Musk blasts Trump mega-bill days after farewell
WASHINGTON - Tensions between Elon Musk and Donald Trump erupted Tuesday as the world's richest man derided the president's key piece of economic legislation in a startling rupture just days after exiting a controversial job in the White House.
Musk was lauded by the Republican leader as he left his advisory role atop Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency" last week, despite criticism over his failure to deliver on promises of radical spending cuts.
"This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk posted on X as he followed its progress from the sidelines, in by far his most caustic remarks on Trump's agenda.
"Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong."
It was not Musk's first comments on Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" which is set to add $3 trillion to US deficits over a 10-year horizon, despite deep cuts to health and food aid programs.
But Musk's previous criticism was more restrained, with the Tesla and SpaceX magnate offering only that it undermined his cost-cutting efforts.
On Tuesday he said the bill - being considered by Congress - would burden "citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt."
His post laid bare an increasingly tense relationship between the White House and Musk, who donated almost $300 million to Trump's 2024 election campaign.
Musk has become disillusioned, US media reported, as his goals for White House action that would benefit him personally have gone unrealised.
The bill he was criticising cuts the electric vehicle tax credit - bad news for Tesla - while Axios reported that Musk was rebuffed in his efforts to extend his role beyond the statutory 130-day limit.
He also failed to have his Starlink satellite system used for air traffic control, according to Axios, and was angered by Trump withdrawing the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to be NASA chief.
The normally pugilistic Trump has pulled his punches, aware of his biggest backer's enormous influence over young, tech-savvy and historically apathetic voters - a key Trump constituency in 2024.
"The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill, it doesn't change his opinion," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in a rapid response to Musk's tweet.
The spat came with House Republicans set to pass legislation sent from the White House to enshrine into law $9.4 billion of DOGE's cuts, mostly money destined for public broadcasting and foreign aid.
House Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk's comments "disappointing," adding that he had walked the entrepreneur through the bill on Monday, and that he "seemed to understand."
BURGEONING DEBT
As the world's richest person bowed out of his role as Trump's cost-cutter-in-chief, their relationship appeared on an even keel as the Republican hailed his fellow billionaire's "incredible service."
Trump even insisted that Musk was "really not leaving" after a turbulent four months in which the South African born tycoon cut tens of thousands of jobs, shuttered whole agencies and slashed foreign aid.
DOGE led an ideologically driven rampage through the federal government, with its young "tech bros" slashing tens of thousands of jobs.
But its achievements fell far short of Musk's original boast that he could save $2 trillion - more than the government's entire discretionary spending budget for 2024.
The DOGE website claims to have saved taxpayers less than a tenth of that total - just $180 billion - and fact checkers even see that claim as dubious, given previous inaccuracies in its accounting.
Senate Democrats released a report Tuesday itemising 130 examples of "unethical or potentially corrupt" administration actions they say have helped Musk dodge regulation and add $100 billion to his wealth.
The report came as senators began what is expected to be a fraught month of negotiations on Trump's mammoth policy package, expected to add between $2.5 trillion and $3.1 trillion to deficits over a decade.
Trump said on Monday it was "the single biggest Spending Cut in History," although he added: "The only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
40 minutes ago
- IOL News
MTN backs Starlink's South African operations, contingent on B-BBEE compliance
EFF rejects Minister Malatsi's unlawful attempt to bypass South Africa's 30% local ownership law for Elon Musk's Starlink, saying legal compliance and transformation must be upheld to protect jobs, sovereignty, and national security. Image: AP Photo/Francois Mori Giant digital communication network service provider, MTN, whose chairperson is South Africa's special envoy to the United States of America, Mcebisi Jonas, has expressed support for Starlink being licensed to operate in the country. However, this is only if one of the world's richest men, Elon Musk's satellite internet service licence, complies with black economic empowerment regulations. The company, which is originally from South Africa but operates in various countries across the continent, described US-based Starlink as one of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) communication providers that could significantly accelerate connectivity, 'particularly in rural and underserved areas where terrestrial infrastructure is limited or costly to deploy'. 'By providing high-speed, low-latency internet, leveraging LEO capabilities could bridge the digital divide, supporting South Africa's national goals of broader digital inclusion, economic development, and innovation,' said MTN Group Chief Sustainability and Corporate Affairs Officer Nompilo Morafo. MTN advocates for partnerships with LEO communication providers, including Starlink, as these can enhance service resilience, extend reach, and improve customer experience, especially in challenging geographical areas. 'MTN welcomes cooperation and competition in the telecommunications space, provided there is regulatory parity,' said Morafo. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ It has been reported that Starlink currently operates in 18 of the 54 countries in Africa, and it would expand to 10 more states before the end of the year. MTN's Digital Infrastructure Chief Executive Officer, Mazen Mroué, had, on December 14, 2023, while he was still the group's chief technology and information officer, revealed that there were engagements with SpaceX's Starlink, with enterprise-grade trials under way in Rwanda and Nigeria. When asked if those MTN engagements with Starlink had been expanded to involve the latter coming to South Africa, the group said it did not comment on confidential market-specific discussions. 