What's really fueling Elon Musk's latest outburst against Trump's tax bill?
Good morning! Doing one thing every day that makes you smarter is a good goal to have. Here's my suggestion for today: Subscribe to BI Tech Memo. Alistair Barr is the best in the biz at breaking down what's going on in Big Tech. (And it's free!)
In today's big story, Elon Musk had some not-so-nice things to say about President Donald Trump's tax bill.
What's on deck
Markets: They might be in secondaries, but they're still on top. Meet the key execs in Wall Street's hottest market.
Business: Florida real estate is showing cracks, and it could be a red flag for the rest of the country.
But first, I just can't stand it anymore.
If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.
The big story
Elon has something to say
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and Elon Musk doesn't see anything pretty in the "Big Beautiful Bill."
The billionaire railed against President Donald Trump's tax bill Tuesday afternoon, calling it a " disgusting abomination."
Musk, known for keeping his opinions to himself, posted on X that he "just can't stand it anymore," before criticizing the "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill."
"Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," he added.
He's not the only one attacking Trump's bill. Some within the president's own party have gone after it for fueling the government's growing deficit.
So what's behind Musk's outburst?
Here's what could be rubbing him the wrong way about the bill:
DOGE disappointment: According to one estimate, Trump's tax bill will increase the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. That's probably a difficult pill to swallow for Musk, who was tasked with cutting that down via DOGE.
The group took extreme measures trying to achieve that, and Musk faced plenty of professional and personal backlash. Now he's seeing the tax bill "undermine" — his words, not mine — all of that work.
Musk Inc. and the tax bill: Despite his recent foray into politics, Musk is still a business owner at heart. Trump's tax bill has real implications for his companies, both good (SpaceX) and bad (Tesla). BI's Ana Altchek, Alice Tecotzky and Kelsey Vlamis have a breakdown on what it means for his portfolio.
The end of a friendship: Since the Trump-Musk bromance first blossomed, people have speculated when it might end. As BI's Peter Kafka put it shortly after the election, "both men are famously short-fused" and "adore the spotlight."
"And that combination makes it easy to imagine a break-up down the line," Peter added.
We've seen cracks in the relationship before. The dustup over the government funding bill led to jokes about Musk being the real leader of the GOP. That elicited a response from a Trump spokesperson. Musk also clashed with Trump's base over H-1B visas.
Just Elon being Elon: Sometimes the best explanation is the simplest. Musk has a history of shooting from the hip with his takes. (Being the richest person in the world affords you that privilege.) He's already said that he and Trump didn't always see eye to eye. This could just be another example of that.
3 things in markets
1. The Nvidia hype is back. The chip giant's stock has climbed 20% over the last month. After bottoming in April during a broader market sell-off, Nvidia's stock is now up 45%. These are four big catalysts spurring it on.
2. Six Wall Street veterans on the best trades they've ever made. Senior money managers told BI about the highlights of their investing careers, from buying undervalued stocks to making well-timed exits. One talked about shorting GameStop.
3. Power players in secondaries. The secondaries market — in which investors buy and sell secondhand shares of private funds — is on pace to break last year's record highs of $160 billion. Meet 14 people who took the industry from niche to new heights.
3 things in tech
1. How can you make AI your coworker, not your replacement? The HR-tech startup Lattice thinks it has the answer. The CEO of the company, which makes AI agents for the workplace, told BI that embracing AI now would help protect jobs, not threaten them.
2. Microsoft's copycat strategy. The company's latest exec Jay Parikh is adopting Amazon CEO Andy Jassy's strategies for his new AI organization, Core AI, according to an internal email viewed by BI. Parikh shared takeaways from an annual letter Jassy sent to Amazon shareholders in a memo. Here are three of his takeaways.
3. The pure internet is gone. Did anyone save a copy? Since ChatGPT came out, the internet has been flooded with AI-generated content. That's sent researchers diving deep to preserve content made by humans prior to 2022, BI's Alistair Barr writes.
3 things in business
1. Trouble in paradise. Florida was the undisputed winner of the pandemic relocation boom, luring millions of new residents with its beaches and low taxes. Now, Floridians are experiencing an affordability crisis, hurricane-fueled insurance nightmares, and more. It's also a warning for America's real-estate market.
