If there was anyone who could rival Donald Trump for press coverage, it is Elon Musk.
The most recent issue of TIME magazine is a good case in point, in which the worldâs richest man is pictured on the front cover behind the resolution desk in the White House. It features a deep dive into Muskâs âwarâ on the bureaucrats in Washington, DC, explaining how ongoing efforts to reshape Americaâs federal bureaucracy is qualitatively different from previous efforts. It details how the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has now been legally christened as a temporary working organisation under the former Department of Digital Services, which has been rebranded as the Department of DOGE services. This piece of bureaucratic jiu-jitsu is important because temporary organisations are exempt from many federal laws.
The TIME article, as well as a flood of lawsuits and legal injunctions, are a sign that the antibodies in Washington are starting to get to work. In the last few days, one of the outside experts brought in by Musk was forced to resign, as journalists discovered a long history of racist social media posts. To put it bluntly, a story like that is mostly an indication of how eagerly the Washington machinery would like to see these DOGE figures all go.
So, will they? So far, Elon Musk has proved more survivable than many people thought. Trump has stood by him too, dismissing the TIME cover out of hand. But other factions of the greater MAGA coalition already despise him â including, most prominently, Steve Bannon, who Musk called a âgreat talker but not a great doerâ â and his fortunes are clearly very tied to the success or failure of DOGE itself. The problem Musk faces is not just that what he is doing is despised by federal employees, who certainly donât appreciate it when outsiders come in and try to change things. It is also, in all likelihood, quite illegal, and even unconstitutional.
Ironically, it was a front cover on TIME that forced Bannon out of the White House during Trumpâs first term. And while Musk may be serving as a useful foil for Trump by sucking up any incoming negative press coverage, the legal pitfalls that DOGE faces could upend the whole project. Indeed DOGEâs effort to exert control over the Governmentâs payment systems might very well contradict Article 1 of the United States constitution itself. It is Congress which is supposed to decide where the money will go, not the President, and certainly not outside billionaires who are riddled with conflicts of interest vis-a-vis the federal government.
In a recent interview for the New York Times, Steve Bannon himself had some harsh words for Musk, painting a picture of âBroligarchsâ and real populists fighting for the soul of the MAGA movement. But Bannon also had some advice for Musk: if youâre going to make big budget cuts, you ought to start with the defence budget. That, in Bannonâs own words, would be a real way to demonstrate some âsincerityâ; to show that the talk about fixing the broken system in Washington wasnât all just talk.
Of course, cutting defence spending is where the rubber will meet the road for the MAGA coalition, something Bannon himself is very well aware of. Musk has deep ties to the US defence industry â he is, after all, one of the US governmentâs most prolific contractors â and making cuts to defence would also infuriate the more old guard Republican parts of Trumpâs political coalition. But therein lies the crux of the issue: the MAGA coalition is inherently unstable, and it is home to political forces which now coexist in what is, at best, a marriage of convenience.
Once you start significantly cutting the budget, those tensions can no longer be avoided. Trump campaigned on a promise to not cut social security or medicare, but that promise is likely impossible to keep, given the budget situation. Musk may very well become the convenient point-man for those kinds of unpalatable cuts, which could turn him into a scapegoat.
There is of course another big risk to Muskâs political future. Trump is notoriously intolerant of people who try to outshine him or hog the spotlight, something which contributed significantly to Steve Bannonâs own fall from grace during the first administration. Today, Elon Musk is meeting with world leaders and giving speeches at party conferences, clearly relishing his newfound status as a political wunderkind. As long as times are good, as long as DOGE can project an aura of success, Musk will continue to soar. What will happen when the times turn bad is another matter; if or when that happens, Muskâs fall might turn out to be as rapid as Bannonâs.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is all just speculative nonsense. Ending with a homily on “Musk’s fall” and comparing it with Bannon’s ignores the small matter of Musk’s billions, his tech industrial base. What did Bannon have, apart from a media profile?
There’s four years to go and clearly much water will pass under the bridge. If commentators like this author are to retain their sanity, they’ll need to take a longer-term view than evidenced in this article. DOGE has way to go, but Musk’s business empire will still be going strong for decades to come.
