Trump and Musk's marriage of convenience ended the only way possible for the pair
'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Donald Trump observed in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.'
The US president was referring to the war between Russia and Ukraine but could just as easily have been talking about himself. On Thursday, to the surprise of no one, Trump's bromance with billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk exploded in a very public feud.
While the president urged his supporters to 'fight, fight, fight' last summer after he survived an assassination attempt, now that mantra is evocative of children on a school playground urging Trump and Musk to go at each other. For political nerds this is like Alien v Predator, Batman v Superman and King Kong v Godzilla rolled into one.
It was always going to end this way for two megalomaniacs devoted to fame, money and the far right, neither of whom is unaccustomed to a messy divorce.
Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives' judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill: 'I suppose it was in the stars. Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.'
Trump-Musk had begun as the ultimate political marriage of convenience. Their interests converged last year when Musk saw in Trump a hammer against wokeness who could also benefit his businesses and help him reach Mars.
The Tesla and SpaceX supremo leaped on stage with Trump, flooded the zone with Maga propaganda on his X social media platform and threw a record $277m behind his election campaign. The reward came with a seat among the oligarchs at Trump's inauguration, a seemingly permanent residency at Mar-a-Lago and a chainsaw in the form of the so-called 'department of government efficiency', or Doge.
'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,' proclaimed Musk, who lorded it over cabinet meetings and in the Oval Office. Trump returned the compliment by turning the White House south lawn into a showroom for Teslas. The pair were as inseparable – and destructive – as Laurel and Hardy pushing a piano up a flight of stairs.
Then came last Friday's amicable but peculiar parting, where Musk sported a black eye, brushed off reports of rampant drug taking, praised Trump's tacky gold decor in the Oval Office and was presented with a commemorative gold key. Comedian Jon Stewart quipped: 'Doge has finally rooted out one of America's least efficient government workers and marked him for dismissal.'
On Tuesday, Musk waited until the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was at the podium before unleashing an X barrage. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he wrote, describing a Trump-based tax and spending bill in Congress as 'a disgusting abomination'. He followed up with three days of nonstop posts eviscerating the bill and urging Republicans to reject it.
It was the point of no return. The transactional Trump-Musk relationship was on its way to turning septic, sour and rancourous. There are multiple theories as to why.
The trouble began in March when it emerged that Musk arranged private Pentagon briefings on China policy without White House knowledge, a significant conflict of interest due to Musk's business ties in China. Trump was especially annoyed to learn about the briefings through the media, and about the perceived notion that Musk was using his position for personal advantage.
Second, when Trump travelled to the Middle East, Musk was reportedly piqued that his arch rival, Sam Altman of OpenAI, won a deal to build one of the world's biggest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Musk worked behind the scenes to try to derail the deal if it did not include his own AI startup, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Third, Musk was working at the White House as a 'special government employee', which is limited by law to 130 days; when Musk sought an extension, officials said no, perhaps because he had put so many backs up.
Fourth, last Saturday Trump suddenly announced that he was cancelling the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to be the administrator of Nasa.
And fifth, there was the 'big, beautiful bill', currently navigating Republicans in the Senate. Musk said in social media posts that it would increase the already massive budget deficit to $2.5tn, undermining his work at Doge. Notably, it would also the electric vehicle tax credit that helps carmakers including Tesla.
On Thursday, after days of uncharacteristic self-restraint, Trump struck back. He told reporters he was 'surprised' and 'very disappointed' by Musk's critiques of the bill, adding wistfully: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more.'
Musk returned fire on social media, writing: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude.'
He also agreed with a social media post that called for Trump to be impeached and removed from office.
The president replied on his own platform, Truth Social, that he effectively fired Musk. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!'
The mad men went nuclear. Trump threatened to cancel Musk's billions of dollars in government contracts, describing it as the easiest way to save money. Musk responded by linking Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: '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!'
The economic burden of Musk's government contracts and the Epstein files allegations were both true before the breakup, but neither man spoke up. Now they seem to have taken a truth serum and discovered a conscience.
Raskin observed: 'They basically converged around a common platform of plunder and pillage of the American people and now both of them are telling the truth about the other. It's a happy moment for America that we can finally get to the bottom of things like the Jeffrey Epstein files and all of the billions of dollars of government contracts that Elon Musk has.'
