&w=3840&q=100)
Musk-Trump patch-up? Are the LA protests healing the rift between the duo?
Elon Musk and Donald Trump appear to be edging toward reconciliation after their very public fiery fallout last week. Amid the Los Angeles immigration protests, the tech billionaire has deleted harsh criticisms, reshared Trump's posts and re-followed key allies. While tensions over policy persist, analysts believe their shared political and business interests may drive a gradual mending of ties read more
A newspaper front page featuring US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is displayed at a shop at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, US, June 6, 2025. File Image/Reuters
Just days after Elon Musk called for United States President Donald Trump's impeachment and linked him to the Epstein files, the tech billionaire is now striking a markedly different tone.
Amid escalating protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids, Musk appears to be walking back his attacks and aligning once again with the Trump administration's hardline stance on law and order.
Musk, who only days ago posted scathing critiques of the Trump administration — has now begun deleting those statements.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A look at Musk's sudden shift
Only a week ago, Musk was forcefully criticising Trump, suggesting that the president be removed from office and replaced by US Vice President JD Vance.
In a now-deleted X post, Musk wrote: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!'
The post, which lacked supporting evidence, was taken down within 48 hours, as were several other posts accusing Trump of fiscal mismanagement and ethical misconduct.
Musk also deleted a message promising to apologise only 'as soon as there is a full dump of the Epstein files.' That statement was erased alongside a post expressing support for Trump's impeachment and a user suggestion to replace him with Vance, to which Musk had replied 'Yes.'
Trump responded to the Epstein-related allegations in an interview with NBC News, saying: 'That's called 'old news.' That's been old news. That has been talked about for years. Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it — it's old news.'
The president added: 'This has been talked about for years and years. And as you know, I was not friendly with Epstein for probably 18 years before he died. I was not at all friendly with him.'
Despite Trump's attempts to downplay the issue, the friction seemed to escalate further when Musk condemned the administration's economic strategy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Specifically, Musk warned that the president's proposed 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' — a sweeping piece of legislation focused on domestic spending — would undermine the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to reduce federal debt.
The Trump administration, however, denied that the bill would worsen the fiscal deficit, even as independent budget watchdogs projected a multi-trillion-dollar increase in national debt.
Musk's renewed public interaction with the Trump circle went beyond reposts. He re-followed Stephen Miller — the president's deputy chief of staff and an architect of the administration's immigration policies — after unfollowing him during their feud last Thursday.
The move drew notice not only because of Miller's political significance but also due to the role of his wife, Katie Miller, who recently left her government position to work with Musk full-time.
The Millers and Musk had reportedly maintained close social ties, adding a personal dimension to the broader political fallout.
In a separate X post, Musk clarified that a screenshot circulating online — in which he allegedly responded to Miller with the taunt 'Just like I took your wife' — was fabricated.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
He wrote: 'No, it's fake ffs 🤦♂️ I never posted this.' The clarification addressed mounting rumours stemming from the public spat and a growing number of viral misinformation posts that emerged in its wake.
Meanwhile, Vance also weighed in during a podcast appearance, addressing Musk's Epstein allegations directly: 'Absolutely not,' he said. 'I hope Musk comes back into the fold.'
His comments suggested an effort to facilitate reconciliation behind the scenes, possibly to prevent long-term damage to the Republican coalition.
How LA protests are inching Trump & Musk back together
Over the weekend, however, Musk's posture took a noticeable turn. As demonstrations in Los Angeles erupted in protest of ICE raids and immigration policies, the billionaire began amplifying the administration's stance.
He reshared posts from Vance, who declared that the 'president will not tolerate rioting and violence,' and included American flag emojis in his repost.
🇺🇸 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 10, 2025
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Musk also circulated a Truth Social message from Trump that claimed: 'L.A. has been invaded and occupied by illegal aliens and criminals,' as well as a follow-up post in which the president criticised California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass for their alleged failure to control the violence, referring to demonstrators as 'troublemakers and insurrectionists.'
