
Explosive truth behind Trump and Musk's 'abusive' bromance collapse... and which billionaire was secretly the CLINGY one
The abrupt break-up between President Donald Trump and his First Buddy played out in spectacular public fashion.
The bromance began almost immediately after a bullet grazed President Trump's ear at a campaign rally last fall in Pennsylvania.
When images of the then-candidate being supported off the stage with a fist pumped into the air, mouthing 'fight!' went viral, Musk weighed in.
'I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery,' the X platform owner wrote that night.
It was the first of many expressions of public support that relationship experts say hint at some dynamics more typically reserved for romantic partnerships.
Dr Isabelle Morley, a clinical psychologist specializing in couples therapy, said: 'I would best describe it [their falling out] as a perfect example of the idealization devaluation cycle that we see typically associated with narcissists in abusive relationships.
'There is this initial obsession that it can include love bombing, this over the top flattery, and this sort of perfect image of the other person being anything and everything wonderful.
'And then there's always the devaluation phase, where the person gets ripped off the pedestal, typically, because, especially with people who have narcissism, the other person disappointed them, made them feel bad, disagreed with them, made them look bad, and which is unforgivable to a narcissist, because their self esteem is so low.'
Musk has been a fixture by Trump's side since he made an energetic rally debut exactly one month before the election, hopping around on stage with his arms aloft.
'The true test of someone's character is how they behave under fire. And we had one president who couldn't climb a flight of stairs and another who was fist-bumping after getting shot,' Musk told the crowd.
But the honeymoon phase of the bromance came to a screeching halt in May on the heels of a less-than-stellar Tesla earnings call when shares were down more than 40 percent over the year so far.
Musk publicly criticized Trump's marquee achievement thus far, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, saying it undercuts the government-slashing work DOGE has carried out since Trump's return to office.
He didn't stop there; he doubled down in TV interviews and online barbs, ensuring Trump would see them What ensued was an ego-fueled Hindenburg-style disaster that played out on smartphones worldwide.
Mental health and couples therapy experts insist that this was not unexpected.
Dr Holly Schiff, a licensed clinical psychologist, told DailyMail.com: 'I definitely have seen some elements of idealization in the relationship, which can be an early sign of love-bombing, where you overwhelm someone with praise and attention in order to foster loyalty or dependence.
'However, when we see admiration that is so publicly inflated, it's usually quite brittle.
'If the relationship doesn't provide ongoing affirmation or mutual gain, then the dynamic can flip into devaluation just as quickly.'
She said Musk emerged as the 'clingy' partner, admiring Trump performatively and publicly to secure his status as First Buddy.
'Elon was often seeking approval from Trump and was more eager for validation. Trump asserted more dominance in their interactions.'
His position at the right hand of the President afforded Musk insurance that his companies' lucrative contracts and dealings with the federal government - SpaceX's $14billion in federal contracts and Tesla's EV tax credits - would continue bolstering his status as the world's richest man.
Musk would also hate to see his legacy as chief chainsaw-wielder at DOGE be undercut by adding to the federal debt rather than reducing it.
Dr Morley added that the Musk-Trump 'situation' is particularly interesting because it's a rare case of mutual ego combustion.
Both men, accustomed to bending relationships to their will, lavish praise on allies whenever valuable and then discard them the moment the balance of power shifts.
In the days and weeks after the election, Musk was a fixture at Trump's Mar-A-Lago club in Florida, sitting in on meetings, weighing in on key staffing decisions, and taking part in phone calls with world leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
He even had a seat at the Trump family table for Thanksgiving.
Musk was not the only one in the partnership who issued effusive praise early on. During his inauguration speech, Trump lavished praise on his top campaign donor, saying: 'We have a new star. A star is born. Elon!'
Trump then embraced Musk to head up the new Department of Government Efficiency, which put tens of thousands of federal employees out of work.
Since his inauguration, Trump's X account and that of the White House have been peppered with dozens of posts praising Musk and his DOGE cuts, which he has praised Musk repeatedly on camera.
On March 11, Trump said on Truth Social that Elon Musk 'is 'putting it on the line' in order to help our Nation, and he is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!'
A few days later, he wrote on TruthSocial: 'THANK YOU, ELON—MAGA!'
Around the same time, Musk said: 'President Trump has put together the best Cabinet ever...And I do not give false praise. This is an incredible group of people. I don't think such a talented team has ever been assembled.'
'The very public declarations of admiration signal a kind of exaggerated closeness,' Dr Schiff said.
'These behaviors usually serve a strategic purpose, especially in a power alliance. Build someone up publicly, so they are harder to criticize later, it creates a debt of loyalty.'
The two turned the White House into a pop-up Tesla showroom in March, where Trump touted his adviser's electric vehicles: 'Number one, it's a great product—as good as it gets—and number two, because Elon has devoted his energy and his life to doing this and I think he has been treated very unfairly.'
Musk, whose company at the time was seeing precipitous drops in share prices and acts of vandalism, basked in his buddy's praise, telling reporters: 'As a function of the great policies of President Trump and his administration, and as an act of faith in America, Tesla is going to double vehicle output in the United States within the next two years.'
Around that time, Dr Schiff said, eagle-eyed politicos caught subtle behavior clues in Musk that hinted at simmering tensions under the surface.
Standing next to Trump at the Resolute Desk on more than one press occasion, Musk has stood with his arms crossed, staring up at the ceiling, and rolling his eyes back and forth.
While the public and some health experts chalked this up to evidence of his rumored heavy use of ketamine and other psychedelics, Dr Schiff suggested that 'these are microexpressions of distancing.'
She said: 'In public moments, there appeared to be a growing incongruence between Musk's body language and the performative alliance. More subtle cues usually precede more overt breaks.'
The splinter in their relationship deepened the more Musk spoke up about the Big Beautiful Bill, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and leave around 11 million Americans without health insurance.
Trump seemed willing to discard Musk, telling the world that the billionaire was 'wearing thin' and threatened to cancel the EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rules, which effectively required over a third of new cars to be sold either electric or hybrid by 2032 – cars that Trump said 'nobody else wanted.'
The result was a scorched earth campaign to tank the other's reputation.
Dr Morley said: 'People are expendable with this mindset of like, you take what you can until they're no longer useful, then you discard them, and they've discarded each other.
'And my guess is that behind the scenes Trump discarded Musk first, and now Musk is retaliating, whereas usually we see this in a less even way, with a bigger power imbalance, where the discarded person goes off and licks their wounds and quietly takes it because they don't have either like a platform or whatever to fight back.
'That's obviously not the case with these two people.'
Hashtags