Mutually assured destruction? Musk could try to use X to mobilise opinion against Trump and his 'big, beautiful bill'. He could also try to exploit the government's dependence on him. His threat, which he later retracted, to cut off Nasa's use of SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft would be a huge blow to the space programme. The Pentagon and intelligence agencies have also become reliant on SpaceX.
Trump could follow through on his threat to cancel Musk's lucrative government contracts. He could reopen investigations into Musk's companies that were paused when Trump took office. The Trump ally Steve Bannon, whose extremist ideas have a habit of entering the Maga mainstream, called for the South African-born Musk to be deported and SpaceX to be nationalised.
Even as Tesla shares lost $150bn in market value, Musk seems to be betting that he has gathered enough dirt on Trump to survive the information war. Trump, now making plenty of his own money from deals in the Gulf and elsewhere, seems to have decided that Musk has outlived his political usefulness. There is no threat to his command of the Republican party, where Musk is seen as something of an interloper.
But what of the Democrats? For now they only have to get out of the way and gleefully watch the spectacle unfold. Some suggest an 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach to Musk, whose money could swing elections in their favor. Others say a man who gave a Nazi-style salute on inauguration day, and whose Doge cuts have already caused deaths in the world's poorest countries, is beyond redemption.
From this perspective, a nihilstic war between the world's most powerful man and the world's wealthiest man brings to mind former secretary of state Henry Kissinger's remark about the Iran-Iraq war: 'It's a pity they can't both lose.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS College sports changed forever as judge approves groundbreaking move
Judge Claudia Wilken has approved the settlement in the House v. NCAA case - which now paves a pathway to allow colleges and universities to directly pay their athletes and changes the dynamic of American collegiate athletics forever. A decade ago, college athletes were treated as amateurs and were not directly compensated for their contributions to athletic departments, nor were they able to be paid by outside companies. With the rise of name, image, and likeness agreements in 2021, athletes could sign endorsement deals with companies and collectives of donors could pool money which could be given to athletes. Now, with this landmark settlement, the NCAA's member institutions will be allowed to pay their athletes directly in the form of revenue sharing agreements. The focal point of this case began with Arizona State swimmer Grant House, who sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences at the time - the SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC, and Pac-12 - to lift restrictions on revenue sharing. Wilken gave approval to a final proposal after months of negotiating multiple finer points of the deal - including roster limits.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
President of California's largest union arrested while observing ICE raids in LA
Labor leader David Huerta was detained while observing Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids taking place in Los Angeles. The Service Employees International Union California (SEIU) says that its president was injured during the ICE raids and is calling for his release, NBC4 Los Angeles reports. 'SEIU California members call for the immediate release of our President, David Huerta, who was injured and detained at the site of one of today's ICE raids in Los Angeles. He is now receiving medical attention while in custody,' Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU California, said. Mayor Karen Bass told NBC4 that Huerta had been pepper-sprayed during the incident. "He is doing ok physically, but I know what really impacted him the most was the emotional trauma of watching parents and kids being separated," Bass said. "He's going into ICE custody and we hope to get him out very soon." The mayor said she does not know why Huerta is being detained. The SEIU issued a statement supporting Huerta, insisting that he was "exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity." 'We are proud of President Huerta's righteous participation as a community observer, in keeping with his long history of advocating for immigrant workers and with the highest values of our movement: standing up to injustice, regardless of personal risk or the power of those perpetrating it," the union said. Orr also condemned the ICE raids. 'We call for an end to the cruel, destructive, and indiscriminate ICE raids that are tearing apart our communities, disrupting our economy, and hurting all working people. Immigrant workers are essential to our society: feeding our nation, caring for our elders, cleaning our workplaces, and building our homes,' she said. Bass said she is going to meet with immigrant support groups to discuss plans for responding to situations like the mass ICE raids in the future. "My message to them is that we are going to fight for all Angelenos regardless of when they got here, whether they have papers or not," she said. "We are a city of immigrants, and this impacts hundreds of thousands of Angelenos." ICE arrested approximately 44 people in Friday's raid, according to Homeland Security Investigations. 'Today, ICE officers and agents alongside partner law enforcement agencies, executed four federal search warrants at three location in central Los Angeles. Approximately 44 people were administratively arrested and one arrest for obstruction. The investigation remains ongoing, updates will follow as appropriate," HSI spokesperson Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe said in a statement.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again. ___
