Anthony Albanese faces a novel challenge in Sussan Ley
Anthony Albanese loves a trophy, especially a human one. He prides himself on his various "captain's pick" candidates — good campaigners he has steered into seats.
Way back in the Gillard days, he was key in persuading discontented Liberal Peter Slipper to defect. Slipper became an independent and Labor's speaker.
The exercise helped the government's numbers, but the bold play didn't end well for Labor or for Slipper. The government was tarnished, and Slipper, relentlessly pursued by the Coalition and mired in controversy, eventually had to quit the speakership. The affair did produce Julia Gillard's famous misogyny speech, however.
Now Albanese has another gee-whiz prize — Western Australian Senator Dorinda Cox, who has defected from the Greens. Cox, after being defeated in a bid for Greens deputy leader, approached Labor and the PM drove her course to being accepted into the party.
The manoeuvre makes a marginal but insignificant difference to Senate numbers — Labor will still need the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition.
Taking in Cox is a risk, and some in Labor are looking at it askance.
The prime minister's embrace of Cox contradicts Labor's argument when its Western Australian senator Fatima Payman defected to become an independent. It said then hers was a Labor seat and she should therefore resign. But this wouldn't be the first time expediency trumped consistency in politics.
Cox, who is Indigenous and was spokesperson for First Nations and resources in the last parliament, has been a fierce critic of the extending the North West Shelf gas project, which the government has just announced. Albanese says he is confident she "understands that being a member of the Labor Party means that she will support positions that are made by the Labor Party".
She has also faced allegations of treating staff badly. Labor discounts the claims against her, saying they are overblown and a product of Greens factionalism and toxicity. Certainly, she was given a tough time by the hard-left faction represented by deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi. Labor would be wise to ensure Cox feels supported in her new party home.
Albanese perhaps calculates that the worst that can happen is there's a blow up and she defects to the crossbench. Labor could shrug and say, she was never really one of us.
Snatching a senator from the Greens is particularly satisfying to Albanese because he hates the party so much. Last term, lower house Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather (defeated at the election) really got under his skin. More generally, the Greens held up important legislation, most notably on housing.
In the new Senate, Labor will need only the Greens to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition. How new Greens leader Larissa Waters — who replaced Adam Bandt after he lost his seat — handles the party's relationship with the government will be crucial for the more contentious parts of Labor's legislative program.
The usually low-key Waters will be under a lot of pressure. The Greens had a bad election, losing three lower house seats. Now they have lost a senator at the start of Waters's watch.
Waters conceded on the Serious Danger podcast in late May that Labor had successfully run the narrative of the Greens as blockers. "So, I do think we're going to need to be quite deft in how we handle balance of power in this term, […] People want us to be constructive. They don't just want us to roll over and tick off on any old shit. They want meaningful reforms."
Waters will want to pick her fights carefully and also find ways of pursuing the Greens' agenda where the party co-operates. The first deal is likely to be on the government's legislation to increase the tax on those with large superannuation balances, which contains the controversial provision to tax unrealised capital gains.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and her team will confront some of the same problems as the Greens — when to oppose and when to seek to negotiate with the government.
For his part, Albanese will have a novel challenge with Ley — what stance to adopt against the first female opposition leader, especially but not only in parliamentary clashes.
After facing two alpha-male Liberal leaders, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton, a new approach will obviously be necessary. As one Labor man succinctly puts it, "Labor can't monster a woman". There can be no repeat of Albanese, a frontbencher a decade ago in the Shorten opposition, interjecting to urge a female colleague engaged in a stoush with Ley to "smash her".
For Ley, trying to deal with the Liberals' multiple difficulties in attracting women voters and candidates must be high on her agenda. Former Liberal federal president Alan Stockdale, one of the three-person group currently running the NSW division of the party, showed himself part of the problem when this week he told the NSW Liberal Women's Council, "The women in this party are so assertive now that we may need some special rules for men to get them pre-selected."
