Trump vs. Musk: Should we laugh or weep?

When you know a couple getting divorced, you might face a dilemma as to whose side to take. Such is not the case in the bitter public breakup between President Trump and Elon Musk. It is easy to say, “A plague on both your houses.”

The verbal fisticuffs between the world’s wealthiest and the most powerful social media moguls is amusing but delivers nothing of substance to the American people.

The brickbats flew when Musk called Trump’s “big beautiful” tax bill a “disgusting abomination,” urging Congress to “KILL the BILL.” Then Musk rhetorically polled his flock on X as to whether it was time to found a new political party representing the 80 percent of Americans “in the middle.”

Trump responded on his Truth Social that “Elon was ‘wearing thin’. I asked him to leave… and he just went CRAZY!” Trump in fact didn’t fire Musk — Musk termed out, reaching the maximum number of days he could serve as a “special government employee.”

Trump’s response was measured: “I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress.”

The budget bill would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, grow the debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Despite Trump’s exaggerations, he cannot extend tax cuts and impose inflationary tariffs without causing slower growth and higher interest rates (in the process increasing the cost of debt service). There is also the clear and present danger that the escalating debt will trigger a cataclysmic financial crisis. And his beautiful bill leaves almost 11 million Americans without health insurance over the next decade.

Musk endorsed a tweet suggesting that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President JD Vance, then attacked Trump’s most beloved issue: “The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year.” The nonpartisan Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development essentially agrees that the tariffs are inflationary and will throttle growth.

Musk also dropped a stink bomb: “Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,” referring to the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself in a federal prison while facing charges of sex trafficking.

The derisive comments represented a stunning turnabout. Less than a week before, Trump gave Musk a key to the White House as an expression of gratitude for his work with the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE.

What brought it all on? Trump said Musk was “upset” that the pending legislation would roll back subsidies for electric vehicles. Musk denied he was even aware of it. While the game may be afoot between the men in the arena, there is more to this lovers’ quarrel. The rift involves political risks for both sides. Trump aides promptly reached out to Musk in an effort to deescalate the conflict. There are now signs of an uneasy truce, even though Trump says he has no desire to mend the rift. Musk’s posts about Epstein and possible impeachment were deleted, but who knows whether the cease-fire will hold.

Before we start dancing and singing, “Ding Dong, the witch is dead,” it is important to remember that certain salient features of the Trump-Musk regime remain. DOGE post-Musk is still with us, and it has not saved money while doing lasting damage. Nor has it created efficiency — it has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

The Trump-Musk budget (which Musk has now repudiated) cuts research funding to the bone — steps that would make the country less healthy and leave the field to China. For the past 80 years, the federal government has supported scientific research as a national engine of innovation. Support of basic research by the National Institute of Health has accomplished spectacular advances and makes critical contributions to the economy.

For fiscal 2025, the total NIH budget is $48 billion, which may not even be fully awarded; the Trump budget for 2026 proposes to chop it by 44 percent to $27 billion. Meanwhile, China has nearly caught up to us in biotechnology and already conducts more clinical trials than the U.S. and Europe combined. Trump has terminated NIH grants before their scheduled end dates, with an inexplicably heavy bias against infectious disease and vaccine research — not to mention his war on our universities, with total termination at Harvard and freezes at Columbia, Brown and Northwestern.

The Trump-Musk divorce is a reminder of indefensible policies, not a harbinger of good news. We will still witness (subject to eventual court rulings) Trump’s revenge on law firms he doesn’t like, arbitrary firings of civil servants and agency officials, and reciprocal tariffs based on specious claims of “national emergency.”

The poster child of the Trump-Musk legacy is the shuttering of USAID, a soft power success for 80 years that won hearts and minds for America globally.

Pete Hegseth is still running amok in the Department of Defense, compromising national security with insecure communications of classified material and dismissing seasoned officers because of race, gender or alleged political disloyalty. Kristi Noem’s Department of Homeland Security is still illegally deporting individuals without notice, hearing or hard evidence of undesirability. And Pam Bondi’s Justice Department will continue to arrest judges, recommend pardons for the criminal faithful and dismiss strong cases against corrupt politicians.

Much of what Trump has done is obviously illegal, but we will have to see if the courts stand up to him or water down their rulings to avoid a constitutional crisis. But legalities aside, is any of this sound policy?

The Trump-Musk spat may be amusing, but, as Lord Byron wrote, “And if I laugh at any mortal thing, ’Tis that I may not weep.”

James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York’s Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.