Tag: Elon Musk

A looming battle of wits—and perhaps of ballots—between the world’s richest man and the most powerful political leader promises to be epic. Elon Musk, the technology and aerospace titan, has drawn a clear battle line against President Donald Trump, the 47th president of the United States and head of the global hegemon.

Friends Turned Foes.

During the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Musk poured vast resources into Trump’s successful comeback bid. Yet barely a year later the pair stand at daggers drawn. Trump’s sweeping domestic agenda—dubbed the “Big Beautiful Bill”—has alienated several former allies, none more vocal than Musk. Their falling-out undercuts the old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Trump, it seems, will not dance to anyone else’s music, except deliver on his campaign promise.

What the Super-Rich Do With Their Fortunes.

Before unpacking the Musk–Trump feud, it is worth recalling how previous holders of the “world’s wealthiest” title chose to deploy their fortunes.

• Bill Gates

Co-founder of Microsoft; World’s Richest Man (1995–2007, 2009, 2014–17)

Gates, now 69, has pledged to give away US $200 billion before 2045 through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, focusing on global health, education, and climate initiatives.

• Warren Buffett

CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; World’s Richest Man (2008)

Buffett, 94, has vowed to donate 99 % of his wealth, primarily via the Gates Foundation and a family-run charitable trust, leaving “just enough”—about US $2 billion each—to his three children. His philosophy:

“Parents should leave their children enough so they can do anything, but not enough that they can do nothing.”

• Elon Musk

CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, X (Twitter), and Starlink; World’s Richest Man since 2021.

After Tesla’s meteoric rise pushed his net worth above US $200 billion, Musk briefly ceded the top spot to Bernard Arnault in 2022 but soon reclaimed it. Now, at 54, the South-African-born entrepreneur is threatening to pour his fortune into founding a new U.S. political party—a direct strike at the Republican–Democratic duopoly—to unseat Trump in 2028. The catalyst: Trump’s signing of the Big Beautiful Bill on 4 July, America’s 249th Independence Day, a legislation Musk argues would stifle technological innovation and space exploration where he plays a prominent role.

From Philanthropy to Power Plays.

While Gates and Buffett channel their billions into philanthropy, Musk appears ready to wield his wealth as a political weapon. If he follows through, the clash between Musk’s cash and Trump’s incumbency could reshape the American—and global—political landscape.

Stay tuned: the richest man on earth and the most powerful politician alive are set for a showdown that may redefine how extreme wealth translates into political power.

As a fallout of his disagreement with President Trump’s domestic policies—particularly on taxation—Elon Musk made a bold declaration on Twitter the following day (Saturday). He revealed that he had polled his followers on whether to form a new political party to challenge President Trump and stated:

“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party, and you shall have it!”

Musk’s announcement about launching what he calls the “America Party”—while stunning and unprecedented in the history of U.S. political evolution—is not entirely unexpected. This is especially so, considering the rapid deterioration of the once-unlikely alliance formed last year between then–Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Musk, the billionaire founder of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), and Starlink.

The unusual partnership had a clear objective: to unseat then-President Joe Biden and block Vice President Kamala Harris from ascending further. Both Musk and Trump shared a common enemy but had different motivations. Trump believed that Biden had stolen his 2020 mandate, when he was declared the loser of the presidential contest in 2019 and Biden the winner,while Musk was driven by a deep resentment of what he saw as the Democratic Party’s excessive embrace of “wokeness”—a term he equated with liberal overreach and cultural decay.

Musk’s antagonism toward Biden and the Democratic Party is deeply personal. In 2022, a U.S. court granted his child, Xavier Alexander Musk, legal rights to transition from male to female and adopt the name Vivian Jenna Wilson, effectively disowning Musk. This family conflict, in Musk’s view, was a byproduct of what he labels a “woke” culture, which he blames on Democratic leadership.

With such a powerful convergence of animosity, it wasn’t difficult to see how Trump’s political capital and Musk’s financial muscle could combine to defeat the Biden/Harris ticket in the 2024 election. And they did—Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025.

Having achieved their shared objectives—Trump’s reinstatement and the rollback of progressive policies including gender-identity recognition—one might have expected a continued alliance. Especially after Trump declared that only two genders—male and female—would henceforth be recognized by U.S. law, aligning with Musk’s worldview.

