Musk fumes as Trump tax bill cuts electric vehicle credits
The Senate tax bill would bring a quicker end to a popular US$7,500 (RM31,627) consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. — AP
Elon Musk slammed the US Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's multi-trillion dollar tax bill last Saturday, warning that the cuts to electric vehicle and other clean energy credits would be "incredibly destructive' to the country.
Musk, the chief executive officer of Tesla Inc and SpaceX, posted on his social media platform X about the bill, which the Senate advanced in a contentious vote late Saturday. Musk recently left Trump's side after working for several months as the head of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
The bill would destroy millions of US jobs and give "handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future,' Musk said.
The tech billionaire's latest criticism of the package threatens to reawaken his public rift with Trump that began after the world's richest man left his cost-cutting job in the administration.
Trump was asked about Musk in an interview that was recorded on Friday before the billionaire's most recent posts.
"I haven't spoken to him much, but I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he's going to do well always,' Trump said on Fox News's Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, which aired Sunday. "But he got a little bit upset, and you know that wasn't appropriate.'
The Senate tax bill would bring a quicker end to a popular US$7,500 (RM 31,627) consumer tax credit for electric vehicles.
While the earlier proposal would have ended the incentive at the end of this year for most EV sales, the new version terminates the credit after Sept 30. Tax credits for the purchase of used and commercial electric vehicles would end at the same time. – Bloomberg
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
41 minutes ago
- The Star
US Senate debates whether to adopt revised state AI regulation ban
FILE PHOTO: Figurines with computers and smartphones are seen in front of the words "Artificial Intelligence AI" in this illustration taken, February 19, 2024. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Two key U.S. Republican senators agreed to a revised federal moratorium on state regulation of artificial intelligence to five years and allow states to adopt rules on child online safety and protecting artists' image or likeliness. Senate Commerce Committee chair Ted Cruz originally proposed securing compliance by blocking states that regulate AI from a $42 billion broadband infrastructure fund as part of a broad tax and budget bill. A revised version released last week would only restrict states regulating AI form tapping a new $500 million fund to support AI infrastructure. Under a compromise announced Sunday by Senator Marsha Blackburn, a critic of the state AI regulatory moratorium, the proposed 10-year moratorium would be cut to five years and allow states to regulate issues like protecting artists' voices or child online safety if they do not impose an "undue or disproportionate burden" on AI. Tennessee passed a law last year dubbed the ELVIS Act to protect songwriters and performers from the use of AI to make unauthorized fake works in the image and voice of well-known artists. Texas approved legislation to bar AI use for the creation of child pornography or to encourage a person to commit physical self-harm or commit crime. It is not clear if the change will be enough to assuage concerns. On Friday, 17 Republican governors urged the Senate to drop the AI plan. "We cannot support a provision that takes away states' powers to protect our citizens. Let states function as the laboratories of democracy they were intended to be and allow state leaders to protect our people," said the governors led by Arkansas' Sarah Huckabee Sanders. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick voiced his support for the revised measure calling it a pragmatic compromise. "Congress should stand by the Cruz provision to keep America First in AI," Lutnick wrote on X. Congress has failed for years to pass any meaningful AI regulations or safety measures. Senate Maria Cantwell, the top Democrat on the Commerce Committee, said the Blackburn Cruz amendment "does nothing to protect kids or consumers. It's just another giveaway to tech companies." Cantwell said Lutnick could simply opt to strip states of internet funding if they did not agree to the moratorium. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama )
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Trump's ‘emergency' playbook
TO hear Donald Trump tell it – America is under siege – from within, from without and from all directions in between. According to the president, the country is gripped by rebellion, facing invasion from a Venezuelan gang and under economic assault from foreign actors. Armed with this self-declared crisis narrative, Trump has invoked sweeping emergency powers embedded in US law, dating back centuries. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor, deported migrants to El Salvador with little to no due process and triggered trade wars through tariffs he justified as national security measures. Legal scholars argue these moves aren't grounded in the statutes Trump cites, but are instead part of a broader effort to expand his power – and erode constitutional limits. 