The feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk exploded into full public view Thursday, deepening a rift that has been quietly growing between the two powerful figures over a sweeping domestic tax and spending bill—and exposing a simmering personal tension rooted in policy differences, ego, and campaign history.

Trump, speaking to reporters during a joint appearance with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House, expressed disappointment in Musk after days of blistering attacks from the Tesla and SpaceX chief over the controversial “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which narrowly passed the House last month.

“I’m very disappointed with Elon,” Trump said. “He knew this bill better than anyone and he only developed a problem when he found out I would cut the EV mandate.”

The remark followed Musk’s claim that Trump was being untruthful about the bill’s contents and timeline, insisting he had never been shown the legislation before its overnight passage. On X, Musk declared, “False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!”

Musk’s criticism of the bill has centered on its projected $3 trillion impact on the national deficit over the next decade, as estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He has accused lawmakers of slashing electric vehicle incentives while preserving fossil fuel subsidies, calling the legislation a “mountain of disgusting pork.”

But beyond policy, the clash has taken on a personal edge—one many observers saw coming.

Trump has long been known for his intolerance of criticism, often lashing out at even his closest allies when they step out of line. When Senator Rand Paul voiced concerns about the bill’s deficit impact, Trump wasted no time rebuking him publicly.

“He doesn’t understand the tremendous GROWTH this bill will generate,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Yet despite Musk’s far more aggressive and sustained critique, Trump initially refrained from attacking him—prompting speculation over whether the president was trying to preserve a relationship with one of his most prominent donors.

That restraint ended Thursday. Following the fierce exchange between the two, Musk posted: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election,” adding, “Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate.” In another post, Musk lamented what he viewed as betrayal, writing: “Such ingratitude.”

Trump wasted no time dismissing Musk’s influence and campaign contributions. “I would have won Pennsylvania regardless of Elon,” he said, brushing aside Musk’s claim that his support helped swing the 2024 election.

Musk has been on a “kill the bill” campaign, rallying GOP members not to approve the spending bill, which he believes will shoot the U.S.’s deficit to an unsustainable level.

On Wednesday, Musk quoted a tweet made by Trump in 2012. The tweet said: “No member of Congress should be eligible for re-election if our country’s budget is not balanced—deficits not allowed!”

Musk used the post to underscore what he saw as Trump’s hypocrisy in pushing a bill that blows open the federal budget. He then floated the idea of an entirely new political movement.

“Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” Musk asked his X followers in a poll that drew millions of votes within hours.

The online blitz came just weeks after it was revealed that Musk had spent more than $250 million backing Trump’s 2024 campaign and affiliated political groups—making him one of the most influential financial forces behind the president’s re-election effort.

But the policy divide between the two men has widened since Trump’s return to the White House. Musk has reportedly grown increasingly frustrated with what he sees as the administration’s anti-environmental policies, particularly the dismantling of emissions standards, climate accords, and now, incentives for electric vehicles and solar power.

The public fallout has not been without consequences. Tesla shares plunged more than 8% Thursday, as investors reacted to the clash between the electric carmaker’s CEO and the sitting U.S. president, who remains a dominant force in Republican politics and U.S. regulatory policy.

Meanwhile, the bill itself—the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”—faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where several Republican fiscal hawks remain uneasy about its projected long-term cost. The legislation extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, boosts spending on the military and border security, and slashes funding for federal assistance programs.

Trump insists the bill will generate massive economic growth and claims the opposition is either uninformed or driven by personal interests.

Musk said his opposition to the bill has nothing to do with his EV business. In a thread Thursday night, he wrote: “This isn’t just about EV tax credits or deficits. It’s about truth, responsibility, and the future of governance in America.”

It is not clear whether the two men can ever patch things up. Although long-anticipated, the Trump-Musk alliance that helped shape 2024 is in open collapse.

Palantir Technologies CEO Alex Karp has warned that the global artificial intelligence (AI) arms race between the United States and China will culminate with one country decisively outpacing the other.

Speaking on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street on Thursday, Karp said, “My general bias on AI is it is dangerous. There are positive and negative consequences, and either we win or China will win.”

Karp, a vocal proponent of U.S. technological superiority, has repeatedly stressed the need for an “all-country effort” to develop more advanced AI systems.

“We need to run harder, run faster,” he said earlier in January, emphasizing that U.S. dominance in AI is vital for both economic and national security interests. In a recent letter to shareholders, Karp highlighted Palantir’s role in strengthening U.S. defense capabilities, portraying the company as central to the country’s efforts to stay ahead in the race for next-generation technologies.

Palantir, based in Denver, has become a key player in AI and national security. Its government contracts have fueled investor confidence, driving the company’s stock up by 74% in 2025. Karp credits this to Palantir’s unique approach—one that combines deep domain expertise with fast adaptation to emerging technologies.

“There is no economy in the world with this kind of corporate leadership,” he said. “Our allies in the West, in Europe, are going to have to learn from us.”

But the company’s rise hasn’t been without scrutiny. A recent New York Times report claimed Palantir was aiding the Trump administration in domestic surveillance efforts. Karp denied the allegations, saying, “We are not surveilling Americans.”

