White House brushes off Musk–Navarro clash: 'Boys will be boys'

Listen to article
The White House on Tuesday played down a fiery public feud between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Trump's senior trade adviser Peter Navarro, after the two clashed over the administration's aggressive new tariff strategy.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the dispute during her briefing, describing the clash as little more than a difference of opinion.
'These are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs,' Leavitt said. 'Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue.'
The feud ignited over the weekend after President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs affecting imports from multiple countries — a move supported by Navarro but publicly criticised by Musk.
Navarro, a vocal supporter of protectionist trade policies, suggested in a interview that Tesla doesn't fully qualify as a US manufacturer due to its reliance on components from overseas.
He argued that Trump's tariffs were meant to bring manufacturing back to American cities like Akron and Flint.
Musk fired back sharply on social media, calling Navarro 'truly a moron' and 'dumber than a sack of bricks.'
In another post, he used a slur, referring to the adviser as 'Peter Retarrdo,' and claimed Navarro's statements were 'demonstrably false.'
'Tesla has the most American-made cars,' Musk wrote. 'By any definition, we are the most vertically integrated US auto manufacturer.'
Tesla has topped Cars.com's American-Made Index since 2021, based on where parts are sourced and where vehicles are assembled.
Despite the personal tone, the White House brushed off the controversy, framing it as part of a broader culture of openness in the administration.
'The president takes all opinions in mind, and then he makes the best decision based on the best interests of the American public,' Leavitt said.
This isn't the first time Musk has diverged from Trump publicly, but the trade dispute marks a more pronounced policy split between the president and one of his highest-profile allies.
Musk has previously advocated for free trade, even calling for zero tariffs between the US and Europe during a public event in Italy.
Navarro, when asked by CNBC about the dispute, downplayed it: 'Everything is good with Elon, no problem.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Express Tribune

2 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Review: The Stationery Shop of Tehran

