Trump on Elon Musk’s Own Party: Ridiculous; visit Texas Friday; send 15 trade deal letter out Monday

The political news cycle integrated several major stories. Trump dismissed Elon Musk’s apparent creation of a new third party as “ridiculous,” arguing that the American system has always been a two-party arrangement and that third parties add only confusion. Trump announced a Friday trip to Texas to survey the flood damage, explaining he delayed to avoid “being in their way” during active recovery operations. He indicated trade letters would be sent to as many as 15 countries on Monday. And he confirmed his upcoming Netanyahu meeting would cover both a potential “permanent deal” with Iran and progress on Gaza — saying “we could have it this week” on the Gaza deal. Bessent continued his Main Street messaging. Rep. Jasmine Crockett slammed deportations with rhetoric the administration characterized as misrepresenting federal enforcement.

”I Think It’s Ridiculous”

The reporter’s question about Elon Musk’s apparent third-party creation drew Trump’s blunt response. “Not us starting a third party. I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party.”

The context is Musk’s public statements about creating what he has called an “America Party” — an independent third-party alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties. Musk, whose political relationship with Trump has been tumultuous through the course of 2025, had signaled his intent to run candidates in future elections under a new party banner.

“Ridiculous” is Trump’s blunt characterization. Third parties, in his view, do not work in the American political system.

”We Have A Tremendous Success With The Republican Party”

Trump’s positive framing. “We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party.”

The observation is politically significant. The Republican Party, under Trump’s leadership, controls the presidency, the Senate, the House, and has a friendly Supreme Court majority. That configuration of institutional power represents the full sweep of American political power that a party can hold.

Musk’s argument for a third party rests on some critique of current Republican performance or direction. Trump’s counter — that the Republican Party has achieved “tremendous success” — challenges the premise of that critique. If the Republican Party is succeeding, what does a third party offer that would improve on that success?

”The Democrats Have Lost Their Way”

Trump’s complementary observation. “The Democrats have lost their way, but it’s always been a two-party system.”

The framing is interesting. Trump is acknowledging that one of the two traditional parties — the Democrats — has problems. But the problems within the Democratic Party do not justify creating a third party. They justify strengthening the Republican Party as the alternative.

“It’s always been a two-party system” captures the American historical pattern. Third parties have appeared at various points — the Whigs, the Populists, Ross Perot’s Reform Party, various others — but none have become durable governing parties. The system’s structural features (winner-take-all elections, electoral college dynamics, ballot access laws) have consistently reinforced two-party competition.

”Just Adds To Confusion”

Trump’s practical critique. “And I think starting a third party just adds to confusion. It really seems to have been developed for two parties. Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it, but I think it’s ridiculous.”

“Adds to confusion” captures the practical political effect of third-party candidacies. In American elections, third-party candidates typically draw votes from the major-party candidate closer to their ideology. A center-right third party draws votes from Republicans more than from Democrats. A center-left third party draws votes from Democrats more than from Republicans.

Musk’s proposed third party, given his policy preferences, would likely draw votes from Republicans. That drawing of votes would benefit Democrats in elections where Republican margins are narrow. The confusion Trump references is strategic — voters who prefer Republican policy over Democratic policy might end up electing Democrats by voting for Musk’s third party.

“He can have fun with it” captures Trump’s dismissive tone. Musk is free to pursue the third-party project. Trump is not alarmed by the prospect. But he views it as futile rather than as a serious political threat.

Texas Trip Plans

The reporter shifted to Texas. “We’re planning to visit Texas, Mr. President, probably on Friday. I would have done it today, but would just be in their way. Probably Friday.”

The Friday timing reflects Trump’s characteristic operational sensitivity. Presidential visits to disaster areas impose substantial operational costs on local first responders. Secret Service security requirements, logistical coordination, media management — each adds burden to already-strained local resources.

Trump’s choice to delay to Friday allows the immediate crisis phase — search and rescue, initial damage assessment, urgent evacuations — to occur without presidential-visit overhead. By Friday, the acute phase will be past and the recovery phase will be underway. A presidential visit during recovery is operationally less disruptive than during the acute phase.

“I would have done it today, but would just be in their way” captures the specific calculation. Trump wanted to visit sooner but judged that his presence would slow the response rather than help it.

The Musk Body-Check Question

The reporter then asked about a specific incident. “Because I know Elon Musk body-checked you at the White House. I just know I’m not seen to Elon Musk. You know that? That’s what I heard. So you believe what you read on Breitbart is what you’re telling us, Congressman?”

