Musk may indeed have won Trump the election. But his Wisconsin cheesehead humiliation proved he'd lost the juice

At Waterloo, Napoleon rode to his defeat wearing the fetching forest green uniform of a light cavalry colonel and his signature bicorne chapeau. In Wisconsin, Elon Musk rocked up in a novelty cheesehead hat.
Dramatic? Okay, maybe a tad. The tech mogul's disorderly rout in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election this April, after splashing nearly $20 million on the race, was not Musk's final defeat. Even now, amid the glowing ruins of his thermonuclear exchange of views with his erstwhile bestie Donald Trump, it would be unwise to count him out.
Nevertheless, the Wisconsin debacle marked a turning point in Musk's relationship with his presidential patron. And it's crucial to understanding just how their alliance unraveled so quickly and so explosively.
Cast your mind back to the unfathomably distant past of March 19, 2020. While the world plunged headlong into disaster, Musk — having previously tweeted that "the coronavirus panic is dumb", while falsely claiming that "kids are essentially immune" — predicted that there would be "close to zero new cases in the U.S. by the end of April".
Today we know that COVID-19 ended up killing an estimated 1.2m people in the U.S. and 7.1m people across the world (maybe far more). Around the same time, Musk reportedly made a private $1m bet with the philosopher Sam Harris that U.S. COVID-19 cases would never top 35,000.
According to Harris, Musk never paid out, and the disagreement ended their friendship. "It was not long before he began maligning me on Twitter for a variety of imaginary offenses," Harris later wrote.
In this we see the seeds of Musk's next five years. His attitude to COVID-19 exemplified his willingness to tweet from the hip and spread misinformation even with millions of lives at stake. His increasingly strident opposition to lockdowns and vaccine mandates, calling the former "fascist", presaged his embrace of movement conservatism and his descent into COVID conspiracism and antivaxism. And his alleged ghosting of Harris suggested a thin-skinned reluctance to ever admitting that he's wrong.
Even so, in those days Musk was popular and admired across the political spectrum. He was the genius rocket-builder who put a sports car in orbit and made electric vehicles mainstream. He'd served as inspiration for the Marvel movies' take on Tony Stark, and graced the cover of TIME as its 2021 Person of the Year.
Some tech journalists and electric vehicle experts had a less flattering view. They'd witnessed Musk's willingness to attack his critics and pursue petty grievances; to bend the truth, pick pointless fights, and (allegedly) break the law. But these incidents don't seem to have penetrated into wider public view.
That remained the basic picture even as Musk's politics changed drastically. Piqued by his daughter Vivian Wilson's coming out as transgender, and seemingly aided by the brain-pickling effect of his favourite social network, he shifted rightward — from self-proclaimed "socialist" and centrist to redpilled crusader — and ultimately underwent a full-fat far-right radicalization.
As recently as December 2022, Musk's net approval rating among American voters was narrowly positive, with many simply not knowing enough about him to have an opinion. By mid-2024, when Musk's political shift finally brought him into alliance with Trump, his popularity was dropping slowly. Still, it stayed close to neutral through the election in November and for weeks afterwards as citizens waited to see what Trump 2.0 would bring.
All of which is to say that Musk might be right when he claims that he won Trump the election. While it's impossible to know what happened in the alternate universe (or, perhaps, the parallel simulation) where the tycoon did not intervene, there's every reason to think he made a big difference.
Obviously his money helped; with a total contribution of $291m, he was both the biggest individual donor of the 2024 election cycle and the biggest of any election since at least 2010. Yet money isn't everything.
Musk's endorsement gave permission to other tech barons to swallow their doubts or fears about Trump. Technocratic businessfolk who fancied themselves as hard-headed intellectuals, focused on excellence and competence above ordinary partisan politics — not a natural fit with Trump's governing style, to put it generously — now had one of their own tribe to help them imagine that Trump would build, build, build rather than burn, burn, burn.
It's also possible that Musk had a hand in Trump's significant gains among young men, among whom he was especially popular. His reputation as a forward-thinking intellectual and an entrepreneurial mastermind — backed up by being the literal richest person on Earth — seemed to mitigate the fear that Trump really might be an atavistic troglodyte who's bad for business as well as merely bad at it.
The strongest alliances, of course, are founded on mutual advantage. And at first it did seem like Trump had plenty to offer Musk in return: favorable regulatory treatment for his businesses, billions of dollars in government contracts, and even an influential position in government — along with, allegedly, access to millions of Americans' sensitive data.
We don't yet know exactly why their relationship soured so quickly. Although both men have offered their own explanations, they are also historically unreliable narrators. Still, early reporting suggests that Musk was progressively disgruntled by a series of decisions made by Trump that were not in his favor. Chief among them: refusing to install his pal Jared Isaacman as head of NASA, which regularly awards lucrative contracts to Musk's company SpaceX.
According to The New York Times, Trump objected to Isaacson's past donations to Democrats. However, it's hard to imagine that disqualifying him if Trump was really, truly committed. So why might Trump have been having second thoughts about his obligations to Musk?
That brings us back to Wisconsin. Beginning in January, Musk's polling began to plummet, and by the eve of the judicial election it had hit -14 percent. It turns out that while voters broadly supported the idea of DOGE, many disagreed that indiscriminately bulldozing research and aid programs practically overnight — possibly causing hundreds of thousands of extra deaths around the world — is the best way to do it.
Musk and Trump had worked so well together because they share many traits. Both have a deep-seated instinct to pick fights, and an uncanny knack for exploiting such conflicts to grow their personal brand. Both have an affinity for "big, beautiful" projects with implausibly ambitious goals. Both peddle falsehoods fluently and incessantly. Now those same qualities were coming back to bite them.
Worse, accepting the DOGE job — let alone treating it as a license to abolish government agencies by fiat rather than a mere advisory role — was always inherently dangerous. Throughout human history, leaders have protected themselves from the consequences of their actions by scapegoating then sacrificing their subordinates. Opponents too may feel safer criticising the grand vizier than the sultan. Strangely, the smartest and wisest man on the planet seems not to have anticipated this risk.
So whereas in 2024 Musk's strengths helped mitigate Trump's weaknesses, in 2025 Trump may have come to feel that Musk was dragging him down. If so, that feeling seems to have been mutual. "DOGE has just becoming the whipping boy for everything," Musk told The Washington Post last week. 'So, like, something bad would happen anywhere, and we would get blamed for it even if we had nothing to do with it."
That's without even mentioning the impact on Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle maker. Rather than delivering new riches, working with Trump has earned him the hatred of car customers across the world, prompting mass protests and a steep drop in sales. You can imagine him feeling like he'd got the raw end of the deal.
Musk, a business veteran but a political neophyte, has repeatedly claimed that his views and policies are overwhelmingly popular, often suggesting that appearance to the contrary is actually a mirage confected by the woke-industrial complex. Assuming he really believes this, Wisconsin must have been an awful shock.
Just as hardship or tragedy can expose the cracks in a marriage, electoral failure widens the contradictions of an awkward political partnership. Suddenly all those little frustrations and ideological mismatches, which have always been there but were overlooked as long as the wins kept coming, become potential dealbreakers.
So if Musk or Trump didn't have concerns before, that probably began to change at around 9:16pm local time on April 1, when the Associated Press called Wisconsin for the liberal-leaning Judge Susan Crawford.
Now here we are. One can't help suspect that this partnership could still be intact if either man had properly factored into their calculations that Elon Musk might act like Elon Musk and Donald Trump might act like Donald Trump.
But perhaps that's just proof that you and I lack the intellectual competence, the raw reasoning capability, to comprehend the complex five-dimensional chess moves that Musk has been executing all along. Masterful gambit, sir! What's next?

