Trump-Musk dispute exposes US space programme's reliance on SpaceX
A dispute between US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk that had escalated last week demonstrated a vulnerability of America's space programme and the consequences of its reliance on one private company.
While the tension between President and billionaire has eased, the clash has exposed the risks of Nasa and the Department of Defence relying so much on SpaceX, Mr Musk's aerospace company, to carry out critical missions from taking astronauts into orbit to developing battlefield communications.
The dispute unfolded on June 3, when Mr Musk criticised Mr Trump's proposed economic policy on X, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Mr Trump responded on Truth Social, threatening to withdraw 'billions and billions of dollars' in government contracts awarded to his companies.
'The clash between President Trump and Elon Musk exposes both the vulnerability of SpaceX and the reliance of the US government on SpaceX's capabilities,' said Laura Forczyk, founder of space consulting firm Astralytical.
'A healthy ecosystem needs multiple competitors to provide a variety of options for the space industry to choose from.'
A public fallout
Mr Musk escalated the situation by tweeting that SpaceX would begin 'decommissioning Dragon,' referring to the spacecraft that carries Nasa astronauts to the International Space Station.
'Cancelling government contracts over social media spats could be a real-world consequence to escalating rhetoric in cyberspace,' said Evan Nierman, chief executive of crisis communications company Red Banyan.
'But there is no reason for that to happen, especially since all sides will lose.'
The Dragon capsule remains the only operational American spacecraft capable of transporting crew to and from the ISS, and its only rival, Boeing's Starliner, has only just completed its first crewed test flight after extensive delays.
Before SpaceX, Nasa relied on Russian rockets and spacecraft for more than 10 years to ferry their astronauts to the station.
Strategic reliance
SpaceX launches most of the Pentagon's military satellites, delivers cargo and astronauts to the ISS, and is developing the Starship vehicle that will serve as Nasa's lunar lander for the Artemis programme.
Its Starlink satellite internet system is also being used by the US military and allied forces for secure communications, including in war zones and disaster areas.
'Nasa has already invested $4 billion in SpaceX to develop the Human Landing System, and at present, there are no near-term alternatives, so SpaceX is secure for now,' said Dimitra Atri, a planetary scientist at NYU Abu Dhabi.
Dr Atri said that the public dispute between Mr Trump and Mr Musk could prove useful in the long run.
'The feud essentially serves as a catalyst for diversification efforts that were likely needed regardless of political dynamics, given the strategic risks of single-source dependency,' he said.
During a press briefing on June 9, Mr Trump acknowledged the importance of Starlink despite his criticisms of Mr Musk, saying: 'I may move the Tesla around a little bit, but I don't think we'll be doing that with Starlink. It's a good service.'
Legal and political limits
While Mr Trump has hinted at punishing SpaceX, any serious attempt to cancel or redirect federal contracts are likely to lead to legal challenges. Ms Forczyk said such actions would break procurement laws.
'Contracts by Nasa and the US Department of Defence are won by competition. In many cases, SpaceX is the best competitor,' she said.
'In a few cases, SpaceX is the only company capable of doing what the US government needs, such as launching astronauts to the International Space Station.
'Companies that feel they are treated unfairly can legally protest contract awards, as SpaceX did in 2014 and 2019.
'Political biases should not play a part in contracting decisions, and contracts under suspicion of political bias could be challenged in court. It would be illegal for President Trump to cancel a federal contract with SpaceX and give that same contract to a competitor company.'
Tough times at Nasa
The Trump–Musk dispute comes at a time when Nasa is under heavy funding pressure. A proposed budget cut of nearly 25 per cent for the 2026 fiscal year could jeopardise dozens of scientific missions.
'I don't think it's too far off to say that Nasa is facing its worst-ever crisis,' said Gordon Osinski, a planetary scientist at Western University in Canada.
'The Artemis programme to return humans to the Moon seemed to be safe but given the crucial role of SpaceX in this endeavour, even that could now be in jeopardy.'
The face of SpaceX
While SpaceX has consistently delivered on launch services and human space flight, its image is closely tied to Mr Musk's unpredictable behaviour and political views.
'The SpaceX brand is so deeply tied to Elon Musk that it is seen as an extension of him,' said Mr Nierman.
'That makes the political risk of the Trump–Musk feud harder to contain. The company's best move right now is to maintain institutional calm, keep its head down publicly, and double down on performance behind the scenes.'
He said that the firm's long-term reputation would benefit from separating its operational excellence from Mr Musk's personal identity.
A push for competition
The argument may serve as a catalyst for Nasa and the Department of Defence to broaden their portfolio of providers, by increasing investment in Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman and emerging launch firms.
