LIZ PEEK: Five critical takeaways from the epic Trump-Musk rumble
The world's richest man and the world's most powerful man are butting heads in one of the most embarrassing and possibly most damaging squabbles of all time; it was inevitable.
For months, observers of the bromance between President Donald Trump and Tesla founder Elon Musk have wondered when, not if, it would end. Two men whose accomplishments have bestowed them with sizeable egos, are both impulsive, quick to rile and not shy about taking their every thought public.
Both men, used to having their way and getting things done, joined forces to take on the status quo in Washington, and ran smack into the concrete of bureaucratic inertia, making their tasks almost impossible. Trump, in his second Oval Office term, was expecting that. Musk, though, did not take resistance well.
The row between Musk and Trump that emerged on X and Truth Social, respectively, had all the dignity of mud wrestling. It began with Musk calling the president's "Big, Beautiful Bill" an abomination, irate that it is projected to add trillions of dollars to the nation's debt. At a moment when Republicans are struggling to pass a critical piece of their agenda, turning public opinion against the legislation was a slap in the face to the White House.
Trump responded by acknowledging to reporters some uncertainty about the future of their relationship, causing Musk to attack the bill again, and, in particular, its rescinding of tax credits for EVs, a potential hit to the fortunes of Tesla. Musk then took credit for GOP victories in last year's election, posting, "Such ingratitude."
The back-and-forth spooled out over a few hours, with Musk and Trump ramping up their outrage and accusations. Trump posted that Musk went "crazy" when he asked the SpaceX founder to leave the government and because "I took away his EV mandate."
Ultimately, Musk posted what he described as a "big bomb," claiming that Trump was "in" the Epstein files, which is "why they have not been made public." That charge falls flat, because the public has known for years that Trump flew on Epstein's jet; if anything especially damaging is in those files, certainly former President Joe Biden would have leaked it.
The nastiness continued, with Musk predicting that the "Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of the year." Finally, after threatening to decommission the Dragon spacecraft that ferried astronauts home from the space station, which would hurt the country and Musk's prestigious leadership of our space effort, someone recommended on X that Musk cool off, and he quieted down.
This is not the first time in recent months that Musk has lashed out at members of the Trump administration. After the election he got into a shouting match with Trump lawyer Boris Epshteyn, as the two men jousted for influence over cabinet picks. He also reportedly got into a loud altercation recently with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over who should lead the IRS.
As Axios reported, "Musk has had high-profile disputes with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Trade Adviser Peter Navarro as well."
As these battles raged, some in the administration concluded that Musk had gotten a "little big for his britches," while and another told NBC News that the entrepreneur is "behaving as if he's a co-president."
Most recently, Musk blew up when his pick for NASA director, Jared Isaacman, was dumped at the last minute, reportedly as punishment for his criticism of the BBB. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, the "decision infuriated Musk, who complained to associates over the weekend that he had donated hundreds of millions of dollars to help get Trump elected…", suggesting he expected payback. Not wise.
Generally, Trump has succeeded in controlling the big personalities on his team. After Musk's set-to with Bessent, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, "it's no secret President Trump has put together a team of people who are incredibly passionate about the issues impacting our country."
Sometimes passion is uncontrollable.
A few conclusions:
1. Elon Musk is a somewhat erratic genius who has built some of the most consequential businesses of our time. But he knows very little about how the government functions and what is required to pass legislation. The BBB is far from perfect, but it is likely the best Republicans can do.
2. If Musk thinks he can make new friends on the Left, he's wrong. They hate him for being anti-union and anti-woke, guaranteeing free speech on Twitter (X) and for electing Trump. He has opined about a new political party – that won't happen.
3. Musk did the U.S. a great service by calling out some of the waste and fraud he and his DOGE team discovered. The effort will hopefully go forward, as bipartisan estimates of misspent taxpayer dollars run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. That is unacceptable, and unaffordable.
