Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment.
Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoed a bill that took steps toward reparations passed by his state legislature. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it “unfair” to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports. And Rahm Emmanuel has urged his party to veer back to the center.
“Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom," said former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel, the two-term Chicago mayor who said he is open to a 2028 presidential campaign. "If one child is trying to figure out their pronoun, I accept that, but the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is and can't even define it,”
Each of these candidates are, either deliberately or tacitly, countering a perceived weakness in their own political record or party writ large—Emmanuel, for example, has called the Democratic Party “weak and woke”; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has said the party needs more “alpha energy”; others like Newsom are perhaps acknowledging a more socially liberal bent in the past.
On diversity, equity, and inclusion, some in the party are also sending a signal they're no longer kowtowing to their left flank. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removed his pronouns from his social media bio months ago, and questioned how the party has communicated about it.
"Is it caring for people’s different experiences and making sure no one is mistreated because of them, which I will always fight for?” he said in a forum at the University of Chicago earlier this year. “Or is it making people sit through a training that looks like something out of ‘Portlandia,’ which I have also experienced," Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg added, "And it is how Trump Republicans are made.”
Moderate Democrats are having a moment and there is a cadre of consultants and strategists ready to support them.
Ground zero for the party’s great un-awokening was this week’s WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats’ Coachella. There, hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over their 2024 losses and their party’s penchant for purity tests. Panels on Wednesday featured Slotkin, Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), described as “legends of the moderate community,” and included a presentation by center-left data guru David Shor, who has urged Democrats to shed toxic positions like "defund the police."
Adam Frisch, the former congressional candidate and director of electoral programs at Welcome PAC, said his party is “out of touch culturally with a lot of people.”
"I think a lot of people are realizing, whether you're running for the House, the Senate, or the presidential, we better start getting on track with what I call the pro-normal party coalition,” Frisch said. “You need to focus on normal stuff, and normal stuff is economic opportunity and prosperity, not necessarily micro-social issues."
Then there is Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, who has also distanced himself from so-called woke terminology and stances. The governor claimed earlier this year that he had never used the word “Latinx,” despite having repeatedly employed it just years earlier and once decrying Republicans who’ve sought to ban the gender-neutral term for Latinos.
Newsom made the claim on his podcast episode with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — one of several MAGA personalities the governor has hosted on the platform in recent months. “I just didn’t even know where it came from. What are we talking about?” Newsom told Kirk.
The governor, who gained national notoriety in 2004 for defying state law and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, has also pivoted on some LGBTQ+ issues. Newsom broke with Democrats this spring when he said, in the same podcast episode with Kirk, that he opposes allowing transgender women and girls to participate in female college and youth sports.
“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said, a comment that was panned by many of his longtime LGBTQ+ supporters and progressive allies.
Newsom for months has also muted his tone on immigration issues, avoiding using the word “sanctuary” to describe a state law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities even as he defends the legality of the policy. The governor is proposing steep cuts to a free health care program for undocumented immigrants, which comes as California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. In recent days, however, he joined a chorus of California Democrats criticizing Trump administration immigration efforts in his state.
Moore, who recently trekked to South Carolina, vetoed legislation that would launch a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves from the Democratic-controlled legislature. Moore urged Democrats not get bogged down by bureaucratic malaise and pointed to the Republican Party as the reason why.
“Donald Trump doesn't need a study to dismantle democracy. Donald Trump doesn't need a study to use the Constitution like it's a suggestion box," he told a packed dinner of party power players. "Donald Trump doesn't need a white paper to start arbitrary trade wars that will raise the cost of virtually everything in our lives,” Moore said.
There are some notable exceptions to the party’s border pivot to the center. Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota haven't shied away from social issues.
Beshear, who has vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including during his own reelection year, attacked Newsom for inviting conservative provocateurs Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk onto his podcast. He also drew a distinction with Newsom on transgender athletes playing in youth sports, arguing that “our different leagues have more than the ability to make” sports “fair,” he told reporters in March.
“Surely, we can see some humanity and some different perspectives in this overall debate’s that going on right now,” Beshear added. The Kentucky governor said his stance is rooted in faith — “all children are children of God,” he often says.
Walz called it “a mistake” to abandon transgender people. “We need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner’s insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone's gender,” he told The Independent last month. Pritzker, too, recently said that it’s “vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them.” This spring, Pritzker declared March 31 as Illinois’ Transgender Day of Visibility.
