When a Billion Stands Up to the Authority: The Fight for the Future of Space and Electric Cars

When the bustle of political theaters gave way to yet another loud spectacle between the White House and Silicon Valley, it was impossible not to feel that behind the scenes something akin to a mash-up of pro-wrestling, corporate drama, and reality TV was unfolding. As usual, it all began with a sudden lunge—this time, the “victim” was not some random member of Congress but the owner of Tesla and SpaceX, who, without regard for etiquette, decided to give a mighty “kick” to the new bill that the House of Representatives had been laboring over. And, as the banal nature of political spats dictates, a reply was not long in coming: Donald Trump, none too shy, jumped into the fray and threatened to cancel subsidies and contracts for Elon Musk’s companies. From there, the story followed a familiar script: every new statement poured gasoline on the fire until White House aides suddenly felt compelled to “defuse the situation” by arranging a phone call between the two main protagonists—Trump and Musk. This became known on Thursday evening, when news-aggregator screens exploded with headlines: “Trump, Musk bromance descends into brawl over contracts, impeachment” (Reuters). The fateful call was slated for Friday, June 6, 2025.

⸻

Background: How “Slim Beautiful Bill” Became a “Disgusting Abomination”

It all started on the evening of June 3, when Elon Musk, in his usual fashion, dropped another “bomb” on social media. He slammed the bill, ostentatiously titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (known behind the scenes as the “Slim Beautiful Bill”), calling it a “disgusting abomination” and candidly admitting that he hadn’t even read the text—but something told him it was “a huge, outrageous waste-fest” (Reuters). No one expected Musk to be so cutting: after all, a year ago his friendship with Trump truly seemed rock-solid—an unimaginable pairing of the billionaire peacemaker and the ex-President-sharpshooter.

The thing is, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (aka the “Slim Beautiful Bill”) contained provisions that would significantly curb electric-vehicle subsidies. Essentially, the bill proposed repealing or drastically cutting the tax credits and incentives that had been established by the Inflation Reduction Act—and from which both Tesla and many other “green” energy companies were benefiting. Musk argued that the bill was “loaded with needless expenses” and undermined efforts to support electric vehicles and renewable energy. He also said the bill had been rushed through without proper review by responsible parties, whereas experts estimate that such a decision could lead to a sharp rise in the budget deficit—over $2.4 trillion in a decade (Time, AP).

Of course, using the epithet “disgusting abomination” was not merely a technical critique of the budget but a fierce jibe that undercut any behind-the-scenes deals and added a particularly sarcastic sting. But the key moment was his call for Trump’s impeachment: “Impeachment is the only way out,” he seemed to say, adding a fiery spice to our political theater.

⸻

The President’s Response: “He’s Just Gone Nuts”

On the morning of June 5, Donald Trump—already from the pulpit of his own Truth Social—didn’t hold back. In a series of posts, he accused Musk of “wearing thin” and “going CRAZY” over the repeal of the EV mandate, while also threatening: “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!” (Reuters). In one stroke, he retracted not only any residual goodwill from their past camaraderie but also hinted that all of Tesla’s subsidies and SpaceX’s contracts could be torn up in an instant.

Trump declared that Musk was “just gone nuts” and “doesn’t understand how government works” (The Washington Post). In that outraged tone, there was both personal offense and a desire to assert “who’s boss here.” And make no mistake: to the general public, those words were not merely emotional outbursts but pointed instruments of pressure.

⸻

The Twitter Episode: When the Threat to Decommission Dragon Turned Out to Be Temporary

On the evening of June 5, Elon Musk—like a scene from a political comedy—posted on X (formerly Twitter) with a seemingly benign mission: he proposed creating a new political party that would “truly represent 80 percent of the middle class” (Reuters). It seemed as though the public might shift its focus to something constructive, only for Musk, soon after, to deliver his real bombshell: “In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately” (X). In that statement, he threatened to take the Dragon spacecraft out of service—which would effectively put NASA’s missions to the ISS at risk (The Guardian).

Once those threats became real, the public was shaken: apparently, the biggest space-epic of 2025 wasn’t a scientific breakthrough or a fresh rocket launch, but the question of “Will the Dragon fleet survive?” 