The author is talking about a political fall for Elon Musk. Nothing to do with business.
I know that, jeez… but the point i’m making is in relative terms between Musk and Bannon’s profiles. Musk has already had a greater political impact than Bannon, therefore anything that happens from hereon in just doesn’t bear comparison, and the wider point is the author’s entirely premature analysis.
It’s to be hoped, after reading many comments from individuals on Unherd, some thought might be given beyond such a narrow interpretation of my comment.
As the author points out, Steve Bannon had an important job in the White House during Donald Trump’s first term, but was forced out. The author suggests that Elon Musk may be forced out of his job in the White House too, for similar reasons. It’s an apt comparison of the political arcs of the two men.
And I agree with the author that Elon Musk too may suffer a political fall (figuratively, unlike Mitch McConnell’s recent literal fall). I give Elon Musk no more than a month, or maybe two, before he’s gone, either by choice or by kick. Elon Musk does not, as a kindergarten teacher would say, play well with others. We will all be better off when he’s gone.
Good point. Bannon, like him or hate him, is politically astute. Musk isn’t.
Agree, although looking at X and Tesla as just two of his companies Musk’s foray into politics isn’t helping some of his assets. He may no longer care as he may feel he’s got his hands on a far more advantageous control of resources – the direction of Govt money. But if/when his position with Trump ends he may well have toxified his own brands in a classic example of hubris.
San Bankman-Fried had billions too, and was for a short while a political wunderkind. Where is he?
Sam Bankman-Fried and Elon Musk are nothing alike.
Maybe not, but they are equally repulsive.
The MSM, as a proxy for the Democratic Party machine, are desperate to damage Orange Man and Rocket Man. Who benefits?
The World?
TDS is (not so) subtle in this one…
There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of what the DOGE people were doing with the Treasury payment system. They had and currently have no ability to control payments. They are doing an audit, reviewing what payment were made to whom and the like. An audit of sorts.
There’s nothing in the least illegal or unconstitutional about that. Treasury is part of the executive branch, under the control of Donald Trump. He has every right to authorize an audit of its payments.
I do agree with the criticism of Elon Musk. Maybe USAID should be shut down, and maybe the president has the right to do that. It’s fine to start that process and let it play out.
But it’s not fine to send in shock troops to gut everything and destroy an agency before objections can be raised. It might be legal, and it might be a fait accompli at this point, but it’s not fair. Elon Musk can do that, and does, with companies he owns (which I despise him personally for), but he doesn’t own our country. Shame on him.
Whether he tires of the game and leaves, or whether he gets pushed out, one way or another, I don’t think Elon Musk will last another month, or two at the outside. Susie Wiles has had about enough of him, and that should count a lot.
My guess is that the Trump Administration will argue the Foreign Affairs and Reform Act of 1998 is an unconstitutional transfer of authority from the Executive to the Legislative Branch.
Being Technocrats, the Party of perpetually expanding government set up an infinite number procedural booby traps to block an Executive from reigning in the Administrative State.
Why do we call them Executive agencies if the Executive if the Legislative Branch has ultimate authority?
But…USAID has been revealed as a front for (at the very least) money laundering for deep State Intel activities and covert promotion of political ideologies…
Additionally, have a look at the US deficit.
As Churchill stated “Action this day!”
Really? I have seen that assertion made in tweets and comments. I have seen no evidence presented. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are throwing around wild accusations for why USAID has to be shut down immediately. They need to make their case to Congress, and more importantly, to the American people.
“…I have seen no evidence presented…”
You need to get out more.
EDIT: Latest news indicates Congress spent $516B(!) on programs with expired authorizations, some dating back over 40 years.
Don’t believe me?
Primary news source here :
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60580
Can you point me to the evidence that the USAID is a front for money laundering for deep state intel activities and covert promotion of political ideologies?
Go to the Wikipedia page and look under the controversy section and “Political Operations Abroad.”
Thanks for the reference but there’s nothing about money laundering there. Just a ragbag of a few rumors and accusations about minor things that happened decades ago, like a seminar that might have been improperly political.