'He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,' said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School. Somin represents several businesses, including a wine importer, challenging Trump's tariffs in court. Crisis has always been Trump's calling card. His first inauguration speech painted a bleak picture of 'American carnage', while his latest presidential campaign promised to reverse 'staggering American decline'. The message is consistent: America is broken, and only he can fix it. Now back in office, Trump appears determined to codify that rhetoric into governance – transforming everyday political challenges into full-blown emergencies that grant him exceptional authority. Rewriting the rulebook Trump's justification often rests on laws created long ago to give presidents flexibility during genuine emergencies – such as wars or natural disasters – when Congress might be too slow to act. 'These statutes were passed with the expectation that future presidents would act in good faith,' said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri. 'Genuine emergencies do occur and Congress knows it's slow. It wants presidents acting in good faith to move with rapidity.' But Trump, Bowman warned, is testing that assumption to its breaking point. 'Declaring everything an emergency begins to move us in the direction of allowing the use of government force and violence against people you don't like.' The White House, for its part, blames Democrats for failing to protect Americans from national and economic threats. 'President Trump is rightfully using his executive authority – as evidenced by many victories in court – to deliver resolve and relief for the American people,' said spokesperson Taylor Rogers. In truth, the victories have been limited. Lower courts have mostly rejected Trump's emergency-based legal arguments – most notably, his recent attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting migrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Act, which grants the president the power to deport citizens of nations engaged in war, invasion or 'predatory incursion', has been used only three times before – during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In March, Trump argued that the gang's presence on American soil constituted such an incursion. But judges weren't convinced. 'There is nothing in the 1798 law that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,'' ruled Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in New York City. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump's framing of a criminal gang as a national invasion. 'TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion,' he wrote. At least one judge – Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee in Pennsylvania – agreed with the president, calling the gang's presence a 'predatory incursion'. But she's so far in the minority. Emergency, everywhere Beyond immigration, Trump has applied the language of crisis to a range of issues. In April, he imposed tariffs on several countries, claiming that 'foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency'. The move drew legal challenges and two courts have since ruled against him – although a federal appeals court has paused one of the rulings. Trump departing Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey.— Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times California, in particular, has resisted Trump's moves. Officials there sued after he federalised a state militia unit without meeting the criteria – which, under law, include an invasion by a foreign power, a domestic rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law. 'The situation in Los Angeles didn't meet the criteria for federalisation,' state officials said at the time. Meanwhile, Trump has amplified fears of a 'migrant invasion', citing it as the basis for stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and as justification for bypassing local authorities to exert federal control over state matters. The supreme test So far, the US Supreme Court has not weighed in on Trump's recent emergency declarations. But the justices have shown a willingness to challenge presidents' use of extraordinary powers – including President Joe Biden's Covid-19-era efforts to cancel student debt and extend eviction moratoriums. Historically, the Constitution contains only two major references to 'invasion': one limiting states from declaring war unless 'actually invaded', and another allowing suspension of habeas corpus in the event of 'rebellion or invasion'. The court's most definitive ruling on presidential emergency powers came in 1952, when it rejected President Harry Truman's attempt to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War. It's a warning that legal scholars say rings louder today, as Trump reframes a wide array of political and legal challenges as existential threats – and reshapes the presidency in the process. 'In Trump's world,' said Bowman, 'everything is an emergency. And that's the real danger.' — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
The bombing of Iran may teach an unwelcome lesson on nuclear weapons
IT has been nearly two decades since any country elbowed its way into the club of nuclear- armed nations. US President Donald Trump, with his bombing of three Iranian nuclear installations last weekend, has vowed to keep the door shut. Whether Trump's pre-emptive strike will succeed in doing that is hard to predict, so soon after the attack and the fragile ceasefire that has followed. But already it is stirring fears that Iran, and other countries, will draw a very different conclusion than the one the White House intended: that having a bomb is the only protection in a threatening world. The last country to get one, North Korea, has never faced such an attack. After years of defying demands to dismantle its nuclear programme, it is now viewed as largely impregnable. Trump exchanged friendly letters with its dictator, Kim Jong Un, and met him twice in a fruitless effort to negotiate a deal. In Iran's case, Trump deployed B-2 bombers just weeks after making a fresh diplomatic overture to its leaders. 