How Musk turned on Trump's tax ‘abomination'
In the world of Elon Musk, five days is a very long time.
Last Friday, Donald Trump described Musk as a 'very special' friend as he stepped down from his role as cost-cutting tsar, bidding farewell by presenting the Tesla chief with a golden key to the White House.
After accepting the gift, Musk told reporters in the Oval Office that he would make good use of it.
'I'll continue to be visiting here and be a friend and adviser to the president,' he said.
Just a few days later, it appears the billionaire's punchy advice may already be pushing this friendship to breaking point.
Late on Tuesday, Musk escalated his criticism of Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill', attacking the US president's package of tax cuts over fears it could add trillions to the national deficit.
'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he told his 220m followers on his social media site X.
'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Congress is making America bankrupt.'
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
More ominously, he took aim at the 215 Republican members of the House of Representatives who voted for the Bill. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong,' he said.
He didn't stop there. Two hours later, he warned of reprisals at the crucial Congressional midterm elections in 2026. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.'
These are words that could send a chill through Republican Party politicians, including the president himself.
Last year, Musk pumped almost $300m (£220m) into Trump's election campaign, providing the financial firepower required to restore him to the White House.
And while the Tesla chief has recently exited his role in the Trump administration and vowed to cut his political spending, Musk still looms large over US politics.
Anti-Trump allies
Unsurprisingly, the White House has so far played down Musk's criticism.
'Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this Bill,' White House spokesman Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday. 'It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it.'
The Bill's next stop is the Senate, where it's already facing a less unanimous welcome from Republicans.
John Thune, the Republican Senate majority leader, is sticking with his boss.
'My hope is that as [Musk] has an opportunity to further assess what this Bill actually does, that he comes to a different conclusion,' Thune told reporters.
But the Tesla billionaire has found a vocal ally in the fiscally hawkish Republican Senator Rand Paul, a longstanding Trump critic. The pair spent Tuesday sharing each other's posts on X.
'I've been pretty consistent in my time in the Senate: I oppose deficit spending no matter which party is in charge,' Paul said in one X post that Musk then promoted.
'If we don't get serious about reining in the debt, the next generation will pay the price. Fiscal responsibility isn't a campaign slogan. It's a duty which I take very seriously.'
Maga maverick
For Musk, this isn't just a matter of policy. It's personal.
The Bill's fiscal profligacy flies directly in the face of the mission that brought him into politics as a chainsaw-wielding Maga maverick: cutting government spending.
His department of government efficiency, or Doge, has been on a move-fast-and-break-things campaign to reduce the size of the state.
At the White House ceremony to receive his golden key, he wore a T-shirt with the iconography of The Godfather film reworked as 'the Dogefather'. He compared Doge to Buddhism, describing it as 'like a way of life'.
He is yet to reach fiscal nirvana, though, having fallen well short of initial ambitions to cut at least $2 trillion from the federal budget during his allotted 130 days as a government agent.
By the start of June, his 'wall of receipts' was showing savings of $180bn, although several independent efforts to verify Doge's claims have struggled to make the sums add up.
'Maybe why Elon Musk is a bit worked up about this is that he thought he had a mandate to cut spending, and that didn't really happen very much with Doge,' says John Stopford, of fund manager Ninety One.
Musk has publicly vented frustration at what he sees as obstructionism from Trump lieutenants and Republican members of Congress keen to protect spending that benefits their districts.
Now Trump is in his sights, too. Musk told CBS over the weekend that the tax-cut Bill 'undermines the work that the Doge team is doing'.
Market jitters
Musk isn't alone in questioning whether Trump's signature legislation is as beautiful as it is big.
Yields on longer-dated US Treasury bonds, which finance the government's deficit, are at or near their highest in decades.
Investors are worried that the US fiscal trajectory is unsustainable, and are demanding a bigger reward for holding debt beyond the next few years.
Term premiums on 10-year US Treasuries – the extra compensation that investors demand compared with shorter-dated bonds, and which can be used as a proxy for investor caution on long-term debt – have hit their highest level in more than a decade.
The higher the term premium, the lower the demand.
'What we have been seeing is just a lot of worry about the sustainability of US finances. Worries that there just simply aren't enough investors, especially foreign investors, in the market,' says Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US rates strategy at TD Securities.
A dearth of buyers raises the risk of a crisis in which sellers could become unable to clear their sales, Goldberg warns. This would drive a sharp surge in rates and could force an emergency intervention from the Federal Reserve.
'If there was a big deleveraging that happened and there was a big source of selling, whether it's from foreign investors or hedge funds or levered investors or basis investors, it could potentially overwhelm the system,' he says.
Ninety One's Stopford agrees. 'There is a risk that you reach a tipping point at some point,' he says.