Karp’s warnings come amid rising concern among American officials and industry leaders about China’s rapid progress in AI, quantum computing, and semiconductor technology. In response, the U.S. government has imposed a series of export controls and sanctions aimed at slowing Beijing’s momentum.

In 2022, Washington tightened restrictions on the sale of advanced AI chips and semiconductor manufacturing tools to China, blocking companies like Nvidia from exporting their most powerful chips to Chinese firms. The Biden-era rules—which the Trump administration has since expanded—also bar U.S. citizens from working with Chinese firms involved in AI and chip development without special approval.

But China has been actively defying these restrictions. Despite the embargoes, Huawei in 2023, unveiled a smartphone powered by a 7-nanometer chip developed domestically, shocking analysts and signaling that China’s semiconductor ambitions remain very much alive. Beijing has also ramped up investment in homegrown AI startups and accelerated efforts to localize its tech stack to reduce dependence on U.S. technologies.

A key concern in Washington is China’s integration of AI into military systems and its use of surveillance technologies in ways deemed authoritarian. In 2021, the U.S. blacklisted several Chinese firms linked to military AI development, including SenseTime and iFlytek, citing human rights abuses and security risks.

Industry Leaders Voice Similar Warnings

Karp’s outlook mirrors the sentiments of other influential tech leaders who see China’s technological ambitions as a direct threat to U.S. global influence.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has warned that the Chinese AI ecosystem is advancing at a rapid pace and cannot be underestimated.

“Like everybody else, they are doubling, quadrupling capabilities every year,” Huang said earlier this year. He believed that will continue.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who chaired the U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, has consistently cautioned that the U.S. risks falling behind without a more coherent strategy.

Schmidt initially stated that the U.S. was two to three years ahead of China in AI, but he now recognizes that DeepSeek’s rapid development and cost-effectiveness challenge that assumption. He views the emergence of DeepSeek as a “turning point” in the global AI landscape, highlighting China’s growing capabilities.

As both nations continue to pour billions into AI development, the divide grows deeper—and more dangerous. Karp’s assertion that the contest will have a clear winner reflects mounting fears that the AI rivalry may shape not only economic power but global political order for decades to come.

As it prepares for its Worldwide Developer Conference on June 9, Apple is touting its global App Store business as a massive engine of economic activity, revealing that developers generated $1.3 trillion in billings and sales in 2024.

The company emphasized that 90% of that sum did not involve any commission paid to Apple, highlighting what it frames as a supportive ecosystem for developers.

According to a new Apple-funded study, billings and sales from digital goods and services reached $131 billion in 2024, with the momentum largely driven by mobile games, photo and video editing tools, and business-centric applications. But the most dramatic growth came from physical goods and services — like food delivery and online retail — which surpassed $1 trillion in sales, showing a strong appetite for app-driven commerce beyond Apple’s cut.

In-app advertising also played a significant role, generating $150 billion last year alone.

Apple says spending across digital goods, physical services, and advertising has more than doubled since 2019, with physical commerce leading the pack at a growth rate of more than 2.6 times. The company sees these figures as proof that the App Store fuels far more economic activity than its own bottom line, arguing that it offers a platform for innovation and discovery that benefits both users and developers.

Apple’s glowing self-assessment comes amid rising pressure at home and abroad. The data, compiled by Professor Andrey Fradkin of Boston University and Dr. Jessica Burley of the Apple-aligned Analysis Group, is part of the tech giant’s broader effort to reshape the narrative surrounding its tightly controlled app ecosystem — particularly as courts and regulators are increasingly siding with developers who want Apple’s grip loosened.

In the U.S., Apple was recently ordered by a federal judge to comply with earlier rulings in the Epic Games antitrust lawsuit. Among other mandates, the company must now allow app developers to link users to external websites for payment — bypassing Apple’s standard commission structure. The ruling marked a key win for Epic Games and other critics who argue Apple uses its control of iOS to block fair competition.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Apple is pushing back against sweeping changes required by the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA directs major platform operators like Apple to allow developers to inform customers about alternative payment options, challenging Apple’s long-standing prohibition against off-platform transactions.

The Cupertino-based company has attempted to frame the App Store as more than a toll booth, listing a wide range of investments including anti-fraud systems, analytics tools, developer support teams, and coding frameworks as evidence of the value it provides. It also claims the App Store now draws 813 million average weekly visitors globally — a testament to the reach developers can tap into.

However, many believe Apple’s portrayal glosses over how entrenched and mature the App Store has become. Developers today have more resources than ever to build and distribute apps independently, but Apple’s restrictions — including the inability to offer alternative stores or sideloading options — have kept them locked into its framework. That’s now changing, albeit slowly, under judicial and regulatory pressure.

Apple also highlighted growth trends in specific regions: App Store-facilitated billings and sales more than doubled in the U.S., China, and Europe over the past five years. In the U.S., mobile payment spending alone has increased sevenfold since 2019 — a shift Apple credits to the rise of contactless payments via iPhones and Apple Pay.

While Apple is seeking to showcase its ecosystem as a pillar of global innovation and commerce, the timing of the release — days ahead of WWDC and amid growing scrutiny — suggests the company knows it must persuade not just developers, but lawmakers and regulators, that it’s playing fair.

Whether these numbers will do that remains uncertain.