Analysis: Who holds the cards in Trump vs. Musk? Trump, but …

It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump and Elon Musk can patch things up after their ugly break-up this week – as many around them are hoping.
But as their feud devolved into highly personal attacks on Thursday, one of the most interesting facets was this: Musk leaned in on a potential power struggle.
He didn't just criticize Trump or his agenda bill that Republicans are trying to enact; he talked about unseating Republicans who voted for that 'disgusting abomination.' He mused about forming a third party. He suggested Trump needed him – claiming Trump would have lost in 2024 without his support. He repeatedly played up X posts suggesting people would have to choose between him and Trump – and sent a not-subtle warning to those who might choose wrongly.
'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,' Musk wrote on his social media platform.
In other words: Make sure you think long and hard about what you do next, because you could live to regret it.
So assuming for the moment that this feud continues, who holds the cards?
There is no question that, if truly forced to choose, the vast majority of Republican powerbrokers would choose Trump. But it's not quite so simple.
Vice President JD Vance, after hours of somewhat conspicuous silence Thursday, eventually came down firmly in Trump's corner (in case there was any doubt) – albeit without criticizing Musk.
Other Trump allies who aren't fond of Musk and his influence seemed to seize on the opportunity to try and excommunicate him – in Steve Bannon's case, somewhat literally, as he suggested Trump should deport the South African-born Musk, who's now a US citizen.
Musk — the wealthiest man in the world — is a relative newcomer to politics, having only really joined the conservative movement less than a year ago (after the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania).
Trump, by contrast, often seems to have an almost cult-like influence over his side of the political divide, transforming the GOP into one that's much more about loyalty to him than any particular set of ideals or principles. The president often flip-flops – Musk on Thursday noted Trump was once a professed deficit hawk just like him – and the base often flips right alongside him. When Trump says something baseless or false (like that the 2020 election was stolen) much of his party internalizes it and rallies around it.
This is Trump's party, full stop.
But when it comes to how much this feud could matter, it's not quite as simple as who picks what side. Musk retains real influence, and that's why we're seeing many Republicans resist that binary choice.
A persistent rift with Musk would force Republicans to reckon with some uneasy dynamics.
Musk's overall popularity has clearly taken a hit as the Department of Government Efficiency has fallen out of favor. And he's definitely not as popular as Trump is on the right. Musk's personal politics and tech-world background always made this a somewhat uneasy marriage with Trump, and the president's agenda bill has unearthed some of those tensions.
But Musk has retained significant Republican support even as the DOGE effort has struggled. In fact, his stature eclipses most Republicans not named Trump or Vance.
An April Reuters/Ipsos poll, for instance, showed 54% of Republicans had a 'very favorable' opinion of Trump, and 50% said the same of Trump's vice president. But Musk wasn't far behind, at 43%.
He was well ahead of other Trump administration figures like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth (33%) and then-national security adviser Michael Waltz (18%).
Similarly, a more recent Marquette University Law School poll showed Musk's 'very favorable' number among all Americans (22%) coming up just shy of Trump (25%) and matching Vance. And that's even after the polling decline of DOGE.
Musk's DOGE work has also remained quite popular in GOP circles. An April New York Times/Siena College poll showed 63% of Republicans and 70% of Trump voters said they 'strongly support' the cuts made by Musk and DOGE.
The flip side is that even if Republicans really like Musk – in numbers that aren't that far from Trump's own – that doesn't mean their devotion to him is comparable. It's possible to really like two people but clearly like one of them more.
And there have been signs that Republicans don't necessarily want more of Musk.
Polling from Quinnipiac University in early April, for example, showed while 71% of Republicans said he had about the right amount of power to make decisions in the Trump administration, just 8% thought he had too little.
And all of this is before the rift with Trump. Toss on a few days or weeks of potential missives from the president, and it's likely Musk's numbers among Republicans would crater.
But that's not the same as saying a rift between these two billionaires wouldn't matter.
Musk not only has retained plenty of goodwill from Republicans of late, but he wields immense influence via his personal fortune and ownership of perhaps the preeminent social media platform for politics, X.
We've seen before that Musk can drive support for initiatives he likes and torpedo things he doesn't. He has used his control of X's moderation policies and algorithm to boost his own posts and at times silence his critics, as the Washington Post noted Thursday.
And he's proven plenty willing and able to seed unsubstantiated theories about his political opponents, as he did Thursday with his posts linking Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
Toss on top of that the wealth that Musk has proven increasingly willing to deploy on politics (i.e. potential primary challengers) and his promise to be a force for decades to come, and it's not an easy call to disown him.
We'll see if Musk and Trump intend to force that choice on the Republican Party.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Black America Web

