Why Musk Picked This Fight With Trump
12:03 Share

♪ ♪

As the fallout continues from the feud between President Trump and Elon Musk, some ask, why did Musk pick this fight? It's either incredible delusions of grandeur, thinking that his money and his influence can rewrite reality in Washington. Or perhaps this might be a warning to those in Washington that he is willing to go nuclear over the issues that are very important to him. Plus, as the rift grows, Republican leaders stand behind Trump.

And U.S. job growth fell last month but beat economists' expectations. It's Friday, June 6th. I'm Alex Zosula for The Wall Street Journal. This is the PM edition of What's News, the top headlines and business stories that move the world today.

Tensions have publicly exploded between the world's most powerful man in politics and the world's richest man in terms of money. Yesterday, President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk traded barbs and insults, rupturing a relationship that had been one of the most consequential in modern American politics. The feud exploded after Musk aggressively criticized Trump's tax and spending mega bill. So why did Musk do this? I'm joined now by Wall Street Journal columnist and host of our Bold Names podcast, Tim Higgins.

Okay, Tim, why did we see what we saw yesterday? Why did Musk start this war of words and go nuclear in it? Well, it's two theories here. It's either incredible delusions of grandeur, thinking that his money and his influence can rewrite reality in Washington, or perhaps it is asymmetrical warfare, using his power in a different kind of way. This might be a warning, but

to those in Washington, that he has not forgotten his goals there, that he's paying attention and very clearly willing to go nuclear over the issues that are very important to him. So all this happened the way it happened, right? But are we really surprised here? Was this blow up only a matter of time?

I'm surprised that there weren't running pools on various websites about when this was going to happen. You almost kind of expected there to be kind of the blow up watch between these two in part because both are big personalities. They are the stars of their own shows.

People didn't think this was going to go as far as it did. And people were just continually surprised at how close Musk was to Trump. And the question always was, how long can they make it last? They had a lot of reason, and they still have a lot of reason to keep things going. Musk has provided a lot of money. Musk has provided a lot of attention and

and a lot of ability to bring more people into the kind of the Trump tent, if you will, that has been helpful. And then for Musk and his various companies that operate in heavily regulated areas, there is a lot of benefit to having a friend in the White House. That was WSJ columnist and host of the Bold Names podcast, Tim Higgins.

Well, despite Musk's poll in Washington, Republicans seem to be standing behind Trump for the time being. Olivia Beavers covers Congress for The Wall Street Journal. Olivia, Trump and Musk are having this very public spat. How are Republicans looking at this? Well, it's kind of funny, Alex, because first they were a little gentle in their rebuffs of Musk. So they're like, you know, we love him, but he's entitled to his own opinion. But we disagree with him.

Now that President Trump has gone after Musk, it seems like the floodgates have opened a little bit. There's one Trump defender named Troy Nels from Texas who said, Elon, you have lost your damn mind. So there really seems to be sort of this schism happening on the Hill. Now, that doesn't mean that Musk doesn't have members praising him, but more Republicans definitely seem to be willing to criticize Musk. And

and make it clear that in this divorce, they're going with Donald Trump. Yesterday, Musk replied yes to a tweet suggesting that Trump be impeached and replaced with Vice President J.D. Vance. Where does Vance specifically stand on this?

Well, Vance put out a statement saying he stands with President Trump. It was a little bit of a gentle statement that he put out. You know, he didn't really seem to be really going after Musk too much, so much as reaffirming that he stands with Trump. Now, there were discussions about a reconciliation. Musk and Trump were supposed to talk today, or at least their camps were. And it seems like Trump then went to the media and said he doesn't care to talk to Musk. So...

At the center of this fight seems to be Trump's big, beautiful tax and spending bill, which Senate Republicans are working on after the House passed its own version. Elon Musk, of course, criticized the bill while Trump defended it.

How could this affect the calculations or what gets included in that bill? Well, we're still trying to suss out exactly how it's going to impact it. But there was some indications that conservatives would feel more empowered to be pushing for fiercer spending cuts, which is going to create a whole...

other issue of moderates and centrist Republicans who are already uncomfortable with the level of cuts saying you better not take it even further. And so you're seeing that in the Senate, but you're also seeing it in the House. So there seems to be some sort of cover in terms of conservatives saying, OK, we need to keep pushing more for what we want here. That was WSJ reporter Olivia Beavers. Thank you, Olivia. Thanks.

