Elon Musk Goes Nuclear
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
From the moment Elon Musk bounded onstage, midriff bared, to campaign for Donald Trump, cynics predicted that the two men's egos were too large to allow for a lasting alliance. Improbably, however, the bond persisted, despite the rocky rollout of the U.S. DOGE Service, disagreements over legislation, and even covers of The New Yorker and Time that seemed designed to troll Trump and drive a wedge between the men.
Now it seems the cynics weren't wrong—just premature in their predictions. A feud that simmered all week broke into outright hostility this afternoon, with Trump appearing to threaten to cancel all of the contracts and tax subsidies Musk's companies have with the government, and Musk alleging that Trump hasn't released files related to Jeffrey Epstein because he's implicated in them. The falling-out feels both inevitable and still shocking. (The Germans must have a word for this situation; perhaps Trump could ask Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited the White House today.)
It was only Friday that Trump and Musk held an amiable press conference in the Oval Office to mark the end of Musk's time as a 'special government employee,' as he returns to his somewhat battered companies. Trump presented Musk with a key to the White House—gilded, but you knew that—and Musk promised to continue to offer Trump advice as much as desired. 'I hope so,' the president replied. He's apparently having second thoughts now. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon,' Trump said in an appearance alongside Merz.
The rift opened over the past few days, as Musk began campaigning against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the sprawling legislation that Republicans are trying to move through both houses of Congress to extend Trump's first-term tax cuts, slash entitlements, and achieve whatever else of the president's agenda they can cram in or sneak past members and the Senate parliamentarian.
'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk posted on X on Tuesday. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' In another post, he wrote, 'Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.' In yet another: 'The Big Ugly Bill will INCREASE the deficit to $2.5 trillion!' And a fourth: 'This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!'
What Musk wants is not entirely clear. His understanding of government spending has always been muddled, which is one reason DOGE was doomed to miss its cost-cutting targets. His sudden emergence as a strict deficit hawk is difficult to believe, though if he's really concerned, he could call for higher taxes. (Somehow it's not surprising that a multibillionaire would prefer to cut social services for average citizens.) One hint about the true source of his fury is that he keeps bringing up reductions in subsidies for electric vehicles, something that could directly affect his bottom line.
At first, in an unusual display of circumspection and restraint, the White House tried to avoid directly responding to Musk. Then officials began pushing back, mostly in policy terms. Trump unleashed a flurry of announcements last night that seemed intended to distract from Musk. But then Trump's patience ran out, producing today's sound bite. The president also said he'd rather Musk criticize him personally than the bill, which sounds false.
The situation puts Trump in an ironic position: He likes to be the guy on the outside, attacking government officials for failing to accomplish some impossible task. Now Musk is doing that to him, while Trump has to defend the imperfect process of legislation. As of this writing, Musk had pinned to the top of his X profile a repost of many screenshots of Trump arguing for fiscal discipline before having won his first term. 'Where is this guy today??' Musk sniped.
A clash between Musk and Trump will be a test of what happens when two of the greatest promoters in mass-media history square off. Both are adept at driving a news cycle; both are the owners of social-media platforms; and although X is much larger than Truth Social, Trump also has the advantage of being, you know, the president of the United States. Which of them can control the news more?
But the most interesting clash is the one between two guys who thought they had bought each other off. For a time, they both must have thought they had a great deal. Trump got at least a quarter of a billion dollars in campaign support from Musk, and he got the joy of having the world's richest man as his sidekick. Maybe Trump even believed that DOGE would be able to make huge budget cuts via improvements in efficiency.
Musk, meanwhile, was able to wield unprecedented power as an unelected, unconfirmed bureaucrat. In 2023, during an onstage discussion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked the South African–born Musk, 'You can't be president of the U.S. last time I checked, right?' Musk replied with a smirk, 'Not officially.' For a moment, he seemed to achieve that unofficial reign. DOGE was given wide latitude. Musk skulked around the Oval Office with his young son and mugged in interviews with the president. He could also help direct contracts to his companies, hurt competitors, and install allies in key posts. At the peak of their bond, and a nadir of propriety, the president arranged an infomercial for Tesla on the White House lawn.
Now, as they drift apart, both men are feeling burned. 'I've helped Elon a lot,' Trump groused today. Later, he unloaded on Musk 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 wrote, adding in a threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!'
