Musk calls for Trump to be impeached as extraordinary feud escalates Former adviser taunts president over links to Epstein while Trump threatens to cancel contracts for Musk companies
Elon Musk called for Donald Trump to be impeached after mocking his connections to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as the president threatened to cancel federal contracts and tax subsidies for Musk’s companies in an extraordinary social media feud on Thursday.
The deterioration of their once close relationship into bitter acrimony came over the course of several remarkable hours where the president and the world’s richest man hurdled deeply personal insults over matters significant and insignificant.
In the most churlish moment of the astonishing saga, Musk said on X the reason the Trump administration had not released the files into Epstein was because it implicated the president. He later quote-tweeted a post calling for Trump to be removed and said Trump’s tariffs would cause a recession.
“Time to drop the really big bomb: Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk wrote, after Trump threatened to cut subsidies for Musk’s companies as it would save “billions”.
The direct shots at Trump were the latest twist in the public feud over a Republican spending bill that Musk had criticized. Trump and Musk had been careful not to hit each other directly, but the pair discarded restraint as it escalated online.
The bizarre drama served to underscore the degree to which Trump and Musk’s relationship has been one of mutual convenience, despite the White House claiming for months that they were simply ideologically aligned.
It also caused the rightwing writer Ashley St Clair, who gave birth to Musk’s 14th known child and sued Musk for child support, to weigh in. “Let me know if u need any breakup advice,” she posted on X, tagging Trump.
Shares in Tesla, Musk’s electronic vehicle company, fell almost 15% on Thursday afternoon with the decline timed to when Trump’s remarks began. Musk’s rocket company SpaceX is not publicly traded, but competitors to SpaceX rose on the news.
For weeks, Musk has complained about the budget bill, and used the non-partisan congressional budget office estimating the bill would add $2.4tn to the deficit over the next decade as an opening to condemn the legislation as a “disgusting abomination”.
On Thursday, Trump appeared to finally have had enough of Musk’s complaints. Speaking in the Oval Office as German chancellor Friedrich Merz looked on in bemusement, Trump mocked Musk’s recent black eye and questioned why he didn’t cover it up.
“You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk. Even with a black eye. I said, do you want a little makeup? He said, no, I don’t think so. Which is interesting,” Trump said. “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will any more.”
Trump then ratcheted up his barbs against Musk, accusing him of turning against the bill solely out of self-interest, as the bill did not benefit Tesla, Musk’s electronic vehicle company. Trump also pulled the nomination of Musk’s preferred candidate to lead Nasa.
“I’m very disappointed with Elon,” Trump said. “He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out we’re going to cut EV mandate.”
Musk then went on the warpath.
Within minutes of Trump’s comments appearing in a clip on X, where Musk was responding in real time, Musk accused the president of lying about the bill, and accused Trump of being ungrateful for the millions he spent to get him elected.
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk said in a post on X. He added: “Such ingratitude.”
Musk taking credit for Trump’s election win initially threatened to be the touchpoint for their relationship, given Trump had made a point to say that Musk’s contributions had no effect on him winning the battleground state of Pennsylvania.
But then Trump posted on Truth Social that he had fired Musk from his role as a special adviser because he was “wearing thin” at the White House, and Musk responded: “Such an obvious lie. So sad.”
It was less than a half an hour later that Musk fired off his Epstein tweet, effectively accusing him, in online parlance, of being part of an alleged child sexual abuse ring linked to Epstein, using a dog whistle for the Maga movement to try and set them against the president.
In doing so, Musk ignored his own connections to Epstein. In 2014, like Trump, Musk was photographed at a party with Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend who was convicted in 2021 on charges that she helped Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities.
The public feud comes after a remarkable partnership that lasted longer than many Democrats on Capitol Hill and in Trump’s orbit predicted.
Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Trump’s re-election campaign through his specially created America Pac, which shouldered a large portion of Trump’s door-knocking campaign, although that the actual impact of that ground-game effort is unclear.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
I was honestly starting to think they might make it as far as the midterms before the knives came out. Or at least the next Ides of March.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Really not expecting anything to come of this, tbh. At most Musk might be kicked out of the US.
Although ICE coming to get him would be amusing.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
LadyTevar wrote: 2025-06-05 09:07pm
Really not expecting anything to come of this, tbh. At most Musk might be kicked out of the US.
Although ICE coming to get him would be amusing.
That would be Trump showing all the billionaires that their wealth doesn't protect them. Probably still beneficial.
Though I'm hoping that ICE sticks with their usual refusal to identify themselves so Musk's security treats it as a kidnapping attempt.
It would definitely shake up the status quo, as right now no one thinks Trump would go after those with/in Power. Fools, he's already going after Harvard, why wouldn't you assholes be next when he thinks you're no longer useful.