20 minutes ago

• Black America Web

President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel

Source: HAYI / Getty After initially stating to mull the decision for a time, President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday (June 21), which has escalated the conflict to unprecedented levels. Top Democratic Party officials say that they were not briefed on President Trump's actions, and a national address from the former business mogul claimed a total annihilation of Iran's nuclear weapons production capabilities. As seen in an NBC News report, President Trump boasted of the bombing of three sites in Iran, Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, which the administration framed as the epicenter of Iran's nuclear weapons production. This comes as the two countries are locked in a long-distance skirmish that has left over 400 dead in Iran and over 24 dead in Israel. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social shortly after the attack. The move garnered praise from several GOP officials, including Speaker Mike Johnson, who stated that Congress would have taken too long to give its approval to Trump. Democratic Party Sen. John Fetterman praised Trump's actions, writing on X, 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman's stance differs from those of his party, many of whom said that they were left out of briefing talks ahead of the strikes. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman out of Kentucky, called Trump's actions 'unconstitutional' via social media. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote on X of the bombing, 'The American public is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran. And the Israeli Foreign Minister admitted yesterday that Israeli bombing had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least 2 or 3 years'. So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today? Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York shared in a statement, 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres also took to X to give a statement regarding the strikes: I am gravely alarmed by the use of force by the United States against Iran today. This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security. There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I call on Member States to de-escalate and to uphold their obligations under the @UN Charter and other rules of international law. At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. Source: Pool / Getty Late Saturday night, Trump was flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Jim Hegseth, and State Secretary Marco Rubio, praising the efforts of the military strike. 'I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they've done, and most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades,' President Trump said. On X, the reaction to the Iran bombing and the fear of retaliation cast gloom across the social media network. We've got reactions below. — Photo: Getty President Donald Trump Orders Bombing Of 3 Iran Nuclear Sites, Democrats Frozen Out From Intel was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

Chicago Tribune

25 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

What to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the US intervention

ATHENS, Greece — The United States inserted itself into Israel's war against Iran, bombing three of the Islamic Republic's key nuclear sites overnight. U.S. President Donald Trump asserted that the sites were 'completely and fully obliterated,' and warned there would be additional strikes if Iran retaliates. The U.S. strikes came after a week of open conflict between Israel and Iran, sparked by Israel's sudden barrage of attacks against Iran's nuclear and military structure. US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with IranIsraeli strikes began on June 13. Targeting Iranian military and nuclear sites, they killed several top military officials and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel, some of which penetrated the country's vaunted multi-tiered air defense system. The war so far has killed hundreds of people and wounded more than 1,000 in Iran and killed two dozen and wounded hundreds in Israel. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. But Israel views it as an existential threat and has said its military campaign is necessary to prevent Iran from building an atomic weapon. Although U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb, Trump and Israeli leaders have argued it could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The region has been on edge for the past two years as Israel seeks to annihilate the Hamas militant group, an Iranian ally, in the Gaza Strip, where war still rages after Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel. Here's what to know about the conflict between Israel and Iran, and the United States' intervention: Trump announced the overnight 'massive precision strikes' on Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites in a televised address to the nation from the White House. Describing them as 'a spectacular military success,' he said they had 'completely and fully obliterated' the nuclear sites. Iran, he said, would now have to make peace. Iran's Atomic Energy Organization confirmed the attacks, but insisted its nuclear program will not be stopped. Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. The nuclear fuel enrichment site at Fordo is buried deep beneath a mountain, and the attack against it used bunker-buster bombs designed to penetrate the ground before exploding, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. Only the United States has the 30,000-pound (13,600-kilogram) munition and the stealth bombers used to deliver them. Trump warned there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack. Iran launched a barrage of missiles against Israel overnight and into Sunday, with Israeli authorities reporting that more than 80 people were wounded, the vast majority of them lightly. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the time for diplomacy had passed and his country had the right to defend itself. 'The warmongering, a lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression,' he said in a news conference in Istanbul. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities.' How Tehran might retaliate remains unclear, but an Iranian response could mean a wave of attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East, an attempt to close a key bottleneck for global oil supplies or a dash to develop a nuclear weapon. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the United States' use of force, and called the strikes a 'dangerous escalation.' World leaders issued calls for diplomacy. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' Guterres said in a statement on X. 'I call on Member States to de-escalate.' Nations react to US strikes on Iran with many calling for diplomacyThe European Union's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, but urged restraint. 'I urge all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation,' she said in a social media post. Kallas will chair a meeting of the 27-nation bloc's foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, with the Israel-Iran war high on the agenda. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who had threatened to resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign, called on other Muslim nations to form 'one front against the Zionist-American arrogance.' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned the U.S. on Wednesday that strikes against Iran would 'result in irreparable damage for them.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.'