It was a dual purpose organization. Even the people that support it admit that. The goal was increasing America’s “soft power.”
My original response to you that cited the 1998 congressional authorization act got blocked.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending former USAID Samantha Power and her husband Cass (“Nudge”) Sunstein and their soft power and subtle shoves philosophies. I’m against it. But Congress voted for it and Donald Trump doesn’t have the power to veto it.
But it’s a shame you’re getting blocked. I have been the last two days too. Makes it hard to carry on a discussion.
AP Investigation into ZunZuneo in Cuba (2014) and USAID’s own “Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG)” Strategy Document.
These are both primary sources.
I assume you have access to a search engine.
Do keep up.
On your first point – maybe CB, but needed a Court order to state they cannot change any source codes. And the Court order only came about because that’s what appears to have been attempted.
Leftists have been trying to drive a wedge between the two forever. Boring, boring, predictable stuff. The far-left magazine, âTimeâ, is trying to push Trumpâs buttons, as Trump and Musk would have no doubt discussed.
Boring predictable stuff for sure, but it is highly likely to work.
Funny today to see what happened about this. Donald Trump in his meeting with the Japanese prime minister was asked about Elon Musk’s Time cover and was clearly not thrilled about it.
REPORTER: âMr. President, do you have a reaction to the newest Time magazine cover that has Elon Musk sitting behind your Resolute desk?â
DONALD TRUMP: “No.” (looking at the floor)
The translator never got a chance to translate this one-word answer because as soon as she translated the question and before she translated the answer, he added this: “Is Time magazine still in business? I didn’t even know that.”
But not to worry, Donald Trump. A few hours before that Elon Musk had posted a tweet on X that said, touchingly (I guess), “I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.”
At a press conference with the Japanese prime minister later that day, reporter Peter Doocy mentioned Elon Musk’s tweet and asked Donald Trump: “What does the First Lady think about that?” He answered, “âOh, I think sheâll be okay with it, somehow.â
It all sounds pretty gay to me.
If ever I need a concise example of why I say Musk is the creepiest guy on the planet, the X tweet referred to above should do.
I’m sure ‘Leftists’ (whoever they might be) will welcome such a wedge, but they haven’t needed to drive it. It got v personal and visceral between Bannon and Musk and they did that all themselves.
And whether Time being mischievous or not Musk not exactly working away quietly and competently in the background is he – c200 X posts yesterday. Obviously he’s a team doing that for him, but not indicative of a fella trying to keep a low profile.
DOGE’s aura of success? Certainly the ‘spin’ is well ahead of the facts thus far. Anyone keeping up with the detail can see it’s running into significant problems and a ‘resistance’ initially cowed is being energised by DOGE incompetence. And this before, as Author crucially notes, Musk takes on Defence spending. Actually this is an area where the ‘bullying’ techniques of Trump & Musk could make a v significant positive difference, but that assumes some basic competency and Congressional support. Elon may be a great innovator and Businessman but he’s showing little grasp of the political coalition he’d need to build to take on Defence industry interests. Or perhaps he’s no real intention of that because it’s the hand that feeds him too?
The primary problem for the Trump/Musk project is that whilst breaking stuff isn’t too difficult constructing and rebuilding is. Breaking stuff can be done fairly quickly but shortly afterwards ‘events’ start to happen. Something doesn’t get done anymore that has a consequence for people. Folks then look for who is to blame.
Musk may last longer whilst Trump’s personal finances less secure. And he may use his money to neutralise some Republicans. No love for Bannon at all but on this he’s right. It’s personal and they are just waiting. It’s coming.
No.
Except that Musk wouldnât take his fall lying down. He would do everything he could to bring Trump down with him.
I’d pay to see that!
This article I simply don’t get. The author makes a few slurs, tosses in a few facts, a few fibs, some big words to paste a veneer of sophistication – and out pops an article. A waste of precious time. It didn’t need to be written, and it didn’t need to be read.
This article is par for the course with Malcolm Kyeyune. Not one of UnHerdâs âAâ team.
Snore âŠUnherd there are thousands of sub stackers who have interesting and useful perspectives.