The question will be, will Trump be able to just have Elon 'vanish' ala North Korea Generals, or will ICE fuck up and it becomes a massively public free-for-all that wakes up the sheeple?
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
LadyTevar wrote: 2025-06-06 08:56am
It would definitely shake up the status quo, as right now no one thinks Trump would go after those with/in Power. Fools, he's already going after Harvard, why wouldn't you assholes be next when he thinks you're no longer useful.
The question will be, will Trump be able to just have Elon 'vanish' ala North Korea Generals, or will ICE fuck up and it becomes a massively public free-for-all that wakes up the sheeple?
I've seen some people speculate that Harvard is a target because Obama was a student there.
As for what Trump could do to Musk:
- Targeting Musk's businesses says that Trump can go after anyone.
- As does disappearing Musk or having him killed in some law enforcement action that doesn't get investigated. Especially if the truth leaks.
- Going after Musk's citizenship will leave people thinking they are safe if they were born in the US or they don't have whatever dodgy thing is alleged about Musk's citizenship.
- Going after Musk for any crimes he committed leaves people thinking they are safe if they haven't committed any crimes Trump knows about.
- ICE screwing up and getting into a shootout with Musk's security seems like the option that will hurt Trump the most. Especially if any ICE agents die.
My guess is that Trump will attempt #3, but his hand-picked people will cause #5.
Trump would target Musk financially first; Go after his businesses, while also going after him for any and all legal attacks he can (crimes, fines, etc).
Trump can then use this to further his anti-citizenship message, stating that all immigrants that commit crimes, even the rich white guys, need to have their citizenship revoked and then be deported.
After that, then we will see the ICE vs Musk's security firefight.
Trump will not try to disappear him. That makes people ask questions. He'll try to destroy him legally, and his reputation, before chucking him out. A 'transparent process', that only serves Trumps purpose.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
EnterpriseSovereign wrote: 2025-06-05 05:27pm
Saw this one coming a mile off, I'm just surprised it didn't happen sooner
Word. As soon as the shenanigans hit him in the wallet, Elon breaks ranks? I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm not surprised. Don't pop the champagne yet, he'll just put his money on somebody who'll do even more than the orange clown for Project 2025.
Everybody with eyes that can see knows His Fatassness is going to keel over from a Big Mac Attack soon. This just advances the timeline a little.
"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
Trump would target Musk financially first; Go after his businesses, while also going after him for any and all legal attacks he can (crimes, fines, etc).
Trump can then use this to further his anti-citizenship message, stating that all immigrants that commit crimes, even the rich white guys, need to have their citizenship revoked and then be deported.
After that, then we will see the ICE vs Musk's security firefight.
Trump will not try to disappear him. That makes people ask questions. He'll try to destroy him legally, and his reputation, before chucking him out. A 'transparent process', that only serves Trumps purpose.
That sounds like an awful lot of planning and forethought for Donald Trump.
One interesting part about the Musk vs Trump feud is that it has caused members of Congress and the Senate to come out against this Big Beautiful Bill. Even members of Congress who voted for it. Now they claim they hadn't read it before voting.
If it dies in the Senate, expect more anger from Trump. I'm hoping for enough anger to cause a medical event that removes him from office.
Trump would target Musk financially first; Go after his businesses, while also going after him for any and all legal attacks he can (crimes, fines, etc).
Trump can then use this to further his anti-citizenship message, stating that all immigrants that commit crimes, even the rich white guys, need to have their citizenship revoked and then be deported.
After that, then we will see the ICE vs Musk's security firefight.
Trump will not try to disappear him. That makes people ask questions. He'll try to destroy him legally, and his reputation, before chucking him out. A 'transparent process', that only serves Trumps purpose.
You seem to have an intelligent plan there. Though it has the catch that if Trump goes after Musk's businesses, he's showing that he's willing to go after anyone's businesses. He's willing to hit any billionaire in the wallet if they anger him.
My prediction is based around how much Trump likes using ICE, including making other Federal agencies support them, and the general incompetence shown from this administration. We are talking about thugs who detained a deputy marshal in a federal building that houses an immigration court. Meaning one who was likely wearing something that clearly identified that he was a marshal.
Musk's space company is presently NASA's most essential contractor. With the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft, SpaceX provides the space agency's only operational transportation for crew members to the International Space Station. Additionally, when Northrop Grumman's Cygnus spacecraft was damaged in transit earlier this year, it left SpaceX as the only provider of cargo services to the space station for more than half a year.
f NASA were to terminate its contracts with SpaceX, it would effectively mean the end of the International Space Station. The problem with this is that SpaceX also holds the contract to safely de-orbit the space station, which is currently due to occur in 2030. With a mass of more than 400 metric tons, the space station will be the largest human-made object ever to return to Earth and could cause substantial damage in populated areas if not safely de-orbited into a remote part of the Pacific Ocean.
