The Guardian view on the Trump-Musk feud: we can't rely on outsized egos to end oligopoly
It would have taken a heart of stone to watch the death of the Trump-Musk bromance without laughing. Democrats passed the popcorn on Thursday night as the alliance between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest imploded via posts on their respective social media platforms.
Less than a week ago they attempted a conscious uncoupling in the Oval Office. Then Elon Musk's attacks on Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spending plan escalated to full-scale denunciation of a 'disgusting abomination' – objecting to its effect on the deficit, not the fact it snatches essential support from the poor and hands $1.1tn in tax cuts to the rich.
The president said that Mr Musk had 'gone crazy' and was angry that electric vehicle subsidies were being removed, claimed he had fired him, threatened to terminate his government contracts, and mocked the billionaire's recent black eye. Steve Bannon chipped in, suggesting that Mr Musk should be deported.
Mr Musk said Mr Trump should be impeached and alleged the government had not released files on the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein because the president was in them. He threatened to immediately start decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft – now key to Nasa's programme – and suggested it was time for a new political party. The ultimate insult: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' he wrote.
Mr Musk later appeared minded to limit the damage, backing away from the spacecraft threat – not surprising, perhaps, when he had just watched $152bn wiped off Tesla's value. Each man knows that the other could hurt him, via government fiat or political war chest. Yet both are so unpredictable that the row could still reignite.
Two narcissists used to imposing their will were never likely to coexist happily for long, despite the advantages of doing so: this was less a marriage of convenience than of naked self-interest. Mr Trump loathes sharing the limelight; the Tesla boss frequently grabbed it. The president is surely as resentful of as he is dazzled by Mr Musk's spectacular wealth. He was angered to discover that Mr Musk had arranged private briefings on the Pentagon's plans for any potential war with China – not only a blatant conflict of interest, but perhaps more upsettingly, a sign of his growing power. Mr Musk's behaviour has also appeared increasingly erratic. A recent New York Times report alleged he took large amounts of drugs including ketamine while advising Mr Trump prior to the election. Mr Musk has described the story as 'bs'.
His departure from the president's orbit is good news. Mr Musk implausibly claimed he would save $2tn annually – approaching a third of the federal budget – by taking a chainsaw to bureaucracy. Wild decisions by the so-called department of government efficiency are mired in the courts. But he has nonetheless caused real damage which will not easily be remedied, gutting agencies and departments which took decades to build. People are dying because of his demolition of USAID.
Yet while the bond between the peak of power and the peak of wealth has been severed, politics remains in thrall to money. Mr Trump's approach is particularly noxious, turning wealth directly into political favours and power, and power into further wealth. This is the new oligopoly. He oversees a cabinet of billionaires, and has directed his real estate tycoon friend Steve Witkoff, a man with no diplomatic experience, to bring peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. But though megadonors are heavily skewed towards the Republicans, Democrats too depend on billionaires. Mr Musk is a symptom of the underlying malaise. Democracy requires better safeguards against the unhealthy marriage of wealth and power than the rampant egos of those who command them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours 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
3 hours 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
3 hours 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. ___