Stockdale said later he was being "light-hearted". Tone deaf might be a better term. Ley jumped on him. "There is nothing wrong with being an assertive woman. In fact, I encourage assertive women to join the Liberal Party."
The jury is out on whether Ley will be able to make any sort of fist of her near-impossible job. But in the short time she's been leader, she has shown she is willing to be assertive.
She emerged from the brief split in the Coalition looking much steadier than Nationals leader David Littleproud, even though she had to persuade her party room to accept the minor party's policy demands.
In her frontbench reshuffle, she was willing to wear the inevitable criticism that came with dropping a couple of senior women who had under-performed.
As deputy leader, Ley adjusted her style a while before the election, toning down the aggression and sometimes wild attacks, that had characterised her performance earlier in the term. A Liberal source said she found her "line and length". As leader, she will have others, notably deputy Ted O'Brien, to do the head-kicking, giving her room to attempt to develop a positive political persona.
Labor leaned into attacking Dutton — never afraid to name him. With Ley, Albanese might adopt the Bob Carr approach of avoiding using his opponent's name. At least until he finds his line and length in dealing with her.
Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
14 hours ago
- News.com.au
Australian company Intrepid Travel fights back against Donald Trump threat to US national parks
An Australian company is fighting back against Donald Trump's planned upheaval of US national parks. Since US President Donald Trump took office, more than 1000 park workers have been laid off (more than 700 others took buyouts), and more are expected to be let go. There is also a proposal to cut more than $US1 billion ($A1.5 billion) in federal funding for the US National Parks Service (nearly 40 per cent of the agency's current budget). NPS oversees 85 million acres of federal land and there are 433 sites in the National Park System, with parks in every state. National Park Conservation Association president Theresa Pierno described Mr Trump's proposed budget plan as 'catastrophic,' arguing that the 'national park system would be completely decimated'. Mr Trump wants to see some parks (that the White House describes as 'not 'national parks' in the traditionally understood sense') go to the states, but there are concerns states don't have the resources to maintain the parks, which will force them to close. The White House claims the proposed budget would 'continue supporting many national treasures, but there is an urgent need to streamline staffing and transfer certain properties to state-level management to ensure the long-term health and sustainment of the national park system'. Aussie-born company fights back A Melbourne-born global travel company, which runs tours across 18 US national parks, has made its stance clear. Speaking to on Thursday, Intrepid Travel's Leigh Barnes described national parks as 'incredibly important' to the US and said the White House's massive proposed funding cuts are 'putting access at risk'. 'We need healthy, vibrant national parks for our business, and also the impact of not having tourism go to national parks in the USA is going to put local businesses underground,' said Mr Barnes, an Australian who relocated to Seattle this year to take up the role of managing director of the Americas. In response to the Trump Administration's actions, Intrepid has now launched limited edition 'Active-ism' trips in the parks, hosted by influential activists and local guides. The trips are about $US500-$600 ($A770-$920) cheaper than a standard itinerary, despite the addition of an activist. 'That has been a deliberate focus, making them as accessible as possible,' Mr Barnes said. 'They're not going to be the world's greatest profit generator for the organisation, but that's not the purpose.' Intrepid will also donate $US50,000 ($A77,000) on behalf of its travellers to nongovernmental organisations protecting the US national parks. Intrepid has 26 trips across 18 national parks, and employs 200 local guides and 60 staff there. The company has taken more than 20,000 travellers and expects to host another 5000 this year. Mr Barnes explained that it's not just direct jobs at the US National Parks Service at risk. 'They (national parks) are absolutely amazing economic drivers for these areas. Having these national parks creates jobs in and around the national parks ecosystem. Not just the national parks employees but all the little smaller businesses and ecosystems it supports,' he said. He added: 'They're a massive pride and icon in the USA. 