From bros to foes: how the unlikely Trump-Musk relationship imploded

WASHINGTON, June 6 (Reuters) - (This story contains profanity in paragraph 3 that some readers may find offensive)
When Donald Trump met privately with White House officials on Wednesday, there was little to suggest that the U.S. president was close to a public break with Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who helped him win a second term in office.
Two White House officials familiar with the matter said Trump expressed confusion and frustration in the meeting about Musk's attacks on his sweeping tax and spending bill. But he held back, the officials said, because he wanted to preserve Musk's political and financial support ahead of the midterm elections.
By Thursday afternoon, Trump's mood had shifted. He had not spoken to Musk since the attacks began and was fuming over what one White House aide described as a "completely batshit" tirade by the Tesla CEO on X, his social media platform.
Musk had blasted Trump's tax bill as fiscally reckless and a "disgusting abomination." He vowed to oppose any Republican lawmaker who supported it. The bill would fulfill many of Trump's priorities while adding, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $2.4 trillion to the $36.2-trillion U.S. public debt.
Privately, Trump had called Musk volatile. On Thursday, he told his team, it was time to take the gloves off.
Sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was "very disappointed" in his former adviser. Musk quickly hit back on social media, and the back-and-forth devolved from there.
"The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts," Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media site. Within minutes, Musk said it might be time to create a new political party and endorsed a post on X from Ian Miles Cheong, a prominent Musk supporter and right-wing activist, calling for Trump's impeachment.
The Trump-Musk relationship at its height was unprecedented in Washington - a sitting president granting a billionaire tech CEO access and influence inside the White House and throughout his government. Musk spent nearly $300 million backing Trump's campaign and other Republicans last year.
For months, Musk played both insider and disruptor - shaping policy conversations behind the scenes, amplifying Trump's agenda to millions online, and attacking the bureaucracy and federal spending through his self-styled Department of Government Efficiency.
Just last week, Trump hosted a farewell for Musk and declared that "Elon is really not leaving."
Now he had not only left but had turned into a top critic. Hours after Trump's Oval Office remarks, a third White House official expressed surprise at Musk's turnaround. It "caught the president and the entire West Wing off guard," she said.
Musk did not respond to emails seeking comment about the downturn in relations. His super PAC spending group, America PAC, and spokeswoman Katie Miller did not respond to calls and texts requesting comment.
In a statement, the White House called the breakup an "unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted."
The Musk-Trump breakup sent Tesla's stock price plunging 14% on Thursday and drove uncertainty among Trump's allies in Congress, who are working to pass the monumental spending package that Democrats and a small number of vocal Republicans oppose.
The breakup could reshape both men's futures. For Trump, losing Musk's backing threatens his growing influence among tech donors, social media audiences, and younger male voters — key groups that may now be harder to reach. It could also complicate fundraising ahead of next year's midterm elections.
For Musk, the stakes are potentially even higher. The break risks intensified scrutiny of his business practices that could jeopardize government contracts and invite regulatory probes, which might threaten his companies' profits.
Some of Musk's friends and associates were stunned by the fallout, with a number of them only recently expressing confidence that the partnership would endure, according to two other sources familiar with the dynamics.
The split had been simmering for weeks, said the first two White House officials, but the breaking point was over personnel: Trump's decision to pull his nomination of Jared Isaacman, Musk's hand-picked candidate to be NASA administrator.
"He was not happy" about Isaacman, one of the White House officials said of Musk.
Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and close Musk ally, was seen as key to advancing Musk's vision for space exploration and commercial space ventures. After his nomination was scuttled, Isaacman posted on X: "I am incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me."
The move was viewed within the administration as a direct snub to Musk, the two officials said, signaling a loss of political clout and deepening the rift between him and Trump's team.
Before the Isaacman episode, top White House aides behind the scenes had already begun limiting Musk's influence — quietly walking back his authority over staffing and budget decisions. Trump himself reinforced that message in early March, telling his cabinet that department secretaries, not Musk, had the final say over agency operations.
At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending.
His threats and complaints about Trump's bill grew louder, but inside the White House, few believed they would seriously alter the course of the legislation — even as some worried about the fallout on the midterms from Musk's warnings to cut political spending, the first two White House officials said.
Still, a fourth White House official dismissed the impact of Musk's words on the president's signature bill.
"We're very confident," he said. "No one has changed their minds." But there was bafflement at the White House at how a relationship that only last week had been celebrated in the Oval Office had taken such a turn.
Time will tell whether the rift can be repaired. White House aides have scheduled a call between the two men on Friday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

