Can Trump Arbitrarily Take Money From Anyone's Bank Account?

Nathan Tankus publishes the Notes on the Crises newsletter.
In my last column in Rolling Stone 37 days ago, I explained that the constitutional crisis that Elon Musk and Donald Trump set off by refusing to spend what Congress ordered the executive branch to spend — a process known legally as 'impoundment' — had taken an 'inconceivably more dangerous' turn. That turn was the incursion by Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) into the Bureau of Fiscal Service, a previously obscure part of the United States Treasury which processes payments on behalf of the federal government. The alarm over this incursion was created by the resignation of the highest ranking civil servant, Fiscal Assistant Secretary David Lebryk, a Treasury employee since 1989.
This key forgotten payments intermediary, the arteries of our government's fiscal system, was in danger of being used to impound congressionally appropriated funds without even having to take over government agencies. Worse, Musks' lackeys could accidentally damage or destroy Bureau of Fiscal Service systems in the attempt to control them.
Since that time there has been some good news but a lot of bad news. The good news is the alarmed reporting I did in my newsletter Notes on the Crises, along with Wired's monumental reporting as well as Talking Points Memo's coverage, seemed to have been effective. We all identified 25-year-old DOGE employee and former SpaceX employee Marko Elez as the one accessing Bureau of Fiscal Service systems and at various points that week rebutted shifting claims that he merely had 'read-only' access to BFS systems or that 'read-only' access was remotely acceptable. Elez resigned the Thursday after my initial Rolling Stone article under the official story that his history of racist social media posts had made his position untenable. He was rehired to DOGE the next day and seems to be onto other sensitive systems as of this writing.
While DOGE has backed off on installing its programmers because of court injunctions and public blowback, it is still working to directly use control of the Treasury's payment system to pursue impoundment. In fact, it appears that payments level impoundment had already briefly been in effect before I had even published my February 3 Rolling Stone column. Meanwhile, court documents litigating an injunction over DOGE's access to the Bureau of Fiscal Service explosively revealed that using the payments system to impound funds and second guess agencies had already gone further and faster than I thought it could. And Musk's ally from DOGE, Thomas Krause, has been made acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary — taking David Lebryk's job. So while the worst case scenarios have been put off the table and a court injunction is in place, we remain in the midst of a supercharged constitutional crisis.
What I am revealing now, and in even more technical detail in my simultaneously published article in my newsletter, is that a previously reported incident from a month ago has far more profound implications for what I have been calling the 'Trump-Musk Treasury Payments Crisis' than has been understood by the public at large. Indeed, we can now simply call it the 'Trump-Musk Payments Crisis.'
On February 11, 2025, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), an agency housed in the Department of Homeland Security, removed $80.5 million from New York City's main bank account, which is an account with Citibank. Well, that's not exactly accurate. They 'debited,' the financial way of referring to 'subtracting,' New York City's 'central treasury account' for $80.5 million. According to public statements by Brad Lander, New York City's comptroller, this could only be covered by a line of credit facility to the tune of $79.5 million. In short they, in essence, sent New York City's main bank account to negative $79.5 million to rescind routine funding appropriated by Congress to house refugees. Citibank kindly agreed to forgive the overdraft fee.
On February 18, a FEMA-branded letter authored by Cameron Hamilton, a person described in the letter as a 'Senior Official Performing the Duties of the [FEMA] Administrator,' was sent to New York City government. The letter explained that the money was 'clawed back' because of a range of claims about illegal activity which The New York Post alleged took place in the hotels the city paid to put Venezuelan refugees in. I can't really communicate to readers what this letter reads like, so I will simply quote an important paragraph to provide the flavor.
The letter expresses 'significant concerns' that FEMA 'funding is going to entities engaged in or facilitating illegal activities. For example, a substantial portion of your award goes to funding alien housing at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City. According to media reports, the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren De Aragua has taken over the hotel and is using it as a recruiting center and base of operations to plan a variety of crimes. According to these same reports, these crimes include gun and drug sales as well as sex trafficking, which can reasonably be presumed to be conducted in the hotel itself. One of the groups responsible for these activities refer to themselves as 'diablos de la 42,' which means the devils of 42nd St., a street near where the Roosevelt Hotel is located. DHS/FEMA has a responsibility to ensure that it does not make payments that fund criminal activity.'
