Headlines
Trump, Musk Disagree, Fight Dirty
President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to cut off government contracts with billionaire Elon Musk‘s companies, while Musk suggested Trump should be impeached, turning their romance into an all-out brawl on social media.
The hostilities began when Trump criticized Tesla CEO Musk in the Oval Office. Within hours, the once-close relationship had disintegrated in full public view, as the world’s most powerful man and its richest launched personal barbs at one another on Trump’s Truth Social and Musk’s X.
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
Wall Street traders dumped shares of Musk’s electric vehicle maker and Tesla closed down 14.3%, losing about $150 billion in market value.
It was Tesla’s largest single-day decline in value in its history.
Minutes after the closing bell, Musk replied, “Yes,” to a post on X saying Trump should be impeached.
Trump’s Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress and are highly unlikely to impeach him.
The trouble between the two started brewing days ago, when Musk denounced Trump’s sweeping tax-cut and spending bill. The president initially held his tongue while Musk campaigned to torpedo the bill, saying it would add too much to the nation’s $36.2 trillion in debt.
Trump broke his silence on Thursday, telling reporters in the Oval Office he was “very disappointed” in Musk.
“Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore,” Trump said.
As Trump spoke, Musk responded in real time with increasingly acerbic posts on X.
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” wrote Musk, who spent nearly $300 million backing Trump and other Republicans in last year’s election.
“Such ingratitude.
”In another post, Musk asserted that Trump’s signature tariffs would push the U.S. into a recession later this year.
Besides Tesla, Musk’s businesses include rocket company and government contractor SpaceX and its satellite unit Starlink.
Musk, whose space business plays a critical role in the U.S. government’s space program, said that as a result of Trump’s threats he would begin decommissioning SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft.
Dragon is the only U.S. spacecraft capable of sending astronauts to the International Space Station.
The feud was not entirely unexpected. Trump and Musk are both political pugilists with sizable egos and a penchant for using social media to punch back against their perceived enemies, and many observers had predicted an eventual falling out.
Even before Musk’s departure from the administration last week, his influence had waned following a series of clashes with cabinet members over his cuts to their agencies.
For Trump, the fight was the first major rift he has had with a top adviser since taking office for a second time, after his first term was marked by numerous blow-ups.
Trump parted ways with multiple chiefs of staff, national security advisers and political strategists during his 2017-2021 White House tenure.
A few, like Steve Bannon, remained in his good graces, while many others, like Ambassador John Bolton, became loud and vocal critics.
After serving as the biggest Republican donor in the 2024 campaign season, Musk became one of Trump’s most visible advisers as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, which mounted a sweeping and controversial effort to downsize the federal workforce and slash spending.
Musk was frequently present at the White House and made multiple appearances on Capitol Hill, sometimes carrying his young son.
Only six days before Thursday’s blowup, Trump and Musk held a joint appearance in the Oval Office, where Trump praised Musk’s government service and both men promised to continue working together.
A prolonged feud between Trump and Musk could make it more difficult for Republicans to keep control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.
In addition to his campaign spending, Musk has a huge online following and helped connect Trump to parts of Silicon Valley and wealthy donors.
Musk had already said he planned to curtail his political spending in the future.
Soon after Trump’s Oval Office comments, Musk polled his 220 million followers on X:
“Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?”
Musk targeted what Trump has named his “big, beautiful bill” this week, calling it a “disgusting abomination” that would deepen the federal deficit. His attacks amplified a rift within the Republican Party that could threaten the bill’s prospects in the Senate.
Nonpartisan analysts say Trump’s bill could add $2.4 trillion to $5 trillion to the nation’s $36.2 trillion in debt.
Trump asserted that Musk’s true objection was the bill’s elimination of consumer tax credits for electric vehicles.
The president also suggested that Musk was upset because he missed working for the White House.“He’s not the first,” Trump said on Thursday.
“People leave my administration … then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it and some of them actually become hostile.”Musk wrote on X, “KILL the BILL,” adding he was fine with Trump’s planned cuts to electric vehicle credits as long as Republicans rid the bill of “mountain of disgusting pork” or wasteful spending.
He also pulled up past quotes from Trump decrying the level of federal spending, adding, “Where is this guy today?”
Musk came into government with brash plans to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. He left last week having cut only about half of 1% of total spending while causing disruption across multiple agencies.
Musk’s increasing focus on politics provoked widespread protests at Tesla sites in the U.S. and Europe, driving down sales while investors fretted that Musk’s attention was too divided.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
