Latest news with #Musk-run
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
‘I'm not thinking about Elon Musk': Trump tries to move on from feud
President Donald Trump said Friday that he has little appetite for reconciling with Elon Musk any time soon, signaling he's eager to move on to other topics following their extraordinary public blow-up. 'I'm not really interested in that,' Trump told reporters as he arrived in New Jersey, where he's slated to spend the weekend at one of his properties. 'I'm really interested in the country and solving problems.' The remarks represented the president's latest insistence that he's gotten over the high-profile breakup with Musk, even as he continues to talk about him. Trump on Thursday and earlier Friday conducted interviews with several media outlets — including POLITICO — to emphasize that he was shifting to other concerns. 'I'm not thinking about Elon,' Trump said. 'I just wish him well.' The high-volume conflict between Trump and Musk has consumed Washington for two days, alarming allies who have since encouraged the two to call a truce and generating anxiety on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are still trying to push through their top legislative priority. Trump later Friday downplayed the rift, touting support within the GOP for the megabill and brushing off questions about the accusations he earlier hurled at Musk — including that the billionaire had 'a problem.' 'I don't want to talk about the problems,' Trump said, pivoting quickly to talk up the state of the economy. Still, pressed on the matter, Trump acknowledged that he's still considering eliminating lucrative federal contracts with companies run by Musk — a move that he first floated on Thursday in response to the billionaire's criticism of Trump and the GOP's megabill. 'We'll take a look at everything,' Trump said of the contracts that the government maintains with companies like Musk's SpaceX. 'It's a lot of money, it's a lot of subsidy.' Despite SpaceX's central place in the U.S.'s defense and space programs, Trump said that the country 'can survive' without the contracts that it has awarded to the Musk-run company. As for the ongoing effort by Trump and Musk allies to bring the two back together, the president acknowledged that they remained ongoing — but at least for now, weren't gaining much traction.
Politico
a day ago
- Business
- Politico
‘I'm not thinking about Elon Musk': Trump tries to move on from feud
President Donald Trump said Friday that he has little appetite for reconciling with Elon Musk any time soon, signaling he's eager to move on to other topics following their extraordinary public blow-up. 'I'm not really interested in that,' Trump told reporters as he arrived in New Jersey, where he's slated to spend the weekend at one of his properties. 'I'm really interested in the country and solving problems.' The remarks represented the president's latest insistence that he's gotten over the high-profile breakup with Musk, even as he continues to talk about him. Trump on Thursday and earlier Friday conducted interviews with several media outlets — including POLITICO — to emphasize that he was shifting to other concerns. 'I'm not thinking about Elon,' Trump said. 'I just wish him well.' The high-volume conflict between Trump and Musk has consumed Washington for two days, alarming allies who have since encouraged the two to call a truce and generating anxiety on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are still trying to push through their top legislative priority. Trump later Friday downplayed the rift, touting support within the GOP for the megabill and brushing off questions about the accusations he earlier hurled at Musk — including that the billionaire had 'a problem.' 'I don't want to talk about the problems,' Trump said, pivoting quickly to talk up the state of the economy. Still, pressed on the matter, Trump acknowledged that he's still considering eliminating lucrative federal contracts with companies run by Musk — a move that he first floated on Thursday in response to the billionaire's criticism of Trump and the GOP's megabill. 'We'll take a look at everything,' Trump said of the contracts that the government maintains with companies like Musk's SpaceX. 'It's a lot of money, it's a lot of subsidy.' Despite SpaceX's central place in the U.S.'s defense and space programs, Trump said that the country 'can survive' without the contracts that it has awarded to the Musk-run company. As for the ongoing effort by Trump and Musk allies to bring the two back together, the president acknowledged that they remained ongoing — but at least for now, weren't gaining much traction.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 days ago
- Automotive
- First Post
France, Germany, UK…Tesla sales slump across Europe as electric car market surges
Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority, K.B.A., data shows that registration of new Tesla cars is more than a third of the same month last year, despite being Europe's prime location for car sales read more Tesla to launch its robotaxi services in Austin by June 12. AFP More and more car buyers are becoming wary of Tesla across Europe. Germany has recorded a drop in EV sales for the fifth month in a row, although the country saw an overall increase in electric vehicle purchases. Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority, K.B.A., data shows that registration of new Tesla cars is more than a third of the same month last year, despite being Europe's prime location for car sales. Elon Musk's Tesla has been witnessing a steep drop in sales, which partly has precedence on his embrace of right-wing ideology. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Musk officially backed Germany's far-right AfD party ahead of the country's parliamentary elections. He is also a strong critic of unions, with Tesla having clashed with labour organisations in Scandinavian countries. The Tesla CEO contributed almost $300 million towards re-electing U.S. President Donald Trump and later pushed for the Trump administration to reduce the size of federal agencies. This sparked protests at Tesla dealerships throughout Europe. Other EV makers boom in Germany It's not like car buyers in Germany have given up on electric vehicles altogether. Sales of China's BYD cards, Tesla's main rival, have grown ninefold in Germany. The company took Tesla's title as the world's largest EV seller earlier this year. The company has been rapidly expanding into European markets, with plans to establish local production at its plants in Hungary and Turkey to counter the EU's higher tariffs on Chinese-made EV imports. Additionally, BYD intends to raise up to $5.2 billion through a share sale in Hong Kong to support its global expansion, according to a source familiar with the deal. Tesla sales plunge in other countries The Musk-run company has been losing customers in other European countries, too. Tesla's new car sales in Britain tumbled more than 45 per cent from a year earlier in May, preliminary data from research group New AutoMotive showed on Wednesday. The automaker sold 1,758 units in Britain last month, down from 3,244 a year earlier, the data showed. Sales in France dropped by 67 per cent, in Spain by 29 per cent and in Sweden by 53 per cent. However, Norway remains a rare bright spot, with sales tripling thanks to the revamped Model Y. Why have Tesla's sales dropped? Analysts attribute Tesla's struggles to growing competition from Chinese brands, EU tariffs on Chinese EVs, and consumer backlash against CEO Elon Musk's political affiliations and activism in Europe. Musk downplayed the issue, calling the European market 'quite weak,' but data shows rising EV adoption overall, suggesting Tesla is losing market share rather than the market shrinking. Tesla's Berlin Gigafactory supplies Europe but has faced production retooling delays and market headwinds, contributing to the sales slump.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How William Howard Taft's approach to government efficiency differed from Elon Musk's slash-and-burn tactics
For four months, the world's richest man has played an unprecedented role in U.S. government. At the start of his 2025 term, President Donald Trump asked Elon Musk to cut government 'waste and fraud.' That translated into the Musk-driven firing of 121,000 federal workers, essentially closing entire government programs and departments. Many Americans protested Musk's work. His unsupervised access to sensitive government materials and unchecked influence over the firing of federal employees represents an unprecedented moment in the United States. An unelected billionaire sought to overhaul the federal government, empowered and legitimized not by Congress but only by the president. There are two individuals intrinsic to any presidential effort to restructure government: the president himself and the person he entrusts with the task. In 2025, Musk has been the person designated to carry out the president's aims. In 1910, it was Frederick Cleveland, an academic, who was President William H. Taft's designated head of his effort to streamline government. Both presidents, Taft and Trump, have said they wanted to improve how government functioned. But while Taft worked with Congress to launch his effort, Trump hasn't followed that route. And the men each president asked to lead their efforts were vastly different in the responsibility given to them, and different in values as well as temperament. Among the many historic attempts by presidents to streamline federal government, Taft's administration provides a distinct parallel to an administration attempting to make government more efficient. The Taft administration's early 20th-century equivalent to the Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, was called the Commission on Economy and Efficiency. Unlike DOGE, created by presidential fiat via an executive order, Taft's efficiency commission was funded by Congress. Taft also delegated the work of this reorganization to trusted Cabinet subordinates, rather than an outsider who was not confirmed by Congress. Other presidents of Taft's generation would have found it unthinkable to delegate such consequential work to someone outside of the bureaucracy to the extent that Trump has empowered Musk. The work of Taft's commission took place during a time of turmoil for the role and power of the president, as the country itself became more powerful and its governance more complex, calling for increased efficiency through streamlining. Taft organized his commission in 1910, a year into his presidency. It lasted until his divided party led to his election defeat in 1912. The commission's aims were tied to economy and efficiency – as the commission itself was named. Indeed, Secretary of the Navy George von Lengerke Meyer, one of Taft's trusted Cabinet members, concisely explained how the 'main object was the establishment of a system which would enable the Secretary to administer his office efficiently and economically, with the advice of responsible expert advisers, ensuring continuity of policy for the future.' Taft came to the presidency in 1909 with clear concepts of how the nation's top office needed to become more powerful to meet the growing country's burgeoning needs. The presidency, he believed, also needed to expand its power to meet the modernizing demands of the Progressive Era in early 20th-century America. This era put new demands on government to be responsive to the country's expanding needs, from grassroots demands by voters for greater government activism to professionals seeking more efficient support for their businesses from the government. Taft was critically aware of