Dr Atri said that while SpaceX currently leads in terms of capability and cost-efficiency, building a diversified and resilient space economy is in the national interest.
Blue Origin was awarded a second Human Landing System contract by Nasa, but its lander is not expected to be ready until after the 2030s.
'That company is rapidly building the capabilities needed to challenge SpaceX in rocket launches,' said Dr Atri.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
36 minutes ago
- Khaleej Times
Dubai: Gold prices steady in early trade after rising Dh4.5 per gram day before
Gold prices were steady on Wednesday morning after jumping Dh4.5 per gram on Tuesday. The 24K was selling at Dh402.75 per gram at the opening of the markets in Dubai on Wednesday, up Dh4.5 per gram since Tuesday morning. Among the other variants of the precious metal, 22K, 21K and 18K were trading at Dh372.75, Dh357.5 and Dh306.25 per gram, respectively. Spot gold was 0.6 per cent at Dh3,342.52 per ounce. Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Aaron Hill, chief analyst at FP Markets, said geopolitical theatrics — particularly US President Donald Trump's hardline stance and potential flashpoint with world leaders — remain as ongoing drivers of volatility risks. 'In tandem, the softer labour market sentiment and easing inflation expectations lower immediate odds of Federal Reserve rate cut and sustain the bullish medium-term scenario for gold. The strength of the metal will depend upon whether such supportive fundamentals trump near-term risk swings over global trade news,' he said. 'A break above $3,328 on a sustained basis would reaffirm bullish pressure, while failure to hold above $3,293 risks unleashing further technical selling pressure. As such, gold is still positioned precariously — its next move resting on a delicate balancing act of central bank expectations, political posturing, as well as new information flow,' said Hill.
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Trump immigration crackdown creates jobs distortions, Fed headaches: McGeever
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) ORLANDO, Florida - Seismic shifts in immigration are distorting the U.S. employment picture, making it harder for investors and policymakers to know exactly how much the labor market is actually slowing. Assuming the Trump administration makes good on its pledge to reduce immigration, either by stopping the flow of people coming into the country or by deporting many already here, the labor supply will shrink. The long-term impact of lower immigration is generally agreed to be negative, as new workers are needed to replace retirees, fill job vacancies and drive economic growth. Over time, fewer new workers will likely mean lower growth. But in the short term, a smaller pool of workers results in a tighter labor market, which keeps a lid on the unemployment rate, albeit artificially and probably temporarily. This may already be playing out. Figures released last week showed that employment in May fell by 696,000 jobs. That's the biggest single monthly decline since the historic losses seen during the pandemic in early 2020. Some economists argue that the recent drop is a consequence of Trump's immigration crackdown. Nonfarm payrolls rose 139,000. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%, which though higher than it was two years ago, is still historically low by any measure. All else being equal, this points to a tight labor market, which should put upward pressure on wages and perhaps even warrant a more hawkish policy stance from the Federal Reserve. But that is almost certainly a misreading. When labor supply and the labor force participation rate fall, this brings down a country's so-called 'breakeven' job growth. That's the number of net new jobs the economy needs to keep up with growth in the working-age population and maintain a steady unemployment rate. That figure is falling, and if the Trump administration toughens up its anti-immigration policies further, this decline is likely to accelerate. LOWER FOR LONGER According to economists at Morgan Stanley, breakeven employment growth averaged 210,000 jobs a month last year, and is averaging 170,000 so far this year. They reckon it will fall to 90,000 by the end of this year and 80,000 next year. Ryan Sweet, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, goes further, estimating that the breakeven rate is "quickly approaching" 50,000 jobs a month due to weakening labor supply growth, primarily because of reduced immigration. "The unemployment rate can remain low, but for the wrong reasons," Sweet says. If these projections prove accurate, monthly employment and job growth could continue to slow without raising the unemployment rate. The contradictory signals this sends could create confusion for both investors and policymakers. In his press conference after the most recent Fed policy meeting, Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly told reporters that the labor market is "solid". The unemployment rate "remains low," and the labor market is "at or near maximum employment." If these headline indicators are the gauge, Powell is absolutely correct. But he also stressed that policymakers are looking at the "whole huge array" of labor market indicators for a truer guide. One of those inputs in the months ahead will no doubt be net immigration. And that could generate significant uncertainty, as there are huge gray areas and wide margins of error when trying to estimate net immigration and its impact on the labor market. In January, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected net immigration of 2 million people this year and 1.5 million next year, down from an estimated 3.3 million in 2023. With Trump seemingly hardening his stance on immigration, those projections could turn out to be far too high. Morgan Stanley's economists just slashed their immigration forecasts to 800,000 this year and 500,000 next year. If these figures turn out to be closer to reality, we could soon be looking at a "tight" labor market with monthly payrolls gains of well under 100,000. Pity the poor Fed Chair who has to communicate policy in that environment. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn and X. (By Jamie McGeever; Editing by Susan Fenton)