SpaceX also is on the critical path of NASA's program to return humans to the Moon, Artemis. NASA has contracted with SpaceX to use its developmental Starship vehicle as a lunar lander, taking crew down to the surface and bringing them back up to lunar orbit. Although it is true that NASA has also awarded Blue Origin a contract for the same service, it is unlikely that Blue Origin's human lander will be complete for seven to 10 years. This means that if NASA wants to have any chance of beating China back to the Moon, it needs SpaceX to deliver.
For the US military, SpaceX is one of two main contractors that delivers national security payloads into orbit. However, the other provider, United Launch Alliance, has had difficulty getting its new rocket, Vulcan, through the certification process. This has led the US Space Force to begin moving missions from Vulcan to SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. Given SpaceX's reliability and responsiveness, the military has decided to award a majority of future launch contracts to the company.
SpaceX's Starlink Internet service has also provided essential communications to the military, which was so enamored with the service that it has purchased a proprietary version of the satellites under the "Starshield" brand for its future satellite communications needs.
The reason that Biden did not terminate these contracts, as Trump asserts he might well have, is because SpaceX has generally provided space services to the US government at a lower cost and on a faster timeline than its competitors. Were the Trump administration to sever its relationship with SpaceX, it would effectively set the US space enterprise back a decade or more and give China's ascendant space program clear supremacy on the world stage.
Going after Musk for his crimes, especially the drug use, then attempting to nationalise SpaceX could get messy.
This is fun seeing that previously Trump cancelled the NASA STS Launch system making the Falcon 9 the only heavy lift option available for the Artemis missions. Now he has a beef with his buddy for not toeing the line. This is getting rather funny.
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
Newsom blasts deployment of National Guard to LA as ‘purposefully inflammatory’
The federal government is deploying 2,000 soldiers amid unrest over immigration sweeps in Los Angeles.
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday denounced President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to quell pro-immigrant demonstrators in the Los Angeles area, calling the action “purposefully inflammatory.”
The Democrat’s remarks came after Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, told Fox News that the administration planned to send National Guard troops to the area. The White House said Trump signed a presidential memorandum deploying 2,000 troops “to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.”
In a statement, Newsom said Trump was moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers, which the governor said would “only escalate tensions” after protesters confronted immigration agents making raids on local businesses. Trump’s move came without Newsom’s signature, presumably by invoking Title 10, the legal basis for activating and mobilizing the Guard.
In a social media post, Trump said, “If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!”
The standoff in Paramount, a small city in southeast Los Angeles County, marks the second consecutive day of clashes in the region over high-profile immigration raids. At least 44 people were arrested on Friday on suspicion of immigration violations.
Among those arrested was the president of the labor union SEIU California, David Huerta, whose injuries during his detainment required brief hospitalization and set off a wave of condemnation from California Democratic officials, including Newsom. A video of Huerta’s arrest showed officers knocking the labor union leader to the ground.
In Paramount, federal agents in riot gears squared off against protestors, using tear gas and flash-bang grenades to disperse the crowds.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that “violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations” and that “California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens.”
Homan told Fox News that while people had a First Amendment right to protest, there would be consequences for “crossing the line” and impeding ICE’s operations.
“We’re already ahead of the game. We’re already mobilizing. We’re going to bring in the National Guard tonight,” he said. “We’re going to continue doing our job. We’re going to push back on these people and we’re going to enforce the law.”
Newsom, in his statement, said such federal intervention was unnecessary.
“LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need,” Newsom said. “The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”
I told people this won't end until protesters are killed. Tear gas and flashbangs already in use
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Presumably this is the California National Guard...from California. How many of them are actually going to go along with any violence? Don't they have a duty to refuse illegal orders, or orders they reasonably believe to be illegal?
And why does this sound like the spark that kicks off the plot of that "Civil War" films from a couple years back?
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Eternal_Freedom wrote: 2025-06-08 12:03pmPresumably this is the California National Guard...from California. How many of them are actually going to go along with any violence?
It only takes one trigger-happy idiot and a handful of others who assume the first guy wouldn't have started shooting without a very good reason for the shit to hit the fan.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Eternal_Freedom wrote: 2025-06-08 12:03pmPresumably this is the California National Guard...from California. How many of them are actually going to go along with any violence?
It only takes one trigger-happy idiot and a handful of others who assume the first guy wouldn't have started shooting without a very good reason for the shit to hit the fan.
Yep, and then it's Kent State all over again.
But I don't think it'll make a good song this time.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
I was thinking of another, arguably worse incident that helped kick the Troubles into high gear, but yeah.
