From bros to foes: how the unlikely Trump-Musk relationship imploded
By
Nandita Bose
and
Jeff Mason,
Reuters
Donald Trump (L) and Elon Musk's unlikely political marriage exploded in a fiery public divorce on 5 June, 2025.
Photo:
SAUL LOEB and Jim WATSON / AFP
When Donald Trump met privately with White House officials on Wednesday, there was little to suggest that the US president was close to a public break with Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who helped him win a second term in office.
Two White House officials familiar with the matter said Trump expressed confusion and frustration in the meeting about Musk's attacks on his sweeping tax and spending bill. But he held back, the officials said, because he wanted to preserve Musk's political and financial support ahead of the 2026 midterm election.
By Thursday afternoon, Trump's mood had shifted. He had not spoken to Musk since the attacks began and was fuming over what one White House aide described as a "completely batshit" tirade by the Tesla CEO on X, his social media platform.
On Friday, a White House official said Trump was not interested in talking to Musk and no phone call between the two men was planned for the day.
Musk had blasted Trump's tax bill as fiscally reckless and a "disgusting abomination." He vowed to oppose any Republican lawmaker who supported it. The bill would fulfill many of Trump's priorities while adding, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $2.4 trillion to the $36.2-trillion US public debt.
Privately, Trump had called Musk volatile. On Thursday, he told his team, it was time to take the gloves off.
Sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was "very disappointed" in his former adviser. Musk quickly hit back on social media, and the back-and-forth devolved from there.
"The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts," Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media site. Within minutes, Musk said it might be time to create a new political party and endorsed a post on X from Ian Miles Cheong, a prominent Musk supporter and right-wing activist, calling for Trump's impeachment.
The depth of the Trump-Musk relationship at its height was unprecedented in Washington - a sitting president granting a billionaire tech CEO access and influence inside the White House and throughout his government. Musk spent nearly $300 million backing Trump's campaign and other Republicans last year.
For months, Musk played both insider and disruptor - shaping policy conversations behind the scenes, amplifying Trump's agenda to millions online, and attacking the bureaucracy and federal spending through his self-styled Department of Government Efficiency.
Just last week, Trump hosted a farewell for Musk and declared that "Elon is really not leaving".
Now he had not only left but had turned into a top critic. Hours after Trump's Oval Office remarks, a third White House official expressed surprise at Musk's turnaround. It "caught the president and the entire West Wing off guard," she said.
Musk did not respond to emails seeking comment about the downturn in relations. His super PAC spending group, America PAC, and spokeswoman Katie Miller did not respond to calls and texts requesting comment.
In a statement, the White House called the breakup an "unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted".
The Musk-Trump breakup sent Tesla's stock price plunging 14 percent on Thursday and drove uncertainty among Trump's allies in Congress, who are working to pass the monumental spending package that Democrats and a small number of vocal Republicans oppose. Tesla shares clawed back from steep losses on Friday.
The breakup could reshape both men's futures. For Trump, losing Musk's backing threatens his growing influence among tech donors, social media audiences, and younger male voters - key groups that may now be harder to reach. It could also complicate fundraising ahead of next year's midterm elections.
For Musk, the stakes are potentially even higher. The break risks intensified scrutiny of his business practices that could jeopardise government contracts and invite regulatory probes, which might threaten his companies' profits.
Some of Musk's friends and associates were stunned by the fallout, with a number of them only recently expressing confidence that the partnership would endure, according to two other sources familiar with the dynamics.
The split had been simmering for weeks, said the first two White House officials, but the breaking point was over personnel: Trump's decision to pull his nomination of Jared Isaacman, Musk's hand-picked candidate to be NASA administrator.
"He was not happy" about Isaacman, one of the White House officials said of Musk.
Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and close Musk ally, was seen as key to advancing Musk's vision for space exploration and commercial space ventures. After his nomination was scuttled, Isaacman posted on X: "I am incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me."
The move was viewed within the administration as a direct snub to Musk, the two officials said, signaling a loss of political clout and deepening the rift between him and Trump's team.
