logo
Elon Musk lashes out as he digests his ‘betrayal' at the hands of Donald Trump's circle

Elon Musk lashes out as he digests his ‘betrayal' at the hands of Donald Trump's circle

News.com.au05-06-2025

Amid a flurry of furious tweets from Elon Musk, denouncing the current centrepiece of Donald Trump's agenda, came one with particularly telling language.
'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' Mr Musk posted, referring to the congressional elections of 2026.
Betrayed. There's a loaded word. One that says more about Mr Musk's sorely bruised ego, I suspect, than the American government's long-complacent tax and spending policies.
The man is neither talking nor acting like someone offended, on an intellectual level, by the betrayal of faceless voters he doesn't know. Rather he sounds like someone who feels he has been betrayed on a personal level.
And you know what? For good reason. As perverse as it feels to offer sympathy for a guy who's never had a jot of it to spare for anyone else, you must concede that Elon's sense of grievance here is understandable.
Trump gladly took hundreds of millions of dollars from Elon last year. Gave him a few shoutouts on stage. Threw him a token job in the government. Shoved him out the door after less than five months. And is now spitting on everything he was trying, however clumsily, to achieve in that job. You don't need to be a ten-year-old trapped in the ketamine-addled body of a 53-year-old tech billionaire to empathise with his frustration.
At issue here is a piece of legislation called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Yes, that is its real, formal name. And yes, adults with long and, in some cases, even quite serious careers in politics signed off on it. The Trump family's branding instincts remain as subtle as ever.
The moniker is at least two-thirds fitting though, because this thing is huge and near all-encompassing. The third element, beauty, remains in the eye of the beholder.
It runs to more than a thousand pages, some of which some members of Congress did actually bother to read before passing it through the House of Representatives. It still needs to survive the Republican-controlled Senate before it can be sent to Mr Trump's desk for a final signature which, presumably, shall not be affixed via autopen.
What of the contents? There are many. At the topline level: an extension of the sweeping tax cuts from Mr Trump's first term; big cuts to initiatives like Medicaid, the government program that funds health insurance for low-income Americans; and a humungous chunk of funding for immigration enforcement initiatives, like the border wall Mr Trump has been promising to build, quickly, since 2015.
Some of us are old enough to remember when Mexico was going to pay for the thing, which would negate the need for any US government funding. Ah well. Empty promises. Elon is not the only person becoming acquainted with them.
I digress. The problem with Mr Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, Mr Musk argues, is the effect on America's already drowning federal budget.
According to newly released costings from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the equivalent of our Parliamentary Budget Office in Australia – the legislation as written will add nearly $US2.5 trillion to the country's debt over the next decade.
Not million. Not billion. Trillion. It blows a gaping hole in the nation's budget, which already looked a bit like off Swiss cheese.
Another cost, which admittedly concerns Mr Musk far less, is an estimated 10.9 million people being left without health insurance. Not exactly something to celebrate in a country where common injuries and ailments often bankrupt entire families.
Now, as you would expect of a mature government, the White House and senior Republicans have offered a thoughtful response to the CBO's analysis: 'Nuh-uh.'
They claim the CBO is biased against them, you see, like every other institution in the country. Hence, the assertions we are hearing, from those Republicans that this bill actually won't add a single dollar to America's deficit. Not one! Not a dime.
The argument is that Mr Trump's extended tax cuts will spur a sudden, miraculous explosion of economic growth that wipes out any lost revenue. And that, when said growth is combined with the money raised by Mr Trump's on again, off again, on again, off again, on again (but at a lower rate), off again, on again tariffs, the budget will be fine.
In politispeak, we might call this position tenuous. In real world speak, we call it obvious, utter crap. The Trump administration is building its tax and spending plans atop a house of cards, atop another house of cards, atop a house of tissue paper, all of it underpinned by assumptions that insult the Trump officials' own intelligence, never mind ours.
Which means the Trump administration is, essentially, just continuing business as usual in Washington. Talk a humungous game about the importance of fiscal rectitude while out of office. Wag a finger at the profligate left. Then, once you've gained power yourself, run the nation's finances even more recklessly. It's a proud Republican tradition at this point.
Deficit spending on a social safety net? Grossly irresponsible. Ballooning the deficit to provide lower taxes for the wealthy? Something something good economic management.
No wonder someone like Elon Musk, the living embodiment of 'move fast and break things', is so frustrated.
The poor guy believed he was part of something revolutionary. When Mr Trump tapped him to head the Department of Government Efficiency, he thought he was there to actually achieve something. Putting aside the chaos and stupidity of DOGE's methods – firing people only to rehire them in a scramble, repeatedly revising its savings down after being caught using false numbers, etc – Mr Musk's commitment to the vision, the ultimate end goal of a more fiscally balanced federal government, was at least genuine.
Then he showed up for work in the White House, and swiftly learned none of the other acolytes hanging around the place cared about it.
On one level, he was preposterously naive. Donald Trump ranted about the federal deficit during his first run for president almost a decade ago, and repeatedly claimed he would fix it easily. He went on to run massive deficits throughout his first term. How on earth did Mr Musk come to believe that guy would actually commit to balancing the budget?
His own social media platform's juiced algorithm may have been a contributor.
But the rest of Washington must have shocked Mr Musk as well.
Consider: even the more principled members of the Republican caucus, the fiscal hawks, the libertarian small government types, are hardly standing athwart history shouting 'no' here.
'While I oppose increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, I enthusiastically support making the tax cuts permanent and could vote for the Big not-yet-Beautiful Bill if the debt ceiling were voted on separately,' Senator Rand Paul, a quasi-libertarian, said today.
A position as substantive as one's stool after a night of booze and curry. He's opposed to swelling the debt too much at some point in the future. Think of the carte blanche you might give the Democrats, if the ceiling of potential debt is raised! But at the same time, he's just fine with the tax cuts that are forecast to supersize said debt by trillions right now.
Mr Paul probably would have been part of a Senate majority without any intervention, in last year's campaign, from Mr Musk.
But you can mount a plausible argument that none of the jokers currently running America's executive branch would have attained this level of power without Elon Musk's money, or his cultural influence, or his platform.
And what did he get for it? Barely four months inside the administration, running an ineffective quasi-department, whose work has been undone by a single bill. The implicit mockery of people who pretended to think he was a genius when it suited them, only to consciously uncouple at the first opportunity.
So much time was spent, in these early months of the Trump administration, worrying about Mr Musk using the White House to further his own business interests. Not without reason.
It turns out the Trump team was using him all along.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's ‘magic' act: The US Senate has just made $5.8 trillion disappear
Trump's ‘magic' act: The US Senate has just made $5.8 trillion disappear