This shift is consistent with Musk's previously stated views on immigration enforcement, particularly his advocacy for securing national borders and expelling undocumented immigrants.
His apparent support for the administration's response to the LA protests reintroduces an element of alignment between the two that had seemed irreparably broken just days earlier.
A Trump-Musk realignment or just a pause?
Despite signs of rapprochement, unresolved policy differences remain. Musk has not walked back his criticism of Trump's domestic spending bill and continues to post satirical critiques of the Republican Party.
On Sunday, he reposted an article from The Babylon Bee titled: 'Republicans Announce Plan To Keep Doing Opposite Of What Everyone Voted For Them To Do.'
He also endorsed a user's claim that his dispute with the president was 'neither a stunt nor distraction,' replying 'Correct.'
Still, Wall Street analysts see signs of cooling tensions. WedBush analyst Dan Ives noted in a Monday briefing: 'While we do not expect Trump and Musk to be back to their Mar-a-Lago connected at the hip days, it would not be a surprise to see Trump and Musk slowly mend the fences (with the help of intermediaries behind closed doors) over the coming months.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Ives stated that both figures have incentives to maintain ties — Trump for the tech billionaire's sway over Silicon Valley and policy frameworks, and Musk for regulatory support, particularly around autonomous vehicle infrastructure, reported CNN.
Market watchers took note of the shift. Tesla shares jumped 4.6 per cent on Monday. However, the stock remained below its Thursday level, prior to the fallout, suggesting investors are cautiously optimistic.
Even Trump adopted a gentler tone when asked about Musk at a White House event: 'We had a good relationship, I wish him well, very well.'
Yet when asked if he would take a call from Musk, Trump demurred: 'I haven't really thought about it actually. I would imagine he wants to speak to me, I would think so.'
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Anti-ICE protests: Appeal court blocks earlier ruling; allows Trump to command California Guard
The appeals court on Thursday approved the Trump administration's petition to maintain California National Guard Troops' deployment amidst LA protests (AP image) The appeals court on Thursday evening approved the Trump administration's petition to maintain California National Guard Troops' deployment amidst Los Angeles protests, provisionally suspending a federal judge's directive issued earlier that day. The initial ruling had instructed President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the troops back to California Governor Gavin Newsom. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump illegally dispatched the troops, stating that the president had overstepped his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Breyer ordered the federal government to give up control to the governor but stayed his order until noon Friday. This led the government to quickly appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which granted a stay. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. Asked to comment, the governor's office referred to Newsom's previous remarks that he is 'confident in the rule of law.' This legal dispute arose from a lawsuit California filed earlier this week against Trump, defence secretary Pete Hegseth, and the defence department. The state seeks to limit the role of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, allowing them only to protect federal facilities and personnel. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Fastest Selling Plots of Mysore from 40L | 40+ Amenities PurpleBrick Learn More Undo It asked for a temporary order limiting military actions and questioned the president's rights to deploy troops in California without the governor's input or consent. The Trump administration has deployed 4,100 National Guard members and Marines to respond to protests, with 2,100 Guard members stationed in the LA area. According to US Northern Command, the forces are part of Task Force 51, tasked with protecting federal property and functions. Newsom, a Democrat and frequent critic of Trump, emphasised that his request was not to stop the military's mission but to obtain 'narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalised National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities. ' In court, the Trump administration labeled California's request 'legally meritless,' arguing it would compromise the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and disrupt federal operations. In his 36-page ruling, Breyer criticised the administration's approach, stating that 'the continued unlawful militarisation' of Los Angeles risked escalating tensions and violence. He acknowledged that courts generally defer to presidents on national security and foreign policy but affirmed that domestic military deployments are subject to judicial oversight. Breyer rejected the administration's characterisation of the demonstrations as a rebellion, noting that while some protesters were violent, the events did