Steve Bannon Says Elon Musk and Scott Bessent Had 'Physical Confrontation'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Elon Musk allegedly got into a heated discussion with a senior White House official that turned physical during his time as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to Steve Bannon.
A former chief strategist during President Donald Trump's first term in office, Bannon told the Daily Mail that Musk's turbulent time in the White House took a dramatic turn when he allegedly "shoved" 62-year-old Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a heated exchange.
Why It Matters
Musk said on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday night that his scheduled time as a "special government employee" at DOGE was coming to an end.
As head of DOGE, Musk has led the charge on cuts to federal spending. During that time, the Trump administration faced a lawsuit alleging that it had violated federal privacy laws by granting DOGE access to systems containing personal information on millions of Americans without their consent.
Musk has faced fierce backlash over his drastic cuts to the government's budget, including canceling thousands of federal jobs, and the dismantling of entire agencies. Amid the uproar, Tesla cars and property have been targeted by protesters, causing the company's market share to decline.
Elon Musk, center, speaks during a news conference with President Donald Trump, right, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, far left, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, listen in the Oval Office at the White House, Friday,...
Elon Musk, center, speaks during a news conference with President Donald Trump, right, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, far left, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, listen in the Oval Office at the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. More
Evan Vucci/AP
What To Know
According to Bannon, Bessent confronted Musk over his sweeping but unfulfilled promises to deliver $1 trillion in budget cuts. "Scott Bessent called him out and said, 'You promised us a trillion dollars in cuts, and now you're at like $100 billion. Nobody can find any savings. What are you doing?'" Bannon recounted.
"And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him," Bannon said.
"It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him."
According to Bannon, the clash occurred as Musk and Bessent moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then past the office of then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz.
"Trump 100 percent sided with Bessent after the clash," Bannon added. "I don't think Bessent has any bad blood, but he's got a job to do and he's going to do it."
Revelations of the alleged Musk-Bessent clash emerged following a New York Times report alleging Musk was using "a cocktail of drugs on the campaign trail including ketamine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms." When questioned about the report an Oval Office press conference alongside Trump, Musk dismissed the allegations by criticizing the publication, stating, "Let's move on, next question."
According to Bannon, Musk's status in Trump's orbit also diminished after the March leak that he was slated for top-secret military briefings on China, which Trump abruptly canceled. Bannon noted, "The president backed [Bessent] just like the president didn't allow the briefing on China," adding, "People in the administration and the White House realized he didn't have any idea what he's doing. They cauterized the damage."
Bannon emphasized that this marked a turning point: "That's the inflection point, you see Elon all changed from that moment."
Bannon also criticized Musk's handling of his DOGE promises, particularly after Trump's State of the Union address that referenced millions of allegedly fraudulent Social Security recipients over age 100. Musk's claims of fraud were debunked as "primarily due to an accounting error," with Bannon stating, "Not one penny was ever shown to have been sent to these people."
"Is anyone trying to talk to Elon now? No," Bannon remarked, attributing the fallout from the White House's "Big Beautiful Bill" to Musk. He explained that Republicans in Congress had counted on Musk's promised spending cuts, but "he didn't deliver."
Bannon said, "The political class on Capitol Hill willingly got behind a pied piper and wasted five months."
"The people at fault here are Congress. They wanted to have a fairy godmother come in and wave a magic wand and say, it's all fraud, and get them off the hook. Particularly [House Speaker Mike] Johnson…they didn't invite Musk to Capitol Hill because they think he's politically radioactive, and they all lined up and didn't do the work on these bills…There's no cuts."
Bannon's remarks come after Musk announced on Wednesday that he would be leaving his role at DOGE.
Musk's time as a "special government employee" was only meant to last five months, so there had been much speculation that he would leave his role.
But it is still unclear exactly why he is leaving. Eric Schiffer, a top tech investor and the chair of the private equity firm Patriarch Organization and chairman of Reputation Management Consultants, told Newsweek that Musk's decision to step down was likely a strategic move to recover his image, with polls acting as real-time barometers of his personal brand health.
"The polls are the new SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] filings where prospectuses around CEO reputation is the real hidden ticker," he said.
Pollster Nate Silver's tracker shows Musk's approval rating has declined since the start of the Trump administration, with 54 percent of Americans viewing him unfavorably and just 40 percent favorably, down from 41 percent favorable and 47 percent unfavorable. His net favorability has fallen from -5 to -14 points.
Meanwhile, polls from HarrisX, Echelon Insights, and Global Strategy/Navigator Research show widespread dissatisfaction with Musk's role in government, particularly his handling of DOGE, with 55 percent disapproving of his involvement and 28 percent believing Trump gave him too much power.
As Musk's reputation has dropped, so has that of his companies. The Axios Harris Poll 100 places Tesla and SpaceX near the bottom of the rankings, at 95th and 86th, respectively.
On Thursday, Musk appeared in the White House for a press conference with Trump following news of his departure.
During the press conference, Musk appeared to have a black eye. When asked about it, he joked that he wasn't "anywhere near France," a reference to an incident where French President Emmanuel Macron's wife Brigitte was seen pushing her husband before they walked off an airplane.
Musk then revealed that his 5-year-old son, X, was responsible for the bruise. "I was just horsing around with little X and I said, 'Go ahead punch me in the face,' and he did," Musk explained.
Trump, who said he hadn't noticed Musk's black eye, smiled at the story and added, "X could do it. If you knew X, he could do it."
