Trump vs. Musk: Clash of titans or clear mismatch?

The latter, I think.

Liberals are downright giddy about the feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. CNN host Abby Phillip didn’t try to conceal her glee last night, Scott Jennings, her house Trump-defender, was mournful.

I’ll admit that the feud has entertainment value. However, I’m not convinced it has much significance. Like him or not, Trump is the commanding figure in American politics and world affairs. Musk is a very rich gadfly.

In three election seasons (primaries and general elections), approximately 250 million people voted for Trump. No one has ever voted for Elon Musk and, if given the opportunity, few would. Musk’s political power has depended almost entirely on his relationship with Trump.

Let’s stipulate that Musk is right on the merits of their dispute. The Big Bill may not be a “disgusting abomination,” but it’s pretty bad. And Musk might well be right in his criticism of Trump’s tariff machinations.

But politics rarely depends on the merits. Whatever one thinks of the bill, the Republicans need to pass it. The GOP’s short-term future is tied to maintaining the 2017 tax cuts and giving Trump a win.

Therefore, it’s very likely that the bill, or some variation of it, will become law even with the GOP’s slim congressional margins. Unfortunately, there’s a good chance the bill that’s enacted will be even worse than the one that passed the House because of the deals Trump will have to make to see it through, given those slim margins.

What can Musk do to overturn this political dynamic? He can use his wealth to threaten Republican legislators.

But how much do these threats count for? Not much, in my opinion.

If the threat is to “primary” those who vote for the spending bill, Republican incumbents surely understand that it’s Trump, not Musk, who holds this card. Trump has determined the outcome of more than a few GOP primaries. Two or three social media posts from him would likely have more influence on the outcome of a Republican primary than all the money Musk could spend on it.

Musk overrates the importance of his money and influence in politics. Recall that Musk backed Ron DeSantis, not Trump, at the outset of the 2024 primary season. Recall, too, Musk’s expensive but unsuccessful attempt to swing the Wisconsin judicial elections in favor of the GOP.

Musk’s claim that without his money Trump would not have beaten Kamala Harris is fanciful, in my opinion. Trump defeated Harris because Americans did not want four more years of left-liberal governance and because they thought we were better governed during Trump’s four years.

Trump managed to defeat Hillary Clinton without any assistance from Musk. There’s no reason to believe he couldn’t have defeated Harris without it.

Musk might try to exact revenge on legislators who vote for the Big Bill by backing their Democratic opponents in 2026. But in the pivotal races that year, the candidates of both parties will be amply funded with or without Musk.

A billionaire like Musk or George Soros can swing a race for local office like county prosecutor. I doubt that’s the case with races that might help determine which party controls the House or the Senate.

Musk’s suggestions to the contrary echo claims by Democrats that billionaires control American elections. Even if that were true, and I don’t think it is, there will always be billionaires on both sides when the stakes are high.

Musk warns that Trump will only be president for 3.5 more years whereas he (Musk) will be a player for four more decades. I read this as an acknowledgement of the weakness of Musk’s position. He understands that Trump now holds nearly all the cards, so he invokes the long run.

But the legislators to whom he’s appealing are much more interested in the short term. In the long run, nearly all of them will join Trump on the sidelines. Their horizon may be a bit longer than Trump’s, but for most of them it’s more like 10 years than 40. And if Trump’s second term is successful, he can be influential in Republican politics after he leaves office.

Furthermore, it’s far from clear that Musk will be a player in the long run. I’ll assume that Musk will remain extraordinarily wealthy for the rest of his life, even if Trump tries to ruin him financially. But Musk seems rather unstable. According to reports, he has a drug abuse problem. If he lives 40 more years, I can easily imagine him ending up more like Howard Hughes than George Soros.

There’s also the question of Trump’s legacy. If that legacy turns out to be deemed highly positive and if Musk remains on Trump’s bad side, then Musk will be permanently discredited as a player in the Republican future.

There’s a chance, of course, that Trump’s legacy will be deemed negative. In that case, Musk might get credit for having (eventually) opposed him. It’s doubtful, though, that Democrats will embrace Musk. They, too, think he helped elect Trump. In addition, he caused what the Dems believe is great damage to America through his role in DOGE.

Republicans are also unlikely to embrace Musk even if the second Trump administration is a failure. This will be especially true if Musk is thought to have played a role in a bad 2026 midterm election.

Why, indeed, would any party or political leader want a close association with Musk, a renegade Democrat turned (apparently) renegade MAGA Republican? Sure, there will always be candidates happy to take his money, but I can’t imagine him ever replicating the relationship he had with Trump, or anything close to it.

I might be completely wrong, but it seems to me that, absent some sort of reconciliation with Trump, Musk is now a political has-been. A clash of titan, this is not.