The conflict between Elon Musk and Donald Trump is, in essence, a battle between anti-establishment and establishment forces. Both Musk and Trump originally identified as anti-establishment figures. However, after becoming President, Trump had to rely on the support of the establishment faction in Congress to pass the budget reconciliation One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). In aligning himself with the establishment to push this agenda forward, Trump effectively shifted his position, leading to a sharp and direct clash with Musk, who has remained firmly committed to his anti-establishment principles.
In the initial stage of the current Trump administration, the Republican Party gained a significant advantage in the battle of public opinion, largely thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. This agency systematically exposed fiscal loopholes left over from the Democratic administration, drawing widespread attention and support. Unsurprisingly, this made Musk, a staunch anti-establishment figure, deeply resented by the Democratic Party, eventually fueling public unrest that led to incidents of car burnings and store vandalism. Through rigorous audits, DOGE uncovered numerous cases of inefficient federal spending, providing critical ammunition for Trump’s push to implement a “small government” agenda. In response, Democratic supporters turned their efforts toward undermining Musk, aiming to weaken both his business empire and his social influence. The consequences were significant: Tesla’s stock price suffered repeated declines, and its sales were heavily impacted.
As personnel appointments within the Trump administration gradually solidified and a wave of traditional establishment figures entered the Cabinet, the reforms Elon Musk had hoped for faced systemic resistance from both Democratic and Republican establishment members. Newly appointed department heads began to view DOGE’s audit initiatives as encroachments on their bureaucratic turf, refusing to cooperate under the pretext of “procedural compliance” and “data sensitivity”. The conflict reached its peak in March 2025, when Musk clashed fiercely w ith key political figures including Senator Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. According to insiders, tensions during a Pentagon budget review meeting nearly escalated into a physical altercation. Rubio accused Musk of undermining Congress’s oversight authority, while Musk fired back, denouncing the establishment for being protective of corruption.
Compounding the situation was Trump’s senior political advisor, Susie Wiles, who reportedly saw Musk as a growing threat. Through backchannel leaks to the media, she hinted that Musk had been expelled from the White House, a move aimed at severing his direct line of communication with the President through political maneuvering behind closed doors. At the time, Musk believed he had played a pivotal role in Trump’s 2024 re-election, contributing USD 277 million in funding and orchestrating mobilization efforts in key swing states, while leveraging the X platform to counteract the influence of traditional Democratic-aligned media. However, in the bureaucratic structure shaped by Trump’s second-term administration, Musk increasingly found himself out of place, further deepening the internal rift between him and the broader Trump power apparatus.
At the end of May 2025, Musk officially stepped down as the head of DOGE. Trump held a ceremony for him in the Oval Office and awarded him the “Golden Key to the White House”—a symbolic gesture crafted as a “dignified departure” narrative, pushed forward by Katie, wife of Trump’s close ally, Stephen Miller, who is a supporter of Musk. However, cracks began to show within 48 hours. On May 27, Musk made his first measured public criticism of the Republican-backed OBBA, accusing it of failing to curb deficit expansion and running in the opposite direction of DOGE’s goal to cut USD 2 trillion in spending. On June 3, he escalated his rhetoric, calling the bill “abhorrent” and “disgusting”, just as it passed the House by a razor-thin margin of one vote, with its fate in the Senate still uncertain.
Musk’s remarks ignited Trump’s fury, who has always prided himself on his authority and control. On June 5, during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump publicly stated, “I’m very disappointed (in Musk)”, and later posted on his Truth Social platform that Musk “went crazy”. Musk swiftly responded on X, launching a counteroffensive, voicing his support for Trump’s impeachment, suggesting that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over, and threatening to halt SpaceX Dragon spacecraft operations, which would effectively paralyze NASA’s space station supply chain. The most explosive move came when Musk implied Trump’s involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, claiming, "that is the real reason they have not been made public”. Though he offered no evidence, the accusation struck at the heart of Trump’s most politically sensitive vulnerabilities.
Trump’s retaliation quickly escalated into concrete action. On the evening of June 5, he posted on Truth Social, stating outright: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts". The next day, aboard Air Force One, he doubled down in response to reporters’ questions, threatening to review all contracts. This directly targeted the core of Musk’s business empire, with Tesla’s reliance on electric vehicle tax credits estimated annual impact of USD 1.2 billion, SpaceX’s NASA launch contracts, and Starlink’s defense-related deals. All these amount to a total of roughly USD 38 billion in government-linked funding. The market reaction was immediate and severe. Tesla’s stock plummeted as much as 14.26% in a single day, wiping out USD 150 billion in market value. In response, Musk accelerated his political counteroffensive. On June 5, he launched a poll on X, in which 80% of participants supported his proposal to form a new political party—the “America Party”, which he said would represent “the 80% in the middle”.