“Walz, [Sen. Chris] Murphy, Pritzker, Beshear — they’re not going around talking about it all the time, but they're also not running away from their values,” said one adviser to a potential 2028 candidate granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “They’re in the both-and lane.”
The party’s reckoning with social issues is far from over. In 2021, then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro vocally opposed a GOP bill that aimed to ban trans athletes from participating in women's school sports, calling it "cruel" and “designed to discriminate against transgender youth who just want to play sports like their peers.”
This year, as the state’s Republican-controlled Senate has passed a similar bill with the support of a handful of Democrats, Shapiro has remained mum on the legislation.
It's not likely to come up for a vote in the state's Democratic-held House, so he may be able to punt — at least a while.
As Emmanuel sees it, his party has a long way to go to over-correct for what he paints as the excesses of the last few years.
“The core crux over the years of President [Joe] Biden's tenure is the party on a whole set of cultural issues looked like they were off on a set of tangential issues,” Emmanuel said.
Dasha Burns, Dustin Gardner, Holly Otterbein, and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
mögen das
mögen das
Sascha 😈 ⁂ (Fediverse) hat dies geteilt.
mögen das
Elon Musk just launched a war against the GOP. Now the party’s hopes of holding onto power are at stake.
Musk has gone from helping Republicans take total control of Washington — spending nearly $300 million to become the single biggest known donor last year — to attacking the highest-ranking leaders of the party and daring the rank and file to cross him.
“Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,” Musk said on X.
The post was an unambiguous warning from the world's richest man, who has the power to single-handedly reshape elections with his wealth. It was not long ago that Republicans hoped Musk could pour cash into their efforts to help maintain control of Washington. Instead, he’s becoming their public adversary.
Musk spent Thursday online attacking President Donald Trump over Republicans’ massive tax-and-spending bill, which Musk says does not cut enough government spending.
He’d already threatened to challenge Republicans who support the megabill; on Thursday, he blasted House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, took credit for Republicans winning trifecta control in November, and floated the idea of launching a third party.
“This is a massive crack in the MAGA coalition,” said Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and a former Trump administration appointee. “This town is historically built on Republican versus Democrat, and this seems to be crazy versus crazy. It is asymmetric and it seems, for the first time, President Trump seems to be out-crazied.”
Just a few weeks ago, Republicans were still praising Musk for his financial backing in the 2024 election as they hoped he'd make a graceful return to the private sector after overseeing the administration's program to slash federal spending. Less than one week ago, Musk was in the Oval Office with Trump commemorating his time in administration as a special government employee.
But that polite departure, it quickly became evident, was not going to happen.
"Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave," Trump wrote on Truth Social, blaming Musk’s anger on the megabill’s removal of electric vehicle tax credits. “He just went CRAZY!”
As Musk’s drama engulfed the party Thursday, Republicans in Congress mostly tried to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Key GOP lawmakers in both chambers worked to downplay the potential effects on both the party’s domestic policy package and on the GOP’s midterms posture.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who leads the House GOP campaign arm, told reporters Thursday that he hopes the spat will “blow over.” Before the breakup went nuclear, Hudson had said in a brief interview Wednesday evening that Musk has “been a friend and he’s just wrong about this bill.”
Even fiscal hard-liners who have embraced some of Musk’s talking points about the bill tried to avoid getting drawn into the fracas. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who at one point threatened to tank the megabill for not being fiscally conservative enough, said, "Elon crossed the line today ... we'll let those guys go play it out."
"I don't disagree with him about our need to find more spending cuts," Roy added, but Musk needs to "keep it in the lines."
Another hard-liner, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), said he believes Musk is losing sway within MAGA. Musk is “just another shiny object,” he said, “and we’ll deal with it.”
But Musk appeared intent on turning his opposition to the legislation into a civil war for the party. He amplified two Kentucky Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul, who have been thorns in the side of Trump and GOP leaders trying to pass the bill.
Even though Musk brought massive financial backing, he has also at times been an electoral problem for Republicans. His popularity has fallen below Trump’s, and his biggest political effort this year — the Wisconsin Supreme Court race — ended with the conservative candidate losing by almost 10 points.
