Is Trump the antichrist? — and other hard questions Christians should be asking - ABC Religion & Ethics
We live in apocalyptic times — at least, that's what it feels like. Having emerged from a global pandemic and still reckoning with its lingering effects, we now face a spate of new challenges. People are being rounded up on the streets of America and deported without due process, millions of the world's poorest are predicted to die due to the cuts in USAID, civilians and aid workers alike continue to be bombed or shot in Gaza, antisemitism is on the rise, and war rages in various parts of the globe. That's before we mention climate change and any number of other pressing justice issues. One does not have to look far to wonder what is going on in our world and what disaster might come next.
I don't use the word 'apocalyptic' lightly. Nor do I mean by it some kind of world-ending catastrophe. Apocalypse — from the Greek apocalypsis — means an unveiling, a revelation or disclosure of something previously hidden. It is a laying bare of the world so as to see it for what it really is underneath the distractions of celebrity, wealth or power. And one of the things unveiled, at least in the apocalypses in the Bible, is evil.
What does the Bible say about evil?
In the New Testament, evil is depicted in a variety of ways. The apostle Paul uses language of sin and its power to describe something that holds humans in its grip. Other writers refer to Satan or the Devil, a supernatural being usually thought of as a rebellious fallen angel who now acts against God and accuses God's people.
But what about human evil? In the later apocalyptic texts of the New Testament, evil is described as manifest in human beings who are described as 'antichrist' or imaginatively depicted as a monstrous beast whose number is '666'. Both of these images — antichrist and 666 — have captured popular imagination and been (mis)applied to numerous figures throughout history. Barack Obama, the Pope, the President of the United Nations, Saddam Hussein and the prophet Muhammad have all been labelled as 'Antichrists' or bearers of the beastly 666. Is such a thing justifiable by thinking Christians? Perhaps.
The antichrist appears in the Johannine epistles as a figure who opposes Jesus. He is literally someone who is anti-Christ. Notably, there are many of these: people who deny that Jesus is the Messiah and who oppose him and his followers. Such people are depicted as liars but compelling enough to deceive the world with their lies (see 1 John 2:22, 4:5; 2 John 7).
Closely related to anti-Christs are pseudo-Christs or false Messiahs (Matthew 24:24). Deception is likewise their dominant trait, insofar as they lead Christians astray with signs and wonders (Mark 13:22). Implicit in their designation is the idea that they present themselves as Christ-like figures, messianic leaders and saviours who want people to follow them rather than Jesus — Which is to say, they set themselves up in imitation of, and competition with, Jesus Christ.
For the author of the Book of Revelation, Nero is the manifestation of evil for Christians living in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. (belterz / E+ / Getty Images)
The fullest iteration of an antichrist figure comes in the form of a multi-headed beast in Revelation 13. This figure has become monstrous and more than human. It has seven heads with ten horns and seven crowns, symbolising his power. Like Frankenstein's creation, he is hybrid in form, compiled from powerful and fast animals — leopard, bear and lion. And like the Lamb image for Jesus in Revelation, this beast has survived a mortal wound and yet is alive and healed.
Scholars agree that this beast who is assigned the number 666 is most likely a veiled reference to the Emperor Nero. Nero was remembered by ancient historians as an egotistical, violent tyrant. He was also no friend to Christians, blaming them for the great fire that decimated Rome in 64 CE. Like Jesus, Nero was rumoured to have survived death — in his case, a self-inflicted mortal knife-wound. Rumours circulated in the last decades of the first century CE that Nero had returned to claim the empire (the Nero Redivivus myth ). These 'false-Neros' were pretenders for the imperial throne.
For the author of the Book of Revelation, Nero is the manifestation of evil for Christians living in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. Nero is not the point of the story, however. Rather, he is the face of a regime that is unjust and evil. Revelation exposes the Roman Empire itself as one that is murderous and violent, a place where some have become extremely wealthy and others are impoverished and enslaved, and where the only veneration allowed is of Rome and her gods who demand unflagging allegiance.
Revelation offers an analysis of evil that goes far beyond locating it in one individual. Evil is not a person. The great unveiling in Revelation is that evil is communal and systemic, found in any empire or other collective that is unjust, oppressive, deceitful, violent and stands in opposition to God and God's values.