Yet, questions remain. Was Musk’s support for Trump merely strategic—meant to ensure favorable policy treatment for his sprawling business empire? Now that he is turning against Trump, their feud is a cautionary tale on why politicians and business tycoons should not be joined at the hip. Their fallout could lead to serious conflicts of interest, particularly as Musk’s newly declared America Party prepares to challenge the Republican establishment in the upcoming midterm elections, he Musk carries on with his threat.

What The World’s Richest Men Do With Their Wealth.

Before delving further into this political rift, it’s insightful to consider how the world’s wealthiest individuals—past and present—have used their fortunes.

Elon Musk

Currently the world’s richest man, with a net worth of approximately $405.2 billion, Musk made his fortune through Tesla (electric vehicles), SpaceX (space exploration), X/Twitter (social media), and Starlink (satellite internet). He’s now channeling that wealth into politics—an unprecedented move in modern U.S. history.

Bernard Arnault

The French luxury goods magnate and head of LVMH, Arnault was the world’s richest man in 2022 with a net worth of $199 billion. He made his fortune through high-end brands such as Louis Vuitton, Moët & Chandon, and Hennessy.

Jeff Bezos

Founder of Amazon and Blue Origin, Bezos is currently the world’s second richest man, worth around $244 billion. Like Musk, he has invested in space exploration and also owns The Washington Post, signaling an interest in media influence.

Mark Zuckerberg

At $225 billion, Zuckerberg is the founder of Facebook/Meta, a social media empire that has shaped global communication, politics, and advertising.

Bill Gates

Founder of Microsoft, Gates held the title of the world’s richest man from 1995 to 2018. Now worth billions, he is one of the world’s leading philanthropists through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, focusing on global health, education, and poverty eradication.

Carlos Slim Helú

The Mexican business tycoon was the world’s richest man from 2010 to 2013. His wealth, accumulated through Grupo Carso, spans telecommunications (América Móvil), construction, and retail.

Warren Buffett

Founder of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett was the world’s richest man in 2008 with a net worth of $62 billion at the time. Now 94, he has pledged to donate 99% of his wealth to philanthropy, primarily via the Gates Foundation.

John D. Rockefeller

Arguably the original billionaire, Rockefeller built Standard Oil into the world’s most powerful oil empire. He was the first person on public record to be declared the world’s richest man, and his name remains synonymous with wealth and philanthropy.

A Common Thread: National Influence.

Interestingly, with the exception of Bernard Arnault and Carlos Slim, all individuals who have held the title of the world’s richest have been Americans. Their wealth has not only shaped industries but influenced politics, public policy, and social development—often blurring the lines between capital and democracy.

Now, with Musk preparing to challenge the traditional two-party system-duopoly, the U.S. may be on the cusp of a new political era—one where the ultra-rich not only fund political movements but lead them too. If it manifests in the US it will be copied in europe and the rest of the world with serious implications as democracy as we know it today-govt.of the people, by the people and for the people as introduced in Athens,Greece by Cleisthenes in 507 BC may not remain the same. Rather , the role of money, not conscience in choosing political leaders will be heavily influenced by the wealthy not the massses which is curreently a common practice in nascent democracies in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world where they are looking up to the advanced democracies for guidance.

Over the past century, different individuals have emerged as the world’s richest at various points in time. Interestingly, their wealth has often been derived from the most impactful or trending industries of their era.

John D. Rockefeller earned his place as the world’s richest man through oil exploration—a sector that, at the time, was the lifeblood of the global economy. Warren Buffett ascended to the top during a period when hedge funds and bond investments dominated the wealth-generation space. Bill Gates, meanwhile, achieved his status during the rise of the Information Technology (IT) revolution. Jeff Bezos capitalized on the explosion of online retail and logistics, while Bernard Arnault built his fortune in the luxury goods market. Today, Elon Musk holds the title, having leveraged the global shift from fossil fuels to electric mobility through Tesla, alongside ventures in space technology, communication (Starlink), and social media (X, formerly Twitter).

Though all these men have accumulated extraordinary wealth, their approaches to giving back—or not—vary widely. Historically, many of the world’s richest individuals channeled their fortunes into philanthropy or public good. For instance, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have invested billions into disease eradication, education, and global health through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other initiatives. They have consciously avoided political entanglements, choosing instead to uplift humanity through strategic social investments.

In contrast, Elon Musk has taken a markedly different route. Until recently, he appeared to share similar philanthropic values. However, his pivot into political funding—culminating in a reported $300 million contribution to President Trump’s 2024 campaign—has placed him at the center of political controversy. His involvement has further intensified since his recent declaration of forming a new political platform, the “America Party,” in opposition to Trump.