“Elon couldn’t buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. You really think that people are gonna be afraid of this money?” said a person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics.
As Musk’s popularity faded, Republicans wondered how long his relationship with Trump could endure. On Thursday, Musk severed ties.
He took shot after shot at Trump, accusing him of lying, replying “yes” to a post suggesting he should be impeached, and accusing him of having a cozy relationship with the deceased Jeffrey Epstein, who had been accused of sex trafficking.
"What a predictable shitshow," said a person who has been in the room with both Musk and Trump. "Trump is a liar, and it was obvious Elon would not be able to go along with his incessant lying forever."
A nervous Republican Party is now scrambling to figure out what the electoral fallout will look like, starting with next year’s midterms.
Already, two of Trump's top campaign operatives, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio had signed up to work with Musk's Building America's Future PAC. But Musk's scorched-earth strategy could create dueling allegiances.
Privately, some Republicans are arguing they had already been preparing for next year's elections without Musk's money, and complained that America PAC — the tech billionaire’s super PAC — didn't spend its money effectively in House races last year.
America PAC spent $19.2 million backing GOP candidates across 18 battleground House races last year, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. Republicans won 10 of those elections. But those were among the highest-profile and most expensive races in the country, and Musk’s group accounted for only 12 percent of Republican outside spending in them. It wasn’t even the biggest GOP spender — that was still the Congressional Leadership Fund, the primary super PAC affiliated with House Republicans.
“What Elon has is money, and if he’s not going to put $100 million in the [midterms], that’s a hole that has to be filled,” said Chris Mottola, a GOP media consultant. "On the other hand, there was a question about how effective the money was that he spent, because he spent it the way he wanted to."
Over the last few months, Musk has floated the idea of getting involved in the midterms, but he’s also claimed he would step back from political spending. If Musk is going to go all-in against the party, he’s going to need more than money.
“Are there enough good Republican operatives out there to go achieve this mission for Elon Musk when it means going up against the president?" said a former RNC official, granted anonymity to discuss the situation candidly. “Everybody’s got a price, but I don’t think they are rushing to go help Elon further divide the Republican Party ahead of the midterms.”
Lisa Kashinsky, Jessica Piper, Holly Otterbein, Dasha Burns, Nicholas Wu, Sophia Cai, Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Bundespolitik: Trump nimmt laut Merz Einladung nach Deutschland an
Die Teams der beiden Politiker würden nun einen Termin suchen, kündigt der Bundeskanzler nach seinem Treffen mit dem US-Präsidenten an.Dimitri Taube (Süddeutsche Zeitung)
The tension between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk finally burst into the open Thursday, likely closing the chapter on one of the most significant alliances in recent political history.
In the wake of the schism, some Republicans are stuck in the middle debating their next moves. Do they side with Trump, the leader of the party whose influence and authority looms over so many aspects of life? Or do they back Musk, whose massive fortune could provide a boost to anyone running for reelection — or running to succeed Trump in 2028 — even as he threatens to withhold donations to lawmakers who back the Republican megabill? Could they attempt to appease both?
Musk, 53, is already drawing a future-forward line between himself and Trump, 78, and urging Republicans to come to his side.
“Some food for thought as they ponder this question,” Musk wrote on X in response to far-right activist Laura Loomer wondering how Republicans would react. “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years.”
Here are the Republicans who we’re watching closely to determine how to navigate the fallout:
JD Vance
The vice president and possible heir to Trump’s political movement could be the biggest loser of the blowout.
With Musk’s future potential campaign contributions now in jeopardy, Vance, an expected 2028 presidential candidate, would have an incentive to mediate the relationship. Vance wouldn’t want to jeopardize a donor relationship with Musk, but he also needs Trump’s support if he wants to inherit his base. He will be constrained in how much he can realistically break from Trump if the feud continues.
Musk appeared to endorse Vance in ‘in an X post calling from Trump to be impeached and the vice president to take his place, suggesting their relationship remains intact for now. And the two appear to share some political stances, including supporting Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).
In April, after it was first reported that Musk intended to leave the White House, Vance said he expected Trump and Musk to remain close, a seemingly lousy prediction in hindsight.
“DOGE has got a lot of work to do, and yeah, that work is going to continue after Elon leaves,” Vance said in April. “But fundamentally, Elon is going to remain a friend and an adviser of both me and the president.”