This justification for denying congressionally appropriated funds is extremely legally dubious. This justification for 'reversing' the disbursement of already disbursed funds is far beyond legally dubious. It brings up profound and basic issues about the functioning of our society. In a number of ways, the most important element of this story is that it was clearly instigated by Elon Musk.
At 5:00 a.m. the day before the FEMA payments were 'clawed back' by FEMA, Elon Musk tweeted: 'The @DOGE team just discovered that FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants. Sending this money violated the law and is in gross insubordination to the President's executive order. That money is meant for American disaster relief and instead is being spent on high end hotels for illegals! A clawback demand will be made today to recoup those funds.'
It does not take much of a leap in logic to draw a direct line between this 'clawback' to Elon Musk. I have been extremely busy with other reporting, but once I had finished that reporting (and neared the finish line on other work), I began investigating the rescission of congressionally appropriated funds directly from New York City's bank account.
I devoted so much time to this story because of the full implications it immediately brings to mind to any payments system expert. This is not simply about FEMA's actions toward New York City's bank accounts or even about large-scale payments system level impoundment. This story is about the truly electrifying and terrifying question: Can the Trump administration arbitrarily take money from anyone for any reason using control of the payments system? If it can't, what exactly are the current limits to what the Trump administration can do and how easy is it to break those limits?
To understand why this case brings up such dramatic and mind-boggling questions, readers must understand some things about the payments system they use every day without thinking about it. If you have ever gotten a direct deposit of pay, or really anything else, you have used a system called the Automatic Clearing House system or 'ACH.' Social Security payments are ACH payments, as are payments to medical providers. For older readers, if you look at your checkbook you will see an 'ACH number' on your checks. Really, it would be easier to list what aren't ACH payments than what are.
When you make a credit card payment, technically speaking what you are doing is authorizing the credit card company to send an ACH 'debit' to your bank account. This debit subtracts the money and when the payment clears, the credit card company 'credits' your credit card account and lowers your credit card balance (which is a type of debt). In other words, what is subtracted from your credit card debt is what they subtracted from your bank account. Your assets and liabilities go down by the same amount (except for interest payments and fees of course).
The rules for ACH are mainly determined by 'National Automated Clearing House Association' (NACHA, now 'Nacha'). The actual payments infrastructure is run by the 12 Federal Reserve Banks along with 'The Clearing House,' a clearinghouse originally set up by large New York banks all the way back in 1853.
The Automated Clearing House payment system is one of the foundational building blocks of all payments made in our society. Nearly every payment you make is either an ACH payment or it relies indirectly on accurate and timely ACH payments. Furthermore, any institution you rely on directly or indirectly relies on accurate and timely ACH payments to function properly. If the reliability of Automatic Clearing House payments were to be permanently or indefinitely degraded in a crucial manner, it would fundamentally threaten your access to basic social services, and even privately produced and distributed goods and services. To explain why, we have to understand a fundamental, yet neglected, area of law called 'payment finality.'
The idea of 'payment finality' is deceptively basic. What it refers to is the point at which a transaction is concluded by full and satisfactory payment. Contracts, for example, are a relationship between two parties. Those parties have a contract relationship for as long as the contract is outstanding. If I hire you to build me a cabinet, we are in a contractual relationship until you deliver a finished cabinet and I deliver your payment in full. If we meet at a street intersection and you deliver me the cabinet, once you receive final payment the transaction is complete.But what is the 'final payment'? For many centuries physical money was the dominant mode of 'arm's length' payment so final payment was when physical money was handed over and safely in the possession of the recipient or 'payee.' In fact, as York University law professor Benjamin Geva points out in his 2011 book The Payment Order of Antiquity and the Middle Ages: A Legal History, this is a common definition of money in legal history. Money is that object, or system, that you can make final payment with.
