
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.
Hashtags

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


CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
‘We know we have to deliver results': GOP Sen. Britt on push to pass Trump's agenda
Republican Sen. Katie Britt joins CNN's Jake Tapper to discuss the GOP push to pass President Trump's 'one, big, beautiful bill.'


Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Retailer Stablecoins Are A Real Opportunity For Stable Retailers
People shop at a Walmart in Rosemead, California, on April 11, 2025 (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP ... More via Getty Images). The Wall Street Journal reports that some big players, including Walmart and Amazon, are exploring the idea of issuing their own retailer stablecoins in order to bypass the 'traditional' payment systems and exploit their 'troves of data'. This makes them a threat to banks, including regional and community lenders. Whether they succeed in stablecoins or not, the fact remains that retailers may have a much bigger role in the future of fintech. Retailer Stablecoins Are Within Reach Walmart is, of course, a focus for those of us looking at the retail/fintech possibilities and they have been looking in this direction for some time. Back in 2022, CTO Suresh Kumar said that crypto will become "an important payment tool" across the Metaverse and social media, as these will be the spaces where consumers discover new products. (Walmart are active in many directions here: their Mastercard credit card is expected to launch this fall, with the experience embedded inside the OnePay app.) The noted venture capitalists Andreessen Horowitz single out Walmart in their argument for 'how stablecoins will eat payments' pointing out that Walmart made $648 billion in annual revenue and $15.5 billion in profit, but paid $10 billion in fees to the payment networks (they also point out that for another supermarket chain, Krogers, net income and payment fees are approximately equal). Thus, they say, greater stablecoin adoption would significantly improve profitability in many businesses, including small businesses like coffee shops or restaurants. Stable or unstable? I am not commenting on their math, other than to say that payment fees cover a lot more than the cost of the payment and when considering the costs and benefits, it is also important to look at what additional services might be cross sold from payments. I might also comment that stablecoins are not the only way to drive down these costs and as Richard Crone points out that adding adding a pay-by-bank capability inside a retailer's wallet, such as OnePay, with the attendant anti-fraud benefits such as strong user authentication, could result in significant savings. Real-time payments have been around since 2017 thanks to The Clearing House starting the RTP network that year, but only some banks have adopted the new tool, and those that have signed up have had tepid uptake in the marketplace. The launch in 2023 of the Federal Reserve's competing instant system, FedNow, has boosted adoption by banks, but real world use remains limited: Walmart might change that. Sarah Arnio, Walmart's director of digital payments recently said that 'We're really bullish on instant payments and hoping to move forward with them within the next year'. Now, Walmart already gives customers the option to sign up on its website to be able to pay directly from a bank account, moving those payments via low-cost automated clearing house transfers (ACH) transfers but Arnio sees this as a 'stepping stone' to faster instant payments because "We at Walmart really have a drive internally to speed up everything'.. Looking beyond the current payments landscape, Walmart are also exploring AI-driven shopping assistants as an entirely new type of customer, distinct from traditional consumers, and they will need ways to pay too, as well as exploring a future where consumers may opt for third-party shopping agents built by technology firms, ensuring its systems are adaptable to external AI-driven purchasing solutions. (Walmart know, as I am fond on repeating, that AI agents won't just facilitate transactions in existing processes, they will reshape the entire retail experience.) They are also taking their first steps into the metaverse, the coming augmented and virtual reality space where customers will go to work, rest and play. They have their Walmart Realm to experiment with more 'engaging' buying options. Justin Breton, Walmart's director of brand experiences says that they are following three trends here: customers enjoy brands more when they have unique virtual experiences; customers want to be entertained while shopping; and customers are inspired by virtual games where they can purchase items they discover'. I've used Walmart as the example here but of course all big retailers must be looking at these new technologies with some similar ideas. Partly because of reduced costs and increased speed but also because of the potential for new business models. One advocate is Shopify, which recently announced it has already started allowing customers to pay with popular stablecoin USDC allow their small business base to tap into global markets. As they said in rheir press release, 'Small businesses should be able to sell to a customer on the other side of the world as easily as their next-door neighbor'. All in all, you can see why retailers might be motivated to move now, although it is fair to observe, as Brady Dale does, it would be on them to find a way to convince customers to hold enough stablecoins to fund their purchases The Bank Response To Retailer Stablecoins So what does the mean for banks? Tom Brown's summary seems pretty accurate to me. That so, stablecoins are having a moment [and] all of this attention