an hour ago

• Telegraph

Kyiv mayor tells Trump: Come and see my bombed-out city

Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, has invited Donald Trump to visit the Ukrainian capital to witness for himself the destructive toll of non-stop Russian bombardment. In an interview with The Telegraph, the former world heavyweight champion boxer said he used to be a tour guide and would be 'very happy' to return to the role for the US president. Besides the city's historical treasures, he 'will be presenting the buildings where civilians have been killed, children killed' in an effort to secure further defensive weapons for Ukraine. The day before meeting The Telegraph in his office in city hall, Russia launched one of its largest bombardments on the capital, firing around 300 drones and seven ballistic and cruise missiles on June 11. On Tuesday, 30 people were killed in a nine-hour-long attack on the city that included a Russian drone flying straight into a residential block, obliterating the building and trapping dozens under the rubble. What was a fairly intermittent threat to one of Europe's largest capitals has become a constant, harrowing bombardment, with residents spending hours each night in shelters as air defences rattle off gunfire to bring down swarms of whining Shaheds. Vladimir Putin can now fire over 4,000 drones at Ukraine per month, a tenfold increase compared to this time last year, following massive investment in manufacturing. 'We need more support,' says Mr Klitschko, leaning his 6ft 7in frame forward across the boardroom table. 'Because more and more drones are coming from the Russian Federation.' Kyiv is one of Ukraine's best-protected cities, using both Patriot air-defence batteries and a network of mobile gun-teams that chase after drones in pick-up trucks. But the sheer volume of attacks means more slip through. Russia's engineers have 'modernised' the Shahed kamikaze drone with their domestically produced variant known as the Geran, says Mr Klitschko. 'They are already much faster. They fly much higher. And sometimes it's very difficult to identify the drones,' he says. The latest Gerans can piggy-back on Ukrainian internet and mobile network systems, making it much harder to detect and spoof them with electronic warfare countermeasures. 'You question why [we need] the United States,' the mayor says. 'Right now we need the defensive weapons, because we are defending our territorial integrity and our independence. 'My first job, many, many, many years ago, before I started my sports club era, was working as a tour guide in my home town. And I will be very happy to make an excursion for Trump.' Getting the attention of the White House is a challenge, one made all the more difficult by the launch of Israel's war against Iran and its nuclear programme. Some 20,000 anti-drone missiles destined for Ukraine were recently transferred to the Middle East. Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, announced that from next year the US will no longer purchase new arms for Ukraine. Mr Trump often appears ringside at the Ultimate Fighting Championship, hugging and posing for pictures with the blood-slicked winners. Could Mr Klitschko, who was known as Dr Ironfist in the ring, appeal to him this way? 'We actually fought in Taj Mahal Palace,' says the mayor, referring to a 2002 bout against Ray Mercer at the president's now-closed casino resort in Atlantic City. The fight, like 45 of his 47, ended in victory for Mr Klitschko, during a period of almost total dominance of the heavyweight division, alongside his brother, Vladimir. 'Trump was in the first row, I guess,' he says. 'And we have good discussion, good communication. I hope it's very soon I have a chance to talk personally to Trump and give him lots of arguments.' In the June 8 barrage, a headquarters of the US defence giant Boeing was struck, along with a building used to process British visas until late last year. 'It is not possible to keep representatives from any country safe,' Mr Klitschko says. Flags, drone parts and a traditional Ukrainian mace adorn the mayor's office. Asked for his favourite memento, Mr Klitschko walks behind his desk and pulls out a photograph of his son, Maxim, as a seven-year-old boy. Then he shows a picture on his phone of himself standing by the side of a much taller man. This is Maxim at 7ft 5in , fully grown and, at the age of 20, a professional basketball player with AS Monaco. 'He makes us look small,' says Mr Klitschko with a smile. 'We hope he will join the NBA.' In Ukraine, debate rages over whether to lower the age of conscription, from 25 to 18, amid growing shortages of manpower. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, has resisted US pressure in favour of a reduction. Cautiously, Mr Klitschko opens a gap between himself and the commander-in-chief. 'If you go to the street and see, from 10 workers, you see seven women and three men,' he says. 'And in other cities the number of men is much smaller.' 'The age of mobilisation is not our responsibility, it's a decision of government, but we have right now a huge deficit of human resources, and, if possible, pretty soon, the central government can make this decision.' Does he think it would be right? Mr Klitschko says 'if we don't have another source' of men it may 'have to be', emphasising each word percussively. For years, Mr Klitschko and Mr Zelensky have been at each other's throats. When he was a comedian, the president played a 'translator' to the mayor in one long-running skit, turning Mr Klitschko's incomprehensible blithering and raspberries – played by an actor – into full sentences. The president appeared to recall the sketch when, in February, he responded to Mr Klitschko's suggestion that Ukraine might temporarily exchange the four regions occupied by Russia for peace. 'I know he's a great athlete,' Mr Zelensky said. 'But I didn't know he was a great speaker.' In the president's eyes, Mr Klitschko has allowed corruption to flourish, doing little to stem the 'Kyiv system' of kickbacks, elite contractors and backroom deals. The national anti-corruption bureau has recently arrested a string of the mayor's subordinates in city hall, with many cases focused on the sale of land permits. To Mr Klitschko, the president is an authoritarian intent on edging him out of power as he fears a rival with international clout. He accuses the president of undermining mayors from opposition parties and replacing them with allies under the guise of separate military administrations, such as that established in Kyiv. In the last couple of years, he says, the prosecutor's office has 'opened 1,500 criminal cases' against his administration. 'Maybe you can take [from this], that the prosecutor's office, police is working pretty well.' But opening criminal cases is 'very, very easy. How many go to court? Just eight'. The focus on corruption is because the 'whole media is in one hand' he claims and 'because a lot of politicians make a huge mistake... preparing for an election' after the war is over. 'Kyiv is one of the largest cities not just in Ukraine but also in Eastern Europe,' he says, adding that Mr Zelensky wants to 'control Kyiv [and] I'm not a member of the president's party'. Critics in the president's office would reply that Mr Klitschko is himself not immune to political manoeuvring. Ending the interview, the former boxer pokes his head back through the door to apologise for his English. 'I don't get much opportunity to practice any more,' says the one-time Los Angeles resident, now never dressed in anything but khaki. Then he is gone, with battles to be fought on all fronts.

