‘Disgusting abomination': Musk ramps up attack on Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Washington: Elon Musk amplified his criticism of the sweeping tax and spending bill that President Donald Trump has been pushing fellow Republicans in Congress to embrace, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' that will increase the deficit.
'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' the billionaire Musk wrote in an X post on Wednesday AEST.
'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.'
The House of Representatives last month passed the bill by one vote, after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the measure – which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative accomplishment in his first term – would add $US3.8 trillion ($5.9 trillion) to the federal government's $US36.2 trillion ($56 trillion) in debt
The Senate, also controlled by Trump's Republicans, aims to pass the measure in the next month, though senators are expected to revise the House-passed version of the bill.
Trump appointed Musk – the world's richest person – to lead a government cost-cutting and efficiency drive, during which he upended several federal agencies but ultimately failed to deliver the massive savings he had sought.
Musk left his formal role in the administration last week, as his time as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency came to an end.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
US not at war with Iran despite ‘Operation Midnight Hammer' attack, says Pentagon
In March, the US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that the US assessment was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' Even so, Vance told NBC's Meet the Press that the strikes had 'really pushed [Iran's] program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.' The Pentagon did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday claimed – again without evidence – that Iran has highly enriched uranium in sufficient quantities to make at least nine or 10 bombs. Rubio also claimed the world was safer and more stable than it had been prior to the US attack. Loading Negotiations could be back on, says Vance Vance claimed the US had 'negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that US President Donald Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting 'in good faith.' 'I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbours, not to a threat to the United States and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears,' Vance said. He said it would make sense for Iran to come to the negotiating table and give up their nuclear weapons program. 'If they're willing to do that, they're going to find a willing partner in the United States of America,' he said. However, Iran showed no indication of any desire to negotiate, describing the US attack as a violation of its sovereignty and international law, and vowing to defend itself through retaliatory measures. Caine said the US military had increased protection of troops in the region, including in Iraq and Syria. 'Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice,' Caine said. The United States already has a sizeable force in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops in the region, including air defence systems, fighter aircraft and warships that can detect and shoot down enemy missiles. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East. Airstrikes starting on June 12 by Israel that targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals prompted immediate retaliation from Iran. Loading The White House had said in a statement from Trump on Friday morning (AEST) that the president could take as long as two weeks to determine whether the US would enter the fray in support of Israel. In the end, it took less than a weekend for America to strike. The region has already been aflame for more than 20 months with wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and a toppled dictator in Syria. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Washington would be held responsible for whatever actions Tehran may now take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' Both Russia and China condemned the US attack. Araghchi said he would travel to Moscow for a Monday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading beyond the Middle East to 'a global level.' Israeli attacks paved way for American assault The US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences as it was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran, the Pentagon said. 'Iran's fighters did not fly and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission,' Caine said.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US not at war with Iran despite ‘Operation Midnight Hammer' attack, says Pentagon
In March, the US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that the US assessment was that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' Even so, Vance told NBC's Meet the Press that the strikes had 'really pushed [Iran's] program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.' The Pentagon did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday claimed – again without evidence – that Iran has highly enriched uranium in sufficient quantities to make at least nine or 10 bombs. Rubio also claimed the world was safer and more stable than it had been prior to the US attack. Loading Negotiations could be back on, says Vance Vance claimed the US had 'negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that US President Donald Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting 'in good faith.' 'I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbours, not to a threat to the United States and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears,' Vance said. He said it would make sense for Iran to come to the negotiating table and give up their nuclear weapons program. 'If they're willing to do that, they're going to find a willing partner in the United States of America,' he said. However, Iran showed no indication of any desire to negotiate, describing the US attack as a violation of its sovereignty and international law, and vowing to defend itself through retaliatory measures. Caine said the US military had increased protection of troops in the region, including in Iraq and Syria. 'Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice,' Caine said. The United States already has a sizeable force in the Middle East, with nearly 40,000 troops in the region, including air defence systems, fighter aircraft and warships that can detect and shoot down enemy missiles. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East. Airstrikes starting on June 12 by Israel that targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals prompted immediate retaliation from Iran. Loading The White House had said in a statement from Trump on Friday morning (AEST) that the president could take as long as two weeks to determine whether the US would enter the fray in support of Israel. In the end, it took less than a weekend for America to strike. The region has already been aflame for more than 20 months with wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and a toppled dictator in Syria. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Washington would be held responsible for whatever actions Tehran may now take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' Both Russia and China condemned the US attack. Araghchi said he would travel to Moscow for a Monday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading beyond the Middle East to 'a global level.' Israeli attacks paved way for American assault The US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences as it was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran, the Pentagon said. 'Iran's fighters did not fly and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission,' Caine said.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How Iran could hit back after US strike