4. As we hurtle towards an AI-informed world, Musk's xAI will be essential to providing balance. Do we want to cede all future instruction and the rewriting of history to leftists at Google or Meta? No, Musk's company will provide an alternative, which must be encouraged.
Most recently, Musk blew up when his pick for NASA director, Jared Isaacman, was dumped at the last minute, reportedly as punishment for his criticism of the BBB.
5. Trump managed to harness Musk's brilliance to the service of the country. He also benefited from Musk's substantial support during the election. For both those reasons, the president should make every effort to rebuild his relationship with Musk who can help keep our technology and space industries the envy of the world. For his part, Musk should remember: there is only one president.
Musk and Trump created a partnership that benefited the country. It wasn't perfect; the government is a dangerous place to make waves. President Trump discovered that during his first term. Beneficiaries of the status quo rise up to resist change; with every dollar cut, someone's ox gets gored. But the work must go forward. This Trump-Musk rift must heal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why We're Dodging These 3 Gold CEFs (Even With Gold Soaring)
A lump of gold on a stone floor getty Here's a surprise from a die-hard closed-end fund (CEF) fan like me: Sometimes CEFs aren't your best bet. I'll admit, that's tough for me to say—especially when the average CEF yields a historically high 9.1%. (CEF yields are usually around 8.5%). That high yield partly reflects the fact that many CEFs are trading at steep discounts to their net asset value (NAV). Translation: The fund is trading for less than what its underlying portfolio is worth. That, in turn, has resulted in lower prices among some CEFs, along with higher yields (as yields and prices move in opposite directions). All of this simply means that CEFs are generally out of favor right now, which is an opportunity for us. But not every CEF is ripe for buying. We especially want to avoid the three top performers among CEFs with market caps over $200 million: ASA Gold and Precious Metals (ASA), the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) and the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The fact that these funds have booked strong runs this year shouldn't come as a surprise: They're all gold funds, and gold has taken off due to rising economic uncertainty (the usual fuel for the yellow metal). Even so, as you can see, there are some clear differences in performance here, and those are worth unpacking. Gold Funds Ycharts Above we see that the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust—with the somewhat confusing 'CEF' ticker, not to be confused with CEFs in general (in purple)—and PHYS (in blue) have similar returns to the benchmark SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) ETF (in green), at around 25%. Then there's ASA (in orange), which has more than doubled even the best of these three other funds. There is some logic at work here. For starters, PHYS and GLD really should track each other, since they both devote almost 100% of their portfolios to physical gold (both own gold bars that are locked up in vaults), and both have similar expense ratios (0.4% for GLD, 0.41% for PHYS). The lower performance of 'CEF' is also not surprising, given that the fund also holds silver, and the 'poor man's gold' hasn't done as well as its yellow counterpart this year. ASA, however, is the clear outperformer. That's thanks in part to its ownership of several gold-mining stocks. Its largest position, G Mining Ventures Inc., a Canadian firm that explores for precious metals, has nearly doubled year to date. ASA's fast short-term gain is, of course, great, but it's unlikely to last. Here's why. Note that, if we go back to 2010, the year the last of these funds, PHYS, launched, we see that GLD (again in green) outran all three of the CEFs. This shows that CEFs were poor options in the case of gold. Moreover, ASA (again in orange) was actually the worst performer, returning just 53% over 15 years, and being in the red for most of that time. ASA Underperforms Ycharts In terms of key takeaways, there are a few here. First, if you want to hold gold, this is a rare case where an ETF, not a CEF, is the better choice. Second, gold is not a great play for income, given that the highest yielder among these funds is ASA, with a puny 0.2%. Third, gold itself is a poor play for the long term, no matter how you invest in it. To see why, all we need to do is splice the S&P 500's performance (in pink below) into that last chart. Gold Underperforms Ycharts It doesn't get much clearer than that! This, however, is where the good news ends for ETF investors. Because when it comes to investing in stocks (or pretty well any other asset class, for that matter), you're far better off with CEFs. Let's take a look at the Adams Diversified Equity Fund (ADX), a CEF we've held in my CEF Insider service since its earliest days: We bought ADX in July 2017, just a few months after CEF Insider's launch. Here's how the fund—current yield: 9% (and in orange below)—has done since, as compared to the S&P 500 index fund SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), in purple, with dividends reinvested: ADX Outperforms Ycharts This chart says it all: CEFs like ADX can crush the S&P 500 and pay us generously while doing so. Plus they give us access to top-notch management and upside-generating discounts to NAV, too. Those are strengths no index fund can match. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 10% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own