2. A business immigration lawyer on Trump 2.0. The Trump administration is being as strict as possible when it comes to work-visa applications, attorney Jason Finkelman told BI. With the amount of effort and hoops to jump through, Finkelman believes it's designed to frustrate US companies into giving up on hiring foreign workers.
3. This longtime middle manager supports flattening middle management. Alvaro Munevar Jr. told BI he'd seen middle management practices that siloed workers and slowed productivity. But as Big Tech culls those roles, the remaining ones could still evolve significantly. A LinkedIn executive said managers will need to be more like coaches to keep teams' energy up.
In other news
'Looksmaxxing' is all the rage on ChatGPT. I tried it myself — and I don't recommend it.
Amazon is in talks to roll out AI coding assistant Cursor internally as employee interest spikes.
International schools to Harvard students: Come here, life's a beach.
The Palantir job that grows startup founders.
Voyager eyes a $1.6 billion IPO amid defense tech boom.
It's official: Trump's tariffs are damaging the economy.
Danny Boyle confirms Cillian Murphy will appear in the '28 Years Later' sequel.
Airlines and planemakers warn that credit card legislation could end frequent-flier rewards.
Dollar General's sales are climbing as higher-income shoppers opt for cheaper deals.
What's happening today
The Business Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco, deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Hallam Bullock, senior editor, in London. Grace Lett, editor, in Chicago. Amanda Yen, associate editor, in New York. Lisa Ryan, executive editor, in New York. Ella Hopkins, associate editor, in London. Elizabeth Casolo, fellow, in Chicago.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's military attack on Iran reveals split among Maga diehards
Saturday's US strikes on Iran provoked conflicting reactions from isolationist Republicans who support Donald Trump's 'Make America great again' (Maga) movement, catching them – like many Democrats – between supporting efforts against nuclear proliferation and opposing American intervention in foreign conflicts. The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – a loyalist to the president – reacted to the strikes by urging those in the US to pray that terrorists do not attack 'our homeland' in retaliation. 'Let us join together and pray for the safety of our US troops and Americans in the Middle East,' Greene wrote on X. But Greene had not been so supportive in a message posted 30 minutes before Trump announced news of the surprise strikes on Saturday evening. Related: Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran In that message, Greene wrote: 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war. There would not be bombs falling on the people of Israel if [its prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had not dropped bombs on the people of Iran first. Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer.' The former Trump White House adviser Steve Bannon, who has been an opponent of US military intervention in Iran, hit out at the president for thanking Netanyahu in a national address shortly after the strikes. Speaking on his War Room web show, Bannon said, 'It hasn't been lost … that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank.' That came amid ongoing speculation that Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday stemmed from information that Iran was close to developing a weapon – as supplied by Israeli, and not US, intelligence sources. The issue created an apparent split between Trump and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The president recently criticized Gabbard and the US intelligence community, saying they were 'wrong' in assessing that Iran had not taken the political step of ordering a bomb. Gabbard has denied that she and Trump were not on the same page. Nonetheless, Bannon continued his criticism of the strikes, saying: 'I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck.' The former White House adviser also criticized Trump for leaving open the possibility of further US strikes if Iran fails to capitulate to US demands. 'I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of Maga wanted to hear,' he said. 'It sounded … very open-ended.' Days earlier, amid signs of a Maga rebellion against the administration's increasingly hawkish stance on Iran, Bannon told an audience in Washington that bitterness over the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a driving force for Trump's first presidential victory. 'One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. Bannon, though, said 'the Maga movement will back Trump' despite its opposition to military interventions. But there are now signs that the Maga 'America first' isolationist position may be more amenable to limited airstrikes. The administration has stressed that Saturday's raids only targeted Iran's nuclear enrichment and not manufacturing locations, population centers or economic assets, including the oil terminal at Karg island. Related: Cheering support and instant condemnation: US lawmakers respond to attack on Iran The far-right influencer Charlie Kirk had warned of a Maga divide over Iran, saying 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' Yet on Sunday, Kirk reposted a clip of an interview with JD Vance on Meet the Press in which the vice-president praised the B-2 pilots from Missouri who carried out the previous day's bombing. 'They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine, and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East,' Vance said in the clip. 'Whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished.' In that interview, Vance suggested Trump had 'probably' decided by mid-May that the diplomatic process with Iran was 'not going anywhere'. But Vance refused to be drawn on when precisely Trump approved the strike, saying it probably came 'over time'.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europeans back higher defence spending amid Russia threat, poll finds