'We want to ensure these amazing parts of the USA are not just here for this generation but the generations beyond.' Mr Barnes said the more people who experience nature, the more that are likely to advocate for these spaces, so his team simply asked themselves, 'how do we encourage more people to go out to national parks?'. The Active-ism trips include two five-day 'Zion and The Grand Canyon' trips hosted by public lands advocate Alex Haraus in November and environmental advocate Wawa Gatheru in April next year, and then two six-day 'Yellowstone and The Grand Tetons' trips hosted by climate educator Michael Mezzatesta and environmental author Leah Thomas in June next year. The target market is Americans but anyone can book. Discussions guests can expect include the current threats facing US national parks, the impact of climate change, Indigenous land rights, equity in outdoor spaces, and how to turn awareness into advocacy. Mr Barnes, previously Intrepid's chief customer officer in Melbourne, took on leading the Americas side of the business at a challenging time for US tourism. March — the same month Mr Barnes relocated his family to the States — saw the sharpest drop in Australians travelling to the US since during the height of the Covid pandemic, according to US International Trade Administration statistics. Australian visitor numbers fell 7 per cent in March this year, compared to March 2024 — the biggest drop since March 2021. Flight Centre and Intrepid Travel told last month bookings to the US had dropped significantly as Aussies, Canadians and Europeans choose to travel elsewhere. Globally, Intrepid saw a year-on-year 9 per cent decline in US sales for the first four months of the year. US sales for Australian and New Zealand travellers in particular were down 13 per cent. April alone was down 44 per cent on last year. But other areas such as South America are 'booming'. As a result, Mr Barnes said his team had increased their focus on domestic travel within the US, promoting the right products at the right time, and increasing their brand presence (last week Intrepid became an official partner of the Seattle Storm WNBA team). All eyes on American tourism The global tourism industry is keeping a close eye on the impact of Mr Trump's strict border stance and other controversial government policies like sweeping tariffs are having on travel. On Thursday, Mr Trump signed a new travel ban banning people from 12 countries to 'protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors'. The ban targets nationals of Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Flight Centre CEO and founder Graham Turner told it was an 'unsettled climate' impacting business travel, while tourists worry about passport control and others simply don't want to go to the US 'because they don't like what Donald Trump's doing'. Tourism Economics — which forecasts foreign traveller arrivals in the US will sharply decline this year resulting in a loss of $9 billion in spending — said decisions from the Trump Administration are creating a 'negative sentiment shift toward the US among travellers'. The travel data company's April report cited Mr Trump's stance on border security and immigration as one of the factors discouraging visits. Mr Trump rejects the notion that the country's tourism industry is in any trouble — saying 'tourism is way up'. Security checks at US airports have garnered much attention in recent months amid Mr Trump's 'enhanced vetting' for arrivals at US airports and cases of tourists being denied entry on arrival, and at times, strip searched and thrown in prison. Former NSW police officer Nikki Saroukos is one of those people who recently travelled to the US using an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) under the Visa Waiver Program and was deported, but first she had to spend a night in a federal prison. She said she was subjected to invasive searches and humiliating treatment for trying to spend time with her US military husband stationed in Hawaii. The US Department of Homeland Security later issued what it described as a 'fact check' on X after she went public with the ordeal, accusing her of having 'unusual activity on her phone, including 1000 deleted text messages from her husband'. Homeland Security said 'officers determined that she was travelling for more than just tourism'. But Ms Saroukos strongly denies having any plans to live permanently in the US. The Sydney resident, who married her husband Matt in January after a whirlwind long-distance romance, told she was 'in disbelief at how ridiculous' the statement was and claimed that some of the information included had been 'twisted'. Why denied tourists can end up in federal prison CBP has long had strong powers to deny entry, detain and deport foreigners at their discretion when travellers arrive in the country even if they have a valid visa or ESTA. However, what