not amount to 'a violent, armed, organised, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.' The judge also criticised the administration's claim that local and state leaders had lost control, asserting that the federal government could not override a state's police power due to dissatisfaction with enforcement speed or strategy. In a post-ruling news conference, Newsom reverberated Breyer's sentiment, stating, 'There's no invasion. There's no rebellion. It's absurd.' He framed the issue as a 'test of democracy,' saying the ruling confirmed Trump is not above constitutional limits. During the hearing, Judge Breyer, a former Watergate prosecutor and brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, read from Article II of the US Constitution, underscoring executive limits. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' he said. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.' Some protests in Los Angeles following recent immigration raids have seen clashes, looting, and arson, though much of the city has remained unaffected. The administration depicted the city as overwhelmed, while state and local officials maintained they were capable of managing the situation and accused the federal government of exacerbating unrest. Judge Breyer scheduled another hearing for June 20 and ordered the federal government to present arguments against a preliminary injunction.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
'Nearing the point of no return': Israel on Iran's nuclear weapons programme
After attacking nuclear and military sites across Iran, Israel has said that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 15 bombs and is near the point of no return in its nuclear weapons programme. read more After conducting widespread strikes inside Iran, Israel has said that the Ayatollah Khamenei's regime was 'nearing the point of no return' in the development of a nuclear weapon. Israel targeted Iran's nuclear programme , military sites, and top military leaders in strikes across Iran in the early hours of Friday. It dubbed it 'Operation Rising Lion'. In a post on X, the Israeli military said that recent intelligence has shown that Iran has been producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium and currently has enough uranium for 15 bombs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In October 2023, Iran had 4,130.7 kg of enriched uranium that was enough for nine bombs but it now has 7,264 that is enough for 15 bombs. 'The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified enrichment compounds, in underground, fortified sites. This program has accelerated significantly in recent months, bringing the regime significantly closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon,' the statement read. 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗: 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻'𝘀 𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀 Recent intelligence shows Iran is nearing the point of no return in its race toward a nuclear weapon. The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified… — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 13, 2025 The Israeli military said that it was not left with any option other than attacking Iran's nuclear programme. In addition to nuclear sites, including Natanz, Israel killed top Iranian officials , such as IRGC chief Major General Hossein Salami, Iranian military chief Brigadier General Mohammad Bagheri, and deputy military chief Gholamali Rashid, and scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranji Fereydoun Abbasi. With strikes on the Iranian nuclear programme, Israeli Prime Minister Benjmain Netanyahu defied US President Donald Trump, who had asked him not to attack Iran's Iranian nuclear sites — as recently as yesterday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran is widely expected to retaliate but the scope of any retaliation will depend on the support that Trump offers to Iran. So far, the Trump administration has maintained that it was a unilateral Israeli attack. Moreover, efforts so far have been publicised to withdraw non-essential US personnel from the region and secure US assets instead of bolstering the defence of Israel. As Iran has apparently conducted the operation without Trump's go-ahead, it is left to be seen if Trump would come to Israel's defence like former President Joe Biden did. In two rounds of Israel-Iran aerial battles last year, the Israel was able to fend off the Iranian barrage because of the defensive coalition put together by Biden that comprised US, British, French, and Arab forces.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
37 minutes ago
- First Post
Does Iran have enough money to fight Israel in an extended war? Its first response was low-cost drones
