logo
The Environment Is Under Attack. The Rights of Nature Movement Can Save It

The Environment Is Under Attack. The Rights of Nature Movement Can Save It

Yahoo22-04-2025

Will the Great Lakes, one of the natural wonders of the United States, be allowed to go to court to defend their rights to exist on equal terms with the human race? Last month, a bill was introduced in the New York State Assembly granting them and all other bodies of water in New York those legal rights. The waters, the bill declares, 'shall possess the unalienable and fundamental rights to exist […] free from human violations.'
The bill comes at a time when the Trump administration has decimated the National Park Service, directed the Environmental Protection Agency to roll back environmental regulations, and tried to revoke billions in climate change-combatting programs. Just days ago, President Trump issued an executive order allowing commercial fishing in one of the world's largest ocean reserves. Now, more than ever, nature is in need of protection.
More from Rolling Stone
Activating the 'Silent Majority' to Fight Climate Change
The Court Battle to Stop Trump's $20 Billion Climate Clawback
Why Los Angeles Burned
Granting rights to certain natural bodies or ecosystems is an idea that's been a long time coming. Five decades ago, Christopher Stone, a professor at the University of Southern California law school, penned the idea. 'I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment,' he wrote in the Southern California law review. 'Indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.'
The idea of granting seemingly insentient organisms legal rights may sound preposterous, but the Rights of Nature movement is anything but fanciful; in fact, through local ordinances, court decisions, national legislation, and even constitutional amendments, the movement has made its way to 38 countries spanning six of the seven continents. In the U.S., the movement has touched 14 states, with varying degrees of success. Most notably, the Pennsylvania government, just five years ago, upheld a 2014 local Rights of Nature law that had simultaneously outlawed the injection of fracking waste in small-town Grant Township.
Indigenous peoples across the world, particularly in the U.S., have become powerful leaders in the movement. In 2019, the Yurok tribe in northern California granted legal personhood to the Klamath River — the first river in North America to be granted such rights — and, in 2020, the Nez Perce Tribe General Council conferred rights upon the Snake River in the Pacific Northwest.
In 1972, Professor Stone, son of the legendary muckraker I.F. Stone, published his thesis, in an article entitled 'Should Trees Have Standing? — Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.' Stone, who collected turtles in Rock Creek Park while growing up in Washington, D.C., was a 34-year-old law professor who had never before published anything about the environment. But he had passion.
'Based on the beauty of his writing, which reads like a lawyer's love letter to the planet, he had a deep connection with and respect for the natural world,' says Grant Wilson, an environmental lawyer and the executive director of Earth Law Center, a group based in Colorado comprising nearly 30 lawyers and environmental experts.
'It is no answer to say that streams and forests cannot have standing because streams and forests cannot speak,' Stone argued. 'Corporations cannot speak either; nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities. Lawyers speak for them, as they customarily do for the ordinary citizen with legal problems.' Stone proposed using the same system of guardianship for natural objects.
His idea was cited in the 1972 Supreme Court case Sierra Club v. Morton. The Sierra Club had sued the Secretary of the Interior to prevent the Walt Disney Company from building a ski resort on public land in Mineral King Valley, California. While the court ruled that the Sierra Club did not have standing to sue, as it had not alleged any concrete injury, Justice William O. Douglas issued a visionary dissent.
'Contemporary public concern for protecting nature's ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation,' wrote Douglas. He asserted that 'the critical question of 'standing' would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated…in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers.' Douglas contended that those who 'have a meaningful relation' to a specific part of nature, who 'frequent it or visit it merely to sit in solitude and wonderment,' should be able to have standing and act as its legal representative.
'The problem is to make certain that the inanimate objects, which are the very core of America's beauty, have spokesmen before they are destroyed,' concluded Douglas.