However, beyond the economy, it's possible that if anyone has reached a tipping point, it's Musk himself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Hiring slows across US amid uncertainty over Trump's tariffs
US employers have slowed their rate of hiring, adding 139,000 jobs in May amid growing uncertainty surrounding President Donald Trump 's trade wars, according to the Department of Labor. The figures, released on Friday, reveal a slight drop from April's revised figure of 147,000. The unemployment rate remains at 4.2 per cent. Trump's aggressive and unpredictable policies, particularly his sweeping taxes on imports, have clouded the economic outlook, raising fears of a potential recession. Economists anticipate that these policies will negatively impact the US economy, with tariffs increasing costs for American companies that rely on overseas materials, potentially leading to hiring freezes or layoffs. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), until recently led by billionaire Elon Musk, has already cut federal workers and cancelled government contracts. The crackdown on illegal immigration is expected to exacerbate labor shortages for businesses. Despite these concerns, the government's economic data has yet to reflect any significant adverse effects. The US economy and job market have proven surprisingly resilient in recent years. When the inflation fighters at the Federal Reserve raised their benchmark interest rate 11 times in 2022 and 2023, the higher borrowing costs were widely expected to tip the United States into a recession. Instead, the economy kept growing and employers kept hiring. But former Fed economist Claudia Sahm warns that the job market of 2025 is not nearly as durable as the two or three years ago when immigrants were pouring into the US job market and employers were posting record job openings. 'Any signs of weakness in the data this week would stoke fears of a recession again,' Sahm, now chief economist at New Century Advisors, wrote in a Substack post this week. 'It's too soon to see the full effects of tariffs, DOGE, or other policies on the labor market; softening now would suggest less resilience to those later effects, raising the odds of a recession.'' Recent economic reports have sent mixed signals. The Labor Department reported Tuesday that US job openings rose unexpectedly to 7.4 million in April – seemingly a good sign. But the same report showed that layoffs ticked up and the number of Americans quitting their jobs fell, a sign they were less confident they could find something better elsewhere. Surveys by the Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing managers, found that both American manufacturing and services businesses were contracting in May. And the number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits rose last week to the highest level in eight months. Jobless claims – a proxy for layoffs – still remain low by historical standards, suggesting that employers are reluctant to cut staff despite uncertainty over Trump's policies. They likely remember how hard it was to bring people back from the massive but short-lived layoffs of the 2020 Covid-19 recession as the US economy bounced back with unexpected strength. Still, the job market has clearly decelerated. So far this year, American employers have added an average 144,000 jobs a month. That is down from 168,000 last year, 216,000 in 2023, 380,000 in 2022 and a record 603,000 in 2021 in the rebound from Covid-19 layoffs. Trump's tariffs, and the erratic way he rolls them out, suspends them and conjures up new ones, have already buffeted the economy. America's gross domestic product – the nation's output of goods and services – fell at a 0.2 per cent annual pace from January through March this year. A surge of imports shaved 5 percentage points off growth during the first quarter as companies rushed to bring in foreign products ahead of Trump's tariffs. Imports plunged by a record 16 per cent in April as Trump's levies took effect. The drop in foreign goods could mean fewer jobs at the warehouses that store them and the trucking companies that haul them around, wrote Michael Madowitz, an economist at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute.
Sky News
36 minutes ago
- Sky News
In a dangerous world, the explosive Trump-Musk bust-up is more terrifying than titillating
Elon Musk posted in February that he loved his president, patron and personal friend, "as much as a straight man can love another man." And they had so much in common: colossal egos; mercurial political views; compulsive social media habits. Yet, it was clear to almost all but the most hopeless MAGA romantics that this rocket-fuelled megastar bromance was doomed to fail. But who would have predicted an end this spectacular - their relationship undergoing a "rapid unscheduled disassembly" to rival the most explosive of Mr Musk 's test rockets. 4:02 Their hysterical tit-for-tat on social media might be the stuff of Hollywood tabloids, but its consequences could be grave. The break-up has already had a major impact on Mr Musk's wealth, with Tesla shares sliding 15% on the news. But Mr Musk's social media platform and $250m of political donations played no small part in getting Mr Trump and his supporters into the White House. If that money and influence were to turn against them, it could see them out. And in terms of strategic significance, Elon Musk's SpaceX is no ordinary company. In 2024, it averaged a rocket launch every three days, accounting for nearly 90% of the US orbital launch market and took more cargo into space last year than the rest of the world combined. Elon Musk already appears to have backed down on his threat to decommission the SpaceX Crew Dragon that ferries astronauts to the International Space Station. Doing so would have risked the lives of the crew on board, leaving the US and its international partners reliant on Russian hardware to take them in and out of orbit. 1:48 Nor is it likely Mr Trump would, or even could, take down a company as necessary to US interests as SpaceX. Although the souring of relations will be good news for his up-and-coming rivals like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin launch company. SpaceX is heavily reliant on government contracts from NASA and the US military. But it could be years before a competitor can rival its near-monopoly on space launches. The two men could, of course, patch things up. It wouldn't be the first time either has said outrageous things on social media that they later shrugged off. But in one way, the damage has already been done. The world has witnessed two of its most powerful people row like teenagers with no evidence of the wisdom, restraint or cool-headedness most would expect of reliable businessmen and heads of state.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump 's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. What is disparate impact? The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. What does Trump's executive order say? The April 23 order declared that it is "the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases," which she said are "more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. What is happening with the Sheetz case? The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. What other cases have leveraged disparate impact liability? The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. What's the potential fallout of scrapping disparate impact? The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. "Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law," wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