Consequently what defined physical objects as 'currency' was that they could be proffered as final payment. The idea of final payment is easier with physical items that you hand over, which becomes property of the recipient once you hand it over. Unfortunately, we no longer live in the world of cash. We live in the world of accounts.
In the world of accounts, a disturbing question hangs over us: When is a payment truly final? Or as famous New York philosophers Yogi Berra and Lenny Kravitz might say, 'It ain't over til' it's over.' If, in theory, my account can always be subtracted from — if my account can always be 'debited' — is a transaction ever really final? When there is an 'operational' possibility the government, or any key actor in the payments system, can simply debit accounts payment, 'finality' always has a hanging thread of doubt. Under our current technological and administrative arrangements, the only protection against this possibility is a layer of laws and norms which constrain — even asphyxiate — this distressing prospect. In other words, we socially and legally construct payment finality as 'truth.' Yet, the fabric of these social and legal constructions are far more fragile than most people imagine.
Which brings me back to ACH. Given the complexity, and relative obscurity, of this area of law and the immense amount of reporting and research I already had to do for this story, I decided to commission a full-length legal memo on the 'Federal Government Use of the Automated Clearing House System.' The attorney I commissioned, Ashley Burke, did an excellent job and I have uploaded 'Notes on the Crises Legal Memorandum No. 1' to my website to make it widely available and free to anyone who is in need of detailed legal analysis in this suddenly crucial area of law. Ashley is, of course, not responsible for any of the claims I make in this article and can't attest to the accuracy or reliability of my reporting. Nor can her memo be construed as legal advice.
You can read more about the details her memo helped me in summarizing in my longer Notes on the Crises piece. Unfortunately, my longer piece, and Ashley's memo can be summarized in one dispiriting sentence: There is nothing in payments law that provides a clear or unambiguous check on the Trump administration's actions if they decide to weaponize the federal government's legal authority over the ACH system.
It is hard to explain how explosive degrading — let alone destroying — the legal reliability of payment finality is. Mark Flood, a research scholar at the Center for Financial Policy at University of Maryland with two decades of financial regulatory & policy experience in Federal Government tells me: 'Uncertainty about payment finality has the potential to degrade insidiously the performance of the financial system. If there is generally a non-zero chance that even settled payments might be reversed, then the most liquid of assets (cash balances) could lose reliability and therefore value: $1 of 'cash in the bank' may no longer be regarded as worth $1.'
Along similar lines, a former Federal Reserve Lawyer tells me: 'Our monetary system depends on a strong concept of payment finality. Exceptions must be reserved for only truly extraordinary cases.'
'From what I understand of the facts of this case,' the lawyer continues, referring to the reversal of routine FEMA payments that had fulfilled congressional appropriations, 'this is not an extraordinary situation. Reversing of final payments, in a stable financial system, should never be in the ordinary course of business.' The Trump administration debiting New York City's account without notice for reasons of Presidential priorities rather than an actual erroneous or duplicate payments IS, of course, extraordinary
These quotes may read as subtle to many lay readers. I can tell you that to payment experts — hell, as a payments expert — these quotes make our eyes widen with alarm. Part of what I have been trying to accomplish with my reporting these past six weeks is to serve as a translator for the panic many experts truly feel, but do not feel at liberty to express openly.
So if the bank-based payment system or payments law does not provide constraints, are there others? At first glance, it might seem like there are. Administrative agencies can't just decide to debit accounts. They have to get payment reversals or separate debit transactions certified at a central point. Readers of Notes on the Crises or my previous Rolling Stone article are already dreading what they correctly suspect is coming next. The body that certifies debit transactions is… the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. With DOGE's Thomas Krause as Fiscal Assistant Secretary, it is unlikely, to say the least, that the Bureau of the Fiscal Service will be blocking such requests from agencies. (If you are a current or former Bureau of the Fiscal service employee familiar with the situation, please get into contact.)
A current Bureau of the Fiscal Service employee, when told about the circumstances in this case, replies that 'who makes the decision [at BFS] to reverse [ACH payments] probably just bows to the king [Trump].'
A former BFS employee tells me: 'The circumstances you describe from the FEMA-New York situation sound highly unusual. Payment finality except in extraordinary and clearly-defined circumstances [is] critical to a functioning and credible payment system. Once a payment is finalized, agencies would normally need to use legal remedies outside the disbursement process to seek recovery of improper payments.'