The transcription is unclear about who is asking whom, but the substance involves a reported incident in which Musk allegedly “body-checked” Trump at a White House event. The incident, reported by Breitbart and subsequently by other outlets, was one of the more unusual interpersonal stories of the Trump-Musk relationship.

The reporter’s follow-up question treats the incident as potentially embarrassing. “It feels too sensitive for you. I won’t ask that question, but let me move on.”

The back-off suggests Trump declined to engage with the specific story. Whether the body-check actually occurred, and what it might have meant for the Trump-Musk relationship, remains outside the public record.

Bessent On South Africa

Bessent then appeared with a specific regional comment. “I will take South Carolina over South Africa any day.”

Bessent was born in South Carolina. His comparison — South Carolina over South Africa — is a specific comment referring to the ongoing South African land expropriation policies and broader political developments in South Africa. The comment places South Africa in a specific negative category for Bessent.

The comment serves multiple purposes. It identifies Bessent with his American home rather than with any foreign alternative. It positions South Africa specifically as a less attractive alternative. And it feeds into broader conservative commentary about South Africa’s political trajectory.

Crockett On Deportations

The video then captured Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s framing. “As far as I’m concerned, you randomly kidnapping folk and you throwing them out of the country against their civil rights, against their constitutional rights. And frankly, how would they feel if some other country decided that they were going to start throwing people randomly in our country? That is absolutely insane.”

Crockett’s characterization of federal immigration enforcement as “randomly kidnapping folk” and “throwing them out of the country against their civil rights” is inflammatory.

The administration’s counter: Federal enforcement operates under specific legal authority. Individuals being deported are subject to final orders of removal. They have had due process. They have civil rights — the specific rights non-citizens have under American law, which do not include a right to remain in the country without authorization.

“How would they feel if some other country decided that they were going to start throwing people randomly in our country?” The rhetorical question inverts the framing. But the parallel breaks down because American deportation enforcement is not random. It is based on specific legal status and specific court orders.

”Get These Fools Out Of Here”

Crockett closed with specific political language. “So yes, all I got to say is y’all need to get these fools out of here.”

The statement is characteristic of Crockett’s political style. Sharp, emotional, characterization of political opponents as “fools.” The administration’s counter is that Crockett’s specific characterizations fail the factual test, and that her political style produces rhetoric disconnected from the substantive policy questions.

The Trade Letters Update

Trump returned to the trade letters topic. “Sending letters out on Monday having to do with the trade deals. It could be 12, maybe 15. You know, Secretary of Commerce right here. And I guess Howard, I would say it could be maybe as many as 15 or so. And they’ll be going out on Monday and some will go out on Tuesday and Wednesday. And we’ve made deals also. So we’re going to have a combination of letters and some deals have been made.”

The updated count — “12, maybe 15” — is slightly higher than the earlier “12” figure. The bundled rollout — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday — spreads the announcements across multiple days.

“We’ve made deals also” acknowledges that some countries have already reached agreements before the letter threshold. Those countries will receive deals rather than tariff letters. Other countries that did not reach agreements will receive the letters announcing their unilateral rates.

Netanyahu Meeting Preview

The reporter asked about the upcoming Netanyahu meeting. “What’s your message going to be to Netanyahu tomorrow?”

Trump’s response. “Well, we’re working on a lot of things with Israel. One of the things is probably a permanent deal with Iran. I mean, they have to give up all of the things that you know so well.”

“A permanent deal with Iran” is significant framing. The current Iran situation — the post-strikes ceasefire with continuing diplomatic engagement — is temporary in character. A permanent deal would lock in the outcomes: no nuclear weapons program, no further development, normalized relations in the context of those specific constraints.

“They have to give up all of the things that you know so well” captures the American terms. Iran must accept specific concessions: no enrichment, no missile development beyond specific ranges, no proxy network support, and other related constraints. Those concessions are what Iran would need to commit to in writing for the deal to be permanent.

”The Attack Turned Out According To Every Single Atomic Energy Commission”

Trump then provided the updated damage assessment validation. “The attack turned out according to every single atomic energy commission. That was a complete and total obliteration. We had the violence, as you know, at the White House on Friday, they were incredible. And they confirmed that. They know better than anybody, by the way, but they confirmed that. Every bomb hit its mark perfectly.”

“Every single atomic energy commission” is Trump’s claim of universal international validation. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and national atomic energy commissions of multiple countries have, by this point in the cycle, confirmed substantial damage to Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump is claiming that universal validation.

