logo
Trump Faces Shocking Threat to His Presidency From ‘Brutus' Musk

Trump Faces Shocking Threat to His Presidency From ‘Brutus' Musk

Yahooa day ago

Et tu, Elon?
As he considers how to mitigate the damage from his fallout with Elon Musk, Donald Trump would be well-advised to examine the origins of Tesla, the company most closely associated with the world's richest man and the main source of his enormous wealth.
Tesla Motors, as it was originally known, was founded on July 1, 2003, by software engineers Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. Their dream was to build a cool electric roadster to replace the clunky, battery-bleeding, glorified golf carts being produced by established automakers.
The Tesla founders bootstrapped their debut prototype before launching their first investment round in February 2004. At around this time, Elon Musk, with pockets full of cash from the sales of PayPal and Zip2, was looking for new projects to invest in and was intrigued by Tesla. He coughed up $6.5 million of the $7.5 million raised.
Musk wasn't a founder, but he bought his way into the car business. His wealth was also sufficient to secure him the position of Tesla's chairman of the board. It wasn't long before he took the company for his own.
By late 2007, Eberhard had been ousted as CEO. Tarpenning left a little while later.
Musk, the new CEO, took the Model S, Model X, and Model 3 to the well-heeled masses—and to massive success. He also left anger and acrimony in his wake. Eberhard would later sue for defamation and wrongful termination.
Fast forward to early 2024, and Musk was ambivalent about Trump's presidential re-election ambitions, announcing in March that he wouldn't be donating to either party. It wasn't until the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, that July that he changed his mind. Minutes after Trump was bundled from the stage by Secret Service agents with blood pouring from an ear wound and his clenched fist aloft, Musk endorsed the Republican nominee. Even more importantly, he committed $45 million to a mega Trump fundraiser, America PAC.
By August, Musk was suggesting that Trump should put him in charge of a commission based on 'government efficiency.' The idea of DOGE was born, and Musk declared himself 'willing to serve.'
In October, the Tesla boss shared the stage with Trump on his return to Butler and leaped up and down, saying he was 'dark MAGA' to the discomfort of the nominee and his advisors. If Trump had any reservations, he was appeased by Musk's offer to pay $1 million a day to voters supporting him in swing states.
Musk was fully immersed in Trump's final campaign rundown and was at Mar-a-Lago to watch the results. The 'First Buddy' began spending almost every day with the president-elect. There was so much talk of 'President Musk' in December that Trump felt bound to come out and insist: 'No, he's not taking the presidency. That's not happening.'
The whispers out of the White House after the inauguration suggested that all was not well with the relationship. Musk wasn't so happy to be Robin to Trump's Batman anymore. Not a dynamic duo. He saw himself more in the mold of a genius inventor and playboy like "Iron Man" Tony Stark.
There were reports of flare-ups with Cabinet members, Musk going rogue with flurries of posts on his X platform, bitchy feuds with the likes of Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, and Musk being omnipresent at the White House, bringing son X into the Oval Office, dumping USAID into the 'wood chipper' and going full chainsaw on entire federal departments.
To his obvious bemusement, Musk was no longer the hero. Worse, he was the villain people loved to hate. He was Doctor Doom. And his Teslas took the brunt of his unpopularity.
For a time, it served Trump to have Musk as the focus of criticism of the shock and awe launch of his second term. Meanwhile, Musk was smart enough to know that his privileged position at the heart of power meant he had to toe the line, at least some of the time.
When the House passed Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' Musk tempered his reactions at first. But when he realized how his Oval Office Bro had fully jettisoned Biden's clean air tax credits, he lost his cool.
Two weeks later, with Musk's ties to the White House officially cut, he felt no such inhibition. Eliminating the clean air tax credits would pummel his Tesla and SpaceX businesses.
Make no mistake, Trump's entire agenda relies on the passage of this bill. But when he's being drowned out by Musk's bullhorn, it's more difficult to herd his sheep down the Hill.
Trump can talk as often and as loudly as he likes from his Oval Office pulpit, but rhetoric and executive orders can only take you so far. This is still a country built on laws, even if some judicial foundations seem rattled and shaky right now.
Trump can bully lawmakers behind the scenes, threatening pop-up primaries for disobedience and disloyalty. But so can Musk. He already did. The midterms may be a year and a half away, but they will determine Trump's legacy.
Trump could continue operating as the Republicans' all-powerful Caesar, or he could serve out his time as a lame duck leader with the knives out for him in every direction, blue states and red.
Trump's silence over Musk's explosive challenge to his spending bill suggests he is, for once, thinking very carefully about his next move.
So far, he has chosen to keep Musk on his side of the sandbox, even as he pushes him away. The president is no fool. He knows it is better to keep a Brutus close, but that leaves him with a quandary.
Will Trump finally stick the knife into Musk and leave him for dead?
Or will it be the other way around?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester
Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester

Fox News

time7 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from detaining a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident whom federal agents have targeted for deportation after she took part in an anti-Israel demonstration earlier this year. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's preliminary injunction on Thursday blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from taking 21-year-old Yunseo Chung into custody. Chung is originally from South Korea and has lived in the U.S. since she was seven years old. ICE had attempted to arrest her in March but were unsuccessful and the court has now barred ICE from detaining her without prior approval. If the government tries to detain Chung for any reason other than her potential deportation, it must give 72 hours' notice to Chung's lawyers and the court and allow the court time to determine if the detention attempt is a pretext for First Amendment retaliation. The ruling also states that she remains free while her legal case proceeds. Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR, a legal nonprofit at City University of New York that is representing Chung, praised the ruling. "This is a win not just for Yunseo and for the legions of people who stand up for Palestinians and oppose the daily atrocities in Gaza that our government underwrites, but also for freedom of speech and the rule of law in our country," Kassem said in a statement, per the Washington Post. It comes after the same judge in March ordered immigration officials to cease their efforts to arrest Chung. The Trump administration has alleged that her participation in a protest poses a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence for the United States. Chung's attorneys say that the government's pursuit of the Columbia student is an "unjustifiable assault on [the] First Amendment." Chung sued the government earlier this year. The lawsuit states that Chung was a participant in the anti-Israel protests, not a leader, and was "one of a large group of college students" expressing "shared concerns" over the war in Gaza. Chung, according to the lawsuit, "visited" the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a number of tents organized in the center of campus, but does not state whether she stayed there. The lawsuit also makes it clear that she did not make public statements or engage in high-profile activities while at the protests. Chung's lawsuit states that she was never arrested or disciplined in relation to events at the encampment. However, she was later arrested during a 2025 protest at Barnard College. The lawsuit claims that it is common in New York City for police to arrest many protesters and that charges are usually dropped or dismissed. The lawsuit states that on March 8, an ICE official signed an administrative arrest warrant for Chung and federal law enforcement went to Chung's parents' house the next day seeking to arrest her. An ICE official allegedly told Chung's attorneys on March 10 that her green card had been "revoked," according to the lawsuit. The government has the authority to rescind permanent resident status if it believes that a person has violated U.S. immigration law. Chung's attorneys say in the lawsuit that law enforcement searched Chung's dorm room on March 13 in accordance with a warrant. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class and has a near-perfect GPA heading into her senior year, according to court documents. Chung is double-majoring in English and women's and gender studies at Columbia, the Washington Post reported. The Trump administration has also sought to deport former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, whom it accuses of playing a major role in anti-Israel protests at Columbia University.

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