Category World News

Washington, DC – The ties between United States President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have seen highs and lows throughout the years.

But it all came crashing down on Thursday after months of what appeared to be an unshakable alliance in the White House.

A disagreement over Trump’s massive tax bill has escalated over the past few days, with Musk going so far as to suggest that the US president should be impeached.

In a series of social media posts, Musk launched personal attacks against Trump, culminating in a claim, made without evidence, that Trump is in the “Epstein files”.

Those documents relate to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and include travel logs and guest lists related to him and his associates. Part of the Epstein files remain secret, sparking curiosity and conspiracy theories about who might be mentioned.

Trump, meanwhile, responded with a social media fusillade of his own. He claimed he asked Musk to leave his White House role and suggested cutting the government subsidies and contracts awarded to the billionaire’s companies.

So how did the partnership between Musk and Trump collapse? And what may come next for the two men often described as the world’s richest and the world’s most powerful, respectively?

The honeymoon phase

A few months before the war of words between Musk and Trump erupted, the two seemed like an inseparable political force.

Musk had spent nearly $200m to elect Trump to a second term in 2024. Days after his successful election, Trump responded by appointing Musk to lead a newly created government cutting agency, called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Even the name of the department reflected the leeway that the billionaire investor had in Trump’s administration. The word “doge” refers to an internet meme of a dog, favoured by Musk, that became popular in 2010.

In the early weeks of Trump’s second term, Musk became one of the most prominent figures in the administration – and a lightning rod for public criticism. Under his leadership, DOGE sacked thousands of federal employees and gutted various agencies, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Musk appeared so powerful that some Democrats started to refer to him as “President Elon” to get under Trump’s skin.

But Trump and Musk presented a united front. During a Fox News interview in February, the US president and his then-adviser appeared side by side and heaped praise on one another.

“He gets it done. He’s a leader,” Trump said of Musk.

“I love the president. I just want to be clear about that,” Musk said of Trump.

Musk, who is originally from South Africa, started espousing right-wing views over the past few years and grew vocally critical of Democrats and progressives.

Those views became more prominent after he bought the social media platform Twitter, now X, in 2022. As he started to tilt rightward, he used the platform to bash irregular migration and efforts he believed aimed to police free speech, particularly with regards to identity politics and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even during Musk’s political realignment, however, he and Trump exchanged stern criticism. For example, in July 2022, Musk posted that Trump was getting to be “too old to be chief executive of anything”, much less the presidency.

He also initially backed Trump’s Republican rival in the 2024 presidential race, Ron DeSantis, even hosting the Florida governor’s campaign launch on X.

But the failed assassination attempt against Trump would cement Musk’s shift in allegiance. After a bullet grazed Trump at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024, Musk announced he would “fully endorse” the Republican leader.

He even joined Trump for a return to Butler in September of last year.

The unravelling

The cliche in politics is that there are no permanent enemies or permanent allies, only permanent interests. That appears to be the case for Trump, who has a history of firing advisers and disavowing former friends.

Musk is only the latest high-profile rupture – and one that might not come as a surprise to political observers.

The unravelling of Trump’s “bromance” with Musk comes at the tail end of a rocky few months, as rumours swirled about closed-door clashes between the billionaire and the president’s inner circle.

In April, Musk announced that he would be spending less time at DOGE. By that time, his role appeared to be diminishing, with the billionaire no longer dominating headlines or regularly appearing in the Oval Office.

Late in May, Musk criticised the White House-backed tax and budget proposal, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told the TV programme CBS Sunday Morning.

The bill cuts electric vehicle (EV) subsidies that boost Musk’s Tesla car company. But Musk has maintained his opposition to the bill lies in its increases to the national debt and its byzantine provisions: The bill clocks in at more than 1,000 pages.

The notoriously confrontational Trump, who had pinned his vision for the economy on the bill, kept his cool amid Musk’s early criticisms. He even acknowledged to reporters, “I’m not happy about certain aspects of [the bill].”

The two men made a public appearance together afterwards in the Oval Office, where Trump celebrated the end of Musk’s role as a special government employee. Even then, Trump insisted that Musk was “not really leaving” his team.

Once out of the government, though, Musk not only voiced discontent with the budget bill; he appeared to be lobbying against it. The bill had narrowly passed in the House of Representatives, only to face similarly steep odds in the Senate.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on X on Monday.

“Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

The US president shot back on Thursday, starting with an appearance in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

“ I’m very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here,” Trump said. “ He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem.”

Trump told the assembled reporters that Musk’s reaction was a backlash to his EV policies. He also speculated that Musk would have preferred to stay in the White House.

“ I’ll be honest, I think he misses the place,” Trump said. “ It’s sort of Trump derangement syndrome. We have it with others, too. They leave, and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour’s gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile.”

Afterwards, Trump took his criticisms to his social media platform, Truth Social.

“Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post.

All the while, Musk had been posting on social media, criticising Trump’s bill and taking credit for his re-election campaign.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote. “Such ingratitude.”

What’s next, and who will win?

What happens next remains unclear. Although Musk has gained popularity within the Republican base, his political rise was partly due to his association with Trump.

He may now find himself loathed by both Democrats and Trump loyalists.

The US president, on the other hand, has a track record of surviving public scandals, including criminal charges.

Trump has also shown apparent willingness to use the government’s power against his rivals, most recently ordering an investigation into the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.

Already, Trump has warned of risks to Musk’s businesses, including the rocket company SpaceX and the communications firm Starlink. “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote.

Still, Musk can also hurt Trump’s agenda. In his inauguration speech, Trump envisioned planting a US flag on Mars, but on Thursday, Musk said he plans to decommission a SpaceX rocket that the US uses to reach the International Space Station, as retaliation for Trump’s words.

Musk could also align with fiscally conservative lawmakers to block Trump’s signature tax bill in the Senate.

Despite Musk going on the offensive against Trump on Thursday, the US president used one of his later social media posts to shift the focus to his One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It’s a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

In response to a new law that prevents its international students from entering the United States, Harvard University has expanded its already-extended lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration.

The prestigious Ivy League school filed a revised complaint on Thursday alleging that Trump’s most recent executive order is infringing on students’ rights.

Trump issued an executive order just one day earlier, claiming that “it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally” to attend Harvard.

He referred to Harvard’s international students as “a class of aliens” whose arrival “would be detrimental to the United States’ interests.” He claimed that as a result of this, the Immigration and Nationality Act had the authority to refuse them entry.

Harvard, however, dismissed that claim in the court filing on Thursday as the most recent salvo in Trump’s months-long campaign to harm the university.

According to the amended complaint, “The President’s actions are not intended to defend the “interests of the United States,” but rather to launch a government vendetta against Harvard.

Further, it claimed that the Trump administration was trying to evade a previous court order that had prevented Harvard from registering foreign students by issuing a new executive order to restrict students’ entry.

Trump’s most recent attack on Harvard’s foreign students was requested by US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Massachusetts.

More than 7, 000 F-1 and J-1 visa holders and their dependents have “become pawns in the government’s growing campaign of retaliation,” according to Harvard.

After serving for a second term as president, Trump launched his campaign against Harvard and other well-known universities earlier this year. He attributed it to the universities for failing to respond more harshly to the Palestinian solidarity demonstrations that started popping up on their campuses following Israel’s occupation of Gaza.

The president vowed to outlaw foreign students from the US who took part in the demonstrations and called them anti-Semitic. Meanwhile, protest organizers claim that their objectives were peaceful and that a select few people’s actions have tarnished the movement as a whole.

Trump has also been accused of using the protests to sway more authority over the nation’s universities, including Columbia University, one of the Ivy League schools, and private schools like Harvard.

Columbia was forced to cut off $400 million in federal funding in the first few months of March, following the same-day protests on national campuses across the country.

The school later agreed to a list of demands made by the Trump administration, including a review of its Middle Eastern studies program and changes to its disciplinary procedures.

Additionally, a list of requirements was provided for Harvard University to follow. However, it turned down because it worried that the restrictions would restrict its ability to study.

For the Trump administration, the government should allow the federal government to audit its hiring and admissions procedures in order to “establish viewpoint diversity.” They also demanded that Harvard abandon its diversity programs. When those demands were not met, it then began to defraud Harvard of its billion-dollar federal funding.

Trump also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status and forbid it from receiving any upcoming federal research grants.

However, Harvard’s international students’ attacks have threatened to reduce tuition costs as well. Worldwide, almost a quarter of Harvard’s student body comes from abroad.

The Department of Homeland Security made the announcement in May that Harvard would no longer be able to access a system called the Student Exchange Visitor Program, where it is required to log information from foreign students.