existing inefficiency, with bureaucratic work overlapping at expense to the government, without any clear mandate, job description or hierarchy. The vision of the commission is clear in a diagram for the War Department that sought to streamline the bureaucracy, conglomerating the existing 18 divisions into eight. The Commission on Economy and Efficiency focused on providing solutions for this clearly defined problem of government inefficiency. At the time of Taft's final message to Congress in 1913, the commission had submitted 85 reports to Taft encouraging the reorganization of executive departments, including new and specifically defined roles for government employees. Unlike the radical unilateral actions taken by DOGE, the Taft commission recommended action to Congress for the long term, while making more targeted changes to the executive bureaucracy behind the scenes. Despite Taft's pleas stressing the need to sustain these changes beyond his tenure, Congress was tired of the empowerment of the executive by Republican presidents Theodore Roosevelt, followed by Taft, and had no incentive to support reorganization. This is in direct contrast to Trump and Musk's less substantiated concerns over 'fraud and abuse' or ongoing vague concerns over the size and cost of the federal government. That phrasing may inspire more consensus over the problem, but not necessarily the solution. Taft's choice to head his commission, Frederick Cleveland, was a kindred spirit who believed in a strengthened presidency. Cleveland was an academic with past affiliations with the University of Pennsylvania and New York University. Congress accepted Cleveland's nomination, seeing him as a pioneer in the realm of public administration. Cleveland fit the Progressive Era's mantra of employing experts. As a professional but not a member of the wealthy elite, and having been considered by Congress, Cleveland represents a clear distinction from Musk, who appears to have little understanding of what an average American may need from an operative federal bureaucracy. Cleveland reflected the Taft administration's approach of wanting to remold the government without animosity toward federal workers specifically or the government more broadly. He embraced the Progressive Era ethos in seeking to rectify inefficiency. Streamlining did not equate to big cuts. The priority remained ensuring the American government could meet the increased demands of the new century. Similar to DOGE, the White House was the command center for the Commission on Economy and Efficiency. That enabled Taft to manage reorganization of the executive branch from the Oval Office. Not all of the modernizing and streamlining of the federal government would come at the behest of Taft's commission. Impatient to implement change while awaiting the commission's reports, and with the commission hampered by a decrease in congressional funding in 1912, Taft had immediately sought improvement within his own administration. But when the commission's reports were finally available, Taft was in the unfortunate position of being a lame duck and could do little besides emphasize the need for further action. While limited in the short term, the commission's reports were later credited for major changes: 'Although the report fell on deaf ears in Congress, it would become an essential roadmap for the budget reforms of 1921. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 addressed and mirrored the concerns and proposals of the Commission's Report,' as described by the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation. Unlike DOGE, the approach of Taft and his commission focused on streamlining rather than gutting federal bureaucracy. That approach was reflective of an era when experts were revered and sought after rather than maligned. As an experienced bureaucrat, Taft characteristically directed that the problem of government inefficiency be studied. This secured his legacy, as his agenda was eventually put into practice and embraced, proving his reflective approach to be ahead of its time. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Laura Ellyn Smith, Arizona State University Read more: President Trump promises to make government efficient − and he'll run into the same roadblocks as Presidents Taft, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, among others Efficiency − or empire? How Elon Musk's hostile takeover could end government as we know it Trump's DOGE campaign accelerates 50-year trend of government privatization Laura Ellyn Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Critics say Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan wanted to gut antitrust agency as favor to billionaires
Ohio U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan stands with dozens of people calling for stopping the vote count in Pennsylvania on Nov. 5, 2020 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Photo by) U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio wanted to slip a sweeping measure into a spending bill that would gut the Federal Trade Commission. Critics say it's no coincidence that the FTC is suing mammoth health care conglomerates and tech giants like Amazon. Jordan is chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee. Last week, it released a version of a bill that included tax cuts, federal spending cuts and more spending at the border. It also contained provisions that would give Trump sweeping new powers to gut government regulations. It would also transfer funds and personnel currently controlled by the FTC to the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department — without the FTC's unique enforcement authority going with them. The measure was abruptly nixed, but it would have effectively killed antitrust powers Congress created more than a century ago. Amid abuses to consumers by big