Prime Minister Mark Carney's pledge to make the Canadian economy the strongest in the G7 is the equivalent of attempting to turn around the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. An indication of the enormity of this task is to look at the performance of the G7 countries in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, which measures economic output per person, adjusted for inflation, and is a widely accepted metric of a nation's prosperity and standard of living. Low economic growth as measured by real GDP per capita has been a longstanding problem in Canada. Under Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau (who appointed Carney to chair his economic growth task force in September 2024), Canada recorded the worst record of economic growth since the government of R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression. According to Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies for the Fraser Institute writing in The Hub last year, Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 1.9% in the Trudeau years. That was lowest in the G7, which includes the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and, most alarmingly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, where real GDP per capita grew by 14.7% during the same period. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, also writing in The Hub last year, noted real GDP per capita in the U.S. is now almost 50% higher than in Canada – unprecedented in modern history. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action EDITORIAL: Carney defies calls for a spring budget GOLDSTEIN: Carney's hocus-pocus plan to increase debt and balance the budget In the Liberals' 2022 budget, then-finance minister Chrystia Freehand warned that unless this trend is reversed, 'the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development projects that Canada will have the lowest per-capita GDP growth rate among its (38) member countries' from 2020 to 2060. Carney's announcement of proposed legislation on Friday – which he wants passed before Parliament adjourns from the summer – to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, increase labour mobility and streamline government approvals for nation building infrastructure projects, are all aimed at increasing economic growth. But they all depend on co-operation by and among the provinces. And the reality is that decades of inaction on these issues has cost the Canadian economy an estimated $200 billion annually, increased the cost of goods and services to Canadians by up to 14.5% and reduced GDP growth by up to 8% annually. At the meeting between Carney and Canada's premiers and territorial leaders last week in Saskatoon to address these issues in the face of the threat posed to the Canadian economy by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, all the participants paid lip service to working together on these issues. But the one premier not present – B.C.'s David Eby, who was on a trade mission to Asia – promptly rejected any new pipeline crossing his province's territory, as did many Quebec politicians when it comes to their province. Any new pipelines will also be opposed by environmental organizations and some (although not all) Indigenous groups who, while they do not have veto power over such projects, must be meaningfully consulted under Canadian law. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has cited the enormous economic damage caused by Canada's failure to build pipelines. Had the Northern Gateway, Energy East and Keystone pipelines been built (Keystone was killed by then-U.S. president Barack Obama), she said, Canada would be producing 2.5 million more barrels of oil per day. 'That's $55 billion a year worth of GDP value, which is worth $17 billion to my government alone and about an equal amount to the federal government.' The Carney government does have more direct control of some issues it can move on to boost Canada's economic growth. For example, it can introduce taxation policies that encourage businesses to invest in new technologies that boost productivity, as well as increase competition. It can lower Canada's immigration levels so that increases in population do not exceed the rate of economic growth, which reduces GDP per capita. It can reduce government spending. On that issue, Carney says he intends to reduce the growth rate in the operational costs of the federal government under Trudeau from 9% annually to less than 2%. But Carney's election campaign platform also outlined $130 billion in new spending over four years with total deficits of $224.8 billion. While Carney says most of that will be spent on infrastructure, it's 71% higher than the $131.4 billion in deficit spending the Trudeau government predicted during the same period in its fall economic statement in December 2024. Finally, of course, Carney needs to negotiate a deal on tariffs with Trump. lgoldstein@
