The red Tesla is still parked inside the White House grounds, but the once-close relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has now publicly collapsed.
Within just a few days, their disagreement evolved from a dispute over the tax reform bill into a dramatic and all-encompassing confrontation.
On June 5 (local time), Trump broke his silence and told reporters he was “very disappointed” in Musk. At the same time, Musk responded on X in real-time: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”
Immediately afterward, Musk called for Trump’s impeachment and threatened to halt SpaceX’s spacecraft launches. Trump retorted, saying “He’s gone mad,” and threatened to terminate the multi-billion-dollar business deals between the U.S. government and Musk’s companies.
Thus, the two fell out over Trump’s heavily promoted “Big and Beautiful” tax reform bill.
Trump attributed Musk’s dissatisfaction to a provision in the bill that canceled tax credits for electric vehicles. From Musk’s perspective, Trump’s withdrawal of the nomination of his ally, Isaacman, to lead NASA made him even more furious.
From opposition to support, from deep cooperation to complete fallout—the widely anticipated rift between the two has shaken U.S. politics and triggered market volatility. On June 5, Tesla’s stock plummeted over 14%, evaporating $153 billion in market value.
Since the beginning of this year, Tesla’s stock has been continuously declining due to Musk’s political stance and other factors. Following the steep drop on the 5th, its total decline for the year reached 29.5%. Previously, in support of Trump’s campaign, Musk had poured nearly $300 million into it, making him one of the largest presidential campaign donors in U.S. history.
But this “political investment” has turned into a value drain.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the cap on individual and corporate donations to political action committees in 2010, “Super PACs” have emerged, increasing the influence of money on American politics.
Lu Xiang, an American affairs expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told Sanlihe that even among factions, the interests of donors are not always aligned. While there are overlaps, there are also divergences, leading to greater uncertainty and division in American society.
Within the logic of money-driven American politics, “donors pay, politicians repay” is no secret. In the 19th century, the “spoils system,” where winning parties awarded government posts to supporters, bred widespread corruption. The phenomenon of individuals rotating between government and private sectors for personal gain has intensified. Politicians using policy to funnel benefits to donors has become increasingly frequent.
From ExxonMobil and Rockefeller to Mark Zuckerberg, all have tried to influence U.S. policymaking through donations and lobbying. Thus, transactions of power and money are not an invention of the Trump administration, but a foundational logic embedded in the U.S. political ecosystem.
During the Biden administration, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin served on Raytheon’s board, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken provided policy consulting for Boeing.
In Trump’s second term, Musk frequently visited the White House and attended cabinet meetings. The head of the Office of Government Efficiency was seen as Musk’s “dividend,” allowing him to openly secure benefits for his companies.
But unlike previous “behind-the-scenes operations,” Musk this time chose to air the conflict publicly, throwing the political script into chaos. Now, Tesla’s government subsidies may be reduced, and the bond of interests between entrepreneurs and politicians is facing rupture.
JPMorgan analyst Brinkman stated that the “Big and Beautiful” act and other proposed legislation, once enacted, could swallow more than half of Tesla’s 2025 profits.
With the amplification of social media, what was supposed to be a high-level power struggle quickly became a full-blown online spectacle.
“In the age of self-media, unpredictable and impulsive elements are more prevalent. When all parties voice their opinions without deep consideration, it may increase policy uncertainty and lead to more chaos,” Lu Xiang noted.
From a sharp decline in market value to policy setbacks and fierce confrontations in public opinion, the fallout between Musk and Trump continues to ripple outward—impacting not only individual destinies, but also the prioritization of policy agendas, the trust in political mechanisms, and even the institutional credibility of “American democracy.”
After the storm, is there still room for reconciliation between Musk and Trump, whose interests are bound together by money and power?
Time will tell.
But in this era where politics increasingly becomes a “traffic-driven game,” even reconciliation may simply mark the beginning of another power play.