The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs
The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk's fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump's nomination of Musk's close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as ' a disgusting abomination.'
Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk's companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump —without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president's threat, SpaceX 'will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.' (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: 'Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.')
Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It's the main way NASA's astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing's glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency's plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency's Artemis III mission.
Trump's and Musk's retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX's constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile-defense plan.
Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump's influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an 'illegal alien' who 'should be deported from the country immediately.'
NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency's press secretary Bethany Stevens: 'NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space,' Stevens wrote. 'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met.'
The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk's electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5's trading day: Tesla's share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.
Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla's stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won't be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.
Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation's deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why a Fed rate cut could lead to bad news for Big Tech stocks
Investors are looking for an interest rate cut — but the market may not respond as expected when it comes. "I think that the market's going to have to come to grips with the Fed is going to cut rates, and is it going to be the right move for the Fed to make now?" Jim Bianco of Bianco Research said on Opening Bid. July's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed core inflation rose 0.3%, the largest increase in six months. "Last year they cut rates, and the market decided it wasn't the right move," Bianco added. "And it shot yields on the 10 [year Treasury] and the 30-year up over 100 basis points." Bianco said the real inflationary pressure is building due to Trump's tariffs, and the impact could be significant. While some of the costs may be eaten by exporters or corporations, others will be passed on via price hikes. "There's about an extra $250 to $300 billion of tariffs that are going to be collected over the next year ... tariffs were running around $8 billion a month. Now they're running nearly $30 billion a month," he noted. Bianco expects Fed Chair Jerome Powell to provide some clarity at the Fed's annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposium later this month. And if Powell signals a September cut isn't coming, the backlash could be intense — including renewed political pressure from President Trump, who has previously floated the idea of firing the Fed chair. "If he says he's not going to cut rates, I would then put Trump firing him back into the play," Bianco said. The Fed's decision could also have an outsized impact on megacap tech stocks. The largest 10% of US companies now account for 76% of total market capitalization, the highest concentration on record, according to market data platform Barchart. The concentration makes the entire market vulnerable to shifts in interest rates. As yields go higher, money could move out of stocks and into bonds. Bianco warned that if 10-year Treasury yields hit 5%, it could trigger profit-taking in Big Tech stocks. Bianco advised investors to stay cautious when chasing the market's most popular names. "If you want to play some of these Mag 7s, you have to be prepared for big gains and big losses," he said. "Some think it's all a one-way street ... until it isn't." Francisco Velasquez is a Reporter at Yahoo Finance. He can be reached on LinkedIn and X, or via email at Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Capitol Crime Busters - Inside Politics with Dana Bash and Manu Raju - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
CNN Inside Politics 40 mins First: President Trump says his unprecedented takeover of the Washington, DC police could extend to other cities across the country. But is the new White House push. about public protection or political posturing? Or maybe both? Plus: The Texas House just failed to meet a quorum for the fifth time in a row as the Republican governor warns redistricting is inevitable. And: The president picks a MAGA loyalist to run the nation's most important economic statistics agency, leaving Wall Street questioning whether crucial data can still be taken at face value.
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
