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

The Guardian

16 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Hegseth claims US ‘obliterated' Iranian nuclear sites despite lack of assessment

The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, on Sunday repeated claims by Donald Trump that US strikes had completely destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities and its ability to acquire nuclear weapons even as the Pentagon acknowledged it was too early to provide a full damage assessment. At a news conference, Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Dan Caine, said the strikes, codenamed Operation Midnight Hammer, devastated the Iranian nuclear program. The remarks from Hegseth in particular amounted to repeated praise for Trump and the operation that targeted the nuclear enrichment sites at Natanz and Fordow, the key facility buried deep underground, and a third site at Esfahan where Iran was seen to store enriched uranium. 'It was an incredible and overwhelming success. The order we received from our commander in chief was focused,' Hegseth said wearing a blue suit and US flag motif pocket square in the Pentagon briefing room, the first time he has appeared there since becoming the secretary. 'Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,' Hegseth said. 'The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant.' According to Caine, who was seen in pictures released by the White House to have been in the Situation Room as the operation unfolded, the bombing raid involved a two-part strike package of B-2 bombers and fourth- and fifth-generation fighter jets launching from the US. The operation started around midnight on Friday, when the main contingent of bombers departed from the Whiteman air force base in Missouri and flew towards Iran, while another contingent flew in the opposite direction over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy effort. The main contingent involved seven B-2 bombers flying for 18 nonstop hours into Iranian airspace, refueling multiple times in the air, while unidentified fighter jets swept ahead of the group for possible Iranian fighter jets and surface-to-air missile threats over the nuclear sites. Caine said the Pentagon was not aware of any shots fired at the bombers as they flew into Iran and dropped the first of 14 so-called 'bunker buster' bombs, technically known as GBU-57s on the Fordow enrichment facility under the cover of darkness around 2.10am local time. After the bombers dropped the GBU-57s on Fordow and Natanz, Caine said, a navy submarine fired a series of Tomahawk missiles at the Esfahan site, as the aircraft turned around to fly back to the US. 'We are unaware of any shots fired at the Package on the way out. Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission. We retained the element of surprise,' Caine added. The actual extent of the damage in particular to Fordow, the site Trump has been most focused on destroying because of its hard-to-reach nature, was not immediately clear. Neither Hegseth nor Caine provided details beyond their initial assessment that it had been 'obliterated'. Following Trump's remarks in a televised address from the White House on Saturday night that the US could launch more attacks on Iran unless they started peace talks, Hegseth said the administration was in contact with the country's leadership through public and private channels. 'They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace – and we hope they do so,' Hegseth told reporters. 'I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites,' Hegseth added. 'We believe that will have a clear psychological impact on how they view the future.' Hegseth also said at the news conference that congressional leaders were notified about the strikes after the bombers left Iranian airspace – a decision that is sure to draw criticism from Democrats that Trump engaged in a conflict without the authorization of Congress.

Wales Online

35 minutes ago

• Wales Online

Iran update as it declares it has struck back against US bombing action

Iran update as it declares it has struck back against US bombing action The nation has been bombed by American B-2 stealth bombers that US President Donald Trump said had 'obliterated' their targets Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in January 2025 (Photo) (Image: Getty/ 2025 Contributor#8523328 ) Iran has announced it has retaliated against US military strikes on three of its nuclear facilities. The eyes of the world had been waiting to see how Iran might respond after the bombings by B-2 stealth bombers. Nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan were targeted by the Trump administration overnight. The US President said the sites had been completely 'obliterated' - although subsequent US statements have not gone this far. ‌ There has been intense speculation Iran might target US military sites in the Middle East or take other measures such as shutting off the vital shipping route the Strait of Hormuz. Reports from Reuters and elswhere this afternoon suggest action in the strait remains under discussion. ‌ But as USA warned Iran of the risks of retaliating, Iran announced that it had actually already responded. The Financial Times reports that Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian said 'powerful strikes' on Israel on Sunday morning were actually retaliation for the US activity. 'The attacks were in fact a response to the US aggressive policies, because the Zionist regime basically lacks the capacity and courage to stage attacks on the Islamic republic by itself,' Pezeshkian said at a cabinet meeting. 'The US attacks on our nuclear installations clearly showed that it was the main driver behind the Zionist regime's hostile actions against the Islamic republic." An Iranian strike hit a residential neighbourhood in Tel Aviv on Sunday morning. At least 16 people were reportedly injured. Article continues below Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. What has US military said about the US strikes on Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan? In new media briefings within the last hour, America said it 'does not seek war' with Iran. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth made the claim in the aftermath of the US attack. The mission, called Operation Midnight Hammer, involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance, Mr Hegseth and US Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference on Sunday. Article continues below Mr Hegseth said it is important to note the US strikes did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people. The words might be seen as a veiled effort to indicate to Tehran they do not want retaliation on American targets in the region. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Mr Hegseth added. Mr Caine said the aim of the operation – destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan – had been achieved. US President Donald Trump earlier claimed the facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Mr Caine said.

The Guardian

41 minutes ago

• The Guardian

Keir Starmer backs US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities

The UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, has backed the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and called on Tehran to return to negotiations. Donald Trump, the US president, announced overnight that the US had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, joining Israel's attacks. There was no UK involvement in the action. Starmer said on Sunday there was a 'risk of escalation' after the US strikes, including 'beyond the region'. He added: 'It is important that we now de-escalate the situation, stabilise the region and get the parties back around the table to negotiate.'