Evil incarnate?
So let's ask the provocative question: is Donald Trump the antichrist? The short answer is no , because there is no one antichrist. To claim that the number 666 refers to a specific person is to misunderstand the symbolic and polyvalent nature of the ancient biblical texts.
The whole point of Revelation is that evil becomes incarnate in systems and regimes that transcend any individual. Trump, however, may be an antichrist — that is, part of a much larger phenomenon. That phenomenon, I suggest, is Christian nationalism.
In a sermon preached on Revelation 13 during the Second World War, Scottish theologian Thomas Torrance said, 'It is one of the deep hypnotic mysteries of human history, that evil can become 'incarnate' in apparently Christian form.' Torrance was, of course, addressing the monstrosity that was Nazism — a movement that utilised Christian imagery and language in pursuit of national reconstruction; whose leader, Adolf Hitler, consistently claimed to be Christian; and which had the support of many Christian churches in a country where over 90 per cent of the population in the 1930s identified as Christian. For Torrance, Nazism was evil wrapped in Christian guise.
Christian nationalism is based on the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and ought to be defended as such. Yet the Christianity at play here has a certain set of characteristics: it is white, masculine, patriarchal and not afraid to embrace violence. Christian nationalism defines Christianity as a religion of power, where God is on the side of might.
The comparisons between Germany in the 1930s and America under Trump are coming in thick and fast: attacks on education, vilification of certain groups, the demise of truth, limiting of free speech and authoritarianism are all on full display — so too is the use of Christianity as a prop and a costume for the Project 2025 agenda.
US President Donald Trump prays during an 'Evangelicals for Trump' coalition launch event in Miami, Florida, on Friday, 3 January 2020. (Photographer: Marco Bello / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
There are two things we need to consider when thinking about the Trump administration and its relationship to Christianity. On the one hand, there are the obvious ways Trump's team is iconographically presenting him as a Christ-like, saviour figure. Photo ops show him surrounded by a team of people fervently praying. In many of them Trump sits as if enthroned, while those around him stand and even kneel before him. Purchasable digital cards of Trump shroud him in golden light or show him as a superhero. A variation of this trend appeared recently when the White House social media accounts shared an AI-generated image of Trump as pope, dressed in full papal regalia including cross and mitre. He had previously joked to the media 'I'd like to be Pope. That would be my first choice.'
The second thing we need to consider is the actions of Trump and his team. In the first 100 days, Trump has:
put millions of lives at risk by pausing most foreign aid;
put millions of lives at risk by pausing most foreign aid; prioritised the arrest of undocumented migrants;
prioritised the arrest of undocumented migrants; stopped most immigration by brown skinned people while proactively offering visa to white South Africans;
stopped most immigration by brown skinned people while proactively offering visa to white South Africans; expanded Guantanamo while pardoning 6 January rioters;
expanded Guantanamo while pardoning 6 January rioters; paused military aid to Ukraine;
paused military aid to Ukraine; tried to limit diversity and inclusion measures; and
tried to limit diversity and inclusion measures; and created a culture of fear that blames certain minorities for America not being 'great again'.
By any measure, policies that risk life, oppress the most vulnerable and do not meet basic standards of justice and due process are not in keeping with biblical values — values that inform the US judicial system, albeit i mperfectly.
Vice-President JD Vance also tried to redefine Christian love, justifying mass deportation on the grounds that the Catholic idea of ordo amoris — the proper ordering of loves — sets priorities focused on family, local community and nation before others. Pope Leo XIV, at the time a cardinal, shared an article on Twitter rebutting Vance and wrote, 'JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn't ask us to rank our love for others.' Pope Francis likewise wrote that Vance's attitude did not reflect the fullness of biblical teaching on love.
Humans are fallible and no one of us will perfectly embody Christian teachings. But what we are witnessing in the United States is something more sinister than ordinary Christian fallibility. The Trump-Vance government claims to be a defender of Christianity and free speech — even presenting a bill to 'eradicate anti-Christian bias' — while also arresting Christians for prayerful protest in the Capital. It appears that only regime-supporting Christians are worthy of freedom, revealing that the so-called defence of Christianity is a cover for a program of lies, injustice, fear-mongering, control and white nationalism packaged as true Christianity.
