5 winners from the Trump-Musk breakup
The vicious blowup between President Trump and Elon Musk has shaken up the power dynamics in Washington, D.C.
As Musk burns his bridges to the White House and MAGA World, several of his political and business rivals stand to benefit. And while Musk's enemies may relish his ouster, some of Trump's biggest rivals could also gain from the president's feud with the world's richest man.
Here are the people, businesses and factions that could win from Musk's loss.
Musk's alienation from Trump gives Jeff Bezos a major opportunity to improve his tumultuous relationship with the president and fuel the growth of Blue Origin, his aerospace company.
Even before Musk's alignment with Trump, he and Bezos butted heads for years as the billionaires dueled each other for dominance over the private-sector space race.
At the same time, Bezos was fending off Trump's attacks on The Washington Post and facing off with the administration in court.
Musk's SpaceX had already cemented itself as the industry leader before joining forces with Trump, far outpacing Blue Origin in total launches while also servicing the International Space Station.
But Musk's growing ties to Trump threatened to deepen SpaceX's connection to the government and siphon billions of dollars in federal contracts away from Blue Origin.
With Musk out of Trump's good graces, Bezos now has an opening to build on months of work to curry the president's favor.
Ahead of the 2024 election, Bezos spiked the Post's pending endorsement of former Vice President Kamala Harris, a move critics derided as self-interested. In an op-ed for the Post, Bezos said his decision was made based on editorial principle alone, but he acknowledged how his business empire has become a 'complexifier' for the paper.
Amazon was also one of several major tech companies to donate $1 million to Trump's inauguration, and it inked a documentary deal with Melania Trump reportedly worth $40 million.
Musk's exit is another win for Boeing after months of progress moving forward from a series of scandals and safety lapses.
As Boeing faced federal investigations into its safety protocols for commercial aircraft, it also suffered an embarrassing setback in its spacecraft efforts during the Biden administration.
Astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams spent months stuck on the International Space Station after taking off from Earth on Boeing's Starliner in June 2024. What was supposed to be a weeklong mission turned into a nine-month ordeal in which several Starliner maintenance issues delayed their return to Earth.
Former President Biden rejected Musk's offer to bring Wilmore and Williams home with the SpaceX Dragon amid its own feud with the tech CEO. The Biden administration held an electric vehicle summit earlier in Biden's term, but it snubbed Musk, sending the Tesla CEO on his path toward endorsing Trump.
Wilmore and Williams finally returned to Earth in March after Trump dispatched the Dragon to bring them back.
Musk threatened Thursday to ground the Dragon amid Trump's threats to scrap SpaceX's federal contracts, which would have debilitated the U.S. space program. While Musk has since pulled back from that threat, his feud with Trump gives Boeing an opening to move forward from the Starliner mishap.
Before this week, Musk's most notable falling out with an ally may have been his feud with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
Musk, one of the co-founders of the nonprofit artificial intelligence (AI) firm behind ChatGPT, has battled Altman in the courts and on the internet over his leadership. He had consistently criticized Altman for plans to make OpenAI a for-profit business — plans that have since been scrapped — and sued the company for an alleged breach of its commitments.
Musk also launched xAI, one of several rivals to OpenAI, and incorporated the Grok chatbot into X, the social media platform he also owns.
Trump, however, ignored Musk's disdain for Altman and made OpenAI a major player in Project Stargate, his effort to build out AI data and energy centers.
Musk was forced to abide Trump's partnership with Altman, and the president dismissed his adviser's beef with OpenAI when touting the benefits of the deal.
'No it doesn't. He hates one of the people in the deal,' Trump said in January when asked if Musk's criticism bothered him.
'I've spoken to Elon. I've spoken to all of them, actually. The people in the deal are very, very smart people,' Trump continued. 'But Elon, one of the people in the deal he happens to hate, but I have certain hatreds of people too.'
With Altman's arch rival out of the White House, the path is clear for an even bigger role in Trump's efforts to boost AI.
While Musk shared Trump's support for stricter border security, he spent his stint with the president at odds with some of Trump's closest advisers and major MAGA movement leaders.
Even before Trump took office, a war over H-1B visas erupted between Musk and several Trump allies who are fiercely opposed to courting immigrants and who back Trump's severe immigration restrictions.
Musk squared off with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and right-wing activist Laura Loomer over the H-1B program.
'I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend,' Musk, reportedly a former H-1B recipient, wrote in one of several posts on X defending the visas.
While the tech CEO said H-1Bs were essential for U.S. competitiveness, Bannon and Loomer accused Musk of supporting a 'scam' that would undermine Trump's America First platform.
Musk has also butted heads with Stephen Miller, a top Trump White House policy adviser and the architect of much of the president's immigration restriction agenda. In recent days, Miller has been front and center in defending Trump's tax cut and spending bill, the measure behind the rupture between Musk and Trump.
'The reconciliation bill cuts taxes, seals the border and reforms welfare. It is not a spending bill. There is no 'pork.' It is the campaign agenda codified,' Miller said Thursday on X, a clear swipe at Musk, if not by name.
Bannon has gone even further, urging Trump to seize control of SpaceX and deport Musk, a native of South Africa, citing allegations that his legal status in the country had lapsed.
Democrats have had a miserable start to 2025, but the Musk-Trump feud is undoubtedly good news for the time being.
The messy online battle between Trump and Musk gave Democrats some relief from months of ineffectual attempts to impede the president's agenda, recriminations over the 2024 election, divisions about their future, and a lack of clear leadership, resulting in historic unpopularity.
'Oh, man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quipped Thursday. 'We'll see what the impacts are of it legislatively.'
Trump, eager to quash a distraction from his legislative push, sought Friday to ice the feud with Musk and move forward. But one first-term Trump White House aide said Musk's alienation could lead to further fractures in the GOP, which could give Democrats some room to breathe after a brutal six-month stretch.
'We think we've seen some real legislative gridlock — but with new life and momentum breathed into the Freedom Caucus's power, I don't think we've seen anything yet,' the former White House aide said.
'At a time when Republicans need to be united more than ever, the most dangerous faction I've seen could be accelerating quickly — and congressional leadership may soon find they have less control than ever.'
Democrats were already banking on Musk being an electoral liability in next year's midterm elections, though they were wary of drawing his money into the race. If Musk follows through on threats to punish Republicans who voted for Trump's bill, the divided field could boost Democrats even further.
'He's already suggested Republicans wouldn't have kept the House without his help, and while he previously downplayed any plans to get politically involved, that's harder to believe as the rhetoric between him and Trump heats up,' the former White House aide said.
'The midterms are a prime opportunity to back up that claim — and in swing districts where a couple million dollars can tip the scales, his involvement could be a game-changer.'
Alex Gangitano contributed.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?
Black America Web
29 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