THREE DECADES LATER, in 2006, it happened: Tamaqua Borough, a tiny town about 35 miles northwest of Allentown in Pennsylvania's coal country, became the first place in the world to codify the rights of nature in law. The law, entitled the 'Sewage Sludge Ordinance,' sought to ban waste corporations from dumping in Tamaqua any longer, stating that 'ecosystems shall be considered 'persons' for the purposes of the enforcement of [their] civil rights.' Although the law has never been tested in court, it has been credited with preventing further waste dumping.
In 2008, Ecuador became the first sovereign country to recognize the rights of nature in its national constitution, declaring that 'Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycle, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.' It also granted nature 'the right to be restored' and resolved the issue of standing in the most painless way possible: by granting it to everyone. In Ecuador, any person can represent any piece of land in court — full stop.
In 2011, the owners of 'the Garden of Paradise,' a property on the banks of the Vilcabamba River, invoked Ecuador's constitutional provision to challenge a government highway project that was filling the river with excavated rocks and causing it to flood surrounding properties. With the river acting as plaintiff, a provincial court halted the project, effectively upholding the Rights of Nature provision. And in 2021, a series of decisions by the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court further affirmed the rights of nature, blocking, among other actions, mining activities in the famously biodiverse Los Cedros forest.
'We've seen the rights of rivers upheld in Bangladesh, along with a landmark decision from its Supreme Court calling upon governmental agencies to push back against illegal encroachment on the rivers,' says Grant Wilson. 'We've seen the rights of Mar Menor, a saltwater lagoon in Spain, be recognized through national law and held up in their constitutional court, with legal guardians appointed to speak for and as the lagoon in a legal sense, just like a child might have a legal guardian. In other words, the lagoon has a voice in government.'
The Rights of Nature doctrine has surfaced in international codes and agreements. In 2009, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Resolution on Harmony With Nature, and has renewed it each year since. The resolutions seek to develop a 'new, non-anthropocentric paradigm in which the fundamental basis for right and wrong action concerning the environment is grounded not solely in human concerns.'
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity, a legally binding agreement signed in 1992, has declared a goal of global harmony with nature by 2050, endorsing the Rights of Nature as one possible pathway. Every nation in the world is party but four — Andorra, Iraq, Somalia, and the U.S., which has signed but not ratified the treaty.
In 2015, Pope Francis demanded the UN prioritize the rights of nature — 'It must be stated that a true 'right of the environment' does exist,' he said — over society's 'selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity.' He asserted that 'any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity.'
In 2010, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, became the first major U.S. city to adopt and make legally enforceable the rights of nature, recognizing them as part of a ban on shale gas drilling and fracking. In 2017, the City Council of Lafayette, Colorado, population 30,000, passed the Climate Bill of Rights, an ordinance that — along with prohibiting the extraction of oil and gas — recognized ecosystems' rights to clean water and clean air, as well as to be free from chemical trespass, to exist, and to flourish. Just last December, a ballot initiative in the city of Everett, Washington, granted legally enforceable rights — to exist, regenerate, and flourish — to the Snohomish River watershed.
FOR ALL OF AMERICA'S 248 years, its legal system has existed in service of human beings. In the eyes of the law, the environment matters only in human terms — how it serves as our property, how it generates revenue for our economy, how it produces the raw materials we rely on, how it provides recreation sites for our use, and how it affects our health. Even environmental legislation like the 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1972 Clean Water Act were only passed in order to make the environment safer for humans.
'If there is a forest cut down, to challenge that [in court] under the doctrine of standing, you have to show that a human was harmed by the forest being cut down,' explains Wilson.