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


The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘He's a bad guy': Trump backs decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges
Donald Trump has called Kilmar Abrego Garcia a 'bad guy' and backed the decision to return him to the US to face criminal charges. Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador nearly three months ago under the Trump administration. He was returned to the US on Friday (6 June) and charged with trafficking migrants into the country. The charges relate to a 2022 traffic stop, during which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Trump said: 'By bringing him back, you show how bad he is.' 'He's a bad guy,' he added.


Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump
WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - LGBTQ+ people from around the world will march through the streets of Washington on Saturday in a joyful celebration meant to show defiance to President Donald Trump's rollback of queer rights. The parade route will come within one block of the White House grounds in one of the final main events of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration. On Sunday a more political event, dubbed a rally and march, will convene at the Lincoln Memorial, a revered space in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Events will play out in the U.S. capital in the wake of the Trump administration's measures to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. The Republican president has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinding anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people as part of a campaign to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While proponents of DEI consider it necessary to correct historic inequities, the White House has described it as a form of discrimination based on race or gender, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. Moreover, the White House said it has appointed a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts or judgeships, and noted that the Trump administration took steps to decriminalize homosexuality globally, and that its 2019 initiative "Ending the HIV Epidemic" aimed to cut HIV infections by 90% by 2030. "The President is honored to serve all Americans," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Event organizers said they were unaware of any counterprotests or anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations planned for Saturday or Sunday. The National Park Service, however, has decided to fence off Dupont Circle, a popular public space, until Sunday night at the request of the U.S. Park Police, which said closure was necessary to "secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, said it was "frustrated and disappointed" at the closure. "This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor. It's much more than a park, for generations it's been a gathering place for DC's LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting," the alliance said.


The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___