Elon Musk trades threats with Trump: What it could mean for SpaceX, Starship in Texas

When President Donald Trump took office in January, he began offering plenty of signs that his goals for U.S. spaceflight aligned closely with those of billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk.
Now those goals, which included making reaching Mars during Trump's second term a top priority, appear to be up in the air with the increasingly volatile fallout between two of the world's most powerful men.
As insults have turned to threats, Trump has suggested he'd hit Musk where it could hurt most: His wallet. Musk's SpaceX has spent years positioning itself at the center of American civil and military spaceflight – a profitable relationship that has made the company's founder incredibly wealthy.
In response, Musk has floated – and then retracted – the idea of decommissioning a SpaceX vehicle critical to NASA's spaceflight program.
Serious threats, or empty words? That remains to be seen as Musk and Trump reportedly consider a détente.
In the meantime, here's what to know about what's at stake if the U.S. government's relationship with SpaceX were to crumble:
U.S. spaceflight: Dozens of NASA space missions could be axed under Trump's budget
The feud between Trump and his former top adviser escalated in a dramatic fashion when the president threatened to cut off the taxpayer dollars that have fueled Elon Musk's businesses, including SpaceX.
"The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump said in a post on his social media platform. "I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!"
In all, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits, a Washington Post analysis found.
With SpaceX as the fulcrum of much of the U.S. government's spaceflight programs, parting ways with the commercial company would leave a void that would be hard to fill. But NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens said in a post on social media site X that 'NASA will continue to execute upon the President's vision for the future of space.'
'We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President's objectives in space are met,' Stevens wrote.
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, founded SpaceX, in 2002.
In July 2024, Musk announced his intentions to move his company, as well as social media platform X's headquarters, from California to Texas. The move was in response to his personal frustrations over a public school policy in California regarding transgender students.
Now, the commercial spaceflight company is headquartered at Starbase in South Texas about 180 miles south of Corpus Christi. The site, which is where SpaceX has been conducting routine flight tests of its 400-foot megarocket known as Starship, was recently voted by residents to become its own city.
SpaceX conducts many of its own rocket launches, most using the Falcon 9 rocket, from both California and Florida. That includes a regular cadence of deliveries of Starlink internet satellites into orbit, and occasional privately-funded commercial crewed missions on the Dragon.
The most recent of SpaceX's private human spaceflights, a mission known as Fram2, took place in April. SpaceX was also famously involved in funding and operating the headline-grabbing Polaris Dawn crewed commercial mission in September 2024.
SpaceX benefits from billions of dollars in contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense by providing launch services for classified satellites and other payloads.
Gwynne Shotwell, CEO of SpaceX, has said the company has about $22 billion in government contracts, according to Reuters. The vast majority of that, about $15 billion, is derived from NASA.
SpaceX's famous two-stage Falcon 9 rocket ‒ one of the world's most active ‒ is routinely the rocket of choice to get many NASA missions off the ground. For instance, the rocket is due in the days ahead to help propel a four-person crew of private astronauts to the International Space Station for a venture with NASA known as Axiom Mission 4.
NASA also has plans to use SpaceX's Starship in its Artemis lunar missions to ferry astronauts aboard the Orion capsule from orbit to the moon's surface. The rocket, which is in development, has yet to reach orbit in any of its nine flight tests beginning in April 2023.
SpaceX's Dragon capsule is also a famous vehicle that is widely used for a variety of spaceflights. The capsule, which sits atop the Falcon 9 for launches to orbit, is capable of transporting both NASA astronauts and cargo to the space station.
Under NASA's commercial crew program, the U.S. space agency has been paying SpaceX for years to conduct routine spaceflights to the International Space Station using the company's own launch vehicles.
The first of SpaceX's Crew missions ferrying astronauts to the orbital outpost on the Dragon began in 2020, with the tenth and most recent contingent reaching the station in March for about a six-month stay. Standing nearly 27 feet tall and about 13 feet wide, Dragon capsules can carry up to seven astronauts into orbit, though most of SpaceX's Crew missions feature a crew of four.
The Dragon spacecraft also was the vehicle NASA selected to bring home the two NASA astronauts who rode the doomed Boeing Starliner capsule to the space station in June 2024. Certifying the Starliner capsule for operation would give NASA a second vehicle in addition to Dragon for regular spaceflights to orbit.
Because Boeing is still developing its Starliner capsule, Dragon is the only U.S. vehicle capable of carrying astronauts to and from the space station. It's also one of four vehicles contracted to transport cargo and other supplies to the orbital laboratory.
For that reason, Musk's threat Thursday, June 5 to decommission the Dragon "immediately" would be a severe blow to NASA if he were to follow through on it. Musk, though, appears to already be backing off on the suggestion, which he made in response to Trump's own threats.
In response to a user who advised Musk to "Cool off and take a step back for a couple days," Musk replied: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.'
Seven astronauts are aboard the International Space Station, including three Americans. Four of the astronauts rode a SpaceX Dragon to the station for a mission known as Crew-10, while the remaining three launched on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft.
Contributing: Joey Garrison, Josh Meyer, USA TODAY; Reuters
Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: SpaceX at center of Trump, Musk feud: What that could mean for Texas