The US military has a presence at no fewer than 20 bases in the Middle East and the surrounding regions. The majority of these would be within the 2000-kilometre range of Iran's Sejil-2 ballistic missile. American bases in Iraq and Syria would be likely to be first on the hit list, with Tehran then turning its attention to outposts in Arab countries. Any attempt to strike US military facilities in the Middle East is likely to be less effective than the ballistic missile attack on two US bases in Iraq in January 2020 to avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani ordered by Trump at the end of his first term. Although the attacks on the two American bases caused no fatalities, partly because Iran had issued a warning, 110 servicemen suffered concussions and other brain injuries because of the force of the impact. So great was the extent of the damage that it may have deterred Trump from retaliating. Washington also has two hulking aircraft carriers, with a third en route, deployed to the Middle East, which would be considered prime targets for Iranian missiles. Targets Israel has proven just how hard ballistic missiles, which are fired up high into the Earth's atmosphere before travelling to the ground at supersonic speeds, can be to intercept, even with what is considered one of the most sophisticated air defence systems in the world. The US military possesses at least two tried and tested surface-to-air systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles – Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, known as THAAD. Loading And they've slowly been redeploying these systems from Asia to the Middle East for months amid mounting tensions between its ally, Israel, and Iran and its Islamist proxies. America's bases in Iraq – Erbil and Ain al‑Asad air bases – have Patriot batteries positioned, which have been used to fend off militant attacks. American commanders also ordered Patriots to be removed from South Korea and placed at Isa Air Base, Bahrain, and Al Udeid Air Base in recent months. Capacity Of course, mass barrages of ballistic missiles can confuse and overwhelm these systems, as witnessed in both Israel and Ukraine. US servicemen and women will, however, be quietly confident that the Israel Defence Force has significantly reduced Iran's capacity to launch hundreds of missiles at once. Iranian salvos have drastically shrunk in size in recent days. What started as 100-projectile blitzes aimed at Israel has been reduced to just dozens of missiles being fired off at any one time. Iran's production capacity has been significantly eroded, with Israel striking various elements of the supply chain in recent days. Loading Fabian Hoffmann, a missile expert, said: 'Iran is heavily constricted in the missile domain. 'The likelihood that Iran can cause a large amount of damage is very, very slim. 'It could also be counterproductive because if you strike American infrastructure, there will be an even greater cost because you risk the Americans getting involved and really getting involved. So I think that's also a huge political consideration.' Proxies Iran's network of regional proxies was always considered its first line of defence. Hezbollah and Hamas were responsible for keeping Israel's military occupied and unable to strike at the Islamic Republic. The Yemen-based Houthi rebels also distracted the West by targeting commercial shipping in the Red Sea. Militants armed by Iran have been responsible for deadly attacks on the US base in Iraq, using one-way attack drones. It's most likely that the Houthi rebels will once again resume targeting American shipping containers travelling through the Red Sea. The militants had briefly paused attacks on American ships after Trump ramped up strikes on the group. In Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah could likely carry out its threat to 'act directly against its [US] interests and bases across the region'. But Israel's decimation of these proxy groups – chiefly Hamas and Hezbollah – in the past year is one saving grace that will comfort the Americans. 'The fact that virtually the only missiles and drones that are launched against Israel right now are coming from Iran is striking,' said Dmitri Alperovitch, chair of the Silverado Policy Accelerator think tank in Washington. Strait of Hormuz Tucked between the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf's western flank lies one of Tehran's most powerful weapons against the West. Nothing hurts a government more than the price of oil, and this narrow stretch of water between Oman and Iran is vital in the global supply. The Islamic Republic has the means to effectively shut down access to the strait, crippling shipping through the region because there are no alternative routes. The threat of its closure is perhaps why the USS Nimitz, one of America's largest aircraft carriers, is being moved into the region. Iran could quite easily close the strait by mining it, repositioning mobile ballistic missile launchers, and using maritime drones. It employed similar tactics during the so-called Tanker Wars of the 1980s – although it never fully succeeded, largely due to UK Royal Navy and later US Navy efforts to escort commercial vessels through the Gulf. This, US officials fear, would keep American naval warships in the Persian Gulf. 'Mine clearance is one of the US Navy's few weaknesses,' Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy officer, wrote in The Telegraph this week. For Tehran, closing the strait is one of the most likely ways of bringing the US into the conflict. Trump was happy to expend billions of dollars in strikes against Houthi rebels, the Iranian-backed militia, when they attempted to snarl up Western shipping through the Red Sea. The US president is acutely aware of global oil prices, and with a fifth of global petroleum shipped through Hormuz, any blockages would be likely to lead to him sanctioning some strikes to restore shipping. The other fact that makes this option particularly nuclear for Tehran is that China, the largest buyer of Iranian oil, uses the strait for shipping its purchases. This hasn't stopped Iran from meddling with shipping through GPS navigation interference. Two tankers collided and caught fire on the narrow stretch of water after allegedly being impacted by the disruption. US officials have claimed the GPS meddling originated from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, located just north of the strait. Some analysts believe Iran is unlikely to carry out such threats, fearing it would provoke Arab states into the conflict and complete Tehran's global isolation. Oil fields If the Iranian regime believed it faced an existential crisis or the irreversible destruction of its nuclear program, it could play what analysts describe as its 'last big card' by also attacking energy infrastructure in the Gulf. The world got a glimpse of what could be to come in 2019 when drone and missile strikes hit the Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels claimed responsibility – but both the US and Saudi governments accused Iran of orchestrating the attacks. Loading The attacks temporarily knocked out half of Saudi Arabia's oil production, triggering a sharp spike in global energy prices. Abqaiq, which processes 7 million barrels of crude a day – more than two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's production capacity – would almost certainly be a prime target if Iran followed through on its threats. Other potential targets include oil and LNG terminals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as oil tankers moving through the region's waters. In May 2019, limpet mines damaged three tankers and a bunkering ship off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE. No one claimed responsibility, but Western officials suspected Iranian frogmen were behind the attacks. Cyber Over the years, Iran and its regional proxies have claimed responsibility for numerous cyberattacks against Israel. They include destroying data, phishing campaigns and information operations. Given the threat poses a danger to both civilian and military worlds, the US government has been appealing for information on Iranian hackers responsible for targeting critical infrastructure. A $US10 million ($15.5 million) reward was posted for details on a group, known as CyberAv3ngers, who US officials have linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