Iran's economy, crippled by 32% inflation and $33bn reserves, struggles to match Israel's $223bn war chest. Sanctions and stagnant growth tilt prolonged conflict in Tel Aviv's favour. read more People walk near a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Reuters Iran's economy, crippled by 32% inflation and $33bn reserves, struggles to match Israel's $223bn war chest. Sanctions and stagnant growth tilt prolonged conflict in Tel Aviv's favour. The West Asian tension entered new territories in the early hours of Friday, with Israel's air force launching a massive attack on Tehran, targeting Iranian military leadership and its nuclear enrichment sites. Hours later, Iran responded with over a hundred drones, low-cost ones, to target Israeli sites. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While Israeli attacks caused a lot damage to Iranian nuclear sites and killed Iranian Army chief Mohammad Bagheri and also the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chief Hossein Salami, and some top nuclear scientists, Iranian counter-attack failed to cause much damage as per reports. Why Israel attacked, now Israeli defence forces put out multiple statements on social media and to the press saying that Iran had reached 'the point of no return' in its nuclear enrichment programme, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as a threat to the 'survival' of his country. The Israeli military said Iran secretly advanced a plan for the 'technological advancement of all parts of the development of a nuclear weapon'. 'In recent months, accumulated intelligence information has provided evidence that the Iranian regime is approaching the point of no return,' the IDF says in a statement. 'The convergence of the Iranian regime's efforts to produce thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified enrichment compounds in underground facilities, enables the Iranian regime to enrich uranium to military-grade levels, enabling the regime to obtain a nuclear weapon within a short period of time,' the military says. How challenging it is for Iran Iran faces significant economic constraints that would severely limit its capacity to sustain an extended conflict with Israel. Despite recent increases in military spending, structural weaknesses, sanctions, and dwindling resources undermine Tehran's financial resilience. Iran looks economically vulnerable as it enters a military conflict with Israel. Stagnant growth and soaring prices Iran's real GDP growth is projected at just 0.3 per cent in 2025, a sharp downgrade from earlier estimates of three per cent by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chronic inflation, recorded at 32 per cent in January 2025, erodes purchasing power, with 27 per cent of Iranians living on less than $2 a day. Iranian currency, the rial, has collapsed to over 1 million per US dollar, slashing the real minimum wage to $120 monthly. Such instability strains public finances and limits the government's ability to fund prolonged military operations. Oil exports and sanctions US sanctions under President Trump have cut Iran's oil exports, with production expected to fall by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025. Despite allocating 420,000 bpd (24 per cent of exports) to military funding — valued at $12.7 billion — revenue remains constrained. Iran observes predict steeper export declines of 500,000 bpd, exacerbating fiscal shortfalls. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Foreign reserves and public debt Iran's gross international reserves stood at $33.8 billion in January 2025, a fraction of its 2015 peak of $128.4 billion. By comparison, Israel's reserves hit a record $223.6 billion in May 2025. Tehran's limited reserves restrict its capacity to import essential goods or stabilise its currency during a conflict. Military spending versus Economic reality Iran's 2025 military budget tripled to $12.7 billion as said above, signalling a shift from diplomacy to militarisation. However, this prioritisation comes amid a growing fiscal deficit and industrial stagnation, with 50 per cent of production capacity halted in some sectors due to energy shortages. The economy's reliance on oil—coupled with sanctions—makes sustained military investment precarious. Iran's adversary: Israel enjoys economic resilience Israel's economy grew 3.4 per cent in Q1 2025 despite ongoing conflicts, supported by robust tech exports and a $223.6 billion forex reserve. Defence spending will rise to $45 billion in 2025, funded by a diversified economy and international alliances. Unlike Iran, Israel benefits from US security guarantees and access to global financial markets, providing a strategic cushion. What to make of the conflict as strategic implications * Resource asymmetry: Israel's reserves are 6.6 times larger than Iran's, enabling longer war sustainability. * Domestic pressures: Iran's 'resistance economy' is buckling under sanctions and inflation, risking public unrest if military spending deepens austerity. * External support: Iran's reliance on China for oil sales and Russia for military tech is vulnerable to US pressure, while Israel enjoys unwavering Western backing despite Trump's frequent public disapproval of Netanyahu's policies. While Iran has ramped up military expenditure, its economic fragility and Israel's financial robustness make an extended war unsustainable for Tehran without external intervention or rapid sanctions relief — both look unlikely unless other West Asian powers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates change their stance dramatically.
