite of fuel economy standards and tailpipe-pollution limits that effectively compel automakers to sell an increasing number of electric models.
The administration has moved to unwind those policies, which are untouched by the measure pending in the Senate. However, the tax-and-spending measure would end a tax credit for individual electric vehicle purchases that has helped boost EV sales.
Musk has lambasted the Republican legislation, calling it an 'insane spending bill' and threatened to help create a third political party in the US. He has denied, however, that his opposition is based on preserving government subsidies for his companies.
Musk threw his support behind Trump in the 2024 election and went on to serve as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency effort that worked to slash the federal government's workforce and responsibilities before departing in late May.
The two had a public falling out over Musk's criticisms of the tax bill, trading insults on social media. While that fight appeared to have cooled, Musk in recent days has posted repeated attacks on the legislation, reigniting their fight.
'We might have to put DOGE on Elon,' Trump said about the federal cost-cutting effort. 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
41 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Mayors, Doctor Groups Sue Over Trump's Efforts to Restrict Obamacare Enrollment
New Trump administration rules that give millions of people a shorter timeframe to sign up for the Affordable Care Act's health care coverage are facing a legal challenge from Democratic mayors around the country. The rules rolled out last month reverse a Biden-era effort to expand access to the Affordable Care Act's health insurance, commonly called Obamacare or the ACA. The previous Democratic administration expanded the enrollment window for the coverage, which led to record enrollment. The Department of Health and Human Services rolled out a series of new restrictions for Obamacare late last month just as Congress was weighing a major bill that will decrease enrollment in the health care program that Republican President Donald Trump has scorned for years. As many as 2 million people – nearly 10 percent – are expected to lose coverage from the health department's new rules. The mayors of Baltimore, Chicago, and Columbus, Ohio, sued the federal health department on Tuesday over the rules, saying they will result in more uninsured residents and overburden city services. 'Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2025 Rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the purpose of the ACA to extend affordable health coverage to all Americans and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,' the filing alleges. Two liberal advocacy groups – Doctors for America and Main Street Alliance – joined in on the complaint. The federal health department announced a series of changes late last month to the ACA. It will shorten the enrollment period for the federal marketplace by a month, limiting it to Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 in 2026. Income verification checks will become more stringent, and a $5 fee will be tacked on for some people who automatically re-enroll in a free plan. Insurers will also be able to deny coverage to people who have not paid their premiums on past plans. The rules also bar roughly 100,000 immigrants who were brought to the US as children from signing up for the coverage. HHS said in a statement that the policies are temporary measures to immediately tamp down on improper enrollments and the improper flow of federal funds. The mayors – all Democrats – argue that the policies were introduced without an adequate public comment period on the policies. 'This unlawful rule will force families off their health insurance and raise costs on millions of Americans. This does nothing to help people and instead harms Americans' health and safety across our country,' said Skye Perryman, the president of Democracy Forward, which is representing the coalition of plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The lawsuit does not challenge the Trump administration's restriction on immigrants signing up for the coverage. The Biden administration saw gains in Obamacare enrollment as a major success of the Democratic president's term, noting that a record 24 million people signed up for the coverage thanks to generous tax breaks offered through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But the program has been a target of Trump, who has said it is riddled with problems that make the coverage unaffordable for many without large subsidies. Enrollment in the program dipped during his first term in office.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Movie Review: In 'Heads of State,' a buddy comedy with statesmen
Say what you will about the Idris Elba–John Cena vehicle Heads of State, but it's surely the first buddy comedy about the fraying bonds of NATO. The potential collapse of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plays a surprisingly pivotal role in this fitfully diverting, for-background-noise-only, straight-to-streaming movie. Elba plays the embattled British Prime Minister Sam Clarke, while Cena co-stars as the recently elected US President Will Derringer, a former action star. Heads of State, directed by Ilya Naishuller (Nobody), is mostly about their relationship–a tense and adversarial one challenged further when an assassination plot leaves them stranded together in Belarus. But that Heads of State, which debuts Wednesday on Prime Video, is such a mild romp makes it all the more surprising to hear a line uttered like: 'If NATO falls, there's backstop against despots and dictators…not.' It's a funny time to release a comedy set around international political disconnection and imperiled Western democracy. But if you were beginning to worry that Heads of State is too timely, don't. Any nods to current events here serve more as reminders of how much Heads of State –like most of