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

21 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Bombing Iran's Nuclear Sites Complicates Hunt for What's Left

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's decision to order US forces to attack three key Iranian nuclear installations may have sabotaged the Islamic Republic's known atomic capabilities, but it's also created a monumental new challenge to work out what's left and where. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Trump said heavily fortified sites were 'totally obliterated' late Saturday, but independent analysis has yet to verify that claim. Rather than yielding a quick win, the strikes have complicated the task of tracking uranium and ensuring Iran doesn't build a weapon, according to three people who follow the country's nuclear program. International Atomic Energy Agency monitors remain in Iran and were inspecting more than one site a day before Israel started the bombing campaign on June 13. They are still trying to assess the extent of damage, and while military action might be able to destroy Iran's declared facilities, it also provides an incentive for Iran to take its program underground. Indeed, there's just a slim possibility that the US entering the war will convince Iran to increase IAEA cooperation, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. 'The more likely scenario is that they convince Iran that cooperation and transparency don't work and that building deeper facilities and ones not declared openly is more sensible to avoid similar targeting in future,' she said. IAEA inspectors haven't been able to verify the location of the Persian Gulf country's stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium for more than a week. Iranian officials acknowledged breaking IAEA seals and moving it to an undisclosed location. The IAEA called on a cessation of hostilities in order to address the situation. Its 35-nation board will convene on Monday in Vienna, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said. Trump dispatched B-2 stealth jets laden with Massive Ordnance Penetrators, known as GBU-57 bombs, to attempt to destroy Iran's underground uranium-enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow. Satellite images taken on Sunday of Fordow and distributed by Maxar Technologies show new craters, possible collapsed tunnel entrances and holes on top of a mountain ridge. No evidence of damage to the underground enrichment halls can be seen, and IAEA inspectors reported there were no radiation releases from the site. US Air Force General Dan Caine told a news conference on Sunday that an assessment of 'final battle damage will take some time.' Before the US intervention, images showed Israeli forces alone had met with limited success four days after the bombing began. Damage to the central facility in Natanz, located 300 kilometers (186 miles) south of Tehran, was primarily limited to electricity switch yards and transformers. The US also joined in attacking the Isfahan Nuclear Technology and Research Center, located 450 kilometers south of Tehran. That was after the IAEA re-assessed the level of damage Israel had dealt to facility. Based on satellite images and communications with Iranian counterparts Isfahan appeared 'extensively damaged,' the agency wrote late on Saturday. The IAEA's central mission is to account for gram-levels of uranium around the world and to ensure it isn't used for nuclear weapons. The latest bombing now complicates tracking Iranian uranium even further, said Tariq Rauf, the former head of the IAEA's nuclear-verification policy. 'It will now be very difficult for the IAEA to establish a material balance for the nearly 9,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, especially the nearly 410 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium,' he said. Last week, inspectors had already acknowledged they'd lost track of the location of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile because Israel's ongoing military assaults are preventing its inspectors from doing their work. That uranium inventory — enough to make 10 nuclear warheads at a clandestine location — was seen at Isfahan by IAEA inspectors. But the material, which could fit in as few as 16 small containers, may have already been spirited off site. 'Questions remain as to where Iran may be storing its already enriched stocks,' Dozikova said. 'These will have almost certainly been moved to hardened and undisclosed locations, out of the way of potential Israeli or US strikes.' Far from being just static points on a map, Iran's ambitions to make the fuel needed for nuclear power plants and weapons are embedded in a heavily fortified infrastructure nationwide. Thousands of scientists and engineers work at dozens of sites. Even as military analysts await new satellite images before determining the success of Trump's mission, nuclear safeguards analysts have reached the conclusion that their work is about to become significantly harder. By bombing Iran's sites, Israel and the US haven't just disrupted the IAEA's accountancy of Iran's nuclear stockpile, they've also degraded the tools that monitors will be able to use, said Robert Kelley, who led inspections of Iraq and Libya as an IAEA director. That includes the forensic method used to detect the potential diversion of uranium. 'Now that sites have been bombed and all classes of materials have been scattered everywhere the IAEA will never again be able to use environmental sampling,' he said. 'Particles of every isotopic description have infinite half-lives for forensic purposes and it will be impossible to sort out their origin.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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