But according to the principles of Rights of Nature, environmental damage alone, regardless of whether any humans are affected, is enough to hold up in court. 'The key thing to know is that under a Rights of Nature framework, you're determining whether and how humans can respectfully take from nature, and you're really considering what's in the best interest of the larger community of life,' says Wilson. 'Current laws are really rooted in human superiority to nature.'
To change this system means to fundamentally change how we relate to and conceive of nature. 'Humans don't simply live on a stage upon which only their own drama unfolds, as if trees and plants and animals and birds are just props in that human production,' Dr. Wade Davis, a Canadian anthropologist and ethnobotanist who has studied Indigenous cultures extensively, tells Rolling Stone. 'On the contrary, every living being, from the grandest blue whale down to a microscopic amoeba, is part of the living organism that is the Earth.'
Christopher Stone thought as much: 'I do not think it too remote that we may come to regard the Earth…as one organism,' he wrote, 'of which Mankind is a functional part — the mind, perhaps: different from the rest of nature, but different as a man's brain is from his lungs.'
This line of thinking is deeply rooted in Indigenous customs. For the Maori, for example, in New Zealand, humans are lowest on the totem pole of the natural world, says Meghan Robinson, a Ph.D. student at the University of British Columbia who is completing her doctoral research on the Rights of Nature. And to the Arhuaco and Kogi peoples in Colombia, says Davis, the water that runs down a river is no different from the blood that runs through one's veins.
But can the American legal system — and the society that governs it — change so radically that it sees nature as something more than simply a way to boost the GDP? As something sacred? Davis thinks yes. 'All cultures are constantly changing. We preserve jam, not culture.'
'The very idea that a river could be considered to have rights would have been so inconceivably preposterous to my father's generation,' he says. 'I mean, my father's generation was raised to believe that oil left in the ground was wealth wasted. That a tree left standing in the forest was money down the drain. The entire idea of an environmental or ecological ethos, things that we now take to be common, was completely off the charts and radical at that time.'
'We are inclined to suppose the rightlessness of rightless 'things' to be a decree of Nature, not a legal convention acting in support of some status quo,' wrote Stone in 1972. 'The fact is, that each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new 'entity,' the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable.'
No matter how much we talk circles around it, American economic progress invariably comes with the exploitation of nature. Thus, the endowing of nature with rights will require some concessions on the part of humans, chiefly 'a willingness to suspend the rate of increase in the standard of living,' as Stone put it. 'We may have to … subordinate some human claims to those of the environment.'
Justice Douglas, in his 1972 dissenting opinion, warned against letting the 'bulldozers of 'progress' … plow under all the aesthetic wonders of this beautiful land.'
Of course, it is necessary, for basic human survival, to take advantage of natural resources. But there are truly hard lines to draw when it comes to defining what taking is permissible and what constitutes an unacceptable violation of the rights of nature — especially when harming and healing the environment may go hand in hand. Michael Gerrard, a prominent environmental lawyer and professor at Columbia Law School, describes one such scenario to Rolling Stone: 'We know that one of the most important things we need to do in order to fight climate change is to build a massive number of solar farms. Some of them will go in the desert. What if the desert had rights and could sue to prevent the solar farms from being built — which would be bad for the environment in general but might be good for the desert? The desert's lawyer would have the obligation to do everything they could to protect the desert.'
But perhaps this dilemma is not as insurmountable as it seems. 'You're inserting this new rights holder — nature — into the mix, and it's going to cause some tensions with other rights, as well as economic [and development] interests,' says Wilson. 'Yet in the legal system, there's tension between different rights all of the time — and the courts figure out how to balance those.'
'We live on a finite planet, but we're trying to say that we can have infinite growth — and that thought process is so unbelievably flawed,' says Meghan Robinson. 'We need to come up with a different economic system that doesn't think that we can grow infinitely in an unsustainable way. [If we don't,] the environment is just going to wipe us out.'