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

26 minutes ago

• The Hill

Okinawa marks 80 years since end of one of harshest WWII battles with pledge to share tragic history

TOKYO (AP) — Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island. With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today. The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year U.S. occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date. Monday's memorial comes one day after U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan. Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations.' U.S. troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan. The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military. Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under U.S. occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan. Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.' His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history. The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die. Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows. Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa.' Okinawa remained under U.S. occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The U.S. military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East. Private properties were confiscated to build U.S. bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry. Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan. There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879. Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6% of Japanese land, hosts 70% of U.S. military facilities. Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy U.S. presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said. Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded U.S. bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a U.S. military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers. Remains of hundreds of war dead are still unrecovered on Okinawa, as the government's search and identification effort is slow to make progress.

USA Today

32 minutes ago

• USA Today

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

New York Post

33 minutes ago

• New York Post

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

The LA County Sheriff's Department has deleted a social media post calling the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities 'tragic' after being dragged online. 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' the department wrote on X Sunday in a now-deleted post. 'While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners.' 4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deleted the X post following backlash. @LASDHQ/X The post sparked immediate outrage and was allegedly updated to exclude the part sending condolences to 'the victims and families' and calling the US military airstrikes 'tragic.' Moments later, it was ultimately deleted from the platform, according to independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok. However, before being yanked for good, the post garnered a massive outcry of responses, bashing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the insensitive and inaccurate post. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked. There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites,' replied the American advocacy group Stop Antisemitism. 'Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff's HQ.' 'It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages when our brave men and women are risking their lives to protect our country,' wrote another outraged X user. 4 Satellite image shows a close-up view of destroyed buildings at Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, after it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS 'That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated to find out what drove them to write these messages.' 'This is the CRAZIEST reaction to President Trump delivering MONUMENTAL devastation to Iran's nuclear sites,' another person wrote. While another agreed with the outrage, adding, 'Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace. Shame on him!' 4 A man who asked not to be identified holds an Iranian and an upside-down American flag while people gather for a 'No War with Iran x Israel and Immigrants' on June 7, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images 4 LA County Sheriff's deputies arrest a protester after unlawful assembly was declared following a 'No Kings' national rally against the Trump administration in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In response to the backlash over the post, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office released a statement 'apologizing' for the 'offensive and inappropriate' post late Sunday. 'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department's social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the statement reads. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department. As a law enforcement agency, we do not comment on foreign policy or military matters. Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities.' The department acknowledged that it had 'updated' the social media post and has 'launched an internal review to determine how it was created and published.' 'Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols and ensure that any future communications align with our Department's standards of professionalism, respect, and accountability,' the department added. 'We appreciate the continued trust of our community and will work diligently to reaffirm that trust every day.' The Post has reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for comment.