Marjan Kamali is an award-winning, Iranian-American novelist and author, whose books have received both national and international acclaim and have been translated and published in more than 25 languages. Born in Turkey to Iranian parents, she spent her childhood in Turkey, Iran, Germany, and Kenya, before settling in the US. Her debut novel, Together Tea, was published in 2013 and the third and till now the last, The Lion Women of Tehran, was published in 2024. The Stationery Shop under review here is her second book, published in 2019. Her second book, The Stationery Shop of Tehran is a bittersweet love story that is easy to read but full of intense feelings of love, betrayal, and longing. Seventeen-year-old Roya is a dreamy, idealistic schoolgirl living amid the political upheaval of 1950s in Tehran. Her favourite pastime is visiting the stationery shop owned by Mr Fakhri, who has stocked it well with shelves and shelves full of beautiful stationery items—fountain pens, shiny ink bottles, and thick pads of writing paper—but also carries translations of literature from all over the world as well as books of Rumi's love poetry. It is here in this shop that she meets 17-year-old Bahman, who is not only handsome but has a burning passion for justice and a love for Rumi's poetry and who, Mr Fakhri tells Roya, is 'the boy who wants to change the world'. Their romance, along with their mutual love of books and Rumi's poetry, blossoms, and the stationery shop remains their favourite place in all of Tehran. Her parents are forward-looking with liberal views and have ambitions for their daughters, with the father encouraging them to study well and become the likes of Marie Curie and Hellen Keller. They meet Braham and he is accepted not just because he is their daughter's choice but also because he holds similar political views as them—both are pro-democracy and support the then prime minister Mossadegh, who they believed was the only one who could stand up to the foreign powers. After the engagement, she feels more comfortable meeting him in public. She meets him for dates at café Ghanadi where he introduces her to pastries and coffee, as against Roya's normal drink—tea—and takes her to parties where she sees boys and girls mingling freely and learns to dance the tango. Everything in her life was changing and her thinking opened politically since she fell in love with Bahman, an activist. Those were the times when the country was in turmoil and then Bahman suddenly disappears, leaving Roya searching for him. She learns from Mr Fakhri that being an activist he had to go in hiding and the only way to contact him was through letters through Mr Fakhri. She revels this little contact and cherishes his letters. A few weeks before their planned marriage, for reasons unknown, they decide to secretly marry at the office of Marriage and Divorce, and he asks her to meet at one of the town squares. On the decided day—August 19, 1953, a day marked with violence in Iran's history—Roya alone waited for her fiancé at the town square, but Bahman never showed up. As violence erupts, she returns home dejected and later in the day learns of the coup d'état that changed their country's future (and theirs too). Roya tries desperately to contact Bahman but her efforts remained fruitless. It was as if he had disappeared from the face of the earth. Heartbroken Roya had to piece her life together for her parents' sake who, wanting her to be happy and safe, enrolled her and her younger sister Zari in Mills College in California. Both the sisters moved to California, on international scholarships, where they try to fulfil their father's dreams of scientific and literary careers for them. Moving from a sheltered family life into a new country they try to get used to the new ways of life (shaking hands, wearing shoes inside the house), new food (burgers and fries), and together learnt how to practice the nuances of a new language. Zari, whom back in Tehran, Roya often thought of vain and self-absorbed, 'absorbed this new American culture as though she were inhaling the air that would keep her from drowning', while Roya took her time. However, as time passed Roya too moved on, met and married Walter, and rebuilt her life. She is apparently happy with him and her life, though there had been difficult times such as the loss of her daughter. Yet such was her love for Bahman that no matter how many years went by, whenever Roya was alone in her thoughts, it was Bahman she reflected on. Though the readers' direct contact with Bahman was lost, we learn that four and a half years after the coup, or to say four and a half years since Roya and Bahman were to marry, Bahman married another woman. Bahman's friend Jahangir would sometimes pass on some news to Roya. It was from him that she