“The violence” at the White House Friday is unclear in the transcript — possibly a reference to the pilot recognition ceremony at the White House where the B-2 pilots and various operational personnel were honored. Those personnel — who flew the mission and have direct knowledge of what was destroyed — confirmed the damage assessment.

”The Word I Used Was The Correct Word”

Trump’s vindication framing. “They would have to start all over again at a different location. This one is as you know, the word I used was the correct word, obliteration.”

“Obliteration” was the word Trump used from the beginning. Critics questioned it. Media outlets characterized it as hyperbole. Subsequent evidence — Israeli Atomic Energy Commission letter, IAEA Director statements, Iranian foreign minister acknowledgment — has converged on characterizations consistent with obliteration.

“They would have to start all over again at a different location” is the reconstitution analysis. The damage at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan is severe enough that Iran would need to start from scratch at new locations if it wanted to rebuild. That reconstitution would take years and would be difficult to hide from international observation.

”Close To A Deal On Gaza”

Trump’s final preview. “Your message be on Gaza to Netanyahu? I think we’re close to a deal on Gaza. We could have it this week.”

“Close to a deal on Gaza” is the optimistic framing. The continuing negotiations involving hostage releases, ceasefire terms, and broader regional arrangements have, in Trump’s view, progressed to near-completion.

“We could have it this week” is the specific timing prediction. Trump has repeatedly predicted Gaza progress on specific timeframes. Whether this week’s prediction materializes depends on the Netanyahu meeting and the continuing engagement with other regional parties.

Bessent’s Final Framing

Bessent closed the video with his signature messaging. “What we saw was this mass unfettered immigration across the border, whether it’s 12 or 22 million people who came in, suppressed working people’s wages. For 20 years, the big lie was that this kind of immigration didn’t hurt working people.”

The “12 or 22 million” range captures the uncertainty about the actual scale of Biden-era undocumented entry. Official figures ran in the 10-12 million range. Administration estimates running to 20-22 million include “gotaways” who evaded detection and individuals who remained after visa expirations.

“Suppressed working people’s wages” is the direct claim. Whatever the exact number, the scale of immigration affected American wage dynamics. The specific mechanism — increased labor supply reducing wages for American workers in competitive categories — follows basic economics.

”Now Economists Have Come Out”

Bessent noted the changing academic consensus. “Now economists have come out and said, oh, what a surprise. Even the laws of supply and demand work in the low-end labor market.”

The observation is sardonic. For years, mainstream academic economics had been dominated by the David Card framework arguing that immigration effects on wages were small. George Borjas and others had challenged that framework with analyses suggesting substantial wage effects. The Borjas side has, over recent years, gained more academic recognition.

“Even the laws of supply and demand work in the low-end labor market” is Bessent’s pointed observation. The basic economic principles that apply to other markets also apply to labor markets. An increase in labor supply produces downward pressure on wages. That prediction follows from standard economics; its denial required special theoretical frameworks that have not survived empirical scrutiny.

”Parallel Prosperity”

Bessent offered his preferred framing. “So I talk about in that editorial what I call parallel prosperity, that for years Wall Street has done well. Now it’s time for Main Street to do well, and they can both do well. That’s the one big beautiful bill. That’s the beauty of this. It helps Wall Street and Main Street.”

“Parallel prosperity” is Bessent’s term. Rather than choosing between Wall Street prosperity and Main Street prosperity, the framework is for both to succeed simultaneously. Wall Street’s success does not require Main Street’s struggle. Main Street’s success does not require Wall Street’s decline. Both can occur simultaneously.

The framework captures the administration’s economic policy vision. Financial market success, corporate profits, capital formation — these Wall Street elements continue. Working-class wage growth, small business success, manufacturing employment — these Main Street elements also grow. Both sides benefit.

Key Takeaways

• Trump on Musk’s third party: “I think it’s ridiculous to start a third party. We have a tremendous success with the Republican Party…Third parties have never worked.”
• The Texas trip delay: “Probably Friday. I would have done it today, but would just be in their way.”
• Trade letters update: “It could be 12, maybe 15…they’ll be going out on Monday and some will go out on Tuesday and Wednesday. And we’ve made deals also.”
• On Iran: “A permanent deal with Iran. I mean, they have to give up all of the things that you know so well.”
• Bessent’s parallel prosperity: “Wall Street has done well. Now it’s time for Main Street to do well, and they can both do well. That’s the one big beautiful bill.”