This deviation from the typical billionaire playbook has made Musk a polarizing figure. His political ambitions, particularly his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have drawn sharp criticism. Once hailed for his technological innovations—ranging from electric vehicles to reusable rockets—Musk now faces a wave of public backlash. Tesla owners have gone as far as burning their vehicles in protest. His brand has taken a hit, and shareholders have grown increasingly wary of his political entanglements.

Ironically, Trump and the Republican Party once championed Musk and Tesla. Now, they find themselves in the crosshairs of Musk’s political ambitions. The paradox is as glaring as it is instructive.

Musk’s fall from grace is not unique. Bill Gates once faced a backlash for predicting the potentially catastrophic impact of COVID-19 on Africa—a projection that proved to be off the mark. He was also accused, without evidence, of supporting eugenics-related research. Yet, Gates has largely maintained his reputation due to his consistent focus on humanitarian causes. The same cannot be said of Musk, whose tenure at DOGE was seen by many as high-handed and out-of-touch.

Even Rockefeller was not without controversy. He was alleged to have played a role in the 1915 Armenian genocide in the Baku region of present-day Azerbaijan—then under Soviet control. Allegations suggest that, to protect their refinery operations in the region, Rockefeller and the Rothschilds enlisted the Turkish army to forcibly remove the local Armenian population-marking it the first genocide before the Nazi holocaust . Though Turkey has denied the genocide, and the United Nations long withheld recognition, President Joe Biden formally acknowledged it as genocide on April 24, 2021—over a century later.

Today’s billionaires, particularly those in technology, seem more inclined to pursue profit than purpose. Unlike the Carnegies, Fords, and Rockefellers of old, many modern billionaires are focused on personal indulgence—space tourism, luxury weddings in Venice, and opulent mansions around the globe. In Nigeria, the pattern is strikingly similar.

Whether their wealth comes from oil, banking, technology, or even law, few Nigerian billionaires are endowing universities, funding scholarships, or building hospitals. While some do engage in philanthropy, (Dangote, Mike Adenuga, Femi Otedola, Toni Elumelu, James lbori, Samad Rabiu etc engage in empowerment or set up educational institutions to support the indigent) the majority appear more interested in lavish lifestyles—hosting extravagant parties in Dubai, buying private jets and fleets of luxury cars, and building palatial homes they rarely inhabit.

In contrast to this trend, some American billionaires have ventured into politics with varying degrees of success. Ross Perot, founder of Texas Instruments, famously disrupted George H.W. Bush’s 1992 reelection bid by capturing nearly 20% of the vote as an independent. Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate multiple times, while Mike Bloomberg—founder of Bloomberg LP and former mayor of New York—entered the 2020 presidential race as a Democrat, self-funding his campaign to the tune of $1 billion.

To out the narrative in context, in Nigeria, the closest parallel to Musk’s political move would be if Alhaji Aliko Dangote challenged President Bola Tinubu. Dangote has demonstrated that he would never do that when at the launch of the link road from his refinery by President Tinubu, he humourously instructed the master of ceremony not to refer to him as president/ CEO of Dangote group since the President Tinubu, his superior was there. He is that humble and apolitical. Chief MKO Abiola, a multi- billionaire  tried to become the president of Nigeria by contesting for the top job straight out of the business world during a military dictatorship to democracy in 1993. Unfortunately, he did not only loss his fortune, he also lost his life.

But while Musk can survive political backlash in a country like the U.S., where institutions are strong, such a move in Nigeria could endanger an entire business empire. Even in the US , already, Musk’s own companies are feeling the pressure. Azoria Partners, an investment firm involved in business with him, has reportedly delayed the launch of a Tesla exchange-traded fund (ETF) due to uncertainty surrounding Musk’s political intentions. That is on top of the fact that Tesla shares have been rising and falling sharply since he dabbled into politics.

Azoria’s CEO, James Fishback, has called on Tesla’s board to clarify Musk’s political ambitions, warning that the launch of the America Party could erode shareholder confidence. The stock market, sensitive to leadership uncertainty, is watching closely.

In a previous column a couple of weeks ago, titled “Trump and Musk Feud: A Case for Keeping Politics and Business Separate,” I made the argument that wealthy entrepreneurs should tread carefully when entering the political arena. Government, after all, is the most powerful authority after God. It’s no surprise that Musk may soon have to yield the title of the world’s richest man to Jeff Bezos—again as his vast business empire may further be diminished.