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Investment glass seems half full near mid-point of 2025: Mike Dolan
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Open Interest) LONDON - A consequence of U.S. President Donald Trump's global economic upheaval seems to be greater "home bias" in investing - going some way toward explaining the year's relative performance while seeming chaos sows stimulus around the world. Many of the half-year appraisals of Trump's often erratic trade and economic agenda attempt to cut through policy noise to suggest where the world will ultimately pan out. Larry Fink, boss of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, opined last week about a "second draft of globalization", one positioned somewhere between the rejected inequities of unfettered global trade and capital and another alternative of stifling economic nationalism and capital curbs. The new middle ground can still enjoy open markets, Fink reckons, but they will likely be steered, prodded and tempted home to ensure household savings first benefit the country of those doing the saving. "People will fuel their country's economic growth and own a piece of it," Fink argued in an op-ed in the Financial Times. For Fink, this "re-globalization" aims "not just to generate prosperity but to aim it towards the people and places left behind the first time." Trump's attempted re-industrialization of America is a version of this idea. Using trade barriers, bilateralism, carrots and sticks, he seeks to kick-start U.S. manufacturing while accepting that lower trade deficits will also see lower overseas investment flows to U.S. markets and smaller government to boot. The political pitch is to create more well-paid factory jobs instead of super-wealthy asset owners. Easier said than done. MAKING EVERYWHERE GREAT AGAIN? But whatever one thinks about Trump's "America First" strategy, that formula seems to be working best overseas. Germany's dramatic fiscal reboot this year, which was catalyzed by both Trumpism and far-right populism at home, also speaks to the new globalization theme. Europe at large now appears to be prioritizing investment in its own industrial base, security, digital infrastructure and green technologies - hoping to unleash both under-utilized savings at home and attract capital from Wall Street. Britain is apeing these industrial and defence policy trends, while Japan is attempting to unlock its domestic pension savings too. Meanwhile, Chinese fiscal stimulus has also risen. So while trade war jitters abound, it sets up potentially synched fiscal boosts next year. TS Lombard's Rory Green and Alexandros Xenofontos pointed out on Monday there could be strong fiscal stimuli in Europe, China and possibly the U.S. in 2026 - a trifecta that's only happened twice in 30 years, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the 2007-2008 global financial crisis. That possibility goes some way to explain why, despite all the market volatility and hype surrounding a U.S. cyclical slowdown, global stock markets are once again hitting record highs. It also explains why it's been a bad year for global sovereign bonds and the U.S. dollar - as stimulus requires more borrowing and foreign investors shed overweight U.S. holdings. Even though Wall Street stocks are just about positive for the year, they are underperforming the likes of equity indexes in Germany and Hong Kong by 25%-40%. If even some of the estimated $7 trillion of European money that flowed into U.S. equities over the past dozen years were to be repatriated, markets would price such a move very quickly. And despite all the concern about the U.S. economic and political direction, American money is not rushing offshore. Mutual fund data shows net U.S. flows to global equity funds remain negative through this year. In fact, they're at their most negative in more than two years. Cash flowing to U.S. money market funds, meantime, has climbed back above $7 trillion again in the latest week, near the record high set in April. 'KERNEL OF TRUTH' Does that data mean the ultimate outcome of Trump turning the world upside down could actually be positive? In an article for the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine titled "Tell Me How This Trade War Ends," Emily Kilcrease and Geoffrey Gertz reckon that despite all the Trump chaos, there is a "kernel of truth" in his insistence that the world trade system needs a re-set. They conclude there is no going back to a world where the U.S. championed ever freer trade. Neither is it inevitable that the world will retreat into outright protectionism, as long as Trump pushes other U.S. allies into a new, less-lopsided trading framework. "Trump's shock to the system may not be pretty. But it could open the way for a much better system," Kilcrease and Gertz wrote. "Trump has turned the United States into a revisionist power seeking to shatter what remains of the economic order. Thus far, his approach has been needlessly chaotic," they said. "But there is still an opportunity to wrest a positive outcome from the current tumult." At nearly the mid-point of the year, investors seem tempted by this "glass half full" view of 2025's disruption. The optimists are trying to see through the inevitable twists and turns ahead to focus on the possibility of a new, more positive equilibrium down the line. In truth, much remains murky and unknowable at this point. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. (by Mike Dolan; editing by Anna Szymanski and Paul Simao)