Ron DeSantis
The Florida governor has had a tortured relationship with Trump, his former political benefactor-turned-2024 rival who bulldozed him during the presidential campaign.
But since Trump took office, DeSantis has publicly supported the president and signed into law a Florida immigration law that furthered Trump’s immigration agenda.
He’s also a big fan of Musk.
Musk was an early booster of the Florida governor’s failed presidential campaign, offering to host a glitchy, error-ridden launch event via X Spaces, the audio livestream feature on the Musk-owned social media site. Musk also contributed $10 million to DeSantis’ campaign before he dropped out and endorsed Trump.
In Musk’s final week as part of the Trump administration, DeSantis praised his work leading the Department of Government Efficiency and echoed Musk’s criticisms of the reconciliation package for not doing enough to reduce the deficit, calling the bill “a betrayal of the voters.”
He went further on Wednesday, singling out Musk in a fundraising solicitation.
“Elon Musk stood tall and took the hits to lead the fight on DOGE, cutting wasteful spending and exposing bloated government programs,” said a fundraising email Wednesday from one of DeSantis’ political committees. “The media attacked him. The Left panicked. But now? Even Republicans in Congress are backing down.”
It’s unclear what DeSantis’ political future holds — he’s term-limited as governor from 2026 — but Musk’s backing could play a role in whatever he does next.
A spokesperson for the governor’s political operation said the fundraising language was approved May 29 — the day before Trump prepared to extol Musk during a friendly send-off at the White House.
Stephen Miller and Katie Miller
The Trump-Musk rift sets up some potential awkwardness between Stephen Miller, Trump’s powerful deputy chief of staff, and his wife Katie Miller, who joined DOGE as an aide to Musk and left last week to work for the billionaire entrepreneur.
The New York Times reported in January that Stephen Miller had been advising Musk on his political donations. But it’s unclear if that relationship is still strong. And after Musk started attacking the Republican megabill, Stephen Miller became a staunch defender of the legislation.
On Thursday, after Trump and Musk traded barbs, Musk appeared to unfollow Miller on X. If there was ever a path to peace between Trump and Musk, the Millers could play a role — or it could cause a rift in their marriage.
Vivek Ramaswamy
Once tapped to co-lead DOGE with Musk, Ramaswamy split off from the administration before Inauguration Day and ultimately mounted a run for governor of Ohio.
But the former presidential candidate, who raised his profile by passionately defending Trump in the 2024 Republican primaries, has always aligned himself with the cost-cutting, Libertarian brand of conservatism that Musk embraces. However, if Ramaswamy seeks to grow closer to Musk in the vacuum left by Trump when he leaves office, he’ll have to overcome the fact that Musk thinks he’s annoying.
David Sacks
Sacks, a South African entrepreneur, came into Trump’s orbit by way of Musk, and now heads artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy for the White House. But if the White House withdrawing Jared Isaacman’s nomination to head NASA is any indication, Sacks may not be long for Washington.
On the other hand, Trump’s embrace of the crypto industry — and Sacks’ role as crypto czar — could prove to be tempting enough for Sacks to side with the president against his longtime friend.
Thom Tillis
As Trump and Musk clash over the reconciliation bill, Senate Republicans are left to pick up the pieces as they continue to argue over changes to satisfy at least 50 members and pass the bill. Tillis in particular is facing a tough reelection battle and could surely use strong support from Trump and Musk.
On Wednesday — day two of Musk tweeting attacks against the bill — Tillis told CNN Musk is a “brilliant guy,” while noting he’s “got resources.”
With Republicans looking to approve the bill this summer, Tillis could be forced to take a side earlier than he might like. How he navigates the rift may offer a roadmap for other battleground Republicans ahead of 2026.
Vance, DeSantis, Stephen Miller, Katie Miller, Ramaswamy, Sack and Tillis did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Ukraine News: Papst fordert Putin zu Friedensgeste auf
Der Kreml nennt das Gespräch mit dem katholischen Kirchenoberhaupt konstruktiv.Julia Bergmann (Süddeutsche Zeitung)
A top Democratic organization strongly encouraged state campaigns to do much of their digital ad-buying business with a company that one of its members is set to soon join as CEO — a development that has puzzled and concerned some party insiders.