What about Australia?
What does any of this mean for our country? The recent federal election delivered a resounding affirmation of the political centre. Trump-style politics did not play well for those who tried them. But that does not mean we should not be alert to strands of Christian nationalism here.
In her book Jesus and John Wayne , historian Kristen Kobes Du Mez writes that evangelical Christian support for Trump was:
the culmination of evangelicals' embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad.
Constantine Campbell puts it slightly differently in his book Jesus v. Evangelicals : 'The evangelical movement must be refashioned in Jesus' image, rather than cast Jesus in its image.' For him, Christ-like qualities of humility, peace-making, love and mercy have been replaced by arrogance, fortune building, manipulation, judgement and seeking after political power in much American Christianity.
Thankfully, the majority of Australian Christians have no intention of going down the American path of Christian nationalism. We must be vigilant and work hard to keep it that way. When power, wealth, violence, control, patriarchy or divisiveness become the main game of any Christian movement, we need to ask hard questions about whether that truly reflects the Jesus of the gospels or what we are seeing might really be evil, in apparently Christian guise.
Robyn Whitaker is Associate Professor of New Testament at the University of Divinity, founding Director of The Wesley Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Policy and author of Even the Devil Quotes Scripture.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump-Musk bromance spirals into public spat
Elon Musk receives the key to the White House from U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 30, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard (Reuters: Nathan Howard)

News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Australian company Intrepid Travel fights back against Donald Trump threat to US national parks
An Australian company is fighting back against Donald Trump's planned upheaval of US national parks. Since US President Donald Trump took office, more than 1000 park workers have been laid off (more than 700 others took buyouts), and more are expected to be let go. There is also a proposal to cut more than $US1 billion ($A1.5 billion) in federal funding for the US National Parks Service (nearly 40 per cent of the agency's current budget). NPS oversees 85 million acres of federal land and there are 433 sites in the National Park System, with parks in every state. National Park Conservation Association president Theresa Pierno described Mr Trump's proposed budget plan as 'catastrophic,' arguing that the 'national park system would be completely decimated'. Mr Trump wants to see some parks (that the White House describes as 'not 'national parks' in the traditionally understood sense') go to the states, but there are concerns states don't have the resources to maintain the parks, which will force them to close. The White House claims the proposed budget would 'continue supporting many national treasures, but there is an urgent need to streamline staffing and transfer certain properties to state-level management to ensure the long-term health and sustainment of the national park system'. Aussie-born company fights back A Melbourne-born global travel company, which runs tours across 18 US national parks, has made its stance clear. Speaking to on Thursday, Intrepid Travel's Leigh Barnes described national parks as 'incredibly important' to the US and said the White House's massive proposed funding cuts are 'putting access at risk'. 'We need healthy, vibrant national parks for our business, and also the impact of not having tourism go to national parks in the USA is going to put local businesses underground,' said Mr Barnes, an Australian who relocated to Seattle this year to take up the role of managing director of the Americas. In response to the Trump Administration's actions, Intrepid has now launched limited edition 'Active-ism' trips in the parks, hosted by influential activists and local guides. The trips are about $US500-$600 ($A770-$920) cheaper than a standard itinerary, despite the addition of an activist. 'That has been a deliberate focus, making them as accessible as possible,' Mr Barnes said. 'They're not going to be the world's greatest profit generator for the organisation, but that's not the purpose.' Intrepid will also donate $US50,000 ($A77,000) on behalf of its travellers to nongovernmental organisations protecting the US national parks. Intrepid has 26 trips across 18 national parks, and employs 200 local guides and 60 staff there. The company has taken more than 20,000 travellers and expects to host another 5000 this year. Mr Barnes explained that it's not just direct jobs at the US National Parks Service at risk. 'They (national parks) are absolutely amazing economic drivers for these areas. Having these national parks creates jobs in and around the national parks ecosystem. Not just the national parks employees but all the little smaller businesses and ecosystems it supports,' he said. He added: 'They're a massive pride and icon in the USA. 'We want to ensure these amazing parts of the USA are not just here for this generation but the generations beyond.' Mr Barnes said the more people who experience nature, the more that are likely to advocate for these spaces, so his team simply asked themselves, 'how do we encourage more people to go out to national parks?'