Newsweek

21 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Before and After Images Show Impact of US Strikes on Iran Nuclear Site

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New satellite imagery shows large craters and ash at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility following U.S. airstrikes that President Donald Trump said had "totally obliterated" Tehran's major nuclear sites. The Context Trump confirmed late on Saturday that the U.S. had carried out "massive precision strikes" to take out Tehran's nuclear enrichment facilities and damage its ability to make a nuclear weapon. Fordow nuclear site in central Iran on Friday, prior to U.S. strikes on the complex on Saturday afternoon U.S. time. Fordow nuclear site in central Iran on Friday, prior to U.S. strikes on the complex on Saturday afternoon U.S. time. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies A view of the exterior of Fordow, a major nuclear site in central Iran on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the facility on Saturday evening U.S. time. A view of the exterior of Fordow, a major nuclear site in central Iran on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the facility on Saturday evening U.S. time. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies What To Know The U.S. struck Fordow, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz, Trump said. The president hailed the attacks as a "spectacular military success," adding: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Experts said it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday morning that initial assessments of the operation dubbed Midnight Hammer indicated "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," but analysis was ongoing. Israel continued attacking Iran into Sunday, and Tehran launched fresh strikes on several Israeli cities. Satellite imagery published by space imagery firm Maxar on Sunday showed a number of large craters or holes at the top of the ridge, under which is the underground complex at Fordow. Ash from airstrikes covers much of the area, and several of the entrances to Fordow's tunnel network appear to be blocked with dirt, Maxar said. Images separately published by Planet Labs on Sunday also showed ash covering the area around Fordow. Fordow is built under a mountain, a facility that was secret until 2009 and Israel has been unable to destroy with its weapons. While Israel has carried out strikes on Iran's nuclear sites—including Natanz and Isfahan—since it started its campaign over a week ago, the U.S. is considered the only country able to reach the deeply buried sites like Fordow using B-2 bombers and "bunker buster" bombs. These huge bombs had never been used before in combat. A view of Fordow prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex, taken on Thursday, June 19, 2025. A view of Fordow prior to U.S. airstrikes on the underground complex, taken on Thursday, June 19, 2025. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Craters are visible and ash can be seen on the ridge at Fordow on Sunday, after U.S. strikes on the underground facility. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies Caine told the media on Sunday morning that the U.S. had used a total of 14 30,000-pound GBU-57/B bombs against two nuclear target areas in Iran. Reports had suggested at least one GBU-57/B was fired on Natanz. A U.S. submarine launched more than 2 dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine said. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two "bunker buster" bombs at Fordow, the chairman said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire any shots at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. Caine said full damage assessments were still pending, but that "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction." The U.S. "achieved destruction of capabilities" at Fordow, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said. What People Are Saying U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking alongside General Dan Caine on Sunday, said, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." What Happens Next Trump has threatened further strikes on Iran if Tehran does not negotiate a deal, while the country's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi called the American attacks "outrageous," promising "everlasting consequences."

Yahoo

26 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices 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