Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
WASHINGTON - Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week.
"I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X, in a message that was received favorably by the White House.
Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill.
Their blistering break-up - largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week - was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress.
Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk - one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election - to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation.
"He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be.
Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him."
But after Musk's expression of regret, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was "appreciative," adding that "no efforts" had been made on a threat by Trump to end some of Musk's government contracts.
"The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning, and he is appreciative of it," Leavitt said.
According to the New York Times, Musk's message followed a phone call to Trump late on Monday night.
Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles had also been working with Musk on how to broker a truce with Trump, the report said.
'WISH HIM WELL'
In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far."
The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
But their relationship cracked within days, with Musk describing the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office.
Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned.
Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion.
With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both already appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise."
Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Sweet goodbye: Iconic SA chocolate faces an uncertain future
Beacon chocolates face an uncertain future as Tiger Brands considers selling the brand. Image: YouTube For those of us who buy reasonably priced chocolates on a whim — a slab at the till, or a 3-for-2 when the kids are eyeing something sweet — Beacon chocolates have long been a household favourite. From the creamy Ebony and Ivory, or my personal favourite - Heavenly Melk Tert - to the nostalgic appeal of a Nosh bar or the classic crunchy TV Bar, these local treats have offered a slice of South African comfort for generations. But now, change is on the horizon, as one of the country's best-known chocolate brands may be disappearing from shelves. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Tiger Brands, one of South Africa's leading food producers, has announced plans to sell its Beacon chocolate range. The beloved brand, established nearly a century ago, includes favourites such as the TV Bar, Nosh, chocolate-and-marshmallow Easter eggs, and a range of chocolate slabs — including popular flavours like Ebony and Ivory. The company confirmed that while no final decision has been made yet, it is actively exploring options to sell the chocolate category. "We will continue delivering on the strategic turnaround of the business until such time as an appropriate exit mechanism has been identified," CFO Thushen Govender told News24. Tiger Brands CEO Tjaart Kruger acknowledged the challenges facing the chocolate division in an interview with News24. He admitted that the group had "probably fallen behind in technology," explaining that they had not upgraded their chocolate-making equipment in 30 years. According to him, the investment required to modernise the facility is now too high to justify. However, he believes the Beacon brand still holds potential and In the hands of the right person, the Beacon chocolate brand can be a good business. Kruger also noted the difficulty in competing with more dominant chocolate brands, saying, "We price against Cadbury like R4 or R5 a slab cheaper and still don't get the volumes." Despite the uncertain future of Beacon chocolates, Tiger Brands has reassured consumers that other favourites in its sweets portfolio — including Jelly Tots, Maynards Wine Gums, Fizzer, Marshmallows, and Liquorice All Sorts as well as the Jungle Oats Bar is also unaffected by the changes. While no timelines have been confirmed, Tiger Brands has indicated it will continue producing Beacon chocolates until a suitable buyer or alternative strategy is in place. For loyal fans of the brand, it's an unsettling moment — one that may soon turn our spontaneous chocolate purchases into treasured memories. IOL Lifestyle
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Brand new world: how smart companies are building communities, not just customers
While President Trump and Elon Musk were going at it like Ike and Tina, something far more interesting was happening in the background. The Trump administration's GENIUS Act isn't just another boring government bill – it's basically America's official "we're going all-in on Web3" announcement. What is Web3? Web3 represents the next evolution of the internet – from Web1's static websites to Web2's social platforms, and now to Web3's decentralised networks where users can own digital assets, participate in governance, and share in value creation. Think blockchain technology, digital tokens, NFTs, and community-owned platforms. Instead of tech giants controlling everything, Web3 promises shared ownership and transparent, community-driven ecosystems. For brands trying to figure out what on earth comes next, this is the clearest signal yet that the old playbook is getting tossed out the window. Welcome to the network effect economy Here's the thing about Reed's Law that business school probably didn't teach you: when networks grow, they don't just get bigger – they get exponentially more valuable. Every new person who joins doesn't just add one more connection; they create new groups, communities, and possibilities that benefit everyone already there. This isn't theoretical anymore. The real-world asset market just exploded 260% to $23 billion this year, and brands are suddenly realising they're not just selling stuff – they're building ecosystems. Think about it: every customer who joins your brand's digital community potentially makes that community more valuable for everyone else. It's like the difference between running a store and building a city. We're also seeing the rise of super apps – all-in-one platforms that combine social media, payments, commerce, and communication. Think WeChat in China, but imagine if X (Twitter), Meta, or Telegram successfully built Western versions. The great brand awakening The Web3 revolution is splitting brands into two camps: The Heritage Brands: Some of the world's most renowned consumer brands have clear head starts – millions of existing fans, significant marketing budgets, and brand recognition. They can afford to experiment. But do these companies, with decades of "this is how we do things" baked into