At a meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas last week, the Association of State Democratic Committees — an umbrella group for state parties — voted to recommend state races use one liberal firm, TargetSmart, for a major portion of digital ad buys, which could be worth millions.
TargetSmart announced on May 7 that Liz Walters, outgoing chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, is taking over as CEO this summer. Walters, who made her departure public in a post on X, said she would leave the state party role by June 30. And until the week before the group’s meeting, she was part of the ASDC’s leadership team as treasurer.
Walters recused herself from the TargetSmart vote. But she has reportedly praised the use of TargetSmart repeatedly in recent years, went to the meeting where the resolution passed, and continues to sit on a key board of state party leaders tied to the deal.
Word of the deal spread through Democratic circles this week, leaving some in the party worried about the possibility of a conflict of interest — or the perception of one — at a time when Democrats are already struggling mightily. Others are concerned that using a sole media-buying platform for many digital ads will stifle innovation and raise costs for campaigns.
“I just don’t understand this at all. It’s the ultimate solution in search of a problem,” said Rob Flaherty, the former deputy campaign manager for Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign. “No one who works directly in this space is asking for this, nor should we want it. Even the stated rationale makes no sense: This is a space where competition leads to better pricing. A strategic monopoly doesn’t serve us.”
A Democratic campaign veteran who, like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely, said the deal is “a conflict of interest you could see from space.” A Democratic state party chair said “the perception sucks, the perception is terrible.”
Walters responded in a statement that the decision to leave the Ohio Democratic Party, “an organization I love,” was “a hard one.” She added that “in the interest of transparency, as soon as I decided to join TargetSmart, we made the news public and I recused myself from all matters involving the company.”
Axios first wrote about the existence of a deal between the ASDC and TargetSmart, but concerns about a conflict of interest have not been reported before.
ASDC president Jane Kleeb said in an interview that it was her suggestion, not Walters’, to give TargetSmart the special status. Kleeb defended the decision as a way for state parties to save money and solve other problems, such as navigating a bewildering web of new digital firms.
She said that Walters has praised TargetSmart internally over the years but added that “lots of us” have also spoken highly of the company since they’ve worked closely with them.
“There is no conflict of interest. We have been talking about this for years,” she said. “I knew that the vendors would have their guns and knives out for me because they will perceive it as taking business away from them. But it doesn’t.”
She added, “I am trying to innovate and create reliable streams of revenue” for state parties and “with this system, there will be a 5 percent return to state parties, which is a really wonderful thing.”
Other Democrats in favor of the resolution said that the setup would also help ensure the digital safety of voter files.
A second Democratic state party chair granted anonymity to speak candidly about the deal said that Walters praised TargetSmart at multiple ASDC meetings in recent months, including in Little Rock last week.
“Every single meeting she would talk about the benefit of the tool and why it’s really important, and anytime people would raise questions, basically, she was answering them as CEO of TargetSmart, but that wasn’t the role she was in,” said the person, who was in the meetings.
“It’s an unfortunate way to enter into a relationship, because I think it could be a good tool, but now it’s clouded,” the person added.
TargetSmart has worked with the Democratic state parties for years to house their voter files, a precious resource used by campaigns. The ASDC said that it asked TargetSmart to develop its digital ad-buying tool in 2023, and that later it was rolled out to some trial participants, including in Ohio. State parties generate revenue when their voter file is bought and sold, as well as when their voter file data is used on TargetSmart’s ad-buying platform.
The ASDC’s nonbinding resolution states that members are encouraged to either “institute a requirement” for voter file users to utilize TargetSmart for digital ad-buying or “strongly encourage” users to “explore utilizing” the platform.
A TargetSmart spokesperson said the buying platform is more cost efficient, reliable and enables transparency in ad placements. And TargetSmart senior adviser Tom Bonier said in a statement that “we’re proud to have the opportunity to continue to serve state parties as they provide this cutting-edge resource to their members.” He didn’t respond to a question about when TargetSmart began discussions with Walters about the job.
A person close to Walters said that she “resigned as treasurer well before the meeting, recused herself from the process entirely and it passed unanimously.”
But that has done little to tamp down criticism of Walters among some Democrats.
“Even being there is a way to exert influence, especially when it was already announced that she was going to TargetSmart,” said the Democratic campaign veteran.