Musk further clarified, "I didn't really feel much at the time, and I guess it bruises up, but I was just horsing around with the kid."
When asked about the Tesla chief's future in the White House, both Musk and Trump confirmed that he would always be on standby to provide guidance to the president.
What People Are Saying
When questioned about the alleged confrontation between Musk and Bessent, White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told the Daily Mail: "It's no secret President Trump has put together a team of people who are incredibly passionate about the issues impacting our country.
"Disagreements are a normal part of any healthy policy process, and ultimately everyone knows they serve at the pleasure of President Trump."
Following news of Musk's departure, Scott Bessent publicly praised the billionaire on X, writing: "@DOGEand@elonmusk have set some very important work in motion—which we are committed to continuing. The Trump administration is cutting costs and making the government more productive for the American people."
What Happens Next
Musk will likely pivot back to focusing on his businesses after leaving his role at DOGE. Tesla reportedly missed its first quarter projections by more than 70 percent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
A middle-class income ranges all the way from two-thirds to twice the median income, which means that homes are affordable for some middle-class Americans but not others. A recent Zoocasa report analyzed housing affordability in 100 major cities and found that lower-middle-class earners cannot afford a median-priced home in any of the cities, while upper-middle-class buyers can afford a median-priced home in 85 cities. That means that in 15 major cities, even upper-middle-class Americans can't afford to buy a median-priced home. Find Out: Read Next: Here's a look at the cities where upper-middle-class Americans may be priced out of the housing market. Median home price: $2,020,000 Highest middle-class income: $272,458 Max affordable home price: $1,223,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$796,044 Explore More: Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $169,744 Max affordable home price: $762,536 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$687,464 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $171,828 Max affordable home price: $771,898 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$678,102 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $193,656 Max affordable home price: $869,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$450,044 Median home price: $1,165,100 Highest middle-class income: $169,814 Max affordable home price: $762,851 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$402,249 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $255,978 Max affordable home price: $1,149,923 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$300,077 Median home price: $1,178,000 Highest middle-class income: $212,116 Max affordable home price: $952,883 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$225,117 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $253,460 Max affordable home price: $1,138,612 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$181,388 Median home price: $660,000 Highest middle-class income: $107,636 Max affordable home price: $483,530 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$176,470 Median home price: $862,600 Highest middle-class income: $159,402 Max affordable home price: $716,077 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$146,523 Median home price: $826,600 Highest middle-class income: $163,212 Max affordable home price: $733,193 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$93,407 Median home price: $1,036,500 Highest middle-class income: $211,560 Max affordable home price: $950,385 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$86,115 Median home price: $725,300 Highest middle-class income: $153,154 Max affordable home price: $688,010 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$37,290 Median home price: $643,900 Highest middle-class income: $137,270 Max affordable home price: $616,654 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$27,246 Median home price: $974,907 Highest middle-class income: $213,246 Max affordable home price: $957,959 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$16,948 More From GOBankingRates 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on 15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cavities in children could increase by millions if fluoride is banned, study suggests
The Brief An estimated 25.4 million more teeth will result in tooth decay in the next five years if fluoride is banned from the U.S. public water supply, according to a recent model simulation. The study also predicted an estimated $9.8 billion will be spent on additional dental care over the next five years. Some states like Utah and Florida have already banned fluoride from the state's public water supply. Researchers created a model to estimate the impact a ban on fluoride in the United States water supply would have on children's dental health and the results are bleak. The simulations estimated that a ban would result in tooth decay in 25.4 million more teeth, which is equivalent to a decayed tooth for one out of every three children over the next five years. The results were published in Jama Health Forum on May 30. "There's strong evidence from other countries and cities, such as Calgary in Canada, showing that when fluoride is eliminated, dental disease increases. Our study offers a window into what would happen in the United States if water fluoridation ceased," Lisa Simon, MD, DMD, and senior author of the study, said. Why you should care Not only would eliminating fluoride increase the occurrence of tooth decay, but the estimated cost of dental care would rise exponentially, according to the study. By the numbers The models simulated the potential dental care costs over five and 10 years. $9.8 billion in additional dental care costs over five years $19.4 billion in additional dental care costs over 10 years "Most of the increased cost could be attributed to publicly insured children, meaning it would be a direct public health cost," said Simon. Dig deeper Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the CDC. In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and in 1962 set guidelines for how much should be added to water. Fluoride can come from several sources, but drinking water is the main one for Americans, researchers say. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population gets fluoridated drinking water, according to CDC data. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water was long considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century. The American Dental Association credits it with reducing tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults. About one-third of community water systems — 17,000 out of 51,000 across the U.S. — serving more than 60% of the population fluoridated their water, according to a 2022 CDC analysis. What they're saying "We know fluoride works. We're able to show just how much it works for most communities and how much people stand to lose if we get rid of it," said Simon. Big picture view U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said he wants communities to stop fluoridating water, and he is setting the gears of government in motion to help make that happen. Kennedy has said he plans to tell the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide. And he said he's assembling a task force of health experts to study the issue and make new recommendations. Two states have already banned adding fluoride to public water systems. These include Florida and Utah. The Source Information for this article was taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, a study that observed oral health and water fluoridation data collected from 8,484 children aged 0-19 which was published in JAMA on May 30, 2025, a Mass General Brigham news release about the study, and reporting by The Associated Press. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