. The Active-ism trips include two five-day 'Zion and The Grand Canyon' trips hosted by public lands advocate Alex Haraus in November and environmental advocate Wawa Gatheru in April next year, and then two six-day 'Yellowstone and The Grand Tetons' trips hosted by climate educator Michael Mezzatesta and environmental author Leah Thomas in June next year. The target market is Americans but anyone can book. Discussions guests can expect include the current threats facing US national parks, the impact of climate change, Indigenous land rights, equity in outdoor spaces, and how to turn awareness into advocacy. Mr Barnes, previously Intrepid's chief customer officer in Melbourne, took on leading the Americas side of the business at a challenging time for US tourism. March — the same month Mr Barnes relocated his family to the States — saw the sharpest drop in Australians travelling to the US since during the height of the Covid pandemic, according to US International Trade Administration statistics. Australian visitor numbers fell 7 per cent in March this year, compared to March 2024 — the biggest drop since March 2021. Flight Centre and Intrepid Travel told last month bookings to the US had dropped significantly as Aussies, Canadians and Europeans choose to travel elsewhere. Globally, Intrepid saw a year-on-year 9 per cent decline in US sales for the first four months of the year. US sales for Australian and New Zealand travellers in particular were down 13 per cent. April alone was down 44 per cent on last year. But other areas such as South America are 'booming'. As a result, Mr Barnes said his team had increased their focus on domestic travel within the US, promoting the right products at the right time, and increasing their brand presence (last week Intrepid became an official partner of the Seattle Storm WNBA team). All eyes on American tourism The global tourism industry is keeping a close eye on the impact of Mr Trump's strict border stance and other controversial government policies like sweeping tariffs are having on travel. On Thursday, Mr Trump signed a new travel ban banning people from 12 countries to 'protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors'. The ban targets nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Flight Centre CEO and founder Graham Turner told it was an 'unsettled climate' impacting business travel, while tourists worry about passport control and others simply don't want to go to the US 'because they don't like what Donald Trump's doing'. Tourism Economics — which forecasts foreign traveller arrivals in the US will sharply decline this year resulting in a loss of $9 billion in spending — said decisions from the Trump Administration are creating a 'negative sentiment shift toward the US among travellers'. The travel data company's April report cited Mr Trump's stance on border security and immigration as one of the factors discouraging visits. Mr Trump rejects the notion that the country's tourism industry is in any trouble — saying 'tourism is way up'. Security checks at US airports have garnered much attention in recent months amid Mr Trump's 'enhanced vetting' for arrivals at US airports and cases of tourists being denied entry on arrival, and at times, strip searched and thrown in prison. Former NSW police officer Nikki Saroukos is one of those people who recently travelled to the US using an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the Visa Waiver Program and was deported, but first she had to spend a night in a federal prison. She said she was subjected to invasive searches and humiliating treatment for trying to spend time with her US military husband stationed in Hawaii. The US Department of Homeland Security later issued what it described as a 'fact check' on X after she went public with the ordeal, accusing her of having 'unusual activity on her phone, including 1000 deleted text messages from her husband'. Homeland Security said 'officers determined that she was travelling for more than just tourism'. But Ms Saroukos strongly denies having any plans to live permanently in the US. The Sydney resident, who married her husband Matt in January after a whirlwind long-distance romance, told she was 'in disbelief at how ridiculous' the statement was and claimed that some of the information included had been 'twisted'. Why denied tourists can end up in federal prison CBP has long had strong powers to deny entry, detain and deport foreigners at their discretion when travellers arrive in the country even if they have a valid visa or ESTA. However, what we are seeing under the Trump administration is described as 'enhanced vetting'. Australians are being warned to not assume they are exempt to more intense checks, including inspections of emails, text messages or social media accounts at the airport. Melissa Vincenty, a US immigration lawyer and Australian migration agent who is managing director of Worldwide Migration Partners, told recently that being taken to federal prison with no criminal record, no drugs or anything that is a danger to society is the reality of being denied entry to the US in Hawaii. Ms Vincenty, a dual-citizen who was a deportation defence lawyer in Honolulu before moving to Australia, explained the state did not have an immigration facility so people were taken to the Federal Detention Center Honolulu, where there was no separate wing for immigration. It meant tourists who were denied entry to the US could be held alongside those awaiting trial — or who have been convicted and were waiting to be transferred to a mainland prison for serious federal crimes, such as kidnapping, bank robbery or drug crimes. 'It's like in the movies — you go there and there's bars, you get strip searched, all your stuff is taken away from you, you're not allowed to call anybody, nobody knows where you are,' Ms Vincenty told in April after the experience of two young German tourists being strip searched and thrown in prison made global headlines. Ms Vincenty said for Australians who were denied entry to the US in other locations like Los Angeles, San Francisco or Dallas, being held in detention facilities until the next available flight home was a real risk as there weren't constant return flights to Australia — meaning you might have to wait until the next day. If not taken to a detention facility, some travellers may stay sitting for hours in what is called a secondary inspection at the airport. A secondary inspection includes further vetting such as searching travellers' electronic devices. 'That period can last from half an hour to 15 hours or more,' she said.

ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Will Trump or Musk be able to hold back while flirting with mutually assured destruction?
Donald Trump sees himself as a world-class negotiator and deal maker — he will now need to bring all those skills to reach a ceasefire deal — not in Ukraine nor Gaza — but with Elon Musk. Musk now presents a real crisis for the Trump presidency. He's wealthy, powerful, unpredictable and he believes he's been wronged. And he knows a lot about the president and his family. This feud — carried out in real time on X — has captivated Americans. As one person posted on Musk's own online social media platform on Friday morning, when there was a lull in the abuse between the two: "What time do Trump and Musk wake up?" These are dangerous times for Donald Trump. Like a married couple, for the past year Musk and Trump have been with each other when the guests have left the dinner party. As each world leader has left the White House, as each influential member of Congress has shaken hands and left, these two have been left to do their own private debrief in the Oval Office. The relationship was so close that on one occasion when Trump was having a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump reportedly said to Zelenskyy words to the effect, "There's someone here I want you to say hello to," and handed the phone to Musk. A puzzled Ukrainian president was suddenly speaking to the world's richest man. That's how close Trump and Musk were during their political marriage. But now the divorce has come through and they're fighting about their legacies. Musk is trying to convince the world that he wanted to slash the US's crippling budget but that Trump sold out America by pushing a bill — the bill Trump likes to call "One Big Beautiful Bill" — through the House of Representatives. Trump is trying to convince the world that Musk is an erratic and unpredictable character, and that he's bitter because his bill cut subsidies to electric vehicles — which hit Musk's Tesla business — and that Trump asked him to leave. In recent weeks, Trump has had to have some fascinating calls — including with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, and with Chinese President Xi Jinping to bring an end to Trump's tariff war on the United States's trading partners. As wily as those two men are, he may need greater skills of persuasion — or threat — with Elon Musk. Within a few days of their split's fallout, Musk was threatening to support the impeachment of Trump, to support Vice-President JD Vance taking over and to withdraw funding for Trump's candidates in the mid-term election. Trump, for his part, was threatening to end government contracts enjoyed by Musk's Space X company. It's often said that information is power. If that's the case, these two have unparalleled information about each other. They have accessed each other's lives for more than a year. They know each other's families. They know each other's family problems. They know each other's business interests. They know each other's vulnerabilities — personal and business. On top of the power of information that comes with access, they both have raw power. Through his total control of agencies, Trump can access any tax or regulatory information on Musk and his businesses. Trump has shown he will use legal and regulatory powers to pursue his personal and political enemies. This makes Musk extremely vulnerable. Trump understands fully the power of his words from the Oval Office — this week within five minutes of him saying that he thought his friendship with Musk was over, Wall Street started selling Tesla shares. Then, when Trump began suggesting that he would end Musk's various government contracts, Wall Street panicked. Within an hour, Tesla shares had dived 14 per cent. Donald Trump had wiped billions off Musk's wealth. But Musk does not have the personality type to take this sort of thing calmly. He, too, has power — although his is not the ability to hit Trump's many financial interests (that he knows of) but rather to damage him politically. Like Musk, Trump is also vulnerable. Musk has the raw power that comes from being the world's richest man. He has his mass distribution publishing platform, X. By spending so much time with Trump and his family in both the White House — and for a time seemingly to live in Trump's Florida mansion, Mar-a-Lago — Musk would have knowledge of the Trump family's business dealings. It appears as if Trump decided some weeks ago that Musk was not long for the White House — that it was a matter of how to extricate Musk from the Oval Office without too much pain. Musk's behaviour became erratic. Those wild images of him waving a chainsaw and shouting that this was what he was using to cut government spending went down badly with many of those who had voted for Trump, particularly veterans who were suddenly losing entitlements. Then Musk made what appeared to be a Nazi salute. This, coupled with his strong support for Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AFD) party, made many Americans concerned about Musk's real views. When Musk, in a reference to the Holocaust, told AFD