IN THE PAST DECADE or so, the Rights of Nature movement in the U.S. has become a battleground for fights over local sovereignty and corporatocracy. Numerous state legislatures, heavily lobbied by commercial industries, have preempted or challenged Rights of Nature laws, rendering them null, void, and wholly unenforceable. Four states — Florida, Ohio, Idaho, and Utah — have even gone as far as to summarily ban Rights of Nature legislation.
Tish O'Dell is a lifelong Ohioan who grew up 10 miles from the shores of Lake Erie. 'I was always mesmerized by Lake Erie, even as a small child,' she says. So when she learned of fracking taking place in her community, she went to her local elected officials. '[Former Ohio senator] Sherrod Brown was in office, and me and another mom sat across from him with a folder of photos of toxic waste pits in our neighborhood and told him we didn't want our community poisoned,' she says. 'He just muttered back about all the jobs [fracking] was creating. It was then that [it hit me] that no one was coming to save my community or the environment.'
O'Dell proceeded to work with mothers from across Ohio (forming Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods) to pass a 2012 Rights of Nature amendment in Broadview Heights, Ohio. When the local amendment was overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2015, she went on, with the help of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), to propose more than 40 Rights of Nature laws throughout the state. Her crusade culminated in the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR), approved by Toledo, Ohio, voters in 2019, which recognized the lake's rights to 'exist, flourish and naturally evolve.'
Yet U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary, in a harshly written opinion, struck down LEBOR, overturning the first U.S. law ever to affirm the rights of a particular ecosystem on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague and oustripped the municipality's authority.
'LEBOR's authors failed to make hard choices regarding the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic activity. Instead, they employed language that sounds powerful but has no practical meaning,' wrote Zouhary. 'What conduct infringes the right of Lake Erie and its watershed to 'exist, flourish, and naturally evolve?' How would a prosecutor, judge, or jury decide? LEBOR offers no guidance.'
In 2020, things seemed to look up for the movement when Grant Township's 2014 Rights of Nature law became the first such piece of legislation to be enforced by a state, with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) citing it in rescinding a fracking waste injection permit. Although the law has since been swept into a years-long saga of lawsuits — the ordinance was overturned and then enshrined into a Home Rule Charter, all while the DEP switched its stance back and forth — there is still no injection well.
So what's next?
'I think it's likely that one state is going to pass a Rights of Nature framework and it's going to propel the movement to a whole different level,' predicts Wilson.
Once implemented, Rights of Nature legislation potentially affords a whole host of litigation advantages. For starters, it could completely wipe away the challenges of fulfilling standing requirements, which have traditionally been extremely vulnerable to the whims of judges — particularly conservative ones — seeking to constrict them. Moreover, litigating on behalf of a natural entity greatly diminishes the burden of proof, for one need not prove a human was harmed, only that the specific part of nature at hand was harmed.
The reality is that the widespread implementation of the Rights of Nature doctrine in the United States is not going to come quickly or easily. 'Someone told me once that it takes about 200 miles to turn a big Boeing 747 around, and I think that's a fitting metaphor,' says Wilson.
But progress is progress. 'All these things are aggregate. Aggregate and cumulative,' says Davis. 'The movement itself is a statement that the mindset has already changed.'
'Over the past nearly 15 years, all over the world, governments, courts, indigenous nations, and people in their communities have secured the rights of nature in law,' said Mari Margil, who was previously the Associate Director of CELDF, at a 2020 environmental justice conference. 'After all of these developments, the question is no longer 'Can nature have rights?' It can. And it does. The questions before us now are: How do we secure the rights of nature in every legal system around the world? And how do we do it while there's still nature left to save?'
The environment is waiting for us to act, and the futures of both humanity and Mother Earth are on the line. So we must ask ourselves the question: Will anyone speak for nature? And if not us, then who?
Best of Rolling Stone
Every Super Bowl Halftime Show, Ranked From Worst to Best
The United States of Weed
Gaming Levels Up