Walters submitted her resignation as treasurer of the ASDC on May 20, the person close to her said. The ASDC passed the resolution unanimously on May 29.
Walters is also on the board of a linked “co-op” made up of state party officials that manages its voter file data. She is expected to leave that entity and as head of the Ohio Democratic Party next week.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened Elon Musk’s federal contracts, a remarkable escalation in a public feud between the president and the world’s richest man, his former ally.
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday afternoon. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
The president’s relationship with Musk has deteriorated rapidly since Musk left the White House last week. The acrimony went public when Musk publicly slammed Trump’s sweeping domestic policy package on Tuesday.
He’s continued to lash out at the White House in the days since — with Musk baiting Trump by name earlier Thursday, and Trump responding by chastising the Tesla CEO from the Oval Office later in the day.
Still, Trump’s criticism from the White House — where the two men less than a week ago shared a laudatory sendoff for Musk — was not as pointed as the president’s barbs on social media.
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.,” Musk wrote on X Thursday, the social media site he owns. “Such ingratitude.”
Musk’s companies have significant ties to the federal government, even before the Trump administration. SpaceX is one of NASA’s largest contractors. And his car company Tesla benefitted from a clean energy subsidy that is on the chopping block in Republicans’ reconciliation package.
“Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump posted.
“Such an obvious lie. So sad,” Musk fired back.
Trump has previously boosted Tesla because of his close relationship with Musk. In March, with the company’s stock at a low after public anger over job cuts fueled by Musk’s DOGE initiative, the president toured different Tesla models at a makeshift car show on the White House lawn. Trump later purchased his own Tesla, “a show of confidence and support” for Musk.
Trump has routinely wielded the power of the executive branch against institutions that he deems are misbehaving. He’s frozen billions in federal grants to some of the country’s top universities, Harvard chief among them, as punishment for alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations. And he’s secured multimillion dollar deals with law firms weary of his threats to tank their business.
Elon Musk has been the Democratic Party’s boogeyman since shortly after President Donald Trump deputized him as a top adviser.
The billionaire and Trump had a very public breakup this week. After Musk called the GOP's "big beautiful bill" a “disgusting abomination” and threatened to “fire all politicians” who backed it, the president mused on Thursday that he didn't know if the two would still have a "great relationship." Musk responded on his powerful platform X, "Without me, Trump would have lost," adding "Such ingratitude."
Democrats' portrayal of Musk as a chainsaw-wielding, bureaucracy-breaking villain may be more complicated now — with some saying they should give him another chance. After all, Musk said he voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020 and gave a tour of SpaceX to then-President Barack Obama.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley and has known Musk for over a decade, said Democrats should “be in a dialogue” with Musk, given their shared opposition to the GOP’s megabill.
“We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,” Khanna said. “A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.”
Other Democrats are warming back up to Musk as he leaves the White House and starts to break with his former boss in ways that could benefit the opposition.
“I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the legislation,” said Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.). But, he added, Musk has “done an enormous amount of damage” and “there are Democrats who see his decimation of the federal workforce and the federal government as an unforgivable sin.”
Liam Kerr, co-founder of the group behind the centrist Democrats’ WelcomeFest meeting this week in Washington, said “of course” Democrats should open the door if Musk wants back into the party.
“You don't want anyone wildly distorting your politics, which he has a unique capability to do. But it’s a zero-sum game,” Kerr said. “Anything that he does that moves more toward Democrats hurts Republicans.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), the chair of the New Democrat Coalition who earlier this year supported the party’s targeting of Musk as the Department of Government Efficiency slashed through federal agencies, said that with his departure from Washington, Democrats shouldn’t make Musk their focus. “We should be talking about what we're doing for the American people,” he said.
Still, Musk recently threatened to cut off the money spigot for Republicans. And Democrats would have a lot to gain by merely keeping the world’s richest man on the sidelines in the midterm elections and beyond. If Musk makes a mess of GOP primaries, that would work in their favor, too.
But Musk’s recent heel-turn also risks reopening a divide between progressives and moderates over how to approach him and other billionaires.
“Our caucus has done the right thing and gone toe-to-toe against Musk,” said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and one of the party’s most vocal advocates for making Musk an antagonist on the campaign trail.
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach. “I don’t think we should take one ketamine-fueled tweet as evidence of a change of heart,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way. “It’s more complicated.”