Before the Isaacman episode, top White House aides behind the scenes had already begun limiting Musk's influence, quietly walking back his authority over staffing and budget decisions. Trump himself reinforced that message in early March, telling his cabinet that department secretaries, not Musk, had the final say over agency operations.
At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending.
His threats and complaints about Trump's bill grew louder, but inside the White House, few believed they would seriously alter the course of the legislation - even as some worried about the fallout on the midterms from Musk's warnings to cut political spending, the first two White House officials said.
Still, a fourth White House official dismissed the impact of Musk's words on the president's signature bill.
"We're very confident," he said. "No one has changed their minds." But there was bafflement at the White House at how a relationship that only last week had been celebrated in the Oval Office had taken such a turn.
Time will tell whether the rift can be repaired.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel , Reuters Photo: 123RF The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins vs Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. US President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top US judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked. - Reuters
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why the Musk and Trump relationship is breaking down
By Geoff Beattie* of Elon Musk and US President Donald Trump. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP It is not a good break-up. These were always two big beasts used to getting their own way. Two alpha males, if you like the evolutionary metaphor, trying to get along. And now the Donald Trump and Elon Musk relationship is in meltdown. Who could forget that iconic image from just a few short weeks back? Elon Musk standing behind the seated US president, Donald Trump, in the Oval Office, towering over him. Trump, his hands clasped, having to turn awkwardly to look up at him. That silent language of the body. Musk accompanied by his four-year-old, a charming and informal image, or that great evolutionary signal of mating potential and dominance, depending on your point of view. These were also clearly two massive narcissistic egos out in their gleaming open-top speedster. Musk was appointed special advisor to Trump, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, cutting excess and waste. The backseat driver for a while. There were a lot of bureaucratic casualties already, road kill at the side of the highway as the sports car roared on with frightening speed. But things were always going to be difficult if they hit a bump in the road. And they did. Perhaps, more quickly than many had imagined. There were differing views on what caused the crash. Many pointed to the dramatic fall in Tesla's sales - a 71 percent fall in profits in one quarter - and the inevitable impact on Musk's reputation. Since the break-up, Tesla's share price has also dropped sharply], as investors have panicked. The attacks on Tesla showrooms couldn't have helped either. Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Others pointed to Trump's proposed removal of the tax credit for owners of electric vehicles, or the political backlash in Washington over Space X's potential involvement in Trump's proposed "golden dome" anti-missile defence system. However, according to former White House strategist Steve Bannon, what really caused the crash was when the president refused to show Musk the Pentagon's attack plans for any possible war with China. There's only so far being the president's best buddy can get you. Bannon is reported as saying: "You could feel it. Everything changed." That, according to Bannon, was the beginning of the end. So now we watch Trump and Musk stumbling away from the crash scene. One minute Trump is putting on a show for the cameras. He's beaming away and introducing the "big, beautiful bill", a budget reconciliation bill that rolls together hundreds of controversial proposals. Next, he is accusing Musk of "going crazy" and talking about withdrawing government contracts from the Musk empire. Musk is unhappy too. "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," he wrote on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." He says he's disgusted by the bill . Disgust is one of the most primitive of all the emotions. A survival mechanism - you must avoid what disgusts you. He's social signalling here, alerting others, warning them that there's something disgusting in the camp. Musk is highly attuned to public perception, perhaps even more so than Trump (which is saying something). With his acquisition of X (formerly Twitter), Musk was able to direct (and add to) online discourse, shaping public conversations. Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle? Psychologically, Musk's rejection of Trump is an attempt to simultaneously elevate himself and diminish the man behind the bill. He can call out the president's action like nobody else. He is positioning himself anew as that free thinker, that risk taker, innovative, courageous, unfettered by any ties. That is his personality, his brand - and he's reasserting it. But it's also a vengeful act. And it's perhaps reminiscent of another political insider (and geek), former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by the then UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2020. Cummings was accused of masterminding leaks about the social gatherings in Downing Street. He went on to criticise Johnson as lacking the necessary discipline and focus for a prime minister as well as questioning his competence and decision-making abilities. The revenge of a self-proclaimed genius. And revenge is sweet. In a 2004 study, researchers scanned participants' brains using positron emission tomography (PET) - a medical imaging technique that is used to study brain function (among other things) - while the participants played an economic game based on trust. When trust was violated, participants wanted revenge, and this was reflected in increased activity in the reward-related regions of the brain, the dorsal striatum. Revenge, in other words, is primarily about making yourself feel better rather than righting any wrongs. Your act may make you appear moral but it may be more selfish. But revenge for what here? That's where these big narcissistic egos come into play. Psychologically, narcissists are highly sensitive to perceived slights - real or imagined. Musk may have felt Trump was attempting to diminish his achievements for political gain, violating this pact of mutual respect. This kind of sensitivity can quickly transmogrify admiration into contempt. Contempt, coincidentally, is the single best predictor of a breakdown in very close relationships. Disgust and contempt are powerful emotions, evolving to protect us - disgust from physical contamination (spoiled food, disease), and contempt from social or moral contamination (betrayal, incompetence). Both involve rejection - disgust rejects something physically; contempt rejects something socially or morally. Musk may be giving it to Trump with both barrels here. Break-ups are always hard, they get much harder when emotions like these get intertwined with the process. But how will the most powerful man in the world respond to this sort of rejection from the richest man in the world? And where will it end? * Geoff Beattie is a Professor of Psychology at Edge Hill University in the United Kingdom. - This story first appeared in The Conversation
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Riot police, anti-ICE protesters square off in Los Angeles after raids
By Jane Ross and Steve Gorman , Reuters Helmeted police in riot gear turned out in a tense confrontation with protesters in downtown Los Angeles, after a day of federal immigration raids in which dozens of people across the city were reported to be taken into custody. Live Reuters video showed Los Angeles Police Department officers on Friday evening (local time) lined up on a downtown street wielding batons and what appeared to be tear gas rifles, facing off with demonstrators after authorities had ordered crowds of protesters to disperse around nightfall. Early in the standoff, some protesters hurled chunks of broken concrete toward officers, and police responded by firing volleys of tear gas and pepper spray. Police also fired "flash-bang" concussion rounds. It was not clear whether there were any immediate arrests. An LAPD spokesperson, Drake Madison, told Reuters that police on the scene had declared an unlawful assembly, meaning that those who failed to leave the area were subject to arrest. Television news footage earlier in the day showed caravans of unmarked military-style vehicles and vans loaded with uniformed federal agents streaming through Los Angeles streets as part of the immigration enforcement operation. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents targeted several locations, including a Home Depot in the city's Wetlake District, an apparel store in the Fashion District and a clothing warehouse in South Los Angeles, according to the Los Angeles City News Service (CNS). CNS and other local media reported dozens of people were taken into custody during the raids, the latest in a series of such sweeps conducted in a number of cities as part of President Donald Trump's extensive crackdown on illegal immigration. Television news footage earlier in the day showed caravans of unmarked military-style vehicles and vans loaded with uniformed federal agents streaming through Los Angeles streets as part of the immigration enforcement operation. Photo: KENA BETANCUR / AFP The Republican president has vowed to arrest and deport undocumented migrants in record numbers. The LAPD did not take part in the immigration enforcement action. It was deployed to quell civil unrest after crowds protesting the deportation raids spray-painted anti-ICE slogans on the walls of a federal court building and massed outside a nearby jail where some of the detainees were believed to be held. Impromptu demonstrations had also erupted at some of the raid locations earlier in the day. One organised labour executive, David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union of California, was injured and detained by ICE at one site, according to an SEIU statement. The union said Huerta was arrested "while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity." No details about the nature or severity of Huerta's injury were given. It was not clear whether he was charged with a crime. ICE did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for information about its enforcement actions or Huerta's detention. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued a statement condemning the immigration raids, saying, "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city." - Reuters
