Elon Musk’s Feud with Trump Mask Reveals the Consequences of Unregulated Money in Politics

Elon Musk has remarked on the loud and public nature of money’s role in American politics, pointing out that it’s typically a quieter affair.

“Without me, Trump would lose the election, the Democrats would control the House, and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. That kind of dissatisfaction,” he stated on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump.

When right-wing commentator Laura Rumer mentioned Capitol Hill Republicans debating their allies in the intraparty conflict, Musk hinted at the extent of his influence. “Ah, food for thought, as they consider this: Trump has 3.5 years left as president, but I’m over 40 years old…” Musk wrote on X.

US billionaires frequently wield significant influence in politics, using their wealth to sway government actions. However, few have been as overt and impactful as Musk in the past year, demonstrating the transactions and dysfunction within US governance.

The Trump Judicial War offers a united snapshot of American politics. As the world’s richest individual, Musk has played a notable role in a new governmental initiative targeting the dismantling of unfavorable agencies after financially backing his preferred candidates.

We find ourselves amidst a clash between a billionaire president and an even wealthier Republican donor, both vying over how to reduce aid to the impoverished. As one satirical website observed: “Yeah! These billionaires are arguing over how much money they can siphon from the poor.”

Fifteen years ago, the US Supreme Court determined that corporations and outside groups could spend unlimited amounts on elections, leading to a ruling by Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy:

Since then, it has become clear that such wealth injections are undermining democracy. Musk’s actions exemplify the already soaring levels of money’s influence in politics, with reports indicating he spent nearly $300 million to support Trump in 2024. We are now witnessing a government dominated by billionaires.

“Fifteen years post-decision, we observe the full consequences of living in a society where not just elections are for sale, but the entire government structure is for sale,” he told Bluwork earlier this year.

Musk is not alone in this arena. During election cycles, ultra-wealthy donors frequently fund candidates of their choice. This has become the standard landscape in current American politics across both parties. Bernie Sanders challenged the Democrats at last year’s convention, stating, “Billionaires in both parties cannot buy elections, even primaries.”

Earlier this year, Musk invested heavily in Wisconsin’s judicial elections but lost to a Democratic opponent. He also donated a smaller amount to Republicans seeking to oppose a judge who resisted the Trump administration. Despite an inconsistent success record, his financial threats remain significant for both parties.

However, due to his unelected status, Musk has been somewhat restricted in his ability to block Trump’s key spending bill. Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” didn’t meet Musk’s stringent expectations for budget cuts or support, and once the administration ceased to fulfill his wishes, he publicly expressed his discontent.

This reflects the volatile alliance between Trump and Musk, which began with mutual affection and a central role for billionaires during Trump’s administration. The fact that Musk has such sway over the budget process is troubling. Trump indicated that Musk was aware of the bill’s contents, suggesting that the administration sought his approval before any public fallout.

Musk has adopted a bold approach to political spending, which is rare among the ultra-wealthy, who generally let their financial contributions do the talking. A charitable expert previously noted to the Guardian that Musk’s distinctiveness lies in his “permanent discretion as a mode of political engagement.”

Now, Musk rallies his followers on X to sway Congress and halt the bill. This could prove effective as Republican lawmakers grapple with the ideological pressures of a president and a mega-donor known for his vindictive tendencies.

Within right-wing media, these conflicts have created divisions. At Breitbart, one commentator remarked that Trump “pokes a finger in the eyes of his biggest donor and it never ends well.” Another piece in American Spectator claimed Musk hadn’t picked Trump. However, the Washington Examiner praised Musk’s opposition to the bill, suggesting that Trump’s budget plan “deserves to fail.”

“I don’t care if Elon disagrees with me, but he should have voiced that a few months ago,” Trump said as he wrapped up a series of critiques targeting Musk. The president also remarked that Musk had “lost his nerve” during a recent television interview.

So far, Republican figures have rallied behind Trump, with JD Vance proclaiming, “President Trump has done more than anyone else in my lifetime to gain the movement’s trust.”

If Musk ultimately falters, he could take his wealth and seek influence elsewhere. He has floated the idea of forming a third political party, a notion that has failed in the past, but his financial clout and forceful personality might invigorate this endeavor. The Democrats already rely heavily on wealthy benefactors and would welcome a potential shift from Musk. Democratic Representative Ro Khanna proposed that the party should reach out to him.

Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and encourages the left to embrace economic populism, faced significant backlash from his party for his comments but stood by them.

“If Biden criticized a major supporter, Trump would have embraced him the next day,” he posted on X.