supporters that there was "too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that" and that the party's anti-immigration policies were "the best hope for Germany" it only heightened those concerns. Then reports began appearing about clashes between Musk and senior members of Trump's cabinet. Whether they were authorised by Trump or the White House or were from disenchanted members of Trump's cabinet is not clear, but what is clear is that a steady stream of leaks began appearing against Musk. One of the more damaging was that Musk had a blazing row in one cabinet meeting with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. The report said that Trump allowed the fight to go for some time, before intervening to stop it — by siding with Rubio. Then came reports of a clash witnessed by many between Musk and Scott Bessent, the well-liked secretary of the Treasury. Musk had shouted at Bessent in a corridor that Bessent was not cutting enough staff from his department quickly enough, at which point Bessent reportedly shouted back: "F*** off!" The leaks all appeared well sourced, and the White House did not vigorously deny them. Someone, it seems, was out to get Musk, apparently preparing the ground for his political execution. Then came perhaps the most devastating leak of all — details of Musk's alleged erratic behaviour, and drug use, since joining Trump's campaign to return to the White House. The New York Times reported: "As Elon Musk became one of Donald J. Trump's closest allies last year, leading raucous rallies and donating about $[US]275 million [$423 million] to help him win the presidency, he was also using drugs far more intensely than previously known, according to people familiar with his activities. "Mr Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anaesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he travelled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it. "It is unclear whether Mr. Musk, 53, was taking drugs when he became a fixture at the White House this year and was handed the power to slash the federal bureaucracy. But he has exhibited erratic behaviour, insulting cabinet members, gesturing like a Nazi and garbling his answers in a staged interview. "At the same time, Mr. Musk's family life has grown increasingly tumultuous as he has negotiated overlapping romantic relationships and private legal battles involving his growing brood of children, according to documents and interviews." This was now going well beyond the narrative that Musk was difficult to work with. This was creating the impression that Musk was erratic and unpredictable. Musk strongly denied The New York Times story: "To be clear, I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their a... off," Musk insisted. "I tried prescription ketamine a few years ago and said so on X, so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then." Whatever the truth of it all, Musk's reputation was taking a belting — and however wealthy and powerful is, Musk would have known that his reputation was bleeding. How many big investment houses want to put money behind somebody who, when they google his name, "ketamine" comes up? So the break-up was inevitable. Musk says it was his decision, that his role as head of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — had come to a natural end. Trump has a different version — he says he asked Musk to leave. Whoever is telling the truth, the couple gathered in the Oval Office to announce their separation. Both tried to put their best face on it — not an easy task for Musk, looking dishevelled and with a black eye which he claimed he received while playing with his son. As part of this apparently amicable divorce, Trump opened a box and handed Musk a golden "key to the White House". But, unmistakably, the chemistry which the two had always shared was gone. It had all the authenticity of a married couple who can barely look at each other announcing their divorce and saying: "We remain good friends, we just grew apart, and we will always put the interests of the children first." That didn't last long. Within days, Musk could not help himself. He began posting on X his concerns about Trump's signature budget bill, which Musk says will push the United States towards bankruptcy by its massive increase in the country's debt levels. This was a direct challenge to Trump, who has pressured Republicans to officially name the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill". But Trump did something he rarely does: He sat back and did not take the bait. All Trump's instincts are to lash out at anybody that he thinks might be criticising him, but with Musk he stayed quiet. By the hour, Musk's tweets gathered impact. Finally, he went so far as to urge Americans to contact their members of Congress to lobby them to "Kill the Bill". Some Republicans backed Musk, which would have concerned Trump. The Trump side began fighting back, initially through Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, who Trump nominated to ensure the bill went through the House — which it has — and now to try to shepherd it through the Senate. Although the Republicans control