'The risks of Iran acquiring a small nuclear arsenal are now higher than they were before the events of last week,' said Robert J. Einhorn, an arms control expert who negotiated with Iran during president Barack Obama's administration. 'We can assume there are a number of hardliners who are arguing that they should cross that nuclear threshold.' Iran would face formidable hurdles to producing a bomb even if it made a concerted dash for one, Einhorn said, not least the knowledge that if the United States and Israel detect such a move, they will strike again. It is far from clear that Iran's leaders, isolated, weakened, and in disarray, want to provoke them. Yet the logic of proliferation looms large in a world where the nuclear-armed great powers – the US, Russia and China – are viewed as increasingly unreliable and even predatory towards their neighbours. From the Persian Gulf and Central Europe to East Asia, analysts said, non-nuclear countries are watching Iran's plight and calculating lessons they should learn from it. 'Certainly, North Korea doesn't rue the day it acquired nuclear weapons,' said Christopher R. Hill, who led lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, talks with Pyong-yang in 2007 and 2008 to try to persuade it to dismantle its nuclear programme. The lure of the bomb, Hill said, has become stronger for America's allies in the Middle East and Asia. Since World War II, they have sheltered under a US security umbrella. But they now confront a president, in Trump, who views alliances as incompatible with his vision of 'America first'. 'I'd be very careful with the assumption that there is a US nuclear umbrella,' said Hill, who served as ambassador to South Korea, Iraq, Poland, and Serbia under Democratic and Repub-lican presidents. 'Countries like Japan and South Korea are wondering whether they can rely on the US.' Support for developing nuclear weapons has risen in South Korea, though its newly elected president, Lee Jae-myung, has vowed to improve relations with North Korea. In 2023, US president Joe Biden signed a deal with Seoul to involve it more in nuclear planning with the US, in part to head off a push by South Korean politicians and scientists to develop their own nuclear weapons capability. In Japan, the public has long favoured disarmament, a legacy of the US atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But it has begun debating whether to store nuclear weapons from the US on its soil, as some members of Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) do. Shinzo Abe, a former prime minister, said that if Ukraine had kept some of its Soviet-era bombs, it might have avoided a Russian invasion. Russian President Vladimir Putin's threats to use tactical nuclear weapons early in that conflict gave pause to the Biden administration about how aggressively to arm the Ukrainian military. It also deepened fears that other revisionist powers could use nuclear blackmail to intimidate their neighbours. The lesson of Ukraine could end up being, 'If you have nuclear weapons, keep them. If you don't have them yet, get them, especially if you lack a strong defender like the US as your ally and if you have a beef with a big country that could plausibly lead to war,' wrote Bruce Riedel and Michael E. O'Hanlon, analysts at the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, in 2022. Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US and arch rival of Iran, has watched Tehran's nuclear ambitions with alarm. Experts say it would feel huge pressure to develop its own weapon if Iran ever obtained one. The US has tried to reassure the Saudis by dangling assistance for a civil nuclear programme, but those negotiations were interrupted by Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And yet, for all the predictions of a regional arms race, it has yet to occur. Experts say that is a testament to the success of non-proliferation policies, as well as to the chequered history of countries that pursued weapons. The Middle East is a messy landscape of dashed nuclear dreams. Iraq, Syria, and Libya all had their programmes dismantled by diplomacy, sanctions or military force. In the category of cautionary tales, Libya's is perhaps the most vivid: Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Eight years later, after a Nato-backed military operation toppled his government, he crawled out of a drainpipe to face a brutal death at the hands of his own people. Iran's strategy of aggressively enriching uranium, while stopping short of a bomb, did not ultimately protect it either. 'To the extent that people are looking at Iran as a test case, Trump has shown that its strategy is not a guarantee that you will prevent a military attack,' said Gary Samore, a professor at Brandeis University who worked on arms control negotiations in the Obama and Clinton administrations. Samore said it is too soon to say how the Israeli and American strikes on Iran would affect the calculus of other countries. 'How does this end?' he said. 'Does it end with a deal? Or is Iran left to pursue a nuclear weapon?' Experts on proliferation are, by nature, wary. But some are trying to find a silver lining in the events of the last week. Einhorn said that in delivering on his threat to bomb a nuclear- minded Iran, Trump had sent a reassuring message to US allies facing their own nuclear insecurities. 'In Moscow, Pyongyang, and Beijing,' Einhorn said, 'they've taken notice not just of the reach and capacity of the US military, but the willingness of this president to use that capability.' — 2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