In Nigeria, similar tensions are playing out. The formation of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) by disenchanted former APC stalwarts mirrors the creation of the America Party in the U.S. disgruntled Musk.

In both cases, political egos and personal ambition appear to be driving these initiatives—not necessarily a desire to serve the public good.

It’s hard to imagine that Americans are seeking a messiah in Elon Musk—a man many view with suspicion due to his leadership of DOGE and controversial business practices. Nor are Nigerians likely to be swayed by grand political declarations by the new opposition party in a formation stage. In his speech at the launch of the ADC, former Senate President David Mark , an active participant in politics since the return of multiparty democracy in 1999- 26 years ago proclaimed:

“Today marks the beginning of what we believe will be a long, difficult, and tedious journey. However, it is a journey that we are prepared to undertake, united in our collective belief that no price or sacrifice is too high in the service of our fatherland.”

But the Nigerian electorate has grown skeptical. Years of broken promises by political actors have left a deep trust deficit. It remains to be seen whether this new party—like Musk’s in the U.S.—can gain genuine public traction.

In the end, neither President Trump nor President Tinubu is likely to remain idle. Both are seasoned political operators known for their agility and resilience. As we look ahead to the 2027 (Nigeria) and 2028 (U.S.) elections, it’s clear that the political landscapes of both nations are poised for seismic shifts.

President Trump has put Musk on notice that he and his numerous businesses may be probed and in Nigeria President Tinubu currently attending a BRICS meeting holding in Brazil may already have his antidote to the ADC threat.

Overall, both Trump and Tinubu, with midterm in the US still about a year from today and re-election in Nigeria about two years from now, the two leaders have enough time to self correct their policies that are not on point and shore up their voting base to enhance re-electability for Tinubu who has the knack for masterstrokes and sustainance of Republican party’s dominance of all the branches after the midterm elections.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, and alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, is also a Commonwealth Institute Scholar and a former commissioner in the Delta State government. He sent this piece from Washington D.C., USA.

Picture a scenario in which Africa’s richest man, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, invested $250 million in 2023 to support the presidential campaign of APC candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Let’s assume Dangote, being the shrewd businessman he is, found a legal way to avoid violating campaign finance limits that cap how much individuals can contribute to political campaigns.

Now imagine that this strategic support played a major role in Tinubu’s victory two years ago, helping him secure the presidency and giving the APC a majority in both chambers of the National Assembly. As a token of appreciation, President Tinubu appoints Dangote to lead a newly created government agency focused on cutting waste and improving public sector efficiency.

In this imagined scenario, Dangote’s new role comes with the tough task of ending long-standing subsidies on petrol and foreign exchange—two policies widely seen as obstacles to Nigeria’s economic growth since independence in 1960. Because these subsidies have become deeply embedded in public expectations over the past four decades, rolling them back sparks outrage and resistance.

Now take it a step further: suppose Dangote, despite his brilliance, begins behaving inappropriately—perhaps mocking civil servants who lost their jobs or appearing in Aso Rock with his toddler riding on his shoulders in a moment of eccentric public display. President Tinubu, noticing these missteps, decides to relieve him of his duties respectfully and even presents him with a symbolic key to the villa as a gesture of goodwill.

But soon after the House of Representatives passes four key tax reform bills—awaiting Senate approval—Dangote lashes out, branding the bills a “disgusting abomination.” Concerned that the new laws could undermine the business advantages his firm had been enjoying, he threatens to use his influence to ensure APC lawmakers are voted out in the next elections.

This outburst provokes President Tinubu, who publicly quips that Dangote might be suffering from a mental health issue. What should have remained a private policy disagreement between allies begins to spill into the public sphere, with the potential to spiral into a full-blown political crisis.

Dear readers, this imagined scenario is not about Nigeria, President Tinubu, or Aliko Dangote—the visionary industrialist behind the Dangote Refinery and Petrochemical complex that’s transforming Nigeria from a raw exporter of crude oil into a net exporter of refined petroleum products.

Rather, this story mirrors the real-life political drama currently unfolding in the United States between President Donald J. Trump—back in office as the 47th president—and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and owner of Tesla, SpaceX, and other powerful tech ventures.