we are seeing under the Trump administration is described as 'enhanced vetting'. Australians are being warned to not assume they are exempt to more intense checks, including inspections of emails, text messages or social media accounts at the airport. Melissa Vincenty, a US immigration lawyer and Australian migration agent who is managing director of Worldwide Migration Partners, told recently that being taken to federal prison with no criminal record, no drugs or anything that is a danger to society is the reality of being denied entry to the US in Hawaii. Ms Vincenty, a dual-citizen who was a deportation defence lawyer in Honolulu before moving to Australia, explained the state did not have an immigration facility so people were taken to the Federal Detention Center Honolulu, where there was no separate wing for immigration. It meant tourists who were denied entry to the US could be held alongside those awaiting trial — or who have been convicted and were waiting to be transferred to a mainland prison for serious federal crimes, such as kidnapping, bank robbery or drug crimes. 'It's like in the movies — you go there and there's bars, you get strip searched, all your stuff is taken away from you, you're not allowed to call anybody, nobody knows where you are,' Ms Vincenty told in April after the experience of two young German tourists being strip searched and thrown in prison made global headlines. Ms Vincenty said for Australians who were denied entry to the US in other locations like Los Angeles, San Francisco or Dallas, being held in detention facilities until the next available flight home was a real risk as there weren't constant return flights to Australia — meaning you might have to wait until the next day. If not taken to a detention facility, some travellers may stay sitting for hours in what is called a secondary inspection at the airport. A secondary inspection includes further vetting such as searching travellers' electronic devices. 'That period can last from half an hour to 15 hours or more,' she said.

News.com.au
14 hours ago
- News.com.au
Experts back NSW Premier Chris Minns' plea for cigarette tax cut despite opposition
NSW Premier Chris Minns says law-abiding citizens are being 'dragged into the black market' by the federal government's tobacco tax – and he wants that to change. Mr Minns threw down the gauntlet this week when he called for a re-evaluation of the tobacco excise, kicking-off political rows in both Sydney and Canberra. Twice yearly, the federal government sets the excise for tobacco products but in this year's budget recorded a $5.2bn decline in revenue since 2022-23. The NSW Premier has pointed the finger at illicit sales at tobacconists, some 5000 of which have opened up across NSW over the past few years. 'There's a whole bunch of law-abiding people who wouldn't break the law in a million years,' Mr Minns said. 'But, they're being dragged into a black market where they go to the store and they can either buy a $17 packet of illegal cigarettes or a $60 packet of cigarettes. 'It's a no-brainer.' Despite pushback, Mr Minns said every tax change started with 'an idea from someone who calls out a policy that's no longer fit for purpose'. 'So, let's get the ball rolling here because these illegal tobacco stores are pushing out hot bread shops, small businesses and restaurants. 'Because the sales from illegal tobacco are so lucrative, they can just pay the rent at a higher price. 'Something's gone amiss here and we need to have a crack at fixing it alongside our federal colleagues.' Mr Minns earlier signalled that police resources may have to be moved from domestic violence and organised crime to combat illicit tobacco. Mr Minns said the situation was 'intolerable', with 'every to-let shop in every high street in Sydney taken over by a tobacconist'. 'The biggest supporters of a massive excise on tobacco sales in NSW are probably organised criminals,' he said. 'It's a giant black market and major display on every street in every suburb in NSW.' No easy answers On Wednesday, federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers ruled out any change to the excise, saying making cigarettes cheaper wouldn't solve the issue of the booming illegal tobacco trade. In NSW, there are about 19,500 tobacco stores across the state – up from 14,500 a few years earlier – that are overseen by only about 30 health inspectors. A parliamentary inquiry into illicit tobacco sales, pushed for by the NSW opposition, will later this year examine which agency is best suited to the task. Until now, Liberal leader Mark Speakman has remained mum on whether NSW Police should takeover illicit tobacco enforcement from NSW Health. On Thursday, Mr Speakman said illicit tobacco had exploded under Mr Minns and organised criminal gangs were 'raking in big money'. 