Elon Musk recently took to X to denounce Trump’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” as a “disgusting abomination.” This sharp rebuke came mere days after Musk’s seemingly amicable departure from his informal position within the Trump administration as a “special government employee” heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Trump fired back on his own platform, Truth Social, claiming he “asked [Musk] to leave” and claimed Musk “just went crazy” when he revoked the Biden-era electric vehicle mandate that his company, Tesla, had benefited from. He then threatened to terminate Musk’s federal contracts and subsidies, but Musk doubled down, launching a barrage of further posts vilifying Trump and his bill, even claiming that Trump was mentioned in the ever-elusive Epstein documents.
This development exposes a deeper truth within the political landscape in which elite “outsiders” vie for crony access, exercising their influence (usually in the form of colossal campaign contributions and lobbying efforts) to gain favorable outcomes for themselves and their ventures—even a more “libertarian” elite like Musk.
The Trump-Musk fallout also exposes the interplay between political “insiders” and “outsiders,” both of which make self-interested decisions—outsiders like Musk, through contributions given and policy initiatives advocated for, and insiders like Trump through contributions received and policy initiatives implemented.
Analyzing their political breakup through the lens of special interests and crony privileges reveals the true nature of the relationship between so-called “elites” and the state. While Musk may have largely had good (and maybe even libertarian) intentions, his efforts were in vain.
Musk’s Fallout
There are a number of reasons for Musk’s departure from his position, some stated outright and some reported by White House insiders. All of these points tie into the privilege-driven nature of the relationship between the two and the lack of agreement on the direction of the administration—Musk more focused on cutting waste and Trump now pivoting to a more heavy-handed, protectionist approach and a spending bill expected to further sink the US government into debt.
Trump’s legislation, if passed, would cut the electric vehicle tax credit that essentially subsidizes companies like Musk’s Tesla by incentivizing the purchase of EVs. Musk’s company—having spent upwards of $240,000 on lobbying to maintain the credit—would be hurt by the inclusion of this measure that would force the company to further compete on their own merits.
Additionally, Musk’s “special government employee” status was limited to 130 days. However, he allegedly expressed a desire to maintain his role beyond the legally-mandated limit—demonstrating his thirst for continued influence on the direction and policy of the administration.
Musk also purportedly wished to secure a contract with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to implement his Starlink satellite system for conducting air traffic control. This would all but ensure the indefinite success of his company in an environment without competitors—a clear crony privilege.
Finally, Musk was said to have been displeased when Trump withdrew his nomination of Jared Isaacman—a close ally of Musk’s—to head NASA (a convenient ally to have as head of SpaceX, NASA’s greatest competitor).
These efforts highlight the tendency of “elites” like Musk to seek further influence not through successful entrepreneurial efforts, rather through the so-called “political means”—in this case by dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the campaign of an official who he hoped would implement policy favorable to his ventures and grant him a position of power in the administration—yes, even if that position was aimed at slashing government waste.
Trump, too, benefited greatly from Musk’s campaign contributions. Thus, the relationship was simple: I help you get elected, and you help me with favorable business policies and a position in the administration. This seemed to be the case—until it wasn’t. This is nothing new. “Great men” like Musk have always attempted to gain a competitive edge by securing favor with the political class. Patrick Newman states:
Special-interest legislation is inherent in the very nature of government… Unlike the Invisible Hand of the market, individuals that control the coercive Visible Hand are encouraged to pass legislation that benefits them at the expense of others. The stronger the government, the more lucrative the rewards. To control the government machinery is to control the levers of cronyism.
This is the essence of cronyism—and the essence of the relationship between Trump and Musk. With Musk’s ambitions thwarted, Trump is pivoting in a markedly despotic direction.
Trump’s “Pragmatic” Political Approach
Trump is not truly an idealogue—he shifts around regularly depending on a variety of factors, namely, loyalty and optics. With hefty, unmet promises from Musk’s DOGE to cut government waste and a rapidly-shifting international stage, Musk was easily cast aside by the Trump administration. But other players are eager to fill those powerful, expensive shoes.
Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” shoots off in a less fiscally responsible direction compared to the waste-reducing efforts of DOGE. His “new coalition” is built around this bill and its contents—which is expected to drastically increase the federal deficit—as well as key allies such as other tech-billionaire-crony Peter Thiel.
As Musk steps away to rally and appeal to the comparatively more liberty-oriented Republican faction, Trump is settling into neoconservative territory—pursuing protectionism and establishing American dominance on the world stage. If his spending bill does make it past Congress, he will have solidified the legacy of his second administration as one by no means friendly to libertarian ideals.
Musk Never Could Save Us
While Musk and DOGE seemed promising for the more optimistic libertarian camp at the start of Trump’s second term, the entrenched bureaucratic hurdles rendered the department largely ineffective. Having initially aimed at $2 trillion in savings, to date only around $180 billion in savings have been reported (with evidence-backed estimates suggesting significantly lower figures). Musk’s failure to meet these promises, even if we assume he had good intentions, should teach libertarians a valuable lesson—one that Rothbard warned against: the nature of the state dooms even benevolence to failure.
Relying on pseudo-libertarians like Musk to make meaningful changes through the apparatus of the state is a strategy unlikely to result in anything resembling the free society libertarians dream of. While efforts of this kind can result in swings in the right direction, they cannot penetrate from the top down to the core mechanisms that enable state power to continue to grow. Libertarians would do well not to forget this lesson should they wish to secure real, lasting freedoms.