Hollywood's output–is unengaged with anything resembling our political reality. You could argue that that's not necessarily a bad thing. You could also argue that the greater sin of Heads of State is underusing Stephen Root. (He plays an expert working for the bad guys.) But the vaguest hints of real-world intrigue only cast a pale light on the movie's mostly lackluster comic chops and uninspired action sequences. The best thing going for Heads of State is that the chemistry between Elba and Cena is solid. The Suicide Squad co-stars trade barbs with a genial ease. Most of the time, those revolve around their characters' divergent histories–Clarke was a commando before becoming a politician–in debates like which one of them is 'gym strong' as opposed to 'strong strong.' That's one of the few decent gags in the script by Josh Applebaum, Andre Nemec, and Harrison Query. But one problem in Heads of State goes beyond the high-concept setup. The best buddy comedies– Midnight Run, 48 Hrs., The Nice Guys –are predicated on opposites thrown together. Elba and Cena have their obvious differences. (Cena's Derringer is exaggeratedly optimistic here, too.) But ultimately, they're both beefy dudes in suits. As the MI6 agent Noel Bisset, Priyanka Chopra Jones gives the movie a kick. But her scenes are left to the beginning and end of the movie. In between, we're left to wonder where she went, how two political leaders would have such non-existent security, and whether a few half-decent jokes are enough to forgive the movie's geopolitical delusions. Heads of State, an Amazon MGM Studios release, is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association for sequences of strong violence/action, language, and some smoking. Running time: 113 minutes. One and a half stars out of four.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
FACT FOCUS: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Does Not Let Him Delay or Cancel Elections
Social media users are falsely claiming that President Donald Trump's sprawling tax bill, which passed the Senate Tuesday after a turbulent overnight session, will give Trump undue influence over US elections. 'The reason the GOP isn't concerned about the midterms and why they are pushing this bill is because it gives Trump power to cancel elections,' reads one X post. 'If this bill passes – it's the end of the country. Democracy is over.' The bill contains no such provision. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: President Donald Trump's tax bill will allow him to delay or cancel elections. THE FACTS: That's false. There is nothing in the legislation that would allow Trump or any future president to stop an election from going forward. According to legal experts, a constitutional amendment would have to pass for anyone to have the ability to cancel a federal election. The timing of elections for federal offices is stipulated in federal law, and it is highly unlikely that Congress would pass a bill allowing the president to change that timing, experts said. 'Although President Trump might like to cancel or postpone an upcoming election if he thought his party was going to fare poorly, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' does not actually grant him that power,' said Barry Burden, director of the University of Wisconsin–Madison's Elections Research Center and a political science professor. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the false claims 'obviously fake news.' Burden and other experts agree that these allegations may stem from a misunderstanding of a section of the bill on judicial enforcement that was included in the version passed by the House. That section was removed from the bill after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that it violates the so-called Byrd Rule, which essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills. Section 70302 could have made it easier for Trump to disregard federal court rulings requiring parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to put down a security, such as a cash bond, before the court could issue contempt penalties. Regardless, such a provision would not allow Trump to delay or cancel elections, even if he tried. 'If Trump announced 'I'm canceling the elections,' that has as much power as my announcing 'I'm canceling the elections,'' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who specializes in constitutional law and the law of democracy. Asked whether section 70302 would have given Trump power over whether elections occur, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, replied, 'Obviously not.' The US Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time of elections subject to any laws Congress enacts that make or alter such regulations. Congress set standard federal election dates with a series of laws starting in 1845. That year, it was determined that states would choose presidential electors the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November. Presidential elections have been held every four years on this day since 1848, including through the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Congress aligned House elections with presidential races in 1872 and in 1914 aligned the election of senators with biennial House elections. The Constitution states that the term for president and vice president is four years, the term for senators is six years, and the term for representatives is two years. Unless they are reelected, there is no mechanism for any of these officials to remain in office after their term ends. Only a constitutional amendment could change this. Some states have a provision that allows voting in federal races to continue after Election Day in extraordinary and catastrophic circumstances, such as a natural disaster. There is no other way to delay a federal election. Levitt explained that, theoretically, Congress could pass a law giving the president the power to choose when a federal election happens, but that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.