The Guardian

an hour ago

• The Guardian

America is showing us football in its final dictator form – we can't afford to look away

Should we give it a miss? Is it best to stay away from next summer's Trump-Infantino US World Cup? Depending on your politics the answer may be a resounding no or a bemused shrug. Some will see pure drive-by entertainment. Why would anyone want to boycott a month-long end-of-days Grand Soccer Parade staged by two of the world's most cinematic egomaniacs? But it is a question that has been asked, and will be asked a lot more in the next year. Those who intend to travel will need to answer it by action or omission. Would it be better for dissenting media and discomfited football fans to simply no-platform this event? The picture is at least clearer now. After a week of the new steroid-fed Club World Cup we know what this thing will feel like and who it will benefit. There is no mystery with these events now, no sense of politics lurking coyly out of sight. Under Gianni Infantino Fifa has become a kind of mobile propaganda agency for indulgent regimes, right out in front twirling its pompoms, hitching its leotard, twerking along at the front of the parade like an unholy Uncle Sam. So we had the grisly sight this week of Donald Trump not just borrowing football's light, but wrestling it on to his lap and ruffling its hair, burbling like a random hot-button word generator about women and trans people, while Juventus players gawped in the background. We have the spectacle of both club and international football hijacked as a personal vanity platform for Infantino, the dictator's fluffer, the man who sold the world not once but twice. Infantino's status as a wildly over-promoted administrator has always had an operatic quality. But there is something far more sinister in his political over-reach, out there nodding along at the latest Oval Office freak-off, helping to legitimise each divisive statement, each casual erasure of process. Nobody gave Fifa a mandate to behave like this. Its mission is to promote and regulate. And yet here is it acting as a commercial disruptor in its own sport and as a lickspittle to the powerful, disregarding the human rights fluff and political neutrality enshrined in its 'statutes', offering zero transparency or accountability. To date Infantino's only public interface in the US is a 'fireside chat', AKA approved PR interview, at the Dick's Sporting Goods stage in New York. There he is, up there on the Stage of Dick's, mouthing platitudes to pre-programmed questions, high on his own power supply, the newly acquired Gianni glow-up eyebrows arched in a patina of inauthenticity. They say celebrity is a mask that eats into the face. Take a look at what football can do to you. And so far this tournament has presented the full grotesquery in store. What is the Club World Cup like on the ground? Pretty much the same as it is on the screen given this event is invisible in physical form beyond the stadiums. The key takeaway is confirmation of the weirdly jackboot, cult-like nature of the Infantino-shaped universe. Even the optics are trying to tell you something, all black holes, hard surfaces, gold, power-flash. Why does Fifa have its own vast lighted branding on the pitch like a global super-corporation or a military dictatorship? What is the Club World Cup logo supposed to represent, with its weird angular lines, the void at its heart? An obscure Stalinist plug socket? Darth Vader's space fighter? Not to mention the bizarre obsession with that shapeless and indefinable trophy, present on the big screen in every ground in weird scrolling closeup, one minute a Sauron's eye, the next some kind of finger-snapping torture instrument, with its secret draws full of ectoplasm, a dead crow, the personal effects of Pol Pot. Mainly there is the very openly manipulative nature of the spectacle, football in its final dictator form, with a sense of utter disdain for its captive consumer-subjects. Yes, they will literally put up with anything if we pipe it into their smartphones. So here is beauty, love, colour, connection, the things you're hard-wired to respond to, cattle-prodded into your nervous system for the benefit of assorted interests. Here is football reimagined as a kind of mass online pornography. Fifa even calls its media website Fifahub. With all this in mind some have suggested a World Cup and US boycott is the correct and logical response, not least in two recent articles published in these pages. The organisation Human Rights Watch has carried a warning about the implications of staging the tournament under the Trump