'They know NSW has minimal enforcement and some of the weakest penalties in the country,' Mr Speakman said. 'While other states have acted to drastically increase penalties and improve enforcement, Chris Minns has been missing in action. 'Now that the federal Treasurer has ruled out changes to the federal excise, Chris Minns needs to tell people how he is going to tackle this issue.' Under law, an individual found to be selling a prohibited tobacco product faces a maximum fine of $55,000 for a first offence. Those laws will change on July 1 when a new tobacco licensing scheme is introduced, requiring businesses to obtain a tobacco retailing licence. Businesses found to be selling tobacco products without a licence will face fines of up to $220,000 and $44,000 for an individual. Nonetheless, the issue sparked a fierce debate in NSW parliament on Wednesday between Mr Speakman and Police Minister Yasmin Catley. Asked about whether anti-gang Taskforce Falcon will expand its remit to illicit tobacco, Ms Catley struck out. 'The leader of the opposition knows that it is Health that enforce illicit tobacco. He knows that,' she said. 'And, he has come in here and has the audacity to come in here and say the police are not doing their job. Well, shame on you. Shame on you. 'NSW Police are doing absolutely everything they can and I am disgusted that the leader of the opposition could come to the NSW parliament and suggest otherwise.' For his part, NSW Health Minister Ryan Park has pointed the finger at the former Coalition government for not earlier introducing a licensing scheme. What do the experts say? Over the past six years, the duty price put on a 20-pack of cigarettes has gone up by about 75 per cent – from $16 to $28. As a result, the price of a packet at the counter sits about $40-50, with the cheapest little more than $30. Illicit cigarettes, meanwhile, cost about $13-15 per 20-pack and up to $20 for premium brands. University of Sydney School of Public Health researcher Edward Jegasothy supported Mr Minns' comments on the tobacco excise. He said there was no solution to the prevalence of illicit tobacco without a re-examination of the 'punitive' policy. 'There's really no ethical basis for the policy because it's essentially just a punitive policy attack on the poor,' he said. Mr Jegasothy said the policy had failed to demonstrate any 'meaningful health benefits and certainly no equitable health benefits'. 'I can't see a solution that doesn't have involve bringing down the tax,' he said. 'It has to be part of the solution … because it is essentially putting more holes in the bottom of the boat.' Mr Jegasothy said the belief that the excise, in increasing the cost of cigarettes, would reduce rates of smoking 'didn't hold water'. With rates of smoking higher among poor and marginalised groups, he instead encouraged solutions that addressed the root causes, 'which is largely poverty'. He urged for a review of the excise as a public health policy, including up until the explosion of black market sales in the early 2020s. That explosion, Mr Jegasothy suggested, came as a result of a combination of factors, including the cumulative impact of the excise and a tightening on loose leaf tobacco. The Australian Association of Convenience Stores has also backed Mr Minns' call for a rethink of the tobacco excise. Chief executive Theo Foukkare said it was 'extraordinary that it's gotten to this point'. 'Tobacco is a price-sensitive consumer product,' he said. 'If you put a price on it that is manifestly higher than what people can afford, they'll find a cheaper alternative and that's where this incredibly dangerous black market is cashing in – and even worse, they're using that money to fund the most atrocious crimes.' What about other states? NSW is far from the only state or territory in Australia where the issue of illicit tobacco has become a hot-button topic in recent years. In Victoria, police have continuingly battled the so-called tobacco wars, conflict between organised crime groups during which stores have been burned. According to Victoria Police, there were about 1300 stand-alone tobacco stores in the state – of these, 1000 sell some kind of illicit tobacco. From July 1, business caught possessing or selling an illicit tobacco product in Victoria face fines of up to $1.7m. For an individual, that penalty is about $830,000 or 15 years in prison. Further north, Queensland Health seized more than 15.2 million illicit cigarettes worth $12.2m across the state between July 1, 2024 and February 28, 2025. Mr Jegasothy said outside of NSW and Victoria, there was little publicly available information about the prevalence of illicit tobacco.

ABC News
14 hours ago
- ABC News
Will Trump or Musk be able to hold back while flirting with mutually assured destruction?