If Harvard students were currently enrolled there on a student visa, that would have forced them to transfer to another university. Additionally, it would have prevented Harvard from accepting any more international students.

Harvard, however, criticized the Trump administration’s actions as “retaliatory” and “unlawful.”

Judge Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a restraining order on May 23 to halt the restriction’s effect. The Trump administration has since continued to put pressure on Harvard and other institutions.

President Donald Trump’s administration threatened to punish officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC), naming four judges as having committed “illegitimate and baseless conduct” against the United States and its allies.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the announcement on Thursday in a concise statement.

Rubio wrote that the ICC is “politized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute citizens of the United States and our allies.”

The United States and our allies, including Israel, are in violation of this dangerous assertion and abuse of power.

Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza of Peru, Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini Gansou of Benin, and Slovenian Beti Hohler are the four sanctioned judges.

The judges will have their US-based property and assets blocked as a result of the sanctions. Additionally, it is against the law for US-based companies to conduct business with them, even through “provision of funds, goods, or services.”

The ICC responded with a quick statement, saying it “deplores” the Trump administration’s decision and stood by its judges.

The statement read, “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution that operates under the authority of 125 States Parties from all corners of the globe,” the statement said.

“Targeting those who seek accountability is ineffective for helping civilians who are ensnared in conflict.” It only encourages those who think they can commit crimes with impunity.

The judges are who?

In a fact sheet, the State Department stated that during Trump’s first term as president, Bossa and Ibanez Carranza were fined for launching an investigation into US forces in Afghanistan in 2020.

Prior to this time, the ICC had blocked a request to investigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan, which the US had been fighting steadily from 2001 to 2021.

The following year, it reversed course, granting a prosecutor’s request to look into US forces and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel for war crimes committed in “secret detention facilities” in Afghanistan and other locations.

The court made the point that Afghanistan was a member of the 125 nations that the ICC has jurisdiction over.

The ICC was described as a “political institution masquerading as a legal body” by the Trump administration at the time, though. The US, which is not a member of the Rome Statute, is argued for a while that the ICC is not competent.

Israel, which has used comparable arguments to reject the ICC’s authority over its actions in Palestine, is another non-member of the Rome Statute.

According to the US State Department, Alapini Gansou and Hohler, the second pair of judges named in Thursday’s sanctions were given criminal penalties for their conduct against Israeli leaders.

Israel’s oldest ally was the US, which recognized the nation in 1948. Since then, it has extended its strong support to Israel, including in the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has so far claimed the lives of 54, 607 Palestinians.

As reports of alleged human rights violations continue to surface, experts at the UN and human rights organizations have compared Israel’s military campaign in Gaza to genocide.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have both been accused of war crimes in Gaza, including intentional attacks on civilians, and the ICC issued arrest warrants for them in November 2024 as a result of those accusations.

Hohler and Alapini Gansou reportedly participated in those negotiations.

Has this ever occurred before?

Since Trump took office for a second term on January 20th, the US has placed restrictions on an ICC official for the first time.

Trump issued a broad executive order shortly after taking office that slapped anyone who participated in ICC investigations. Critics warned that broad language like that could obstruct the administration of justice, for instance by barring witnesses from presenting evidence.

Trump argued, however, that such measures were required by the recent arrest warrants for Gallant and Netanyahu.

He added that the ICC’s investigations threatened military members with “harassment, abuse, and possible arrest” and that the US and Israel were “thriving democracies” that “strictly adhere to the laws of war.”

The executive order stated that “this malign behavior in turn threatens to infringe on the United States’ sovereignty and undermines the United States Government’s and our allies’ critical efforts in foreign policy, including Israel.

Karim Khan, a prosecutor for the ICC, was sanctioned by the US in accordance with that order after petitioning the court for the arrest warrants for Gallant and Netanyahu. In response, the investigation into Israel’s actions in Gaza was slowed down, and Khan later resigned because of sexual misconduct allegations.

Trump has a history of opposing the ICC, which dates back to the beginning of his presidency. For instance, Trump announced that his administration would refuse or yank visas for ICC officials involved in the US military’s investigation of Afghan troops in 2019.

In response, he sanctioned Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the ICC, and Phakiso Mochochoko, a court official, for their involvement in the investigation in 2020. Under President Joe Biden, those choices were later reversed.

However, critics warn that Trump’s actions could have long-term detrimental effects for the ICC, which relies on its members to carry out arrest warrants and other orders. The court has requested that the threats be removed.