'MTN embraces the value of LEO satellite systems and remains open to partnerships that support the extension of connectivity across Africa, including South Africa, in compliance with applicable regulations,' Morafo said. It was reported in 2013 that President Cyril Ramaphosa's Shanduka Group had paid $335 million for a stake in MTN's Nigerian business. Soon before being appointed state deputy president, Ramaphosa disinvested from Shanduka to focus on his government responsibilities to avoid a conflict of interest. Former finance deputy minister Jonas was appointed MTN Group chairperson on June 1, 2018, and on April 14, 2025, Ramaphosa appointed him as his special envoy to the United States of America with the responsibility of advancing South Africa's diplomatic, trade, and bilateral priorities. This entailed fostering strategic partnerships and engaging with US government officials and private-sector leaders to promote South Africa. Currently, Starlink does not have an operating licence in South Africa after its attempts to get one failed due to Musk's disagreement with the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) requirement that foreign telecommunication companies must sell 30% of their stake to local historically disadvantaged groups for them to operate in the country. Trump signed an Executive Order on February 7, which sought to isolate South Africa, following allegations that white Afrikaners were subjected to orchestrated genocide and anti-white black employment policies, and that South Africa had taken a hostile stance against the US and its allies, including Israel. This was attributed to Musk's fightback against B-BBEE regulations using Trump. Ramaphosa led the delegation to Washington to negotiate with Trump on May 21 to save South Africa/US trade agreements and recruit new investors. The Presidency had listed Jonas as among the delegation, but he did not go due to his business commitments, although he had contributed to the preparation of that meeting. Before the two leaders held a private meeting at the White House, there was a media briefing in which the issue of genocide and crime was discussed. It was in that briefing that South African billionaire Johann Rupert pleaded with Trump to assist South Africa with modern technology to fight crime and even suggested, in the presence of Musk, that Starlink should come to the country. The negotiation took place before it was reported that Trump had fired Musk as his senior advisor and Department of Government Efficiency head. When asked if Jonas had in any way participated in negotiations to bring Starlink to the country, Morafo said 'no'. 'In his capacity as MTN Group chairperson, Mr Mcebisi Jonas does not participate in operational negotiations relating to Starlink or any other specific vendor or technology partner. 'His responsibilities are focused on providing strategic oversight and governance at the MTN Group level, in line with the role of a non-executive chairperson,' she said. When called, Jonas declined to comment, saying he does not talk to the media as he works in the background. Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi raised eyebrows when, on May 23, two days after the White House meeting, issued a statement announcing the relaxation of the B-BBEE Act in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector to 'allow qualifying multinationals to meet empowerment obligations through alternatives to 30% ownership'. This opened the floodgates of reaction, including from politicians and civil society groups who believed that Malatsi was facilitating the licensing of Starlink by bypassing B-BBEE requirements. MTN said all communication companies should be treated the same and without favour. 'We advocate for a regulatory framework based on the principle of 'same service, same rules'. 'All service providers, whether terrestrial or non-terrestrial, should adhere to the same legal, regulatory, and socio-economic obligations, including those relating to customer registration, data protection, localisation, spectrum access, lawful interception, rural coverage, and B-BBEE compliance,' Morafo said.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Words on wealth: the importance of financial regulation in protecting consumers
This article explores the critical role of financial regulation in protecting consumers from exploitation and ensuring fair market practices, highlighting recent challenges faced by regulatory bodies. Image: Ayanda Ndamane / Independent Newspapers. It shocked me to learn that the Trump administration in the United States, with the assistance of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, had dismembered and severely impeded the function of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This US government agency was established in 2011 under President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008. According to the US Treasury Department, the bureau is tasked with the responsibility to 'promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services'. On its website, the CFPB says its central mission 'is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans – whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products'. Wikipedia notes that many thousands of consumer complaints about financial services providers, including banks and credit card issuers, have been received and attended to by the CFPB. The CFPB is not the only US agency acting against unfair practices by financial services providers; there is the longer-running and more established Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has wide-ranging powers across business sectors that include enforcing antitrust laws. This has also been targeted by President Trump, who in March fired two of the FTC's Democratic commissioners, although the legitimacy of those firings is now being questioned in court. Which brings me to the topic of financial regulation generally. Force for good I strongly believe that regulation that levels the playing field, protects consumers from exploitation, and enables them to make better financial decisions is good for society as a whole, including the industry it regulates. Advocates of free markets would argue that companies in a competitive environment are self-regulating. I disagree. Competition is a powerful and vital force, but its nature is such that you will always have someone trying to make a quick buck by pushing the boundaries of what is normal or ethical. This is a big enough problem in a regulated environment; imagine how bad it would be in an unregulated one. 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 ✕ A supreme example of pushing the boundaries is, of course, in sport - specifically those sporting codes that primarily test physical prowess, such as athletics, swimming, weight-lifting, and cycling. Before these sports became commercialised, there was little monetary incentive for athletes to cheat. Perhaps a small amount of cheating went on behind the scenes, but public perception was that the winners represented the pinnacle of human strength, speed, and endurance, and the sports codes were popular because people believed the competition was real and the winners genuine. That's not the case anymore. When I watch an athlete win a race, there's always the nagging question in the back of my mind: did he or she win on natural ability, or did performance-enhancing drugs contribute to the win? In which case, why am I wasting my time watching someone cheat? It started with a couple of risk-takers pushing the boundaries. Eventually, just to remain competitive, everyone was doping, inventing more and more elaborate schemes to evade detection. Moving targets Regulators typically struggle to keep up with the novel ways people find to push the boundaries. I like to think that the financial regulators have had more success than the sports regulators. In financial circles, there's a recent push by those on the fringes to market private equity investments, which invest in private, rather than publicly listed, companies. I have nothing against seasoned, wealthy investors putting their money into private ventures – they know the risks. I do have a problem when private equity investments are marketed to consumers who are not aware of the risks. There are currently at least two companies I know of that are marketing private equity products, including a living annuity, to the public, making out as if they are just regular products. Well, they are not regular. They carry a far higher risk for the investor than publicly listed equity. Pension funds, which have substantial assets and expertise behind them, are restricted by law to invest no more than 15% of their portfolio in private equity. And yet these fringe providers are asking consumers to trust them with their life savings.