Donald Trump sees himself as a world-class negotiator and deal maker — he will now need to bring all those skills to reach a ceasefire deal — not in Ukraine nor Gaza — but with Elon Musk. Musk now presents a real crisis for the Trump presidency. He's wealthy, powerful, unpredictable and he believes he's been wronged. And he knows a lot about the president and his family. This feud — carried out in real time on X — has captivated Americans. As one person posted on Musk's own online social media platform on Friday morning, when there was a lull in the abuse between the two: "What time do Trump and Musk wake up?" These are dangerous times for Donald Trump. Like a married couple, for the past year Musk and Trump have been with each other when the guests have left the dinner party. As each world leader has left the White House, as each influential member of Congress has shaken hands and left, these two have been left to do their own private debrief in the Oval Office. The relationship was so close that on one occasion when Trump was having a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump reportedly said to Zelenskyy words to the effect, "There's someone here I want you to say hello to," and handed the phone to Musk. A puzzled Ukrainian president was suddenly speaking to the world's richest man. That's how close Trump and Musk were during their political marriage. But now the divorce has come through and they're fighting about their legacies. Musk is trying to convince the world that he wanted to slash the US's crippling budget but that Trump sold out America by pushing a bill — the bill Trump likes to call "One Big Beautiful Bill" — through the House of Representatives. Trump is trying to convince the world that Musk is an erratic and unpredictable character, and that he's bitter because his bill cut subsidies to electric vehicles — which hit Musk's Tesla business — and that Trump asked him to leave. In recent weeks, Trump has had to have some fascinating calls — including with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, and with Chinese President Xi Jinping to bring an end to Trump's tariff war on the United States's trading partners. As wily as those two men are, he may need greater skills of persuasion — or threat — with Elon Musk. Within a few days of their split's fallout, Musk was threatening to support the impeachment of Trump, to support Vice-President JD Vance taking over and to withdraw funding for Trump's candidates in the mid-term election. Trump, for his part, was threatening to end government contracts enjoyed by Musk's Space X company. It's often said that information is power. If that's the case, these two have unparalleled information about each other. They have accessed each other's lives for more than a year. They know each other's families. They know each other's family problems. They know each other's business interests. They know each other's vulnerabilities — personal and business. On top of the power of information that comes with access, they both have raw power. Through his total control of agencies, Trump can access any tax or regulatory information on Musk and his businesses. Trump has shown he will use legal and regulatory powers to pursue his personal and political enemies. This makes Musk extremely vulnerable. Trump understands fully the power of his words from the Oval Office — this week within five minutes of him saying that he thought his friendship with Musk was over, Wall Street started selling Tesla shares. Then, when Trump began suggesting that he would end Musk's various government contracts, Wall Street panicked. Within an hour, Tesla shares had dived 14 per cent. Donald Trump had wiped billions off Musk's wealth. But Musk does not have the personality type to take this sort of thing calmly. He, too, has power — although his is not the ability to hit Trump's many financial interests (that he knows of) but rather to damage him politically. Like Musk, Trump is also vulnerable. Musk has the raw power that comes from being the world's richest man. He has his mass distribution publishing platform, X. By spending so much time with Trump and his family in both the White House — and for a time seemingly to live in Trump's Florida mansion, Mar-a-Lago — Musk would have knowledge of the Trump family's business dealings. It appears as if Trump decided some weeks ago that Musk was not long for the White House — that it was a matter of how to extricate Musk from the Oval Office without too much pain. Musk's behaviour became erratic. Those wild images of him waving a chainsaw and shouting that this was what he was using to cut government spending went down badly with many of those who had voted for Trump, particularly veterans who were suddenly losing entitlements. Then Musk made what appeared to be a Nazi salute. This, coupled with his strong support for Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany (AFD) party, made many Americans concerned about Musk's real views. When Musk, in a reference to the Holocaust, told AFD supporters that there was "too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that" and that