learnt that Bahman was (ironically) 'working in the oil industry. Just as his mother wanted. Roya imagined him … going to work to learn how to maximise the profits of oil.' Through flashback, the reader learns about Bahman's past and his connection with Mr Fakhri. The story about the young lovers is pieced together through letters, that Bahman wrote to Roya but never sent. And then, sixty years after being separated and leading separate lives fate leads her back to Bahman and offers her a chance to ask him the questions that haunted her for more than half a century: Why didn't you come? Why and where did you disappear? How is it that you were able to forget me? Not only Roya but Bahman too wanted to know what happened and why Roya didn't come to meet him at the town square sixty years ago on that fateful day. Bahman had lost not only Roya but all the work he had done to bring about political change in his country. It is almost till the very end that the readers remain guessing what happened to Bahman and why he didn't come to the town square where he had promised to meet Roya and didn't even try to contact her later. One feels sad when one learns who manipulated and played with the fates of the young lovers, but I will leave it to the readers to discover it for themselves as writing any further would spoil the suspense that one carries till the end. The book is set in the Iran of 1950s (at least the first half of the book) when the country was in grips of political upheaval. During this devastating political havoc of 1953, that disrupted Roya and Bahman's lives, Mohammad Mossadegh was the prime minister of Iran. Many people in Iran loved him and believed that he was their democratic leader who had the courage to stand up to foreign powers who wanted their oil. He was 'hope' for the many people who felt he was the right man to achieve democracy. On the other hand, the anti-Mosaddegh people and the supporters of the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) were not happy; they believed that Mosaddegh was a communist and not only wanted to replace him but wanted him dead. It was also believed that the anti-Mossadegh people had the support of Western powers as Mossadegh wanted control over Iran's oil. Demonstrations had been taking place and were getting ugly and frightening. Protesters were shouting 'Marg Bar Tudeh; Death to the Communists'. (Tudeh is Iranian communist party, formed in 1941) 'Murg Bar Mossadegh' (death to Mossadegh). After a failed coup attempt earlier, on August 19, 1953, (the day when Roya was waiting for Bahman at the town square), the protesters 'attacked the prime minister's house, looted some of its contents, ran off with the rest. Destroyed it.' Though Mossadegh managed to escape, the coup had succeeded. The world had changed forever. It is an eye opener how foreign powers support people with vested interests to prevent others from bringing a change in the national interest. Along with the history, the readers get a glimpse of life and culture of Iran in the 1950. The country was much liberal under the Shah, 'who continued the advocacy for the rights of women that his father Reza Shah had begun.' Roya's mother had 'dropped the hijab as soon as Reza Shah enforced a no-veil policy for women back in the 1930s. She welcomed reforms for the emancipation of women even as her more religious relatives cringed at farangi foreign-embracing ways.' There is also an interesting account of Roya visiting a local bath (hammam) where attendants give her a bath and pamper her; though there still are hammams in Iran, most people have baths in their homes. We note that even at that time political awareness was such that even the attending girls at the hammam openly expressed their views. There are multiple references to Nowruz—the Persian New Year—and detailed descriptions of recipes using saffron and rose water which fit seamlessly into the narrative, first in Tehran where we learn of the various Persian dishes that the girls' mother prepares and later they become Roya's connection to her past. She introduces Walter to Persian cuisine and often cooks them for him. Along with the love story of the two teenagers and life in Iran in the 1950, the book exposes the complexities of relationships and how they influence the lives of the loved ones, as well as issues of immigration and cultural assimilation, aging, regrets, sorrows, and quirks of fate. The fact that the book brings to life the political history of Iran makes it worth reading by those who love political fiction as well as those who want to familiarise themselves with the political history and culture of Iran. Rizwana Naqvi is a freelance journalist and tweets @naqviriz; she can be reached at naqvi59rizwana@ All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the writer