That last sentence is a key point. The objection here is not to using any legal mechanism to retrieve an 'improper' payment. It's to the use of the 'payments mechanism' as a general-purpose tool, as opposed to the conventional legal avenues.
From my vantage point, it doesn't seem like the New York City government is pursuing this issue in the manner required by its eye-popping seriousness. Reasons for this could include fear of a larger confrontation with the Trump administration or specific fear that the Trump administration would revive Biden-era federal corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams that Trump's Justice Department caused a firestorm by seeking to drop, but with the possibility of refiling. Paul Clement, a legal expert and former solicitor general under George W. Bush, has advised federal District Judge Dale E. Ho in Adams' case that he should permanently dismiss the charges so they do not hang over Mayor Adams like 'the proverbial Sword of Damocles.'It is thus very important to these circumstances that the New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is an independently elected official who can advocate for the city's interests, as well as the American people's interests more generally, separately from Mayor Eric Adams. Brad Lander has put out public statements in the last month openly stating that his advocacy regarding the recovery of funds has compelled 'reversals' of New York City government's decisions in this matter and led to the city filing suit over Trump's 'money grab.'
Chloe Chik, spokesperson for the New York City Comptroller, says, 'While we cannot comment on the specifics due to ongoing litigation, as the city's chief financial officer, the comptroller's office has accounting oversight of the city's ledgers, including city bank account activities. Because of our role in monitoring the city's cash balances, the comptroller's office was able to uncover the overdraft associated with the $80.5m clawback.'
The comptroller's office and its legal counsel are involved in the New York City lawsuit, but do not have final say over it. The intragovernmental conflict over this case in New York City concerns me because I worry that the most foundational legal issues in this case may not be resolved, or even seriously litigated, in the city's lawsuit over this matter. See my newsletter for more details on the New York City government angle to this story.
One of the reasons this story has been so difficult to report and has taken as long as it has is that it has been extremely difficult to find sources willing to be quoted, or really even vaguely characterized. My February 3 articles in Rolling Stone and in my newsletter invoked a great deal of alarm but because of the policy implications rather than people's personal safety. Former and current Bureau of the Fiscal Service employees were willing to give many anonymous quotes that I published that week. The circle of people who truly understand these payment issues is smaller, more prominent, more risk-averse and have far greater informed alarm.
Payments law is a kind of 'source code' for all other parts of law. As we've seen in the tidal wave of litigation over the first 51 days of the second Trump administration, the Trump administration's actions have violated a multitude of laws and generated a gigantic constitutional crisis over the seizure of Congress' power of the purse by the presidency. Yet, this crisis remains unresolved, because court injunctions move far slower than a fast moving and imperial presidency. Courts can't 'unspill' spilled milk. Injunctive relief is OK at stopping things, it's far, far worse at stopping things before they happen. Using the Treasury's intragovernmental payments system to do impoundment creates an extremely dangerous crisis and opens up the possibility of using the payments system to subordinate the Judiciary.
The possibilities I've laid out in this article are somehow even more dangerous than using the payments system to impound congressionally appropriated spending. As I was finalizing this article Wednesday afternoon, the news broke that Citibank — in a separate case — had made a court filing providing evidence that the FBI had demanded that it freeze bank accounts associated with an Environmental Protection Administration grant program, including a New York state government bank account.
The pattern across my previous reporting, my current reporting, the reporting of others and this late-breaking FBI-EPA-Citibank situation suggest that the Trump administration is testing the waters in order to gain far greater control of the United States entire payments infrastructure — control great enough to bend Donald Trump and Elon Musk's enemies to their will at a speed far faster than courts could ever conceivably contain.
We are entering waters beyond the scale of constitutional crises and nearly every expert in this shallow pool feels ill-equipped to speak about it publicly for a variety of reasons. I'm having trouble imagining circumstances more dangerous.
More from Rolling Stone
Trump Trashes E.U., Threatens Massive Tariff on Alcohol
Kimmel Jokes Trump's Feud With Rosie O'Donnell Is Longer Than His With Matt Damon
Trump Nominee Was a Central Character in Collective Meme Stock Delusion
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