Associated Press

29 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Trump's big gamble in Iran is a risky moment after his pledges to keep US out of ‘stupid wars'

Follow AP's live updates on the Israel-Iran war. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump expressed certainty his big gamble to directly assist the Israelis delivered a knockout blow to Iran's nuclear program — even as many supporters and detractors alike were warning that U.S. military action could draw the United States into an expansive regional conflict. Trump, in brief remarks to the nation on Saturday evening from the White House, said the U.S. strikes 'obliterated' three critical Iranian enrichment facilities and 'the bully of the Middle East must now make peace.' But it's a risky moment for Trump, who has belittled his predecessors for tying up America in 'stupid wars' and has repeatedly said he was determined to keep the U.S. and the Middle East from another expansive conflict. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' Trump said. He added, 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' The U.S. has struggled for decades to deal with the threat posed by Iran and its proxies. Iran-backed groups carried out the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, the Beirut barracks bombing that same year and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. And Iranian-backed militias were responsible for hundreds of Americans killed during the U.S. war in Iraq. Trump took note of the long history of animus, and took credit for taking action. 'For 40 years, Iran has been saying death to America. Death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs. That was their specialty,' Trump said. 'I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.' The possibility of U.S. involvement had been building for days. Still, the strikes, which were carried out early Sunday morning in Iran, carried an element of surprise. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday had said that Trump would decide whether to move forward with U.S. strikes on Iran within two weeks. But on Saturday afternoon, commercial flight trackers identified multiple U.S. aerial refueling tankers on a path suggesting that they were accompanying aircraft from the Midwest to the Pacific, raising speculation that something was afoot. Those aircraft may have been a decoy — they were not part of the mission. Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club just after 6 p.m., and had a previously scheduled evening meeting with his national security team. Less than two hours later, the president announced the strikes had been completed. The White House posted photos of Trump in the White House Situation Room with top advisers as he monitored the strikes, wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' hat. The action by Trump immediately raised some concerns among U.S. lawmakers that the president had exceeded his authority. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., quickly posted on the social media site X: 'This is not Constitutional.' Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said on social media that Trump hit Iran without congressional authorization and lawmakers should pass a resolution he's sponsoring with Massie 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' The decision to directly involve the U.S. comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. The U.S. military used 30,000-pound bunker busters on Fordo, while U.S. submarines also participated in the attacks, launching about 30 Tomahawk land attack missiles, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States in advance that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic would 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' Trump had initially hoped that the threat of force would motivate the country's leaders to give up their nuclear program peacefully. Ultimately, Trump made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis have said their offensive had already crippled Iran's air defenses, allowing them already significantly to degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. Trump went forward with the strikes even as there is some murkiness about the U.S. intelligence community's assessment on how close Iran was to building a nuclear weapon. In March, Tulsi Gabbard, the national intelligence director, told lawmakers that it was not building a nuclear weapon and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels. Trump earlier this week dismissed the assessment, saying Gabbard was 'wrong.' 'I don't care what she said,' Trump told reporters. It's unclear if the U.S. has developed fresh intelligence since Gabbard's March testimony, but she insisted following the public pushback from Trump that the two of them were on the same page about Iran. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The U.S. in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and U.S. bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama administration-brokered agreement with Iran, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, the U.S. and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Trump decried the deal as giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behavior.