The Elon Musk and Donald Trump Breakup Has Started
Jun 5, 2025 2:13 PM Trumpworld insiders fear that Elon Musk's attacks on Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" could kill it—and are already advising candidates to turn their backs on the world's richest man. Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks alongside US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Photograph:Elon Musk may have finally reached the end of his rope with President Donald Trump—and vice versa. While the world's richest man wars with the president on X, Republican strategists and insiders in Trumpworld tell WIRED that Musk's broader future in Republican politics is on shaky ground.
Over the last few days, Musk has posted increasingly personal criticisms at Trump and the Republican budget reconciliation package known as the Big Beautiful Bill on X. This came to a head on Thursday, when Trump addressed the relationship during a press conference with German chancellor Friedrich Merz.
'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' said Trump, who compared Musk to past aides who have, he said, developed 'Trump derangement syndrome' after leaving his administration.
Trump and Musk have been in lockstep since Musk endorsed the president in July 2024. Musk poured hundreds of millions into Trump's re-election bid, and their close relationship has been promoted by the pair countless times. Just last week, the two held a joint press conference as an apparent celebration of and conclusion to Musk's time as a special government employee involved with his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Today's remarks, though, reveal how fractured that relationship has become. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' Musk posted on X shortly after Trump's comments. 'Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.'
Behind the scenes, Trumpworld Republicans tell WIRED, this tension is about more than just a bromance falling apart. If Musk continues to escalate, he may drag down legislation that Trump sees as a key part of his political legacy.
'If [Musk] actually successfully gets any votes switched to tank this bill and kills it,' a senior Trumpworld strategist tells WIRED, 'then I think at that point he's fucking dead to Donald Trump.'
This Republican—who, like the four WIRED spoke to for this story, requested anonymity to keep what's left of their political futures alive after the current implosion of the Trump-Musk relationship—went on to say that Musk meddling in the Big Beautiful Bill came at the worst time and with the highest stakes for the Trump White House.
At best, they say, Trump has '18 months' to cement his legacy with his signature legislation. 'Some of the priorities of President Trump are not possible outside of this bill.' After that, this same senior Republican said, the remainder of Trump's term will likely be hamstrung by an expected Democratic victory in the House in the midterms that would prevent any major legislative wins.
'Whatever,' Musk tweeted minutes after Trump's comment about their relationship, and the president's claims that Musk was only upset about the potential impact to his automotive business. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill. In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both (sic) big and beautiful. Everyone knows this! Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.' Musk has continued posting, attacking, he says, what he believes is Trump's about-face on raising the debt ceiling.
(According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the package would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion through 2034, mostly due to an anticipated $3.7 trillion decline in revenues due to the extension of tax cuts passed during Trump's first term. The package would cut spending by about $1.3 trillion, with most of that coming from cuts to Medicaid and food assistance. Other spending would decline by about $64 billion on net, the CBO has written, with cuts offset by 'increases in outlays for defense, immigration enforcement, and homeland security.' Because the package would increase the deficit, it would necessitate increasing the debt ceiling—something Trump has said he would like to do away with entirely.)
Republicans familiar with the dynamic between Trump and Musk said several recent flashpoints have brought the two men closer to the brink. The most notable were Musk's reported outrage at Trump's announcement that he was withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman, a Musk ally, for Nasa administrator. The Big Beautiful Bill, if passed, would also cut the electric tax vehicle credit that benefits companies like Tesla.
'If this really is a divorce and they start butting heads,' a second senior Republican strategist plugged into Trumpworld tells WIRED, 'it doesn't take much for Trump to put out a Truth Social post that undermines what Elon's trying to do.'
Two of the Trumpworld Republican strategists WIRED spoke with who have clients on Capitol Hill—including senators facing reelection—said that even before Thursday's outburst, Musk had become so toxic that even his seemingly endless funds couldn't change their outlook.
'My advice to clients, many of which are in Congress in the Senate and seeking reelection, is to take the side of their voters and not the side of Elon Musk,' says the senior Republican strategist.
'If you vote to basically throw your district under the bus,' the second Republican adds, 'that means you're going to lose in November anyways.'
Fearing a midterms wipeout and a lingering, toxic drag on the GOP brand from Musk, Republicans who had been cautious in their approach to the world's richest man are feeling increasingly emboldened to encourage their clients to break free.
'You should not turn your back on promises made [to voters] just because Elon Musk is mad about it,' the first strategist says. 'Unless Elon Musk spends a couple hundred million dollars going after people in these primaries, that is not going to have the impact that people think he does because Donald Trump is still more popular than anybody else in the party. And if you're on the side of Donald Trump, then ultimately you're going to be okay.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
11 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?
Black America Web
12 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. '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.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
