Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other
The falling-out between the world's richest person and the president of the world's largest economy will have consequences – for both of them.
Elon Musk, as the boss of multiple companies including Tesla, and Donald Trump, who has benefited from Musk's support in his journey to the White House, have had a mutually beneficial relationship up until now.
Here are 10 ways in which Musk and Trump could hurt each other if they fail to broker a peace deal.
Cancel government contracts related to Musk's businesses
Responding to Musk's criticism of his tax and spending bill, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that cancelling the billionaire's government contracts would be a straightforward way to save money.
'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!' Trump said.
In 2024, the New York Times reported that Musk's companies – which include electric vehicle maker Tesla and rocket company Tesla – have over the past year been promised $3bn across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies.
Investigate Musk's alleged drug use
The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have made allegations of heavy drug use by Musk, raising questions about Nasa requirements for its contractors – including SpaceX – to maintain a drug-free workforce. The Times alleged that Musk has received advanced warning of the tests. SpaceX has been contacted for comment.
Responding to the Times allegations on X last month, Musk wrote: 'to be clear, I am NOT taking drugs!' In 2024 he said he sometimes used ketamine on a doctor's prescription.
Challenge Musk's immigration status
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and influential 'alt-right' figure, told the Times on Thursday that Musk's immigration status should be investigated.
'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,' Bannon said of South Africa-born Musk, who is a US citizen.
Use general presidential powers against Musk
When Trump was elected, observers pointed to the myriad ways in which a Musk-friendly White House administration could benefit the financial interests of the world's richest person. That benign environment, which includes awarding of government contracts and directing federal agencies giving Musk's businesses an easier ride, could of course be turned hostile.
Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in government regulation, told the Guardian at the time: ''All federal regulators and prosecutors work for the president. He can tell them to do something or not to do something with the understanding that he will fire them if they disobey.'
Ostracise Musk from the Maga movement
Trump, as the leader of the 'Make America great again' vanguard, can close doors on Musk. The Republican congressman Troy Nehls excoriated the billionaire on Thursday, telling him: ''You've lost your damn mind.' He added: 'Enough is enough.'
Musk can handle such opprobrium and, given his considerable wealth, he is an important source of funding for Republican politicians.
Turn X against the White House
Musk used his X platform, and his more than 220 million followers on it, to rally support for Trump's victory in the 2024. It also provided a platform for far-right views that helped publicise the Maga agenda.
Theoretically, Musk could at least use his own X account to criticise Trump with as much regularity as he pumped the president's policies (the Tesla chief executive is a prolific user of his own platform).
However, this also depends on Musk's influence with the US electorate. Five out of 10 US adults say they have an unfavourable view of Musk, according to the Pew Research Center. But it should be noted that seven out of 10 Republicans or Republican-leaning adults hold a favourable view – he's not going to sway many Democrats who dislike Trump anyway.
Form a new political movement
Musk, who is worth more than $300bn (£220bn), could divert his considerable financial resources away from the Republican party and start a new political entity. Musk spent $250m on getting Trump elected in 2024, signalling his willingness to invest heavily in politics.
On Thursday he posted a poll on X and asked: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 80% of the 4.8 million respondents voted 'yes'.
Create geopolitical problems with his businesses
The Starlink satellite broadband platform, owned by Musk's SpaceX, is playing a key rule in Ukraine's fight against a Russian invasion, while China is an important manufacturing and consumer base for Tesla. Through his businesses, Musk also has political contacts around the world and is regularly photographed in the company of global leaders. However, any damage Musk causes to Trump's international standing or interests will have to be balanced with any knock-on effect on his own businesses.
Create problems for Nasa
Nasa has a close relationship with Musk's SpaceX, with the company's Dragon spacecraft being used to transport the agency's astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Musk immediately pledged to decommission Dragon in the wake of the Trump spat on Thursday – before quickly signalling an about-face. Nonetheless, SpaceX is a crucial part of Nasa's ISS operations.
Tell-all on Trump
Musk has been a fixture of Trump's inner circle for a considerable period of time and, as the contents of his X account show, he is capable of taking multiple damaging swipes at people. However, members of Trump's inner circle will have had the same access to Musk, whose personal life is becoming a media staple.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes 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
27 minutes 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
37 minutes 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. ___