On June 7, during an interview with NBC, Trump confirmed that his relationship with Musk is over. When asked whether he intended to sever government contracts with Musk’s companies, he did not deny the possibility but downplayed the likelihood of immediate action. In reality, Trump’s stance was also emotionally driven. NASA’s space station operations are almost entirely dependent on SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft for transport, which includes international astronauts onboard. In response, Musk directly threatened to halt Dragon missions, which could potentially be fatal for Trump. While Trump cannot outmatch Musk on the technical front, he still holds the upper hand politically. He issued a public warning that if Musk funds the Democrats, “he’ll have to pay the consequences for that”. Vice President J.D. Vance attempted to de-escalate the situation, urging Musk in a televised interview to “return to the fold”, acknowledging his right to criticize but emphasizing that “blood feud” with Trump would be a grave mistake. Though Musk deleted some of his more provocative posts, such as the call for impeachment, he continued to criticize the bill and push forward with plans to form a new party. Notably, when hedge fund titan Bill Ackman called on both sides to “make peace for the benefit of our country”, Musk responded only with, “you’re not wrong”. He left the door to de-escalation open, at least for now. Ironically, it is Trump who, out of pride, appears unwilling to make the first move toward reconciliation.
This rupture reveals deeper fractures within Trump’s political “coalition”. At its core, the enduring conflict between the establishment and the anti-establishment forces. Trump now stands firmly with the establishment, seemingly convinced that he is the rightful leader and standard-bearer of the Republican establishment. Musk, on the other hand, represents the anti-establishment camp, driven by a more idealistic vision of political reform and a desire to fundamentally reshape Washington.
The notion that Musk clashed with Trump purely out of financial interest is mistaken. For Musk, profit is merely a byproduct, not the reason he entered this political battle. When he threw his support behind Trump, nearly everyone believed Trump would lose the election. In reality, it was actually the Biden administration, i.e., the Democrats, that provided Tesla with substantial subsidies. From a purely financial standpoint, supporting a Democratic victory would have better aligned with Musk’s business interests. Even those unfamiliar with the exact election timeline should understand that even if Tesla were to go bankrupt today, Musk would not suddenly become poor. He would still be a billionaire. As he once told Tesla employees years ago that he could be “off somewhere having a good time, drinking Mai Tais on a tropical island”, but instead he was “sleeping on the floor during shift change”. A man who does not lack money would not do this for commercial gain. Musk is driven by a political ideal, the anti-establishment dream of reforming Washington. That is precisely why, in the current Musk-Trump conflict Musk enjoys 67% public support, far surpassing Trump’s 34%. Yet truth be told, in the unforgiving waters of Washington politics, he may ultimately end up a tragic figure.
Who then, will ultimately prevail in the Trump-Musk blow-up?
In the short term, Trump holds the advantage due to his executive power and ability to exert pressure. However, over the longer term, it is likely that Musk will emerge as the true winner, not in terms of political authority, but in influence. Through his actions and statements, Musk has significantly undermined the credibility of Washington’s political establishment, exposing its inner workings and eroding its traditional authority. In doing so, he has helped lay the groundwork for a new generation of conservative leaders to rise. As for Musk’s personal trajectory, it remains uncertain. He is too unpredictable, too active, and too radical for any clear forecast. Trump, on the other hand, is likely to lose in the end. His bluster masks a fundamentally insecure disposition; he tends to target the weak and avoid confronting the strong; this would mean that he rarely maintains lasting alliances. While Trump may currently hold the reins of executive power, Musk is not without leverage, particularly in the legal arena. If Trump fails to bring an elite institution like Harvard to heel, can he truly overcome the technological power and legal resources represented by someone like Musk? At the very least, this is questionable.
Another key point worth noting is that the Republican establishment is increasingly aware of just how critical, and potentially devastating, Musk’s influence could be in the midterm elections. Musk poured USD 300 million and his full weight behind the Trump administration, yet ended up receiving less in return than he did from the previous Democratic administration. If that is the outcome, who would be willing to support the Republican Party in the future? As a result, the Musk-Trump feud could very well become the trigger for a Republican collapse in the 2026 midterms, perhaps fulfilling the warning once voiced by Senator Ted Cruz, hat the Republican Party may face a political “bloodbath”.
Behind its self-aggrandizing rhetoric, the Trump administration is in fact weak and largely ineffective; some even consider it has achieved nothing of substance. The Financial Times even nicknamed Trump “TACO”, which stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out”. The current overall situation is actually favorable to China’s position in the U.S.-China trade negotiations. A firm stance from China could potentially secure greater benefits for the country. However, it will also likely provoke increased resentment from the core Republican establishment, leading to more friction in the future. Interestingly, the European Union is seizing the moment to extend an olive branch to Musk, inviting him to expand his investments in Europe, an offer that, if accepted, would clearly further undermine the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
All things considered, Trump has clearly overreached. His abrupt shift in political stance, from anti-establishment to firmly establishment, reflects a degree of political immaturity. At this point, not only is he showing signs of inconsistency, but he also risks being entirely sidelined and exploited by the Republican establishment for their own purposes
Final analysis conclusion:
The Musk-Trump conflict is, at its core, a battle between anti-establishment and establishment forces. Trump’s OBBA eliminates electric vehicle subsidies and expands the fiscal deficit, directly betraying Musk’s reform goal of cutting USD 2 trillion in government spending, while also undermining his business foundation. In sacrificing Musk to gain the support of the political establishment, Trump has underestimated the potential backlash. If this standoff continues to escalate, it could reshape the landscape of American politics and potentially trigger a collapse of the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm elections.