Their feud highlights the perils of blurring the lines between business and politics. It serves as a cautionary tale for democracies around the world about why these two powerful domains—each critical in its own right—must remain independent to preserve institutional integrity and public trust.

Simply put, the situation described above isn’t unfolding in a struggling third-world nation where democratic principles are still being grasped. Rather, it is playing out in the United States—the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, and widely regarded as the global standard-bearer for democracy.

For me, there are several critical takeaways from this evolving saga in America.

First, it reinforces the reality that democracy is still an evolving system of governance, even centuries after its roots in ancient Athens under Cleisthenes in 508 BCE.

Who would have imagined that campaign finance laws in the U.S.—particularly the caps on individual contributions to political candidates—could be so cleverly circumvented? Yet Elon Musk appears to have done just that, reportedly channeling around $250 million into Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign without violating existing laws.

Second, the unfolding events affirm the old adage: “What money cannot do, more money can.” Musk himself boasted that without his financial engineering—leveraging “Super PACs” to funnel as much as $1 million per voter in key swing states—Trump and the Republican Party may not have secured victories in the White House and both chambers of Congress. According to Musk, his financial intervention was instrumental in Trump’s success in the November 5, 2024 election. As he warned at the time, “In November, we fire all Republicans who betrayed Americans.”

This demonstrates that, just like in many fledgling democracies of the developing world, money—not ideology or principles—is often the decisive factor in American elections, with votes going to the highest bidder.

Third, the very public clash between Musk—head of Tesla and SpaceX—and President Trump has peeled back the curtain on the inner workings of the U.S. government. It exposes a long-held double standard: while the West criticizes African nations for implementing public subsidies, it often does the same, albeit in more discreet and sophisticated forms. Through institutions like the World Bank and IMF, wealthy nations pressure developing countries to eliminate subsidies, despite quietly propping up their own industries using similar mechanisms.

This hypocrisy has been starkly revealed by the Trump-Musk fallout. The feud has exposed how Musk’s companies have been supported through generous government contracts and subsidies—an arrangement that mirrors the kind of state-enabled capitalism often criticized in the Global South.

Fourth, the idea that oligarchs are a uniquely Russian or African phenomenon has been shown to be misleading. Musk’s companies, Tesla and SpaceX, are now understood to have benefitted significantly from U.S. government support. In Trump’s own words:

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget—Billions and Billions of Dollars—is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”

This outburst came in response to Musk labeling Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” as a “disgusting abomination.”

So, isn’t it both ironic and hypocritical that powerful Western nations instruct poorer countries to avoid government subsidies, while engaging in the same practices behind the scenes? By financially supporting domestic corporations that build wealth through state contracts, the West is not far removed from the same oligarchic systems it routinely condemns.

In conclusion, the Trump-Musk dispute is not merely a clash of egos. It is a revealing episode—one that lays bare the contradictions and vulnerabilities within the democratic and capitalist systems of even the world’s most advanced nation.

The purpose of this intervention is not to dwell on the sensational fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk—an alliance turned sour and now dominating headlines across both mainstream and social media, generating intense political controversy. That story has already been heavily dissected and discussed.

Rather, what concerns me is the unfortunate nature of this public spat, which has erupted barely 63 days into what was initially viewed as a promising political partnership between Trump, the President of the United States and figurehead of global democracy, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a symbol of technological innovation.

Unsurprisingly, their clash has created a tense atmosphere, casting a dark cloud over the U.S. political landscape—an ironic turn for a nation that prides itself on being the model of democratic governance.

It is this deeper implication that compels me to approach the matter from a different angle—one that better illuminates the significance of this episode for those of us in less developed democracies. My goal is to help readers, especially Africans, understand that the global system does not always treat us fairly, despite appearances.

To illustrate this point, and drawing from my background in international public policy, I chose to analyze the Trump-Musk saga through an analogy—comparing it to a hypothetical but relatable scenario in Nigeria. After all, Nigeria’s political system borrows heavily from the U.S. model, and President Bola Tinubu’s current reform-driven leadership has begun reshaping the country’s economic landscape within just two years of his administration.

With that backdrop, it’s worth examining how the situation unfolded.

When sales of Musk’s Tesla electric vehicles began to decline both in the U.S. and globally—particularly across European markets—President Trump took on the role of an unofficial brand ambassador. In what appeared to be a quid pro quo gesture to repay Musk for his campaign support, Trump staged a symbolic event: turning the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom. On live television watched by billions worldwide, he personally bought a red Tesla and urged others to follow his example.

