Musk, Trump spar over 'train wreck' remark; Musk claims 'don't know' about Trump's Truth Social
Washington D.C.: The escalating feud between tech mogul Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump took a personal turn over the weekend, sparked by Musk's announcement of forming a new political party.
Trump, speaking to reporters on Sunday on his social media platform, Truth Social, dismissed Musk's "America Party" as "ridiculous" and labeled the billionaire entrepreneur a "train wreck."
Musk, not one to back down from a public spat, retorted by claiming he doesn't know about Trump's platform. Quoting a post on X (formerly Twitter) that reported Trump's criticism, Musk quipped that he had "never heard" of Truth Social.
What’s Truth Social?
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 6, 2025
This exchange marks a significant downturn in the relationship between the two figures, who were once considered allies. Musk previously headed the "Department of Government Efficiency" in Trump's presidency. However, their relationship reportedly soured due to disagreements over Trump's fiscal policies.
On Saturday, Musk announced his new political party, citing concerns about the national debt and criticising both Republican and Democratic parties for contributing to unchecked government spending. "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy," Musk wrote on X.
By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2025
When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy.
Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. https://t.co/9K8AD04QQN
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
