logo
#

Latest news with #media spectacle

Musk has billions, but Trump has the presidency. In their feud, that counts for more.
Musk has billions, but Trump has the presidency. In their feud, that counts for more.

Washington Post

time3 days ago

  • Business
  • Washington Post

Musk has billions, but Trump has the presidency. In their feud, that counts for more.

There will be no true winners in the spectacular breakup between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, two alpha males with enormous egos and a penchant for rhetorical combat — and for excess. To many Americans watching it all, the two deserve each other. But in the end, Musk should know who truly holds the cards, and it's not him. The implosion that occurred Thursday was an irresistible spectacle pitting the most powerful person in the world against the richest person in the world. It was made for cable news and social media, and neither could get enough of it. Many Republicans who couldn't look away were nonetheless alarmed at the potential fallout. The marriage of convenience between Trump and Musk took root last year with Musk's endorsement and an infusion of an estimated $288 million into the effort to elect Trump president. It carried on into this year, with Musk given broad powers to cut down the executive branch through his U.S. DOGE Service, and he was sometimes described almost as a co-president rather than a volunteer. Musk may have confused the difference. The relationship between the two was one that many who knew them both believed would inevitably end in divorce. That the breakup was as swift and as acrimonious as it was reflected the personalities of the two. The split has implications both substantive and political — and for Musk there are monetary issues to consider, given the size of the government contracts with his businesses and the risk of a decline in the value of Tesla stock. At heart, however, this is a personality clash — pitting a volatile business talent, though a political novice, against a president with shrewd political instincts who has long displayed an appetite for street fights when attacked. Trump also has something Musk does not have, which is the votes of 77 million people and a MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement behind him, including some like Stephen K. Bannon who have been openly hostile to Musk. It's difficult at this moment to expect that Trump and Musk will return to their earlier relationship, however fraught it always was despite the public bonhomie at Cabinet meetings and in the Oval Office. But it's also in the interest of both not to perpetuate this very long. For Trump and the Republicans in Congress, the most pressing concern is Musk's ability to torpedo the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that is the summation of the president's legislative ambitions for this year and perhaps his entire second term. The measure passed the House by a single vote. It cannot pass the Senate without some rewriting, though how much is up in the air. Musk's declaration that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination' helped trigger the conflict between the two men and adds ammunition for those who want more spending cuts. The question is how much Musk's opposition adds to the difficulties of finding a compromise among the competing GOP factions. It's easy to see why GOP leaders are unsettled by Musk's initial attacks on the bill and now his feud with the president. Trump already was facing a sizable job in lobbying lawmakers to win passage of the bill. Any loss of focus on the legislation by the president could be costly, as defeat would deal a devastating blow to Trump and congressional Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said on CNBC Friday that failure to pass the bill ultimately would cost Republicans control of the House in next year's midterm elections. That's stating the obvious, but then again, passage of the controversial measure also could imperil the House majority. No one can say whether Musk has the focus or the staying power to engage in a constructive debate about the bill beyond the broad claim that it's just too expensive. Absent something more substantive and targeted in his critique, members of Congress could dismiss him as just another billionaire who knows less than he thinks he knows — and a rich guy angry because federal subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles would be eliminated (though Musk claims he doesn't really care about that). Though there are worries about Musk's role, some Republicans downplay his influence. 'As a practical matter, he'll have almost no impact on the legislative process,' former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said. Gingrich went on to praise Musk as a business genius and someone whose SpaceX rocket company is vital to the United States winning the space battle against China. But as he noted, many business titans, from automaker Henry Ford to inventor Thomas Edison to IBM founder Thomas Watson, were never president. His argument was that Musk, like many business executives, knows almost nothing about politics. 'These are two dramatically different cultures,' he said. But for Republicans there is another concern about Musk, which is the possibility that he will use his vast wealth to try to defeat GOP lawmakers who support the bill. Could he intercede in Republican primary elections? Could he recruit challengers to punish those he sees on the wrong side of the fiscal debate? All that is possible, but there are other factors to consider about Musk's ability to play successfully in future political campaigns. Some strategists who have watched him in action believe the odds are low that his impact would be as great as his bank account might suggest. Musk claimed on Thursday that without his efforts Trump would not have won the 2024 election. That's questionable, though one can see why he might think so. But there are doubts in Republican circles about how effectively Musk's money was spent last year. In politics, he has been undisciplined and is seen as surrounded by mostly tech people who also are not skilled at politics. One of his more recent forays into politics came earlier this year, when he decided to get involved in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. He and allied groups put about $20 million into the race to support Brad Schimel, the conservative judge running against Susan Crawford, the liberal judge. Musk held a rally the weekend before the election, elevating himself almost as the face of the contest. In the end, Crawford won by a margin of 10 percentage points. In May, apparently sobered by the embarrassing loss, Musk said at the Qatar Economic Forum that he would be spending 'a lot less' on campaigns unless he saw a good reason to do otherwise. He sounded disillusioned with politics at the time and eager to shift his focus back to his business interests. He did not sound like someone with an appetite to build an effective political machine capable of recruiting candidates, developing messages and turning out voters. Maybe this is the time, but there is reason for skepticism. One of Musk's postings on X on Thursday also caught the eye of veteran political strategists. It was when he asked, 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' For some Republicans, that might have been alarming, given the resources at his control and the general disillusionment among many voters with politics as usual. For others, however, it signaled that Musk fundamentally misunderstands the structure of America's two-party system. Over many years, various politicians and strategists have talked about organizing the 'sensible center' of the electorate, without success. The experience of the No Labels group in the 2024 cycle was the latest such effort, ending with an acknowledgment that the leaders could not attract a candidate with a credible path to victory. Musk's talk about a third party is little more than musing at this point. Musk's experience with DOGE is enough by itself to question his future role in legislative or campaign politics. His impatience, his break-first-worry-later approach and his lack of understanding of the government all doomed him to fall far short of his grand expectations. 'Had Elon been capable of listening and going slower, he would have had enormous impact. But it's not who he is,' Gingrich said. 'Had he matured into a serious commentator and implementer, then he would have had enormous influence.' Trump said Friday that he's not paying any attention to Musk. That's an overstatement, but the president has more important things to worry about in leading the country and dealing with a complicated set of issues globally. Just laying out the menu of challenges is a reminder of the powers of the presidency. Musk may have thought he was a peer to the president, but he now could learn more about what his real role was and will be.

Watch: how the Beckhams invented the celebrity wedding
Watch: how the Beckhams invented the celebrity wedding

Times

time12-05-2025

  • Entertainment
  • Times

Watch: how the Beckhams invented the celebrity wedding

When David Beckham and Victoria Adams tied the knot in 1999 they didn't just create a marriage — they launched an empire. Their £1 million deal with OK! shattered records, quadrupled the magazine's circulation to 1.7 million copies and sparked newsstand scuffles across Britain. This wasn't just a celebrity wedding, it was the birth of 'Brand Beckham' and the blueprint for modern celebrity culture. In this Style Stories episode, the Sunday Times fashion director Karen Dacre reveals how matching purple outfits, golden thrones and a Robin Hood-themed reception transformed celebrity weddings from private affairs into carefully orchestrated media spectacles — a template now followed by everyone from the Biebers to the Kardashians and even the Beckhams' own son Brooklyn. This episode is brought to you

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store