Sydney Morning Herald

time36 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Trump's ‘magic' act: The US Senate has just made $5.8 trillion disappear

That's why the Republicans have resorted to accounting gimmickry. Conventional congressional policy measures outcomes by what's known as 'current law baseline,' which takes into account the legislated expiry of fiscal measures. That's why the Trump tax cuts were scheduled to expire this year, to reduce the cost that would otherwise have been factored into the Congressional Budget Office's 10-year deficit and debt projections. Extending policies with legislated extensions requires a new law, which is why the usual accounting convention is to treat the extension as a new cost. The Republicans, however, have decided to use a 'current policy baseline' approach, which assesses the impact on deficits and debt against current fiscal policies. On that basis, the Trump tax cuts never expire and therefore have no impact on the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill. That simple change in accounting transforms the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill from a $US3.3 trillion addition to US deficits over the next decade into a $US508 billion decrease in them. The accounting trickery is deceitful, creating the pretence that the Republicans are cutting spending while actually adding trillions of dollars to future deficits and debt while creating time bombs that future administrations will have to defuse, presumably by resorting to accounting trickery of their own. An indication of how the Republicans are manipulating the accounting rules to obscure the actual impact of the Trump budget on debt and deficits is provided by their treatment of Trump's new tax breaks for tips, overtime, senior citizens, car loans and deductions for local and state taxes. The 'temporary' spending measures in the bill are scheduled to expire at the end of the current Trump presidency. If they were extended indefinitely, they would add about $US1 trillion to deficits over the decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Normally, the question of whether the One Big Beautiful Bill complied with the Senate rules would be referred to the non-partisan Senate parliamentarian, who has already ruled against the inclusion of a number of items if the bill is to comply with the reconciliation process. Loading The Republicans, however, have avoided that scrutiny by giving the authority to decide the policy used for calculating the impact of the bill to the Senate Budget Committee chairman, Lindsey Graham, who said last week that he was 'the king of the numbers'. 'I'm Zeus, the budget king,' he said. At the weekend, he said that, as budget chairman, he had decided to use current policy as the reference point for the tax cuts. 'If you use current policy, they never expire, so the policies that were created in 2017 would not end in December. They would continue. And that's a good thing for the American people, that's a good thing for the economy, because it gives you certainty,' he said. Unsurprisingly, the Republican majority then voted to endorse Graham's decision. The Democrats were quick to point out that using current policy as the baseline sets a precedent, one they could use to implement their own agendas – and undo Republicans' – if they regained control of Congress. Effectively, they – or a future Republican majority – could create massive new programs, legislate their expiry in a few years to minimise their apparent impact on debt and deficits and then claim that their extension was costless, even though they could blow out deficits and debt over the longer term. While the change in accounting policy might help protect the use of the reconciliation process, it doesn't disguise the reality that the One Big Beautiful Bill will significantly increase US deficits and debt, pushing the current federal government debt level up from $US36.2 trillion to around $US40 trillion by 2034. That's caused some dissension among Republicans. In the Senate, two senators have already declared they'll vote against the bill and as many as eight have expressed some opposition to it. Loading With the Senate version of the bill significantly more expensive that the one the House passed narrowly, even if it scrapes through the Senate there is no certainty that it will remain intact once it returns to the House, where the House Freedom Caucus of fiscal conservatives are saying that the Senate version needs major changes if it is to gain their support. Trump has set a July 4 – Independence Day – deadline for passage of the bill, which is why the Republicans have been scrambling to try to lock in enough votes to ensure it clears the Senate and why Elon Musk, who went silent after his criticisms of the bill (and some verbal attacks on Trump) triggered an aggressive and threatening response from Trump, has re-emerged. In posts on his social media platform, X, Musk described the spending levels of the bill as 'insane' and said the bill would increase the US debt ceiling by a record $US5 trillion. It was obvious, he said, that Americans were living in a one-party country, the 'porky pig party'. He has a point. The accounting trickery is deceitful, creating the pretence that the Republicans are cutting spending while actually adding trillions of dollars to future deficits and debt while creating time bombs – the 'expiring' tax measures in the bill – that future administrations will have to defuse, presumably by resorting to accounting trickery of their own. In the meantime, the debt, its cost (already running at about $US1 trillion in interest) and the volume of bonds US Treasury will have to issue into a market that's been showing signs of shallow liquidity will continue to mount, relentlessly.

Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk's firms to save money
Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk's firms to save money

Perth Now

time38 minutes ago

  • Perth Now

Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk's firms to save money

US President Donald Trump has suggested his efficiency department should take a look at the subsidies that Tesla CEO Elon Musk's companies have received in order to save the federal government "BIG" money. Trump's comments come after billionaire Elon Musk renewed his criticism on Monday of Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, vowing to unseat lawmakers who backed it after campaigning on limiting government spending. "Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. In response to Trump's post, Musk, in his own social media platform X, said: "I am literally saying CUT IT ALL. Now." After weeks of relative silence following a feud with Trump over the legislation, Musk rejoined the debate on Saturday as the Senate took up the package, calling it "utterly insane and destructive" in a post on social media platform X. On Monday, he ramped up his criticism, saying lawmakers who had campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill "should hang their heads in shame!" "And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth," Musk said. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO called again for a new political party, saying the bill's massive spending indicated "that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!" "Time for a new political party that actually cares about the people," he wrote. Musk's criticism of the bill has caused a rift in his relationship with Trump, marking a dramatic shift after the tech billionaire spent nearly $US300 million ($A457 million) on Trump's re-election campaign and led the administration's controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a federal cost-cutting initiative. Musk, the world's richest man, has argued that the legislation would greatly increase the national debt and erase the savings he says he has achieved through DOGE. It remains unclear how much sway Musk has over Congress or what effect his opinions might have on the bill's passage. But Republicans have expressed concern that his on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections. The rift has also led to volatility for Tesla, with shares of the company seeing wild price swings that erased about $US150 billion of its market value, though it has since recovered.

Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk subsidies to 'save a FORTUNE'
Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk subsidies to 'save a FORTUNE'

ABC News

time41 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Trump suggests DOGE look at Musk subsidies to 'save a FORTUNE'

US President Donald Trump says DOGE should take a look at how government subsidies are benefiting billionaire Elon Musk, as the spat between the pair grows. The president posted the proposal on Truth Social, in an apparent rebuttal of Mr Musk's support for an electric car mandate. Saying he was "strongly against" the mandate, Mr Trump added that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO "without subsidies" would be forced "to close up shop and head back home to South Africa". "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE," Mr Trump wrote. "Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!" The allusion to DOGE, Mr Musk's former government agency, suggests a widening fight between the president and his former supporter. In response to Mr Trump's post, Mr Musk, on his own social media platform, X, said: "I am literally saying CUT IT ALL. Now." His comments follow on from Mr Musk's weekend rebuke of Mr Trump's sprawling tax and spending cuts bill. The bill, which was procedurally advanced by Senate Republicans on Sunday, is believed to be the catalyst for Mr Musk's ruptured relationship with Mr Trump. Days after he left the federal government last month with a laudatory celebration in the Oval Office, Mr Musk blasted the bill as "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination". On Sunday, hours before the bill passed the Senate, Mr Musk reiterated that the latest draft would "destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country". On Monday, he ramped up his criticism, saying politicians who had campaigned on cutting spending but backed the bill "should hang their heads in shame!" "And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth," Mr Musk said, also calling for a new political party. He had poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Mr Trump's campaign in 2024. In the days after his White House departure, Mr Musk suggested without evidence that Mr Trump, who spent the first part of the year as one of his closest allies, was mentioned in files related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Musk ultimately tried to make nice with the administration, saying he regretted some of his posts that "went too far". Mr Trump responded in kind in an interview with The New York Post, saying: "Things like that happen. I don't blame him for anything."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store