the Senate, as well as the House, some of the more conservative senators agree with Musk that this bill — with its huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans — will push the US towards bankruptcy. The Republicans hold the Senate by only a slim margin. It will only take three Republicans to vote against the bill to defeat it. This would be a huge blow to the centrepiece of Trump's economic policy. Johnson dropped something that would have outraged Musk. He suggested Musk was opposing the bill not because he was committed to the US cutting its deficit but because it cut subsidies to electric vehicles — the mainstay of the Tesla business — and was therefore hitting Elon Musk's business interests. This went against everything that Trump and the White House had been saying for a year. Trump had often told his rallies that Musk was in fact losing money by concentrating on the political world and was doing it selflessly as he wanted to "make America great again". So now, through Johnson, Musk was being re-cast from the great American MAGA patriot to the selfish businessman only concerned about his own wealth. Seemingly outraged by what he saw as an attempt to undermine him personally rather than address the issue of the deficit, Musk doubled down, calling the bill "a disgusting abomination". All this became too much for Trump. He finally entered the fight, repeating not just the claim that Musk was upset about losing the electric vehicle subsidies but that Trump had asked Musk to leave his position. Trump was saying that he had essentially terminated Musk's role. For someone with a sense of self-worth as large as Musk's, the suggestion that Trump had essentially told him "you're fired!" — for which Trump was famous on his reality TV show The Apprentice — would have outraged him. Not many people can fire the world's richest man. Donald Trump was now saying that he had. And so Musk went ballistic. What he did next crossed a line beyond which he could never salvage any relationship with Trump or this White House. He seems to have realised that himself, beginning his post on X with both a sense of threat and glee: As far as the White House was concerned, Elon Musk was now a political terrorist — he had gone rogue and was out of control, seemingly prepared to push for the destruction of Donald Trump. Signing off with "Have a nice day, DJT!" (Donald J Trump), Musk had linked Trump to an investigation into a criminal sex trafficking operation which involved many high-profile people and centred on Jeffrey Epstein, the now-dead US financier. Trump had famously been photographed with Epstein, but so had many people who had been part of the New York finance and celebrity worlds of the 1980s and 90s. Where this now goes is anybody's guess. Neither of these two men operates according to convention of generally accepted rules. US media have reported that various mediators were trying to set up a ceasefire phone call, but Trump has failed in his phone call attempts to get ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza and there's no suggestion that he will be any more successful in ending this "war" with Elon Musk. Musk has been on the inside of the Trump presidency — and the Trump family — for almost a year. He's had access to moments with the family when the cameras are not around and nobody is recording what is being said. If Donald Trump has personal, sexual or financial skeletons, Musk may well know what they are and where they are. Trump, for his part, has had insights into Elon Musk that few others have. If the reports of Musk being erratic and drug-fuelled during Trump's campaign are true, Trump would know about them. Like Musk, Trump has had insights into Musk's business and private life that few others would have had. The reason this battle is epic is that both men have raw power. Both men have the ability to destroy or wound each other. Both men are natural pugilists. Both men believe backing down is for wimps, part of the modern curse of "woke" culture. This is the ultimate clash of political power with financial power. In this modern age, which will win? Who will win? And which side does Vice-President JD Vance take? Does he show loyalty to his commander-in-chief, who hand-picked him to be his deputy? Or does he show loyalty to Elon Musk, one of the tech oligarchs with whom Vance has spent so much time cultivating? After all, these tech billionaires, who famously sat in the front row of Trump's inauguration in front of key figures who would sit in Trump's cabinet, can bankroll a "Vance 2028" campaign. Can Vance somehow keep both men onside when those two men are now clearly trying to wound the other? As to where this goes from here, Trump has become the most powerful man in the world — for the second time — by never taking a step back. Musk has become the most wealthy man in the world by overriding any obstacles put in his way. The key question now is this: Does the natural instinct of each man in this Shakespearean drama to attack their opponents and exact revenge when they feel they have been criticised outweigh the reality that each man is flirting with mutually assured destruction?