Musk turns on Trump, and GOP spending can't hide behind DOGE
Musk seems frustrated that Republicans used him in their charade to balance the federal budget, frustrated that Trump used him for his own end. But he really should be frustrated that he was so gullible - because he should have seen all of this coming.
Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming?
I'm frustrated that this is the only thing receiving attention, considering the amount of work that needs to be done with the budget.
Republicans used Elon Musk as a political smokescreen
Whether Musk genuinely believed himself when he promised to cut $2 trillion (before quickly tempering that estimate) is up for debate. If he did believe it, he was entirely naive about both the current state of the Republican Party and our federal government.
Republicans thought they could use Musk as a political win and distraction, allowing him to claw back government spending through the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, while congressional Republicans authorized massive deficit increases.
Even after accounting for the economic growth that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would stimulate, it's projected to add $2.4 trillion (yes, with a T) to the federal deficit over the next decade. This figure stands as a mountain next to the small pile of $2 billion (yes, with a B) worth of verifiable budget cuts from DOGE.
All the while, Republicans and Trump sang Musk's praises, knowing that they would turn around and spend money that we don't have.
But Musk should have realized it was all a show. Trump skyrocketed the deficit in his first presidency, and every promise he's ever given for a balanced budget has been a lie. As much as MAGA likes to claim otherwise, Trump's GOP is no different than the swamp creatures they like to criticize.
Opinion: Elon Musk is frustrated with Republicans wasting DOGE's effort to cut. So am I.
Those who are actually interested in cutting government spending, which I think Musk at least somewhat seems to be, should not attach the idea to political parties because they will inevitably disappoint.
There hasn't been a genuine effort to produce a balanced budget since the late 1990s, and there isn't likely to be from either Republicans or Democrats anytime soon.
Trump and Musk have too big personalities to work together
I'm not the least bit surprised that these two narcissists' relationship flamed out so quickly.
There was never enough room in Trump's White House for both his and Musk's personalities. Trump has never maintained an extended relationship with somebody who is willing to disagree with him publicly.
During his first term, Trump had extremely high personnel turnover rates, both among his Cabinet and his aides. Trump's "you're fired" catchphrase really says a lot about his approach to relationships. He is quick to turn on people who disagree with him or even just publicly embarrass him.
Musk has been loudly advocating against Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" for its impact on the deficit. After a week of Musk criticizing the deficit spending in Trump's bill, the president has clearly had enough. He cannot tolerate a dissenting voice from within his ranks.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
Trump and the GOP are now likely to kick a powerful ally to the curb, all because Trump is so vain that he cannot handle differing opinions. This is why the Republican Party is now made up of yes-men, because they have allowed Trump to push all the spine that he can out of the party.
Now that the sideshow of Musk is gone, Republicans have one less thing to hide behind. I'm not sure that makes it any more likely they'll act responsibly, but at least it's more transparent to Americans now.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
33 minutes ago
- NBC News
Republican party divisions emerge following U.S. strikes on Iran
Divisions are showing among Republican lawmakers following President Trump's decision to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky denounced the decision and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia also spoke out. Trump maintained support from lawmakers, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict
When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Washington tells Trump after Iran strikes: No more ‘forever war'
The trauma of America's post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was evident in Washington on Sunday as Americans reckoned with the implications of Donald Trump's decision to launch strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Across the political spectrum, varying factions unified under the banner of opposition to the kind of nation-building ground assault that defined America's two wars launched by the Bush administration. It is the only area of agreement between a faction of progressives and pro-Trump paleoconservatives who opposed the U.S. becoming involved in what up until now had been an Israeli military campaign and their opponents, a waning neoconservative faction in Washington which has called for further escalation in the form of strikes against other facilities and targeted assassinations of Iranian political and military leadership. Sunday morning, the Trump administration publicly leaned towards the former group. Three top administration officials, Trump's vice president, Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, spoke to journalists and urged Iranian leaders to choose against responding to the U.S. strike. Pledging that the U.S. was not seeking to topple Iran's government, the trio left open an off-ramp as Vance claimed: 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' But both Democrats and Republican opponents of military force against Iran were smarting after Saturday night's attacks, and many cast doubt on the U.S.'s ability to avoid what Senator Jim Risch, one of the administration's defenders, said would be another 'forever war'. A number of Democrats urged more of their party to sign on to a resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers. The resolution's lone Republican supporter, Rep. Thomas Massie, called on his party to do the same while condemning the influence of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, in a pair of interviews. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER,' wrote Trump on Truth Social, in a lengthy post against Massie. But for Democrats, the bombing of Iran represented an issue where common ground could be found. 'This is a defining moment for the Democratic party. We need to stand against war with Iran,' warned one of the resolution's co-sponsors, Rep. Ro Khanna. Rep. Adam Smith, one of the party's more centrist members who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, released a lengthy statement on Saturday for Trump's refusal to seek congressional authorization for the strikes. He also warned against the kind of Iraq-style intervention he once supported: 'The path that the President has chosen risks unleashing a wider war in the region that is both incredibly unpredictable and treacherous.' The effort to rein in Trump's military powers gained Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's support on Saturday as well. A strong supporter of Israel, Schumer nonetheless accused the administration of making 'erratic threats' and having 'no strategy'. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now increased,' added the Senate Democratic leader. On the right, conservative supporters of the president who opposed Israel's sudden military strikes — which occurred during the first U.S-Iran talks in years — were furious and worried about the future of the White House's domestic agenda. Former congressman Matt Gaetz, speaking with . Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on his OANN show, accused Israel of seeking 'regime change' in Iran. He also tore into the Netanyahu government, accusing the prime minister of trying to avoid his own electoral defeat by getting the U.S. involved in his war and attacked Israel over the alleged existence of its own nuclear weapons program. Steve Bannon, writing on Gettr, derided Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for claiming Sunday that the U.S. still sought peace with Iran. 'Guys, please run this by [Benjamin] Netanyahu,' he quipped. Curt Mills, executive director of the American Conservative, warned that it was now going to be extremely difficult for Trump to back the U.S. out of what it had started. 'Goal posts. Instantly moved,' Mills wrote as he reacted to calls for further strikes reportedly made on Israeli media. 'They're going to keep asking Trump to do much more, forever, until he or another American president Says No.' 'The goal posts will be moved until morale collapses,' he added: 'Every drop of juice is squeezed from Trump's political capital.' Even those who defended the administration's involvement in the Israeli military campaign were hesitant to endorse the kind of foreign military footprint that America sustained during the so-called War on Terror. Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised the president's 'decisive action' in his own statement after previously writing in May that the administration should insist on 'full dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program', including civilian enrichment, during now-scuttled negotiations. 'This is Israel's war not our war,' the senator said. 'This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.'
