Elon and Trump: Lots of losers in the spat to end all spats
Editor's note: Welcome to a special edition of Double Take, a regular conversation from opinion writers Melinda Henneberger and David Mastio tackling news with differing perspectives.
DAVID: Who could have imagined that a truth-challenged, philandering grifter and a drug-addled billionaire wannabe Mars colonist would find it difficult to get along while sharing the presidential limelight?
It is hard to see where Donald Trump and Elon Musk ever aligned much on anything. One wants to build a base on the moon while the other wants to sell Luna to the Saudis. One builds electric cars while the other wants to send them to the landfill. One sold out to China and the other is still trying to sell out to China.
More seriously, I think Musk came to Washington genuinely thinking that he could change the place, turning deficits into surpluses with hard-nosed, start-up management principles. That was never going to work out.
MELINDA: When two liars break up, who do you believe? Despite the headlines about their 'remarkable' split, the single remarkable thing about it is that it took so long. There is only room for one diva in any relationship.
Musk is right that he got Trump elected and Trump is right that he did a lot for Musk in return, so the partnership, such as it was, served both of their financial interests, and who should complain? Oh, I know the answer: every one of us.
Now they want to tell on each other. Which is delightful and all, but I'm kind of surprised that Elon started by telling us that the reason we haven't gotten to see the Epstein files is that Trump is in there. I mean, that's been rumored for years, but how quaint that Musk thinks that after all we already know about Trump, anything that he might have done with underage girls would change any minds. Wouldn't his supporters just say that he didn't do it, or if he did do it, others have, too, and besides, David and Bathsheba?
I was with you right up until you said that Musk came to Washington to turn deficits into surpluses. Trump posted in pique — redundant, I know, because when else does he say anything — that 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.' Kind of a damning admission about how unserious they both were about going after waste, fraud and abuse.
DAVID: I think there was some element of self-enrichment from Musk. Trump claimed Musk went 'crazy' over losing electric vehicle subsidies, but Musk has long said he doesn't care about EV subsidies.. He repeated that in December. They're a competitive disadvantage to Tesla which is really the incumbent electric car maker with competitors propped up by the subsidies though now Republican sources are saying he changed his position again. He does care about other subsidies though. Musk has always appeared to be for tax credits for solar power that help another of his companies..
MELINDA: What makes you believe that Musk was in Washington to impose order, when what he actually did was run around causing personal, national and global chaos, just like his boss? I'm sorry/not at all sorry for perseverating on the dead kids in Africa as a result of the shuttering of USAID, but since those shameful cuts were not really even some big money saver, what again was the point?
The Washington Post had a story Thursday about how, since then, our government has decided it will probably destroy $12 million worth of HIV-prevention medications and contraceptives it had already bought for developing countries. It's going to waste in warehouses in Belgium and Dubai, and we'd rather trash these supplies than give them away, even though it will cost more to do that. Please name some concrete examples of Musk's application of hard-nosed startup management principles, because all I saw was ruin without reason.
DAVID: In a startup when something is not working, there's more urgency than with a big profitable company. One approach entrepreneurs take to rescuing a floundering startup is to break down the failing parts to the studs before you rebuild. Musk was busily doing in the federal government what he had done at Twitter/X and elsewhere.
Probably the funniest moment in this epic divorce so far is when Trump threatened to take Musk's SpaceX contracts away and Musk replied that he'll shut down the Dragon spacecraft manned and cargo version that NASA needs so badly for the International Space Station. The two spoiled brats are both threatening to take their ball and go home. If only.
MELINDA: Wait a minute, now Musk is a spoiled brat, too? A few days ago you liked him bigly, so I'm glad to see you coming around.
DAVID: I still like him bigly. The guy is still a visionary who is changing the world. One reason I still like him is that the beginning of the falling out was when Musk told the truth about Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. It really is a 'disgusting abomination.' And if there is anything that Trump cannot abide anywhere near him is a truth-teller who might commit accuracy again.
MELINDA: I don't know why you keep calling him a truth-teller when you know he's encouraged this nonsense about the nonexistent genocide in South Africa. Not much accuracy there. He is, however, telling the truth about some things now that he's angry, for example about how tariffs will cause a recession by the end of the year.
DAVID: I fear you're right about the recession. Trump truly has gone off the deep end. If he thinks he can run the country without his big money backers and truly change America, he's kidding himself. The split with Musk is actually the second big split in the Trump coalition in two weeks.
Last week, Trump called the architect of the Federalist Society takeover of the judiciary, Leonard Leo, a 'sleazebag.' Leo is the one who gave Trump his list of Supreme Court justices whooverturned Roe and defined Trump's first term. And Leo is sitting on a billion-dollar investment fund dedicated to right-leaning political activism.
If Trump alienates all the big money in the Republican Party, he is going to have to spend his own to keep control of Congress in the upcoming midterms, elections that any reasonable observer will see as a potential blowout giving power to the Democrats in the House and the Senate. If the election is during or after a recession, all bets are off.
MELINDA: He can finally afford to break up with the big money, but I also think he'll find some new Elon to fund him, hop around swearing fealty and then wind up bitter and telling tales. And are we sure that Trump is even the one who initiated the break with Leonard Leo? I keep thinking about how Trump once told Howard Stern that whenever someone breaks up with you, you always say that you were the one who ended it. What I personally want out to see come of this drama is to never hear the word 'bromance' again.
DAVID: The political fallout isn't all there is. This matters for business, too. On Thursday, Tesla stock lost tens of billions of dollars in value. While Truth Social didn't go down as much, Trump has less to start with and a $100 million cut to his net worth is a blow.
If Democrats won't buy Teslas because of the DOGE cuts you say were so deadly, and Republicans won't buy Teslas because Musk was disloyal to Trump and blew up the tax cut bill, where does that leave Tesla's thousands of workers and the dozens of companies that are suppliers to the car company?
Americans of all kinds will find that out when the Big Beautiful bill goes down in flames and taxes go up as is scheduled when Trump's 2017 tax cuts expire. Even people with relatively modest incomes will get hit with big bills.
When elephants fight, it is the little people who get trampled.
MELINDA: We agree that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' though not for the same reasons, and let's talk more soon about who will get trampled if it doesn't pass.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
23 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
23 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.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.'