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment
LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment

CNN

time22 minutes ago

  • CNN

LA protesters and police in standoff as Trump doubles National Guard deployment

Update: Date: 18 min ago Title: Protesters outside US Embassy in Mexico City call for end to immigration raids across the border Content: Protesters in Mexico City staged a demonstration outside the US Embassy on Monday, calling for an end to sweeping immigration raids across the border. Video captured by Reuters showed people waving Mexican and US flags and burning an effigy resembling US President Donald Trump. 'We cannot remain silent as the Trump administration escalates its war on our communities in the United States,' said activist Alejandro Marinero from Migrant Organization Aztlan. 'Immigration policy is not a party issue, but a class issue. It is the tool of a system that seeks to divide us, exploit us and keep us in the shadows to ensure its profits at the expense of our humanity,' he told Reuters. Update: Date: 42 min ago Title: Thousands rally in San Francisco against ICE raids Content: Thousands of people marched through San Francisco's Civic Center and Mission neighborhoods on Monday night in protests that were 'overwhelmingly peaceful,' police said. Demonstrators rallied against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the country and expressed solidarity with immigrant communities, CNN affiliate KGO reported. 'At the very end of the night, two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts,' the San Francisco Police Department said. Police said they detained multiple people who refused to comply with orders, made arrests, and are currently addressing one unresolved situation. 'I'm deeply concerned about what's going on in Los Angeles and all around the country. California, we are better because of our diversity, and for people to be torn away from school graduations, torn away from their children, that's not right. We have to come out here and tell people that's not right,' Holly Minch, who marched with a sign that read 'MELT ICE,' told KGO. The police said they coordinated with public safety agencies under the leadership of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie to 'protect numerous First Amendment actions' in the affected neighborhoods. On Sunday, about 150 people, including some under the age of 18, were arrested near the Immigration Services building. Police said the arrests were made after protesters ignored dispersal orders and engaged in acts of violence and vandalism. Anti-ICE protests have popped up around the country, including in New York, Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas and Louisville. Update: Date: 57 min ago Title: Law enforcement helicopters have been circling above protests, flight tracker shows Content: Helicopters from the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department circled the areas of Boyle Heights and Little Tokyo throughout the day on Monday, according to data from Flightradar24. Earlier in the night, several police helicopters and a plane deployed by the California Highway Patrol were flying over the downtown area. By midnight, only two police helicopters remained airborne. Since protests erupted over the weekend, authorities have maintained a consistent presence in the air, with multiple helicopters sighted above protest zones all day yesterday. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: In pictures: Protesters clash with police in Downtown Los Angeles on Monday Content: Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Who is protesting in LA? Content: The protests appear divided into separate groups: progressive citizens who felt called to defend the rights of the undocumented, and protesters who appeared determined to drag the city into violent chaos. A senior law enforcement source told CNN that intelligence analysts have been conducting assessments on the crowds that gathered Sunday night. They found the many of the protesters were motivated by the recent immigration raids and disdain for the federal government's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. But some protesters, the intelligence source said, fit law enforcement profiles of so-called 'professional rioters,' who continually seek out confrontation with law enforcement. Defending 'La Raza': Unión del Barrio, an organization whose members are dedicated to defending the rights of 'la raza' — or Mexican and indigenous people — within the US, praised the efforts to fight back against ICE and other agencies. The Los Angeles community has 'the moral authority and universal right to defend our people from kidnappings and family separation,' a spokesman said. Toll on vulnerable communities: After being informed ICE agents were questioning workers at a Pasadena hotel, Pablo Alvarado, the co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, began calling for protests to protect vulnerable immigrant communities throughout the city. 'The Pasadena community showed up in large numbers and the message was loud and clear, we don't want to see your armored vehicles, men in masks coming to our communities to pick people up to rip families apart.' But, Alvarado added, he felt the violence that spread throughout the city in response to the raids was tainting their cause. Read the full story. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Analysis: LA's crisis rests on what Trump does next Content: Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. On Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump said. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. Read the full analysis. Update: Date: 1 hr 23 min ago Title: Newsom hasn't done anything to warrant arrest, Trump's border czar says Content: White House border czar Tom Homan joined CNN's Kaitlan Collins to discuss comments President Donald Trump made suggesting Homan arrest California Governor Gavin Newsom.

Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing
Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Misusing the National Guard — Trump's LA interference with local policing

Always looking to provoke a crisis, Donald Trump has federalized 2,000 soldiers of the California National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor to put down a rebellion in Los Angeles that doesn't exist. And Trump is acting counter to federal law in doing so, which is no surprise for him. After demonstrators gathered in L.A. to protest ICE raids, some idiots in the crowd threw rocks at the immigration law enforcement officers. That's a crime and is not free speech. But the president used the sporadic violence, which was quickly quelled, to overstep his legal authority. On Saturday, he issued a directive claiming: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Then, latching on to his own word 'rebellion,' he invoked a federal statute, 10 U.S. Code § 12406, covering the National Guard. The law is brief. It says that 'Whenever 1) the United States is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; 2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or 3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' There's no invasion, there's no rebellion and ICE is able to carry out its functions. And there is no lawlessness in the streets of L.A. that can't be contained by the local L.A. County sheriff's department, which has almost 10,000 sworn and armed deputies and the LAPD, which has almost 9,000 sworn and armed cops. If those law enforcement professionals need help, California Gov. Gavin Newsom could activate the National Guard. But Newsom didn't call up the Guard for backup because the soldiers weren't needed. That Trump went around Newsom, who he 'cleverly' calls 'Newscum,' is something that hasn't been done in 60 years, when Lyndon Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard in 1965 because segregationist Gov. George Wallace wouldn't protect civil rights demonstrators. There, Wallace was trying to defy the federal courts and the federal government. This is nothing like that. Trump says 'It's about law and order,' but he's the one who is going against the law and against regular order. And he's also talking about bringing in active duty Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton. That is also against the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1385. This statue is just a single sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 'Posse comitatus,' or 'posse' for short, are non-law enforcement persons acting as such. The military cannot be so used on the word of even the president. Trump should relent and demobilize the Guardsmen he wrongly brought into L.A. and let local and state officials secure the streets. _____

Uncle Elon's final report card
Uncle Elon's final report card

Business Insider

time32 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Uncle Elon's final report card