Musk's anger, though just as hot, was tinged with imperious presumption. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk wrote on X this afternoon. 'Such ingratitude,' he added. You can kind of see his point: He thought that investing massive amounts of money into Trump would allow him to get whatever he wanted from Trump, and Trump did little to dispel that impression. Musk's transparency about DOGE's actions was wanting, but he's making it crystal clear what he thought he bought. Trump and Musk are both learning the limitations on their purchases—and the public is getting an illustration of the danger of someone like Musk having so much personal influence on the government.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website . 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back , saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals , and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'
Hamilton Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Travel ban may shut door for Afghan family to bring niece to US for a better life
IRMO, S.C. (AP) — Mohammad Sharafoddin, his wife and young son walked at times for 36 hours in a row over mountain passes as they left Afghanistan as refugees to end up less than a decade later talking about their journey on a plush love seat in the family's three-bedroom suburban American home. He and his wife dreamed of bringing her niece to the U.S. to share in that bounty. Maybe she could study to become a doctor and then decide her own path. But that door slams shut on Monday as America put in place a travel ban for people from Afghanistan and a dozen other countries. 'It's kind of shock for us when we hear about Afghanistan, especially right now for ladies who are affected more than others with the new government,' Mohammad Sharafoddin said. 'We didn't think about this travel ban.' President Donald Trump signed the ban Wednesday. It is similar to one in place during his first administration but covers more countries. Along with Afghanistan, travel to the U.S. is banned from Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Trump said visitors who overstay visas, like the man charged in an attack that injured dozens of demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, are a danger to the country. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, which isn't included in the ban. The countries chosen for the ban have deficient screening of their citizens, often refuse to take them back and have a high percentage of people who stay in the U.S. after their visas expire, Trump said. The ban makes exceptions for people from Afghanistan on Special Immigrant Visas who generally worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade war there. Thousands of refugees came from Afghanistan Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day in office. It is a path Sharafoddin took with his wife and son out of Afghanistan walking on those mountain roads in the dark then through Pakistan, Iran and into Turkey. He worked in a factory for years in Turkey, listening to YouTube videos on headphones to learn English before he was resettled in Irmo, South Carolina, a suburb of Columbia. His son is now 11, and he and his wife had a daughter in the U.S. who is now 3. There is a job at a jewelry maker that allows him to afford a two-story, three-bedroom house. Food was laid out on two tables Saturday for a celebration of the Muslim Eid al-Adha holiday . Sharafoddin's wife, Nuriya, said she is learning English and driving — two things she couldn't do in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. 'I'm very happy to be here now, because my son is very good at school and my daughter also. I think after 18 years they are going to work, and my daughter is going to be able to go to college,' she said. Family wants to help niece It is a life she wanted for her niece too. The couple show videos from their cellphones of her drawing and painting. When the Taliban returned to power in 2021, their niece could no longer study. So they started to plan to get her to the U.S. at least to further her education. Nuriya Sharafoddin doesn't know if her niece has heard the news from America yet. She hasn't had the heart to call and tell her. 'I'm not ready to call her. This is not good news. This is very sad news because she is worried and wants to come,' Nuriya Sharafoddin said. While the couple spoke, Jim Ray came by. He has helped a number of refugee families settle in Columbia and helped the Sharafoddins navigate questions in their second language. Ray said Afghans in Columbia know the return of the Taliban changed how the U.S. deals with their native country. But while the ban allows spouses, children or parents to travel to America, other family members aren't included. Many Afghans know their extended families are starving or suffering, and suddenly a path to help is closed, Ray said. 'We'll have to wait and see how the travel ban and the specifics of it actually play out,' Ray said. 'This kind of thing that they're experiencing where family cannot be reunited is actually where it hurts the most.' Taliban criticizes the travel ban The Taliban itself criticized Trump for the ban, with leader Hibatullah Akhundzada saying the U.S. was now the oppressor of the world. 'Citizens from 12 countries are barred from entering their land — and Afghans are not allowed either,' he said on a recording shared on social media. 'Why? Because they claim the Afghan government has no control over its people and that people are leaving the country. So, oppressor! Is this what you call friendship with humanity?' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