the party's anti-immigration policies were "the best hope for Germany" it only heightened those concerns. Then reports began appearing about clashes between Musk and senior members of Trump's cabinet. Whether they were authorised by Trump or the White House or were from disenchanted members of Trump's cabinet is not clear, but what is clear is that a steady stream of leaks began appearing against Musk. One of the more damaging was that Musk had a blazing row in one cabinet meeting with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state. The report said that Trump allowed the fight to go for some time, before intervening to stop it — by siding with Rubio. Then came reports of a clash witnessed by many between Musk and Scott Bessent, the well-liked secretary of the Treasury. Musk had shouted at Bessent in a corridor that Bessent was not cutting enough staff from his department quickly enough, at which point Bessent reportedly shouted back: "F*** off!" The leaks all appeared well sourced, and the White House did not vigorously deny them. Someone, it seems, was out to get Musk, apparently preparing the ground for his political execution. Then came perhaps the most devastating leak of all — details of Musk's alleged erratic behaviour, and drug use, since joining Trump's campaign to return to the White House. The New York Times reported: "As Elon Musk became one of Donald J. Trump's closest allies last year, leading raucous rallies and donating about $[US]275 million [$423 million] to help him win the presidency, he was also using drugs far more intensely than previously known, according to people familiar with his activities. "Mr Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anaesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he travelled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it. "It is unclear whether Mr. Musk, 53, was taking drugs when he became a fixture at the White House this year and was handed the power to slash the federal bureaucracy. But he has exhibited erratic behaviour, insulting cabinet members, gesturing like a Nazi and garbling his answers in a staged interview. "At the same time, Mr. Musk's family life has grown increasingly tumultuous as he has negotiated overlapping romantic relationships and private legal battles involving his growing brood of children, according to documents and interviews." This was now going well beyond the narrative that Musk was difficult to work with. This was creating the impression that Musk was erratic and unpredictable. Musk strongly denied The New York Times story: "To be clear, I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their a... off," Musk insisted. "I tried prescription ketamine a few years ago and said so on X, so this not even news. It helps for getting out of dark mental holes, but haven't taken it since then." Whatever the truth of it all, Musk's reputation was taking a belting — and however wealthy and powerful is, Musk would have known that his reputation was bleeding. How many big investment houses want to put money behind somebody who, when they google his name, "ketamine" comes up? So the break-up was inevitable. Musk says it was his decision, that his role as head of DOGE — the Department of Government Efficiency — had come to a natural end. Trump has a different version — he says he asked Musk to leave. Whoever is telling the truth, the couple gathered in the Oval Office to announce their separation. Both tried to put their best face on it — not an easy task for Musk, looking dishevelled and with a black eye which he claimed he received while playing with his son. As part of this apparently amicable divorce, Trump opened a box and handed Musk a golden "key to the White House". But, unmistakably, the chemistry which the two had always shared was gone. It had all the authenticity of a married couple who can barely look at each other announcing their divorce and saying: "We remain good friends, we just grew apart, and we will always put the interests of the children first." That didn't last long. Within days, Musk could not help himself. He began posting on X his concerns about Trump's signature budget bill, which Musk says will push the United States towards bankruptcy by its massive increase in the country's debt levels. This was a direct challenge to Trump, who has pressured Republicans to officially name the bill "One Big Beautiful Bill". But Trump did something he rarely does: He sat back and did not take the bait. All Trump's instincts are to lash out at anybody that he thinks might be criticising him, but with Musk he stayed quiet. By the hour, Musk's tweets gathered impact. Finally, he went so far as to urge Americans to contact their members of Congress to lobby them to "Kill the Bill". Some Republicans backed Musk, which would have concerned Trump. The Trump side began fighting back, initially through Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, who Trump nominated to ensure the bill went through the House — which it has — and now to try to shepherd it through the Senate. Although the Republicans control the Senate, as well as the House, some