All good buddy comedies come to an end. For President Donald Trump and first friend "Uncle Elon" Musk, theirs wrapped up with the same explosive fanfare upon which it started. But now their shared enthusiasm for cutting government waste has morphed into animosity for each other so deep and personal that it's become a textbook case study in management gone wrong. In November, just after Trump's reelection, I asked management experts if Musk could mimic his track record of juicing everything he could out of his lean companies to make the government run more efficiently. They were reluctant to doubt Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, but just as reluctant to think his efficiency tactics at Tesla and X meant he could single-handedly transform the government. I checked back in with some of them in March, six weeks into DOGE's chaotic tenure, after it dismantled USAID and axed tens of thousands of federal workers. They described his management as "clumsy," "wrongheaded," and full of "political recklessness." Now, the breakup of the bromance between two of the world's biggest, boldest personalities is surprising only in that it took so long to unfold and, once it did, moved with the speed that only two social media savvy, chronically online posters could propel. (Musk posted on X more than a dozen times lambasting Trump and his " Big Beautiful Bill" late last week, since deleting some of the most disparaging claims, and Trump suggested Musk might be suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome.") If DOGE is a cautionary tale in how not to manage, it's one from the furthest extreme, marked by a clash between the egos of two of the world's most powerful men that made politics extremely personal. Still there are business lessons to be gleaned even for those of us who run fewer than six companies and have fewer than 220 million social media followers. DOGE has proved "unsuccessful" up to this point, and is so far a "failed venture" for Musk and for the government, says Subodha Kumar, a professor at Temple University's Fox School of Business. It brought "disruption, a lot of delays, a lot of mistrust, and a lot of good people have left the organization," he says. "This kind of damage takes a long time to repair." To date, DOGE has claimed it found $180 billion in savings (Musk in May called DOGE "effective," but "not as effective as I'd like," as the original goal was to save $2 trillion). An analysis in April from nonpartisan research group Partnership for Public Service found that the department's actions could cost as much as $135 billion, an estimate of the costs of the firings, re-hirings, and lost productivity. Meanwhile, the four months Musk spent working taking a chainsaw to the federal government are wrapping up doused in drama that has spilled over to his other companies. After his 130-day post as a special government employee ends, Musk is pointing the blame for government waste back on Trump, skewering the spending bill for being too big and ugly, and endorsing a call to impeach Trump and replace him with Vice President JD Vance (that post has since been deleted). The lesson here is akin to that of two mob bosses of the gangster world who both crave the superior distinction of being the number one boss. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management leadership professor The escalating tension is just the beginning of a fight that could get worse for Musk, and likely has little benefit for Trump, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management leadership professor who has studied Trump for decades and advised presidents, tells me in an email. DOGE, he notes, overpromised savings and may actually cost US taxpayers more when it comes to rehiring costs, repairing systems, and weakened cybersecurity. As WIRED reported last week, DOGE is hiring, and even has reached out to technologists who formerly worked for the government. Musk's involvement with the DOGE proved tumultuous for his businesses from the start. His personal wealth ballooned by some $200 billion in 2024, surpassing $400 billion after Election Day. Once he got to work in the White House, his absenteeism from his companies — paired with a growing distaste for DOGE's actions among the electorate and protests targeting Tesla — led his net worth to drop alongside Tesla's market cap. Last Thursday, Musk's open beef with Trump further hampered his wealth, leading the Tesla CEO to lose $34 billion personally in a single day. Tesla stock, which has taken a beating as people turn on the company to protest Musk's government work, took its biggest tumble since March, closing 14% lower and wiping out $152 billion from the company's market cap. Musk is still the richest person in the world. For Musk, there's damage to the Tesla brand in need of repair. His next step could be "to portray himself as a purist who came in to offer his technical help and didn't realize how deep the corruption runs," says Michael Morris, a professor at Columbia Business School. "Musk could potentially portray himself as a wayward son of the tech industry." This might only work if the Trump administration continues to stumble, and if Musk also sees more success, like winning big with his robotaxi push. As Taylor Lorenz reported in User Mag Friday, some high-profile Democrats are already signaling that they would welcome Musk back into the fold. Trump over the weekend told NBC News Musk would face "serious consequences" if he donated to Democratic candidates (he did not specify what they would be). It's yet to be seen where Musk will find his next political alliances: On Friday, he ran a poll on X asking if a third political party should emerge to include the 80% of Americans in the middle of Republicans and Democrats, as he sees it. The president has threatened to go after Musk's government contracts — which total in tens of billions of dollars for SpaceX and Tesla. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "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!" Trump himself bought a Tesla just three months ago, and is now considering selling it. (Best of luck to him, the cars' resale values have tanked). As Trump and Musk part ways, it's clear that Musk's brazen, fully autonomous leadership style didn't work in the government world, as it eschewed transparency and collaboration in favor of a top-down approach. "The one-size-fits-all policy does not work everywhere," says Kumar. "You have to understand the culture of the organization and you have to work from inside rather than from outside." Back in November, experts told me it wasn't clear what authority Musk would actually wield in the newly-created position to implement massive spending cuts. Trying to employ tech-world leadership tactics from the White House created a rivalry between Musk and Trump for power and control, undercutting the alliance between the two and leaving DOGE far short of its savings goals. "The lesson here is akin to that of two mob bosses of the gangster world who both crave the superior distinction of being the number one boss — with surging parallel drives for grandiosity," Sonnenfeld says. "Musk's tragic mistake was that he forgot his role — as a staffer and advisor to Trump, not the primary character he foolishly believed himself to be, and even now, continues to overestimate his own importance and indispensability."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store