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
Illicit financial flows are derailing Africa's future
Illicit financial flows (IFFs) continue to undermine the future of Africa, hampering the ability of governments to adequately fund education, healthcare and development projects essential for lifting people out of poverty and fostering sustainable economic growth. As business leaders, politicians, academics and citizens, we cannot sit back. We must help curb the illegal flow of money out of our country through a cohesive effort by all stakeholders, both local and international, to ensure safeguards are put in place, laws are harmonised, and all enforcement agencies work together to address the problem. At the same time, we must not do anything that will deter investment. Ahead of G20 summit in Johannesburg in November, as well precursor meetings — such as the G20 finance ministers' and central bank governors' meeting and the T20 midterm conference held this month — we must formulate proposals that integrate the perspectives of public and private sector institutions, nonprofit organisations, think-tanks and universities. Together we can make valuable policy recommendations, such as using AI to turn vast amounts of data into information for developing strategic interventions. Working alongside each other, we can identify gaps in current legal frameworks and areas where greater co-operation is required. We must seek ways to stem illicit money flows. When individuals or companies evade their tax obligations, deliberately falsify import or export documents, or misappropriate funds intended for development projects, they are not committing victimless crimes. These outflows not only weaken our reputation in the eyes of the international markets, but also make it harder for the government to raise capital at manageable interest rates. We already owe too much: the National Treasury predicts that debt on our national balance sheet will be 77% of GDP this year. IFFs directly undermine economic growth, costing the South African economy the equivalent of almost 5% of annual collected tax revenue — losses of about R92.5bn. On the African continent, the numbers are more alarming, with between $50bn (about R889bn) and $90bn stolen annually, according to the UN. A 2020 report from a UN conference on trade and development states that IFFs represent as much as 3.7% of Africa's GDP. This figure has almost certainly grown since then, given that those who break laws will keep doing so if they are not held accountable. We recently convened a G20 multi-stakeholder dialogue to better understand this challenge, quantify its impact, assess current solutions, and identify new ones . One of our speakers, deputy minister of international relations and co-operation Alvin Botes, spelt out what this theft means: countries with high IFFs spend at least 25% less on healthcare and 50% less on education compared with their peers. IFFs wipe out any good the $65bn in aid Africa receives each year might do. They reduce progress made in making people's lives better. There are initiatives under way to address IFFs. For example, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) collaborates with the UN to strengthen countries' financial systems and prevent illicit outflows. While South Africa's inclusion on the FATF's grey list is viewed by some as an embarrassment, it enables us to strengthen our legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as enhance our anti-money-laundering capabilities. While South Africa's inclusion on the FATF's grey list is viewed by some as an embarrassment, it enables us to strengthen our legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as enhance our anti-money-laundering capabilities. We are also seeing prosecutions of high-level fraudsters, especially those who use dubious accounting methods to move money around and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It is gratifying to see that action has been taken in this regard. Other UN entities have developed discussion platforms and measurement systems. There are 10 asset-recovery inter-agency networks that have 178 member countries, allowing illicit money flows to be traced across borders. In addition, Interpol supports national and international law enforcement agencies to investigate, trace and prosecute those responsible for these crimes. We must all strive towards expanding such interventions, as well as advocate for and enable closer alignment between government departments and between local law enforcement agencies and their international counterparts. However, our solutions must not cause more harm than good by discouraging legitimate investment. We should not, for example, implement unfair tax regimes that could result in capital flight. We must also not inhibit international investment inflows by making it nearly impossible to comply with legislation and regulations. Such a state of affairs would merely encourage companies to operate businesses in sectors such as import and export under the radar. Through working together by sharing data, harmonising laws and holding those responsible for IFFs accountable, we can strengthen the economy by plugging the holes through which money leaks and encouraging investment. Our people deserve nothing less.