However, just a few hours later, Musk, heeding “good advice” from users, retracted his statement: “Good advice. Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon” (CBS). Thus, the NASA crisis was, for the moment, averted—but viewers had gotten yet another reason to watch how far a public fight over budget and power could go.

⸻

Markets Never Sleep: Tesla Dives, Then Recovers Some Losses

On that fateful June 5, Tesla shares—like drum rolls before a storm—plummeted by more than 14 percent in a single trading day, marking the steepest one-day drop since March 2025, when the company lost roughly $150 billion in market value (The Guardian). Spreading slowly across cyberspace, the news rattled investors: dreams of “the value of innovation” collapsed like a house of cards at the mere scent of a White House threat.

But, as often happens in dramatic stage plays when the audience is ready to declare “the era of downfall,” news arrived on the morning of June 6 that White House aides had arranged a call between Trump and Musk for Friday, June 6, 2025. As soon as that announcement hit, Tesla shares began clawing back some of their losses, rising 4–5 percent in premarket trading (Reuters). In that instant, it became clear: for the market, any hope of “reconciliation” is literally priceless.

⸻

Update: The Call “Never Really Happened”

Yet, only a couple of hours after the initial sensation, a fresh wave of rumors and confusion erupted. Even on the morning of June 6, Reuters reported that the call was indeed set for that day, but later another Reuters dispatch—citing a White House representative—denied that any conversation with Musk on June 6 was planned: “The White House officially stated that Donald Trump has no interest in a telephone conversation with Elon Musk, and there are no plans for such a call” (Reuters).

Thus, neither the exact time nor the fact of the call’s happening was ever confirmed: first it was “scheduled” to “defuse tensions,” then “canceled before it could even be scheduled.” It sounds like a joke: “– Are we going to talk? – We were never going to talk. – But you scheduled it! – No, we didn’t.”

⸻

Consequences of the Feud: More than Just Losses and Stock Prices

Experts note that this Broadway-style spat could have far deeper consequences than merely roiling the markets: Elon Musk’s estrangement from Donald Trump threatens not only the loss of the entrepreneur’s financial backing but also limits the White House’s access to cutting-edge technological and space projects (NPR).

It’s also worth recalling Musk’s earlier accusation that Trump was involved in “Epstein files,” when he called for immediate impeachment and reminded everyone that without those “files,” Trump wouldn’t have won the 2024 election (ABC). The surreal feeling from such loaded claims made it clear that we’ve already stopped distinguishing where reality ends and a public morality alarm begins.

⸻

Political Hypnosis: Economy Versus Technology

Under the “microscope” of economic analysis, the picture becomes even more amusing. Strangely enough, both sides appear to speak common sense: Musk complains about fiscal irresponsibility, and Trump complains about the supposed pressure of the “electric-vehicle lobby.” Yet both of these statements are so intertwined with personal interests and rhetoric that it’s a blatant switch of topics: it’s no longer a matter of budget efficiency but a question of who will hold the taxpayers’ trust.

When threats to freeze NASA contracts are on the table, one can’t help but wonder: isn’t this all just absurd theater for ratings and hype? After all, since 2020 SpaceX has been ferrying astronauts to the ISS and supplying the station with cargo (Space). And suddenly, a handful of tweets can jeopardize multibillion-dollar programs, forcing NASA to rely again on SLS or seek other alternatives.

⸻

Conclusion: Between a Joke and a Serious Message

Beneath this absurdity lies a profound paradox: what really deserves the utmost attention (scientific and technological progress, government support for innovation) is shoved to the background, yielding the stage to the battle over who can scream loudest, “I have billions, and I can take them away.”

The satirical essence of this story is that it’s not just two individuals quarreling—it’s a clash of two symbols of our era: the symbol of wealth reaching for the stars, and the symbol of power claiming to own society. And, admit it, against the backdrop of this fight, we nearly stop noticing what plane or capsule scientists are inventing at that very moment, with their fates hinging on whether these “titans” manage to strike a deal before the weekend.

The author can only shrug and think, “Tomorrow we’ll be consumed by new threats, new tweets, new promises, and we will once again witness a farce where the serious and the ridiculous are tangled into one big knot.” And that knot is the real takeaway: when politics and business turn into absurd theater in the public space, at stake are not only personal ambitions but also the fate of projects that can change the future.