corporations, the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914. Antitrust enforcement by the Department of Justice dates back further, to 1903. But the Justice Department is overseen by the attorney general, a presidential appointee. Attorneys general traditionally have had a high degree of independence, but Trump is said to be politicizing the Justice Department at a breakneck pace. The FTC was created in part to be more independent. It's governed by commissioners from both parties who are appointed to fixed terms that can be renewed. Earlier this year, Trump tried to fire the two Democratic commissioners, but they say the move was illegal, and they're fighting it in court. Antitrust advocates said Trump was doing that as a favor to his billionaire supporters such as Elon Musk. The two Democratic commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, acted to block the Kroger-Albertson's mega-merger, and they voted to sue Amazon, saying it is 'illegally maintaining monopoly power.' Under Jordan's leadership, the Judiciary Committee in 2023 attacked the FTC on behalf of Musk. He's the world's richest man, whom Trump is allowing to make deep cuts to federal programs for the elderly, veterans, the poor, and agencies that promote science and health. 'THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: AN AGENCY'S OVERREACH TO HARASS ELON MUSK'S TWITTER,' read the all-caps title of the Jordan-led committee's report. A year earlier, the FTC had charged Twitter with using deceptively gathered data from users to target ads at them. If true, it would be added to the fact that an unofficial, Musk-run entity is now collecting much more sensitive government data. It's raised concerns among several federal judges who said such collections invite abuse and likely violate the law. 'One of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency lieutenants working in the Social Security Administration has been pushing dubious claims about noncitizens voting, apparently using access to data that court records suggest (the so-called Department of Government Efficiency) isn't supposed to have,' NPR reported earlier this month. The proposal from Jordan to gut the FTC could have halted major initiatives to regulate giant health conglomerates that own powerful pharmacy middlemen, said Bedoya, one of the commissioners Trump is trying to fire. Jordan's office didn't respond to a request for comment on this story. Each of the three conglomerates — UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna-Express Scripts — is among the 15 largest corporations in the United States. Each owns a top-ten health insurer and each owns a pharmacy middleman known as a pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM. Combined, the PBMs control nearly 80% of the insured drug transactions in the United States. They decide which drugs are covered and use that power to extract rebates from drugmakers. They also determine varying reimbursements to pharmacies — including ones owned by their parent companies as well as the pharmacies with which they compete. Critics — including four-fifths of state attorneys general — say they have a conflict of interest under the arrangement, and that they abuse it. Last October, the FTC sued the conglomerates, saying they used their dominance in multiple parts of the marketplace to illegally jack up the price of insulin — a drug millions of diabetics need to survive. The lawsuit comes after the agency in 2022 undertook a major investigation of the health conglomerates. In January, it released an interim report accusing the PBMs of using their dominance to instigate wild price hikes and possibly steer business to affiliated pharmacies. Politico recently reported that Jordan said his move to consolidate the FTC into the Justice Department was meant to 'address the cost of over-regulation.' 'Part of our jurisdiction in Judiciary deals with regulatory concerns and so we are looking at … spending and costs associated with certain regulations. That's why that language is written the way it was,' Politico reported him as saying. Many businesses facing regulation — and their advocates in government — have long focused only on the costs. But government regulation can also protect health, safety, the environment, economic stability and competition. Some researchers have said regulation can always be smarter, but its benefits far outweigh the costs. In a social media post last week, Bedoya, the FTC commissioner, said Jordan's proposed changes to the agency served another agenda. 'This will gut the FTC,' Bedoya wrote. 'FTC is trying to finish a study that already showed how pharmacy middlemen mark up cancer drugs by up to 4,000%. It's also suing them for allegedly competing to raise insulin prices. If this passes I have no idea what'll happen to that study and lawsuit.' Bedoya added, 'Take the lawsuit. The draft bill purports to transfer FTC lawyers and lawsuits to DOJ — but it doesn't transfer the laws that FTC enforces, or authority to enforce those laws. Look (at) page 98 — employees, assets, funding — but no authorities.' Bedoya also said that when it created the FTC, Congress meant to augment the government's antitrust powers. Jordan's changes would remove the government's ability to police 'unfair methods of competition,' Bedoya said, implying that Jordan was trying to slash the government's power to police wealthy corporations in an era when the political influence of the mega-rich is exploding and the wealth gap is yawning. 'The purpose behind the FTC's creation in 1914 was to supplement the existing enforcement mechanism (and enforcement gap created by) the Department of Justice,' Bedoya said on X. 'When FTC was created in 1914, it alone was authorized to stop something called 'unfair methods of competition.' DOJ did not get this' under Jordan's proposal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