Although I'm not sure either comparison really works, because both Kent State and Bloody Sunday happened under governments who had the decency to be embarrassed about it.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
What kind of dark wizard in league with nameless forces of primordial evil ARE you that you can't even make a successful sanity check versus BOREDOM? - Red Mage
The governor of California has said he will sue the Trump administration after the president deployed the National Guard to clamp down on protests in Los Angeles over the weekend.
Demonstrators set fire to self-driving cars, blocked motorways and hurled chunks of concrete and electric scooters at police officers, who responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Some were detained on Sunday evening, as police arrested those refusing to disperse.
Sunday marked the third and most intense day of protests against Donald Trump's immigration policy in the region, with more protests planned on for Monday.
Democratic Governor of California Gavin Newsom told MSNBC he would sue the Trump administration over the deployment, calling it an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.”
Writing on X, Newsom said: "The order [President Trump] signed doesn't just apply to California. It will allow him to go into ANY STATE and do the same thing.
"We are suing him."
Some legal commentators have questioned whether Trump has the power to use the National Guard in this way, which is usually a power reserved for state governors. The last time a president deployed them was in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson, but he used a different set of powers than what Trump used.
Trump has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilise federal troops when there is ”a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
But Newsom said he believed the president was required to coordinate with the state’s governor before ordering such a deployment.
The arrival of around 2,000 National Guard troops came after two days of protests, which began on Friday, when federal agents arrested a number of immigrants in the city.
More than 100 immigrant arrests were made last week in Los Angeles, according to federal authorities.
Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement.
A British news photographer was hospitalised and underwent emergency surgery after being hit by a sponge bullet while documenting a standoff between authorities and protesters.
Nick Stern said: “My initial concern was, were they firing live rounds?
“Some of the protesters came and helped me, and they ended up carrying me, and I noticed that there was blood pouring down my leg.”
On his social media platform Truth Social, the president said: "Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!"
Trump's travel ban comes into effect, banning citizens from 12 countries
The National Guard has been deployed to protect LA's federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated.
Troops stood carrying long guns and riot shields on Sunday morning, as protesters shouted “shame” and “go home".
After some demonstrators came close to them, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street.
Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully.
The Trump administration has ordered about 700 Marines to join National Guard troops in Los Angeles after protests this weekend over mass deportation policies turned violent.
The Marines will not participate in law enforcement activities unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act, which would allow them to suppress violence, according to two defense officials, granted anonymity to discuss internal operations.
It is not clear what role the Marines will play, but one of the officials said they will likely support the 2,000 National Guard troops sent to assist law enforcement with logistics.
The U.S Northern Command, which oversees military operations in North America, said the Marines would offer “adequate numbers of forces to provide continuous coverage of the area in support of the lead federal agency.”
The task force that includes the Guard members and Marines are trained in crowd control and de-escalation, the command said in a statement.
Only about 300 Guard members have arrived in Los Angeles, but they deployed quickly. Photos emerged on Monday of the troops sleeping on the ground as they awaited orders. The Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms in the California desert and are expected to arrive within the next day.
One of the officials said President Donald Trump might deploy U.S. troops from the East Coast if protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policies spread to cities like New York and Atlanta.
A federal law that dates to 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the use of military troops for law enforcement in the U.S.
But there are a few limited exceptions. The most notable, enshrined in the Insurrection Act, permits the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement purposes when there is a rebellion or other civil disturbance that prevents the enforcement of federal laws. Trump has discussed invoking the Insurrection Act in the past but so far has not done so.
Trump invoked a different statute Saturday to put 2,000 California National Guard soldiers under federal authority and direct them to maintain order in L.A. That law, which is specific to the National Guard, permits the president to “federalize” state National Guard forces to help in cases of rebellion, a “danger of a rebellion” or other unrest that disrupts the enforcement of federal laws.
The statute Trump tapped to federalize the National Guard troops has been invoked only once before. President Richard Nixon used it in 1970 to call in the Guard to help sort and deliver mail during a postal workers strike.
Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, have fought since the weekend over the Guard deployment, which is normally ordered by a state’s governor. The last time a president sent troops into a state without the governor’s consent was in 1965.
Trump on Monday said Newsom “should only be happy I sent in the military,” although the Guard hasn’t yet acted in a law enforcement role.
“I mean, I think we have it very well under control,” Trump said. “It would have been a very bad situation. It was heading in the wrong direction. It’s now heading in the right direction.”
I have heard elsewhere that they are working on Rules of Engagement (RoE) for the marines currently.
Edit: Setting up RoE for deployed troops is normal, but the fact that they are deploying active duty military even in a support roles seems like an escalation given Trumps previous statements regarding "resolving" the unrest.
Trump has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilise federal troops when there is ”a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
But Newsom said he believed the president was required to coordinate with the state’s governor before ordering such a deployment.
'What if the governor is part of the rebellion or possible rebellion' seems like an obvious issue with that.