their DNA, have what it takes to embrace decentralised communities and shared ownership? The Web3 Natives: The new kids are playing by completely different rules. They're building community ownership and shared governance from the ground up. They move fast, embrace chaos, and actually mean it when they talk about "power to the people." The plot twist? In Web3, authenticity beats budget. Communities have malarkey detectors that would make airport security jealous, and they'll absolutely destroy brands that are just playing dress-up with decentralisation. What's actually happening We're in the messy middle where old and new models are colliding: Communities Are Getting Louder: Customers are becoming more like stakeholders and collaborators. Web3 infrastructure is making these relationships more formal and potentially more rewarding. Customers are becoming more like stakeholders and collaborators. Web3 infrastructure is making these relationships more formal and potentially more rewarding. Engagement Never Sleeps: The days of launch-campaign-and-disappear are numbered. Brands need ongoing conversations with their communities, not just broadcasts to them. The days of launch-campaign-and-disappear are numbered. Brands need ongoing conversations with their communities, not just broadcasts to them. Super App Evolution: As platforms evolve toward super app status, brands are watching carefully. Will these become Web2-style gatekeepers, or embrace Web3 principles of shared ownership? The GENIUS Act: when government gets it While everyone was doom-scrolling through the Twitter fight, the real story was hiding in plain sight. The GENIUS Act isn't just regulation – it's infrastructure. It's the government essentially saying, "We're building the highway system for the digital economy." Notice how Circle, issuer of the USDC digital dollar stablecoin, quietly listed 34 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker CRCL? Mainstream media was still headlining the billionaire brawl. Regulatory clarity transforms Web3 from a risky experiment into a legitimate business strategy. When the U.S. government creates clear rules for digital assets, it's giving brands permission to go all-in without worrying about regulatory whiplash. Where smart brands are paying attention Rather than prescribing what brands must do, here's what forward-thinking ones are quietly testing: Community-First Experiments: Testing token-based loyalty programs and co-creating products with engaged users Testing token-based loyalty programs and co-creating products with engaged users Platform Strategy Diversification: Not putting all eggs in one basket, whether traditional social media or emerging Web3 platforms Not putting all eggs in one basket, whether traditional social media or emerging Web3 platforms Long-Term Infrastructure Building: Focusing on genuine community value, regardless of underlying technology Focusing on genuine community value, regardless of underlying technology Authenticity Over Hype: Bringing real utility and community focus, not just blockchain buzzwords The direction of travel We're watching the early stages of a fundamental shift from broadcasting messages to passive audiences toward creating spaces where communities form, grow, and create value together. While President Trump and Elon Musk might be feuding on social media, they're both building toward the same future – one where networks become more important than individual companies, where communities develop more influence than traditional marketing campaigns, and where the smartest brands position themselves to grow alongside the communities they serve. The future probably belongs to brands that understand they're not just selling products – they're potentially building worlds. And in those worlds, the value grows when the network grows. Dale Healy, Partner, Adams & Adams, Pretoria
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
A discussion about the coloured community and other conversation-stoppers
Against my better judgement, I stepped into a discussion on social media. It was one of those discussions that is marked by conversation-stoppers, deflections and presentations of innocence that is so de rigueur in South African society. It was a discussion about actual or perceived marginalisation of the coloured community in South Africa. This is a country built on decades of racism, but there are no racists. It is a country where citizens compare miseries, where individuals or groups of individuals attempt, constantly, to outmanoeuvre one another in the races to show who is or has been most persecuted, whose persecution matters most, and where the country's myriad problems are explained by monocausal simplicities and convenience. None of these is, of course, unique to South Africa. Conversation-stoppers are swung about like a rapier, slashing, and killing conversations, dead. You may say, for instance, that there may be a reason why people are opposed to your (Caligulan) brutality and cruelty, and the conversation-stopper is that you harbour an ancient hatred of the cruel brute and his people caught in flagrante delicto, so you cannot, possibly be intellectually honest. You may say that someone is wilfully marginalised through some biblical punishment where the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children. The deflection is slipped in; the children have been and will always be guilty, and exploit their intergenerational privileges, which, in some ways, may well be true. As a former colleague said after I admonished her for abusing a (white) child of about six or seven running through the newsroom: 'A snake gives birth to a snake.' This logic – hard to dispute the snake-gives-birth-to-a-snake, or kill them in infancy before they kill you – has been applied to present-day conflicts where innocent children are being killed almost daily. If I have not made it clear previously, I should do it again, here: I don't particularly care for identity politics or race-based politics, and I am not a specialist of coloured politics… there are people who, I am sure, are better placed for this purpose. All of this does not make me blind to the way privileges, powers and influences are handed down to successive generations, and how later generations will conspire to protect such privileges. It is an empirically verifiable fact that power and influence, privileges and benefits (the various forms of capital, political, financial, social or symbolic) accumulated over more than 300 years do not evaporate within 30 years… it is power and privilege that is vertically segmented. We speak, in this respect, about the 'development thesis' in terms of which powers, material and otherwise (ownership of property, development of technology and knowledge production, in general), tend to develop over time and become more powerful. When these powers are under threat, or even questioned rhetorically, those who wield the power feel 'uncomfortable', or 'fragile', and egads! they