of the more conservative senators agree with Musk that this bill — with its huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans — will push the US towards bankruptcy. The Republicans hold the Senate by only a slim margin. It will only take three Republicans to vote against the bill to defeat it. This would be a huge blow to the centrepiece of Trump's economic policy. Johnson dropped something that would have outraged Musk. He suggested Musk was opposing the bill not because he was committed to the US cutting its deficit but because it cut subsidies to electric vehicles — the mainstay of the Tesla business — and was therefore hitting Elon Musk's business interests. This went against everything that Trump and the White House had been saying for a year. Trump had often told his rallies that Musk was in fact losing money by concentrating on the political world and was doing it selflessly as he wanted to "make America great again". So now, through Johnson, Musk was being re-cast from the great American MAGA patriot to the selfish businessman only concerned about his own wealth. Seemingly outraged by what he saw as an attempt to undermine him personally rather than address the issue of the deficit, Musk doubled down, calling the bill "a disgusting abomination". All this became too much for Trump. He finally entered the fight, repeating not just the claim that Musk was upset about losing the electric vehicle subsidies but that Trump had asked Musk to leave his position. Trump was saying that he had essentially terminated Musk's role. For someone with a sense of self-worth as large as Musk's, the suggestion that Trump had essentially told him "you're fired!" — for which Trump was famous on his reality TV show The Apprentice — would have outraged him. Not many people can fire the world's richest man. Donald Trump was now saying that he had. And so Musk went ballistic. What he did next crossed a line beyond which he could never salvage any relationship with Trump or this White House. He seems to have realised that himself, beginning his post on X with both a sense of threat and glee: As far as the White House was concerned, Elon Musk was now a political terrorist — he had gone rogue and was out of control, seemingly prepared to push for the destruction of Donald Trump. Signing off with "Have a nice day, DJT!" (Donald J Trump), Musk had linked Trump to an investigation into a criminal sex trafficking operation which involved many high-profile people and centred on Jeffrey Epstein, the now-dead US financier. Trump had famously been photographed with Epstein, but so had many people who had been part of the New York finance and celebrity worlds of the 1980s and 90s. Where this now goes is anybody's guess. Neither of these two men operates according to convention of generally accepted rules. US media have reported that various mediators were trying to set up a ceasefire phone call, but Trump has failed in his phone call attempts to get ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza and there's no suggestion that he will be any more successful in ending this "war" with Elon Musk. Musk has been on the inside of the Trump presidency — and the Trump family — for almost a year. He's had access to moments with the family when the cameras are not around and nobody is recording what is being said. If Donald Trump has personal, sexual or financial skeletons, Musk may well know what they are and where they are. Trump, for his part, has had insights into Elon Musk that few others have. If the reports of Musk being erratic and drug-fuelled during Trump's campaign are true, Trump would know about them. Like Musk, Trump has had insights into Musk's business and private life that few others would have had. The reason this battle is epic is that both men have raw power. Both men have the ability to destroy or wound each other. Both men are natural pugilists. Both men believe backing down is for wimps, part of the modern curse of "woke" culture. This is the ultimate clash of political power with financial power. In this modern age, which will win? Who will win? And which side does Vice-President JD Vance take? Does he show loyalty to his commander-in-chief, who hand-picked him to be his deputy? Or does he show loyalty to Elon Musk, one of the tech oligarchs with whom Vance has spent so much time cultivating? After all, these tech billionaires, who famously sat in the front row of Trump's inauguration in front of key figures who would sit in Trump's cabinet, can bankroll a "Vance 2028" campaign. Can Vance somehow keep both men onside when those two men are now clearly trying to wound the other? As to where this goes from here, Trump has become the most powerful man in the world — for the second time — by never taking a step back. Musk has become the most wealthy man in the world by overriding any obstacles put in his way. The key question now is this: Does the natural instinct of each man in this Shakespearean drama to attack their opponents and exact revenge when they feel they have been criticised outweigh the reality that each man is flirting with mutually assured destruction?