This dramatic endorsement was part of Trump’s attempt to shield Musk from the backlash he faced after heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—an agency created to cut government costs. Musk’s involvement in laying off public sector workers had angered many Americans, some of whom responded by boycotting and even vandalizing Tesla cars. This public outrage contributed significantly to Tesla’s financial decline.

On one particularly devastating day, Musk reportedly lost $34 billion in market value, and Tesla’s total losses since Musk became directly involved in politics are estimated at over $150 billion. His decision to blend business with politics—becoming an active player in public governance—appears to have backfired, both for his companies and his personal wealth.

Despite his high-profile role and disruptive efforts, Musk’s agency, DOGE, was only able to reduce U.S. government spending by a mere 1%. Likewise, Trump’s relentless attempts to reverse Tesla and SpaceX’s downward trajectory yielded little success. The damage to Musk’s public image as the face of mass layoffs and agency closures proved too great to overcome.

DOGE, as the name implies, was Trump’s initiative to curb federal spending as part of his broader goal to reduce America’s ballooning budget deficit and national debt—now estimated at over $36 trillion. However, this ambition is not new. Past presidents like Ronald Reagan (40th) and Bill Clinton (42nd) also established similar budget reform initiatives.

In the end, the Trump-Musk clash offers far more than tabloid drama. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of blurring the lines between politics and business, and highlights the global double standards that often disadvantage less powerful nations. The same Western systems that lecture developing countries on austerity and public subsidies are themselves deeply intertwined with state-backed corporate interests.

Notably, the efforts by past U.S. administrations to reduce the cost of governance mirror the current situation between Trump and Musk. Under President Ronald Reagan, a similar initiative was launched with the creation of the Grace Commission—officially called the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control. It was led by J. Peter Grace, a prominent CEO of W.R. Grace and Company. The commission aimed to identify ways to make the federal government more efficient and claimed it could save over $424 billion within three years.

Despite the high expectations, the commission’s recommendations were not fully implemented, and critics argue that the actual impact on government efficiency and cost savings was modest at best.

Likewise, during President Bill Clinton’s tenure, his administration introduced a major reform program known as the National Performance Review (NPR), led by Vice President Al Gore. The NPR was a comprehensive effort to restructure the federal government with a focus on improving efficiency, cutting waste, and delivering better services to citizens. Its vision was to build a government that “works better and costs less.” The initiative resulted in 119 key recommendations, including downsizing agencies and eliminating redundant programs. The NPR ultimately claimed to have saved $108 billion and improved government operations while also reducing overhead staffing.

Clearly, Trump and Musk are not the first high-profile figures—one from the political world and the other from business—to attempt reforming the American government’s spending habits. Yet, despite their intentions, their partnership has turned acrimonious. The tension between Trump, intent on “Making America Great Again,” and Musk, determined to inject private-sector efficiency into public service, has spiraled into a toxic feud.

Both men should recognize that even past collaborations between top political and business minds—such as Reagan and Grace, or Clinton and Gore—fell short of achieving the kind of transformational government efficiency they envisioned. Their failure should offer some perspective and encourage both Trump and Musk to de-escalate their conflict and move beyond their mutual frustration over their unmet goals.

Following their fallout, Tesla’s stock has taken a significant hit. As of last Thursday, it’s reported that Tesla has lost up to $150 billion in market value over the last six months. Meanwhile, Musk’s businesses have reportedly benefited from up to $34 billion in U.S. government contracts—support that could be jeopardized if the feud with Trump continues.

This raises an important question now being asked by political observers in the U.S.: Can these two power players—once close allies just six months ago, and now adversaries—repair their relationship?

On what was Musk’s last day in the White House as a government adviser, Trump symbolically handed him the “Keys to the White House.” But any illusion of a cordial parting quickly shattered when Musk publicly condemned Trump’s signature tax and spending plan—the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”—as a “disgusting abomination.” Musk’s critique struck a nerve, especially since the bill contradicted the aims of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk had headed in a failed attempt to streamline public spending. His aggressive role in implementing job cuts drew widespread criticism, particularly since Musk was unelected and seen as wielding unchecked influence over government workers’ livelihoods.

This political-business breakdown in the U.S. brings to mind a similar episode in Nigeria, which illustrates why mixing business with politics is a risky endeavor. After former Vice President Atiku Abubakar left office (1999–2007), his business interests, particularly in Intels—an oil and gas logistics firm he co-founded—suffered a steep decline. Intels had thrived under favorable government patronage, operating a lucrative private port in Port Harcourt. But after Atiku’s party lost power to the opposition APC in 2015, government contracts dried up.