an hour ago

• USA Today

Should you buy Tesla stock while it's below $350?

At the start of this year, Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) had a share price of $428, but as CEO Elon Musk spent more and more time working for the Trump administration running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and less time at his automotive company, Tesla's stock began faltering. It's regained some momentum since Musk left Washington and returned his attention to Tesla, but the EV stock is still down about 20% this year, with a price per share of $325 as of June 16. The recent pullback likely has some investors wondering whether now is a good time to buy Tesla. Here's a quick comparison of the company's pros and cons — and why it's probably best to hold off on buying the stock right now. Pros: Robotics and AVs could be huge Musk often sets lofty goals for his companies that can sometimes seem (or are) outlandish. While Tesla can often miss deadlines for launches, there's no denying the company has succeeded in the electric vehicle market when most were saying it would fail. That's why when Musk says Tesla's future is in robotics and autonomous vehicles, you should probably take him seriously. And there's plenty of money to be made from both. Analysts from Morgan Stanley believe the humanoid robot market could be worth $5 trillion by 2035. Musk believes Tesla could grab 10% market share, and it's well on its way toward being a key player, with the goal of producing 5,000 of its Optimus bots this year and 50,000 next year. Will it miss that goal? Probably. But the deadline isn't the point; it's that Tesla is moving steadily toward its robotics future. This leads us to autonomous vehicles (AVs). Tesla was supposed to launch its Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas, this month, only to delay the launch. While it's easy to dismiss this as another Tesla deadline blunder, the bigger picture is that Tesla wants to both build its own autonomous vehicles and allow Tesla owners to rent out their vehicles for AV services. Tesla is betting that its EVs will be able to tap into this massive $2 trillion (by 2030). While it's behind some competitors, namely Alphabet's Waymo, it's not a ridiculous thought that the leading EV company in the U.S. could carve out a niche in the still-nascent AV market as well. Cons: Falling vehicle sales, unproven markets and lack of focus Despite Tesla's potential, serious concerns remain. First, Tesla is stumbling when it comes to its core business: selling electric vehicles. Automotive revenue tumbled 20% in the first quarter of 2025, and net income plunged 71% to just $0.12 per share. The most likely reason was the significant brand damage done when Musk took a position at DOGE and aligning himself with some ideas that didn't sit well with existing and potential customers. It's difficult to predict if Tesla can rebuild its brand or how long it might take. That's obviously not good for sales or its stock price. Additionally, its tarnished brand has occurred at a time when sales of EVs are stalling in the U.S. amid tariff concerns, rising prices and a lack of EV charging infrastructure. What's more, rising EV competition abroad is chipping away at Tesla's dominance in foreign electric vehicle sales. Competitors like China-based BYD are outpacing Tesla in multiple markets, especially China. If all of that weren't enough, Tesla betting its future on robotics and AVs is a bit of a gamble. These are two largely unproven markets, and there's no guarantee that even if Tesla succeeds in building the right technology, demand for its humanoid bots or self-driving cars will be there. The verdict: Take a wait-and-see approach If you're on the fence about buying Tesla, I think it's better to wait to see how the company's autonomous vehicle plans and robotics opportunities unfold. What's more, the Tesla brand needs some polishing, and Musk needs to prove he can focus on his company rather than politics. Vehicle sales need to rebound, net income needs to grow, and Musk has to show he can stay focused on one thing at time before I'd feel comfortable buying Tesla stock right now. That doesn't mean it won't succeed at its AV and robotics ambitions, but the company has a lot to prove at the moment. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Chris Neiger has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends BYD Company. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Offer from the Motley Fool: Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you joinStock Advisor, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon. See the 3 stocks »

6 hours ago

As Musk's 'robotaxi' rollout approaches, Democratic lawmakers in Texas try to throw up a roadblock

NEW YORK -- A group of Democratic lawmakers in Texas is asking Elon Musk to delay the planned rollout of driverless 'robotaxis' in the state this weekend to assure that the vehicles are safe. In a letter, seven state legislators asked Tesla to wait until September when a new law takes effect that will require several checks before autonomous vehicles can be deployed without a human in the driver's seat. Tesla is slated to begin testing a dozen of what it calls robotaxis for paying customers on Sunday in a limited area of Austin, Texas. 'We are formally requesting that Tesla delay autonomous robotaxi operations until the new law takes effect on September 1, 2025,' the letter from Wednesday, June 18, reads. 'We believe this is in the best interest of both public safety and building public trust in Tesla's operations.' It's not clear if the letter will have much impact. Republicans have been a dominant majority in the Texas Legislature for more than 20 years. State lawmakers and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott have generally embraced Musk and the jobs and investment he has brought to Texas, from his SpaceX rocket program on the coast, to his Tesla factory in Austin. The company, which is headquartered in Austin, did not responded immediately to a request for comment from The Associated Press. The law will require companies to secure approval from the state motor vehicles department to operate autonomous cars with passengers. That approval, in turn, would depend on sufficient proof that the cars won't pose a high risk to others if the self-driving system breaks down, among other reassurances. Companies would also have to file detailed plans for how first responders should handle the cars if there is a problem, such as an accident. The letter asked Tesla to assure the legislators it has met all the requirements of the law even if it decides to go ahead with the test run this weekend. The letter was earlier reported by Reuters. Musk has made the robotaxi program a priority at Tesla and a failure would likely be highly damaging to the company's stock, which has already tumbled 20% this year. Musk's political views and his affiliation with the Trump administration have drastically reduced sales of Tesla, particularly in Europe, where Musk's endorsement of Germany's far-right Alternative for Germany party in February's election drew broad condemnation. Tesla shares bottomed out in March and have rebounded somewhat in recent months. Much of the rise reflects optimism that robotaxis will not only be deployed without a hitch, but that the service will quickly expand to other cities and eventually dominate the self-driving cab business. Rival Waymo is already picking up passengers in Austin and several other cities, and recently boasted of surpassing 10 million paid rides. In afternoon trading Friday, Tesla shares were largely unchanged at $320.

Yahoo

12 hours ago

• Yahoo

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@ This article originally appeared on Corpus Christi Caller Times: SpaceX at center of Trump, Musk feud: What that could mean for Texas