Express Tribune

2 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Trump's war on the undocumented

It begins in the dead of night – ICE agents raiding factories, restaurants and farms, while families sleep unaware as the state flexes its full disciplinary muscle, reviving the ghosts of America's exclusionary past with a vengeance that is unmistakably contemporary. What Donald Trump hails as 'the largest deportation operation in American history' is unfolding as a dark and sweeping expansion of state machinery – an iron-fisted blend of ICE raids, sprawling detention centres and legal shortcuts dug up from the dustiest corners of America's statute books to shore up both physical and social borders. Framed as the fulfilment of his campaign vows, Trump's vision for a 'new America' rests on what Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito terms 'immunitas': the sovereign's feverish attempt to insulate itself from perceived contamination. In the Trumpian worldview, the 'disposable labour' extracted from nations long ravaged by US foreign policy is now being cast aside like a used tool – mercilessly and by design. Even some of Trump's allies are starting to shift in their seats. Joe Rogan, one of his most prominent supporters, recently sounded an alarm: 'We've got to be careful that we don't become monsters while we're fighting monsters.' However, the warnings from the populist leader's base remain steeped in the same obscene necropolitical logic that draws lines between the human and the subhuman – the 'monsters'. The protests now erupting across the US are not new but mark a renewed moment of convergence between immigration enforcement and a long, bloody history of racialised labour control. From the Chinese Exclusion Act to ICE's post-9/11 rise, the American state has always policed its borders by criminalising racialised 'others' while exploiting their labour. The Trump-era raids echo the worksite crackdowns of the 1980s and Obama's courthouse arrests. However, with 80-strong factory raids, convoys blocking roads and National Guard troops deployed without state consent, this is a new escalation. There is no new crisis driving the ongoing assault but an old political trick: manufacture the spectacle of invasion to fuel nationalist panic and weaponise it against workers and dissent. Across the country, working-class communities – immigrant and non-immigrant alike – have taken to the streets. From handcuffed migrants to student walkouts, from union banners to handmade placards reading 'Mi familia, no se separa,' the resistance is multi-generational and deeply grounded. The border wars and the street wars have converged. For many, the raids are not just about immigration. They reject the logics of neoliberal 'security', challenging the premise that human life can be reduced to economic cost or to statistics in a detention ledger. In Washington, a different story is being told. The Trump administration, flanked by DHS officials and amplified by mainstream networks, insists this is a crackdown on 'criminals'. Protestors are dismissed as 'lawless mobs'. Trump, in his typical red meat rhetoric, even declared that Los Angeles had been 'invaded and occupied' and vowed to 'liberate' it. Attorney General Ashley Bell pledged to prosecute protestors aggressively. However, immigrant communities, organisers and rights activists see through the smoke, contending that the real criminals are those tearing families apart to prop up a neoliberal system that depends on cheap, precarious and deportable labour. Undocumented migrants have long formed a surplus army for US capitalism, hyper-exploitable because their fear makes them compliant. Seen through this lens, border enforcement is a farce dressed as a national security issue. It's about preserving racial capitalism, disciplining people of colour and preserving profit margins. The 'rule-of-law' narrative is thus inverted: the deeper violence lies not in protest, but in decades of war, trade policy and austerity that drive migration. Colonial Legacies and Necropolitics The domestic clashes cannot be understood without their global and historical context. The US border is not a neutral line. It is a colonial scar. From Indigenous dispossession to wars in Mexico and the Caribbean, the very idea of the border was forged in empire. Migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America or the Caribbean are not 'invaders', they are survivors of systems created, in part, by US policy. Their displacement is the aftershock of coups, land grabs and extractive economics. As protesters take to the streets with Mexican and Black flags, slogans like 'Here we stay' invoke historical truth: these cities were built by the very people now being hunted. Through the lens of Frantz Fanon, one sees how the immigrant becomes a 'zone of non-being', excluded from rights so the state can justify violence and deprived of the 'right to have all rights'. Fanon's psychology of the oppressed reveals that the migrant is demonised in discourse precisely to justify state violence. Indeed, as Fanon noted, the social order locks 'white people into whiteness, Black people into blackness'. The point is both theoretical and practical: immigrants exist outside the democratic community in the state's eyes, made 'other' so their rights are negotiable. Under such logic, US immigration policy embodies what Achille Mbembe has called necropolitics: the power to define who may live and who must die or suffer. Migrants in detention centres are literally at the mercy of a system designed to wear them down psychologically and physically. Reports of children in cages, or men packed into vans with little water, reveal a state's willingness to inflict slow violence. One organiser reported that 'intimidation and terror' – the kind seen in San Diego's restaurant raids – is now routine. The state is not just locking people up to fight crime. It is managing poverty while disciplining surplus lives. That's the essence of what Loïc Wacquant calls 'prisonfare'. Immigration raids slot neatly into this logic: not just law enforcement, but a pipeline into the detention-industrial complex. While the discourse on criminal justice reform grows louder, migrants remain outside its moral perimeter – detained without charges, deported without explanation, excluded from rights others are beginning to reclaim. By the Numbers Trump's ambition is staggering: one million deportations in his first year. The US currently houses around 13 million undocumented immigrants—roughly 4% of its population. Nearly 80% have lived in the US for over a decade, many with US-born children. In 2022, undocumented immigrants contributed $69 billion in taxes. And yet, they are being targeted en masse. ICE has just 6,000 officers, but Trump has expanded its powers, enlisted other federal agencies like the IRS, and reopened detention facilities. He has even floated reactivating Alcatraz. Legal protections are being stripped. Trump has fired immigration judges, expanded expedited removals and invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans without hearings. Some were sent not to Venezuela, but to a supermax prison in El Salvador. Justifications included tattoos, nationality and assumed gang affiliation – no due process, no evidence. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Venezuela, Haiti and Afghanistan is also on the chopping block. Collateral arrests and raids in schools, churches, and hospitals are back. Even programs like Project Homecoming, which offer $1,000 to 'voluntarily' return, function as soft coercion. One calculation found that 72,000 people were deported in Trump's first 98 days, roughly 737 per day, nearly double the daily average under Biden. What remains, then, is a moral and political question: who belongs, and on what terms? If the answer depends on citizenship, productivity or compliance, then millions will remain outside the circle of rights. In the mainstream imagination, human rights are often tethered to the sanctity of citizenship. However, as Hannah Arendt famously warned, the stateless are those who have lost the 'right to have rights'. If rights are contingent upon national membership, then what remains for the undocumented, the displaced, the 'others' at the border of recognition? What happens next is uncertain. The administration has vowed to intensify its programme of detentions and deportations. But activists report that every raid is now met with instant organising by union halls, churches and community centres. Grassroots patrols spot ICE vehicles in advance, legal teams mobilise at courthouses and protest waves continue. Even as the White House drums up images of chaos, those on the ground insist their cause is orderly and just. In the words of a young organiser at a Philly vigil, this is more than crisis management – it is a moment of international morality: 'We're fighting for the working class, for immigrants, for our freedom. We won't back down.'