As the firm’s financial standing deteriorated, Atiku was forced to sell his equity stake in a bid to keep it afloat. Following his divestment, his spokesman issued a statement to the press, confirming the exit

“Yes, he has divested from Intels and redirected his investments into other sectors of the economy to generate returns and create jobs.”

Reflecting on the ongoing fallout between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, one is reminded of the tragic political journey of Nigerian billionaire-turned-politician, Chief Moshood Kashimawo Abiola (MKO). Although the circumstances differ, there are thematic similarities. Abiola, who amassed his fortune primarily through government telecommunications contracts—much like Musk’s ties to U.S. government contracts in the tech sector—entered the political arena in 1993 by contesting the presidency. Sadly, his political aspirations ended in tragedy, resulting in the loss of both his wealth and ultimately his life.

While Musk hasn’t directly pursued the presidency, his veiled threat to back the Democrats in the upcoming election as retaliation against Republicans for passing Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has raised eyebrows. It suggests the possibility that Musk may be positioning himself to influence the outcome of the 2028 elections in favor of the Democrats—just as he was instrumental in helping Trump and the Republicans secure victory in 2024. If so, Musk could be transitioning from a politically interested entrepreneur into an active political player.

In the present feud between two former allies—President Trump, who may have a fragile ego, and Musk, known for his confrontational approach—the stakes are high. Trump, a seasoned political fighter, is unlikely to back down easily, while Musk’s endurance in the face of sustained political and financial pressure remains to be seen. Whether he can absorb continuous blows to his businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX, could determine if the two men will reconcile or drift permanently apart.

President Trump, now in his final term, arguably has less to lose. However, he still needs the Senate to pass his flagship legislation, the Big Beautiful Bill. Musk’s opposition to the bill is already casting doubt on its swift approval. Encouragingly, Musk seems to be stepping back from his confrontational stance, as evidenced by his decision to delete a provocative post in which he threatened to begin decommissioning SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft in response to Trump’s comments about canceling government contracts.

Though the U.S. is no Russia, the Trump–Musk standoff evokes parallels with the dramatic falling-out between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late mercenary leader of the Wagner Group. Once close allies, their power struggle escalated into an armed confrontation and ended with Prigozhin’s untimely death in a plane explosion.

The conflict also mirrors Putin’s past clashes with influential Russian oligarchs, many of whom were jailed or had their assets seized after falling out with the Kremlin. One such example is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former owner of Yukos Oil, who was imprisoned on charges of tax evasion and other offenses. In response, several Russian oligarchs fled the country, investing their wealth in the West—particularly in the U.K., where Roman Abramovich famously bought Chelsea Football Club. He eventually lost the club following Western sanctions on Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Despite these grim parallels, there is still hope for reconciliation between Trump and Musk. Their personal and political futures would both benefit from de-escalating tensions. Continued verbal and written hostilities—no matter how indirect—could prove damaging to both men, especially as mere words can spark consequences that are irreversible in both business and politics.

Drawing from Nigeria’s own political-business landscape, we’ve seen high-profile feuds eventually resolved. A case in point is the past fallout between Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, and Nigeria’s third-richest businessman, Femi Otedola. Though their dispute was acrimonious, the two have since rekindled their friendship and now enjoy a closer relationship than before. That precedent gives reason to believe Trump and Musk—two powerful figures who still need each other—might also find a path to reconciliation.

This optimism is further supported by comments from Musk’s father, Errol Musk, who revealed that Elon suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). If the fallout was, in part, driven by psychological distress and frustration over unmet expectations, healing could begin once emotions settle and rational interests take over.

Yet a broader concern remains: If Musk is eventually barred—by legal, institutional, or moral constraints—from using his vast wealth to influence electoral outcomes in the U.S., what prevents him from trying the same approach in other countries, especially in Europe? If he refrains, will other billionaires emulate his strategy, leveraging wealth to influence political outcomes under the maxim that “what money cannot do, more money can”?

Ultimately, the Trump–Musk saga offers a valuable lesson for democracies everywhere. It underscores the dangers of blurring the lines between business and politics and raises critical questions about the future of political financing, influence, and accountability in democratic systems.

 

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, an alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, a Commonwealth lnstitute scholar and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos Nigeria