has left large banks with a very bad case of FOMO. The fear may be justified. Ron Shevlin, a well-respected industry analysts, says that stablecoins could divert significant transaction volume—and core deposits—away from banks as retailers, fintechs, and Big Techs issue branded stablecoins that lead consumers to move cash into stablecoins for convenience, rewards, or programmability. It is hard to disagree with him when he says that for some people stablecoins become functional equivalents of bank deposits—but without the FDIC insurance, relationship ties, or regulatory protections banks provide. As Ron points out, this risk isn't theoretical: Deposit displacement has been happening for years. A new study from Cornerstone Advisors found that $2.15 trillion has already left banks for fintech investment accounts—two-third of it from Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. This is on top of the estimated $10 billion that Americans have sitting in merchant mobile apps like Starbucks' in any given week. So how can banks, who enjoy a great income stream from interchange right now, position themselves for a world of retailer stablecoins and instant payments? The networks have already been active—they are not sitting back and waiting—but on the general assumption that payments margins are on the way down, the banks' strategic response should be to add value around the transactions, not to try and survive off of shrinking interchange in the face of competition from non-card alternatives such as Walmart Pay-By-Bank or an Amazon coin. Those services might, for example, include safety and security, data and decisioning, not only the payments themselves.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How F1 aims to enter its 'biggest untapped market' with new arcade experience
Listen and subscribe to Sports Report on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you find your favorite podcasts. Formula One racing has become increasingly popular in the US, and F1 is looking to appeal to more than just racing fans with the rollout of F1 Arcade locations across the country. F1 Arcade, which entertains guests with live racing simulators and a variety of food and drink, has already opened locations in three US cities this year, and it plans to open three more. Residents in Boston, Las Vegas, Denver, Austin, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., will have the opportunity to dive into the newest experience. F1 Arcade global president of development Jon Gardner said on Yahoo Finance's Sports Report podcast that the US is currently "the biggest untapped market" for F1. In Las Vegas alone, those who attend F1 events spend an estimated four times as much as other Vegas visitors. Liberty Media (FWONB) has also inked a 10-year, $600 million deal, bringing the internationally popular races to the city. Gardner emphasized that partnerships like this and interactive experiences, like F1 Arcade, will only help expand F1's reach and build a bigger audience. "You might not be interested in Formula One, but you might be interested in the driver or what they're interested in, and then that's your gateway into this,' Gardner said. "[Formula One is] putting a lot of resource and capital behind the US. I think they see us as a matter of funnel for them, attracting the F1 fans with the non-F1 fans who, again, might want a night out, might want to do something fun that they have not done before. And then that creates more interest in the overall sport." Gardner discussed how the partnership with the increasingly popular racing brand has a wider appeal. "This is not just for F1 fans," Gardner said. "Yes, we want F1 fans to come here, but this is for people that want a new experience and to try something they've not had before." He explained that F1 Arcade is marketed toward a more general audience for "date night, group events, [and] social events." And the pursuit of non-fans has guided F1 Arcade's strategy when choosing new branch locations. Gardner said F1 Arcade isn't necessarily "shying away" from markets where F1 already has a following, but at the same time, "It's also looking where the right location is in the right time." He continued, "We have big sites; they're not the easiest to find. ... So finding the right partners from a landlord, finding the right deal structure, and then finding the right area that we feel like we can get involved in, in a deep way, all those things come together to create where we end up." Gardner thinks the F1 Arcade can cater to American consumers' desire for unique experiences, drawing a wide audience for a few memorable visits rather than creating more consistent customers. Between 2019 and 2023, Americans increased their spending on experiences by 65%, according to Forbes. "We [want] people to come back, and that repeat [customer] is very important to us, but ultimately they're not coming back to us 30 times a year, right?" Gardner said. "So they come back to us three, four times a year, that's amazing. But they're going to fill other weekends and other date nights out going other places." Ultimately, Gardner feels the memorable experience the F1 Arcade offers will draw fans and non-fans alike. "I also think people want new experiences," he said. "I think attention spans are getting shorter, people want to be able to interact, and they're not going into the office maybe as they used to. So people are finding ways to connect with colleagues and their partners and find something to do while they're having a drink or having food." Every Thursday, Sports Report with Joe Pompliano coaches you through the latest sports business news so you can play the financial game for financial gain. You can find more episodes on our video hub or watch on your preferred streaming service. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data