Business Recorder

4 hours ago

• Business Recorder

Tesla expected to launch long-discussed robotaxi service

NEW YORK: Tesla is expected to begin offering robotaxi service Sunday in Austin, an initial step that Elon Musk's backers believe could lead to the company's next growth wave. The launch – which comes as Musk refocuses on his business ventures following a controversial stint in Donald Trump's administration – will employ the Model Y sport utility vehicle rather than Tesla's much-touted Cybercab, which is still under development. The long-awaited launch follows the dramatic meltdown earlier this month in relations between Musk and Trump, which saw a cascade of bitter attacks from both men. Since then, Musk has publicly expressed regret for some of his statements, while his company's Texas operation has readied the Austin push – part of a major drive on autonomous technology and artificial intelligence that Tesla bulls believe will yield huge profits. This group includes Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives, who said autonomous technology could be a catalyst for potentially $1 trillion in additional market value or more. 'There are countless skeptics of the Tesla robotaxi vision with many bears thinking this day would never come,' said Ives, who predicted that Trump's administration would clear roadblocks for Tesla and pivot from the recent 'soap opera.' 'The golden era of autonomous for Tesla officially kicks off on Sunday in Austin,' Ives said in a note Friday. Business-friendly Texas But the unveiling in the Texas state capital comes amid questions about how Tesla will try to overcome criticism of Musk's activities for Trump. Tesla saw profits plunge 71 percent in the first quarter following poor sales in several markets. In picking Austin for the debut of the autonomous vehicle (AV) service, Musk is opting for a US state known for its company-friendly approach to regulation. 'Texas law allows for AV testing and operations on Texas roadways as long as they meet the same safety and insurance requirements as every other vehicle on the road,' the Texas Department of Transportation told AFP. An Austin website listed six autonomous vehicle companies at various stages of operation: ADMT (Volkswagen), AVRide, Tesla, Zoox (Amazon), Motional (Hyundai) and Waymo (Alphabet/Google). But the Texas legislature this year enacted a new bill that requires prior authorization from the state's Department of Motor Vehicles before companies can operate on a public street without human drivers, a group of seven Democratic lawmakers said in a June 18 letter to Tesla. Citing the enhanced system, the lawmakers asked Tesla to delay testing until after the law takes effect September 1. Tesla to build battery plant in Shanghai If Tesla proceeds with the launch this weekend, 'we request that you respond to this letter with detailed information demonstrating that Tesla will be compliant with the new law,' the letter said. Starting slow Musk had initially planned the launch for June 12, before pushing back, saying he was being 'super paranoid' about safety. But that number will rise to perhaps 1,000 'within a few months,' Musk told CNBC. 'And then we will expand to other cities…. San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio.' The service will be offered from 6:00 am until midnight and will be available to 'early access' users on an invitation-only basis in a geofenced area, Tesla owner Sawyer Merritt said Friday on Musk's X platform, adding that Tesla had given him permission to release the information. Musk last fall unveiled the Cybercab, which has no steering wheel or pedals. But production is not expected to begin on the vehicle until 2026. Tesla's robotaxi launch comes well after Waymo's offering of commercial robotaxi service, with more US cities gradually added. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in October 2024 opened a probe into Tesla's Full Self-Driving software after receiving four reports of crashes. The NHTSA on May 8 asked Tesla for additional information on its technology in light of the Austin launch. But the NHTSA does not 'pre-approve' new technologies, the agency told AFP. 'Rather, manufacturers certify that each vehicle meets NHTSA's rigorous safety standards, and the agency investigates incidents involving potential safety defects,' the NHTSA said.