Faced with an unpredictable Donald Trump and an aggressive Russia, Europeans favour increased spending on defence and, in some countries, compulsory military service. A survey of 12 countries for the European Council on Foreign Relations showed majorities for increased defence spending in Poland (70%), Denmark (70%) and the UK (57%). Support was softer elsewhere, but large minorities in Germany (47%), Spain (46%) and France (45%) also backed bigger military budgets. Italy was an outlier: only 17% favoured higher spending, with 57% against. Europeans in several countries supported reintroducing mandatory military service, with the crucial exception of 18- to 29-year-olds – those most likely to be called up in any armed conflict. People in France (62%), Germany (53%) and Poland (51%) were the strongest supporters of military service. Opposition to the idea outweighed support in countries including Italy (50% against), the UK (53%), Spain (56%) and Hungary (58%). Older people were keenest on the draft. In Germany, for example, a net total of 49% of over-70s supported military service, while a net total of 46% of 18- to 29-year-olds opposed the idea. The research also found the European public divided sharply over Trump, whose return to the US presidency has scrambled traditional allegiances to Washington. Countries with traditionally strong ties with the US are becoming increasingly sceptical of the US system: in the UK and Germany, majorities of 74% and 67% think it is broken. 'EU-US relations are now increasingly ideological,' the ECFR's Ivan Krastev and Mark Leonard wrote in a paper to accompany the findings. 'In many respects the relations of the far-right parties to Trump start to resemble the relationship of former communist parties to the Soviet Union in the cold war. They feel obliged to defend Trump and to imitate him.' European far-right parties, which often took inspiration from Vladimir Putin's Russia, now look to Trump's system as a model, the authors suggest. In contrast, voters for mainstream parties are critical of Trump and the US political system. Far-right and national populist allegiance to Trump exists, despite sizeable minorities of voters for those parties seeing his re-election as bad news for Americans. For instance, 34% of AfD voters in Germany, 28% of France's National Rally supporters and 30% of Reform UK voters consider Trump's re-election as 'very bad' or 'rather bad' for Americans. The findings come on the eve of a Nato summit this week where members of the alliance will be asked to raise defence spending to at least 5% of GDP a year by 2032. Spain has already rejected the target as 'unreasonable' and 'counterproductive'. Italy wants to delay the deadline until 2035. Voters in most countries polled are sceptical that Europe can be independent of the US. Citizens in Germany, Spain, Poland and Italy were more likely to say it would be very difficult or practically impossible for the EU to become independent of the US in defence and security. Only in Denmark did a slim majority (52%) consider it was possible for the EU to achieve autonomy in defence and security. Denmark, which is directly threatened by Trump's claims over Greenland, also showed the highest antipathy towards the US president: 86% believe the US political system is broken, while 76% rated Trump's re-election as a bad thing for US citizens. Several European publics support developing an alternative national nuclear deterrent that does not rely on the US, with the strongest support in Poland (60%), Portugal (62%) and Spain (54%). In Germany, support for such an idea was only 39%. The chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has proposed that his country could share nuclear weapons with France and Britain but also said this could not replace the US's protective shield over much of Europe. In an encouraging sign for Kyiv, most Europeans oppose following the US if Trump pushes Ukraine to cede occupied territories or lifts economic sanctions against Russia. Even in Hungary, which has a government that has consistently slowed agreement on EU sanctions, 40% oppose copying any US move to lift sanctions, while 38% were in favour. In other countries there were strong majorities against emulating any pro-Russia policy on Ukraine that may come from the US. The report's authors suggest two explanations for this support for Ukraine. 'A benevolent interpretation is that Europeans support an autonomous European policy to support Ukraine and they don't want to blindly follow Trump's lead. But another reading of that data is that Europeans want Ukrainians to continue fighting on their behalf.' Leonard said: 'Our poll shows that Europeans feel unsafe and that Trump is driving demand for increased defence spending, the reintroduction of military service and an extension of nuclear capabilities across much of Europe.' Krastev, who is chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, said: 'The real effect of Trump's second coming is that the United States now presents a credible model for Europe's far right. To be pro-American today mostly means to be sceptical of the EU; to be pro-European means being critical of Trump's America.' Pollsters commissioned by ECFR spoke to 16,440 adults last month.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk Here are five big questions about what comes next. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