regime. Guardian readers and social media voices have asked the same question from all sides of discourse. The hostile versions of this: if you don't like it then just don't come, we don't want you anyway [expletives deleted]. If you were worried about us in Qatar, western imperialist, why are you going to the US? And from the liberal left a concern that to report on sport is also to condone a regime that sends deportation officers to games, imposes travel bans on Fifa members and is edging towards another remote war. And all the while marches football around in a headlock, snapping its underwear elastic, saying thanks, Gianni, for the distracting firework show. This is not a normal situation. So why normalise it? Why give it legitimising light and heat? And yet, one week into the World Cup's rehearsal dinner, the only logical response is: you just have to go. Not only would a boycott serve no practical purpose; it would be counterproductive, an act of compliance for a regime that will happily operate without an opposing voice on the stage. There are two structural reasons for this. And a third that relates to the United States itself, or at least to the idea of the United States, to its possibilities, which are not defined by Trump, by the latest military action, or by Infantino. Most obviously, if you leave the stage you abandon the argument to the other person. Dissent remains a useful commodity. However pointless, ineffective and landlocked the process of pointing out the flaws and contradictions may have become, it is necessary to keep doing so. Qatar 2022 was a dictator show that simply sailed above the criticisms. But someone, however minor, has to make them, to offer at least some kind of counter-view. No-platforming an autocrat's show makes no sense on a basic level. These people would prefer you weren't there in any case. Whereas in reality the people platforming and enabling Trump and Infantino are not journalists trying to give another version of events, but the people who keep voting them into power, friendly dictators, subservient football associations and client media who will be present whatever happens. Fifa and its Saudi-backed broadcast partner Dazn are glossing up an army of in-house influencers and content-wanglers to generate a wall of approving noise. Is it healthy if these are the only voices at the show? Shouting into a void may have little effect. But you still have to shout. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion Second, football does still have a value that steps outside the normal rules of show and spectacle. This is why it is coveted, courted and used like a weapon. Last week these pages carnied a logical, entirely legitimate wider view, written by two academics from City University New York, which concluded that a boycott was not just an option but 'necessary'. At the same time, the article defined the football World Cup as something that basically has no value, 'spectacles of recreation designed to distract people from their day-to-day lives, cultural and political branding opportunities for their hosts. For authoritarians, they have long been used as a tool to distract from or launder stains of human rights violations and corruption.' Which is definitely true. But it also reads like a vision of sport defined by the most joyless version of AI invented. Under this version of events no World Cup or Olympics would have taken place, because they are essentially worthless, home only to malevolent actors, lacking any notion of colour, human spirt, joy, art, beauty or connection. Who knows, maybe this is accurate now. It is undeniably true that the idea of football as a collective people's game is fairly absurd. Fans of football clubs struggle with this state of cognitive dissonance on a daily basis, the contrast of legacy identity and hard commercial reality. Liverpool are a community club owned by a US hedge fund. Manchester City see themselves as outsiders and underdogs, and are also owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Football is the enemy these days. But both sides of this are important, because without that emotional connection, without the act of faith that enables the warm, human part, everything becomes diminished, all our institutions toxic shells. To give up is to abandon sport for ever to the dictators and the sales people, to say, yeah, this just belongs to you now. No-platforming something that still means connection and culture and history. Are we ready for that yet? There will be another version of the present at some point. The final point is about the US, a deeply divided and unhappy place right