cry persecution, injustice and oppression, conveniently forgetting their (historical) roles and functions in getting us to where we are. Coloured community concerns and the deflection Let's leave all that as a backdrop, and return to my brief foray into the discussion of the coloured community I mentioned above. First, I should set out those nasty racial classifications, definitions and conceptions of purity and belonging. I refer hereafter to black people to exclude those South Africans who are classified coloured, and considered to be 'not black enough' or 'non-African'. Again, my personal identity affiliations or lack thereof (political, racial, ethnic or cultural) are set aside. The conversation I refer to went something like this: A coloured guy stands up and explains that the coloured community is marginalised, especially in the Western Cape. Also in Panayaza Lesufi's Gauteng, it should be said, and all of which makes a nonsense of the non-racialism that we fought for in South Africa. Before the topic of actual or perceived marginalisation is even considered, the host of the discussion deflects and asks why the coloured community persists with their coloured identity. Absent are the facts that the Afrikaner nationalists created the vile and contemptible racial classification system, and the African nationalists have simply adopted what has always been a vile and contemptible racial classification system. Those are just the facts. The Afrikaner nationalists may tell us that they meant well. I am absolutely sure that the African nationalists have only the best interests of South Africa in mind. That's the thing about oppressive or unjust regimes: Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot did not say they were going to kill millions of people. Kaiser Wilhelm II and Adolf Hitler did not say, up front, that they would be responsible for the death of more than 100 million people in Europe. (See this essay by my favourite 20th-century historian, Eric Hobsbawm) They meant well, no? The National Party (Afrikaner nationalist) and the ANC (African nationalists) would proclaim innocence, to be sure. Julius Malema's ethno-nationalism of a particular kind, where those people whom he considers to be non-African don't matter and don't belong. His staunchest of followers would tell you, I am sure, that he means well… Coloured community concerns and denials, and counter-accusations It's marvellous to behold. Frightening is probably a better word, but never mind. Criminal organisations or unjust regimes have at least one thing in common. Privileged people who are reminded of their ill-begotten status and the forms of capital mentioned above, have the same habit. Deny everything (we are not racist), admit nothing (we worked hard for our money) and make counter-accusations (you're racist/reverse racist). Before seriously considering the cries of the coloured community's leaders, the counter-accusation (a veritable conversation-stopper) is that coloured people are racist, and have always been racist towards black people. It does not help, of course, that very many coloured people have shimmied up to the party of white settlers, the DA, as they did to the National Party with the Tricameral Parliament. If we accept that more than one thing can be true at the same time – that the coloured community has been left behind in whatever resembles a peace and prosperity dividend of the democratic era, and that coloured people have shimmied up to the illiberal, undemocratic and unjust forces in the country – the least one can do is listen, and look at the evidence. Instead, when coloured groups raise issues of crime, disproportionate incarceration, unemployment, drug abuse (all social problems that stem from poverty and alienation), the black African response is: well, coloureds are racist, or they (themselves) reproduce myths about being coloured, when the African nationalists actually reinvoked and reapplied the vile and contemptible racial classification system – because the higher you are on the scale of racial superiority, the more money there is to be made. For instance, when the Dutch, then British, and then Settler Colonialists (during the Afrikaner nationalist era) placed and kept whites on the top rung, they reaped the benefits of everything; from the proceeds of gold and diamonds, to agriculture and education, which helps explain the development thesis referred to above. The main problem, the way I see it, is that in this great-tjank – everyone is in tears about being persecuted and we're in a state of national paralysis – claims of eternal innocence give one group a monopoly on persecution (they have been the most persecuted in history), and gives that group a free reign with meting out punishment (everyone else must suffer biblical punishment and, anyway, a snake gives birth to a snake), and nobody can be as innocent as the ones who claim eternal innocence, and nobody can be innocent enough. As a pessimist, I don't expect things to get any better for the coloured community. This is quite apart from declinism, although it is profoundly Panglossian to be positive. I will leave one example. Somewhere in the Northern Cape, somewhere between Springbok and Upington, there is a black man working on a farm. Once he got a job on the farm, he brought his family from Mpumalanga. Now, let me be clear. As much as South Africa belongs to everyone who lives in it, people are free to move around the country as they wish! Now, that man from Mpumalanga was employed after a coloured man from the area was replaced because black economic empowerment and affirmative action policies (according to the farmer) awards more points for employing a 'black African' as opposed to a coloured. The first problem with this is that the area has been predominantly coloured/Khoi/San for centuries. The ANC has had a policy of converting every corner of the country to reflect the demographics of South Africa; in other words, if, as Jimmy Manyi said when he was still in the ANC and a government spokesperson, coloureds are overconcentrated in any particular region, that had to be changed 'to reflect the demographics of South Africa'. This means that if there happens to be a street in which coloured people are in the majority, as in most of the Northern Cape, that has to change to the point where the street represents the approximately 80% of 'black Africans' in the country. It does not end on the streets of townships. I shan't complain, but I was told that I should forget about applying for an academic post at UCT as it would be futile, because the institution would rather employ a 'real African' from any of the 54 states on the continent than a coloured person. All told, the great-tjank has made us all wrestle over who has been most persecuted, who faces the most injustice and who has the right to mete out punishment, because, you know, a snake gives birth to a snake and at the extremes you must kill a baby before the baby grows up and kills you.