now, and a much-derided host nation, not least by members of its own populace. What has it been like here? The evidence is that an actual World Cup is going to be very hard to negotiate, spread over vast spaces, with baffling travel times, unreliable infrastructure, and a 24-hour attention industry that is already busy gorging on every other spectacle available to the human race. The US has a reputation for peerless razzmatazz around public events. And while this is undeniably true with cultural spectacles it invented – rock'n'roll, presidential races, galactic shopping malls, enormous food, rural tornadoes, its own continental-scale sports – the US's version of other people's specialities, from cheese to professional football, can seem a little mannered. But the fact remains the actual games have been quite good. There has been a European-flavoured focus on tickets and empty seats. But 25,000 people on a weekday to watch Chelsea in an ill-defined game is decent evidence of willingness to stage this thing and develop the market. The dismay at 3,500 turning up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando overlooks the upside, the fact that 3,500 people actually turned up to Mamelodi Sundowns v Ulsan HD in Orlando. Sundowns get 9,000-odd even at home. How many of their South African fans can afford to travel for this? Fifa, which uses its faux-benevolence cleverly, will point out an African team received $2m (£1.7m) for winning that game. Do we want to develop something or not? A wider point is that football here is a game beloved of immigrant populations. There is a different kind of warmth, often among people without a platform or the means to make it to the matches so far. The waiter who adores Cristiano Ronaldo. The taxi driver who wants to talk for 40 minutes about Chelsea's wastefulness with academy players. The cop who loves the Colombian national team and is desperate for his son to see them in the flesh. As for the US itself, it still feels like false equivalence to state that this is now an actual dictatorship, a lost land, a place that doesn't deserve this show because of its flaws and structural violence. This has always been a pretty brutal nation, human life as a constant pressure wave, mainlining heat and light into your veins, but also always taking a bite. The opening week in Miami captured this feeling, football's most hungrily transactional event staged on a sunken green peninsula, a place where the sea seems to be punching holes in the land, but which is still constantly throbbing with life and warmth and beautiful things. There is a nostalgic attachment to the idea of the US for people of a certain age, 20th-century holdovers, brought up on its flaws and imperialism, but also its culture and brilliance. But for the visitor America does seem in a worse state than it did 20 years ago. There is an unhappiness, a more obvious underclass, a sense of neglected parts and surfaces. All the things that were supposed to be good – cars, plenitude, markets, voting, empowerment, civil rights, cultural unity, all the Cokes being good and all the Cokes being the same – seem to have gone bad. But this is also a democracy with an elected leader, albeit one with a lust for executive power and some sinister tendencies. Mainly the US seems to have a massive self-loathing problem. Perhaps you can say it is correct in this, that Trump is enacting actual harms. But Trump is also a symptom of that alienation and perceived decline. He's an algorithm-driven apparition. Say his name enough times and this cartoon will appear. America remains a great, messy, dangerous, flawed idea of a place. What else is the world currently offering? This is in any case where football will now live for the next year, an unquestioning supplicant in the form of its own autocratic leader. The game is not an indestructible product. It can be stretched thin and ruined by greed, is already at war with itself in many key places. It will at some point be necessary to pay the ferryman, even as the US is packed away a year from now and the sails set at Fifa House for all corners of the globe and then Saudi Arabia. However stormy the prospects, it is not quite the moment to abandon this ship for good.

Sky News

an hour ago

• Sky News

Israel-Iran live: Iran and Israel exchange attacks - a day after Tehran rules out nuclear negotiations

Iran and Israel have been exchanging attacks after Tehran ruled out nuclear negotiations with US while it is facing "Israeli aggression". Reports have suggested a nuclear facility site in Iran has been "targeted". Listen to our Trump 100 podcast as you scroll.