Coming up, what the latest job numbers show about how U.S. employers are faring. That's after the break. The Labor Department said today that the U.S. added 139,000 jobs in May. That's above economists' expectations, but slower than last month's job growth. The unemployment rate, which is based on a separate survey from the jobs figures, held steady at 4.2%.

For more on these numbers, I'm joined by WSJ economics reporter Justin Lehart. Justin, these numbers seem like kind of a mixed bag here. What do they tell us about how employers are feeling? The word is probably cautious. The unemployment rate held steady, but that was largely because a lot of people just dropped out of the hunt for jobs. Otherwise, it would have risen significantly.

companies are kind of sitting on their hands. They're not firing a lot of people, but taking new people on is something that they're a little less certain about.

You mentioned that unemployment is steady, but we're also seeing that the pace of hiring is slowing. What is going on there? It's very, very hard for businesses to plan right now. With tariff uncertainty, if you're a shipping company, right, you're going to be putting in new equipment and developing your business in one direction if tariffs stay very high and in another direction if tariffs stay very low. So...

That creates an environment where nobody moves, nobody gets hurt. That was WSJ reporter Justin Lehart. Thank you, Justin. Thanks.

The jobs report that showed that hiring slowed less than expected buoyed U.S. stocks today. The report lets the Federal Reserve stay on hold through the summer, and traders dialed back bets on interest rate cuts in the months ahead. Major indexes ended the day higher. The S&P 500 ticked up about 1 percent, the Dow rose roughly 1.1 percent, and the Nasdaq advanced 1.2 percent.

In other news, Gemini Space Station, the crypto exchange controlled by the Winklevoss twins, said it plans to go public. The company made its plans known to regulators through a confidential filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission today. The news comes a day after crypto firm Circle Internet Group surged in its stock market debut.

The Trump administration has brought Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, a man who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. According to newly unsealed court documents, he now faces federal criminal charges of unlawfully transporting unauthorized immigrants.

We're exclusively reporting that five members of the Proud Boys, who were once convicted of masterminding the January 6th breach of the U.S. Capitol, are accusing the federal government and FBI employees of violating their rights in connection with their prosecutions in a new lawsuit.

Top leaders of the far-right group were either pardoned or had their sentences commuted by President Trump earlier this year. Today, they filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court claiming that the FBI agents and prosecutors were motivated by personal animus against them and their beliefs. The suit seeks $100 million in punitive damages. Representatives for the Justice Department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

And are products labeled made in USA actually made here? Turns out it can be kind of hard to tell. And now a growing number of lawsuits are accusing household brands of misleading consumers when they say their products were made in the United States.

According to consumer advocacy group Truth in Advertising, 13 proposed class action suits over Made in USA claims have been filed so far this year, compared with seven in 2024 as a whole. It's already the largest annual case total since at least 2011, the first year tracked by the group.

Our Anthony Bansi asked WSJ reporter Patrick Coffey about what's driving these lawsuits. Repeated surveys show that Americans would prefer to buy products that are made in America. But what has really intensified the focus on this is the re-election of President Trump and the tariffs that he passed in April that have applied to or disrupted really the entire global trade system.

One of his big points in the campaign was that he wanted to bring manufacturing back to the United States. And so that just really brought more attention to the perception that most of what we buy is not made here.

So what exactly is the bar for a product to carry the Made in America label? One of the reasons that you see so many lawsuits is because the bar is not really clear. The FTC recently updated the language in its standards to say that in order to be described or marketed as made in the USA, all or virtually all of a product must be produced in this country. There are no numbers involved, and it's not quite clear legally what those words mean.

Then you have state laws that seem to conflict with that. For example, in California, there's what they call a safe haven, where generally companies can say that if less than 5% of a product's market value consists of imported parts, then we can still say it's made in the USA. And that number goes up to 10%.

if the core elements are not produced in the USA at all. That was WSJ reporter Patrick Coffey in conversation with my colleague Anthony Bansi. And that's What's News for this week. Tomorrow, you can look out for our weekly markets wrap-up, What's News in Markets. Then on Sunday, we'll be discussing whether President Trump can bring more critical minerals mining and processing under U.S. control. That's in What's News Sunday.

And we'll be back with our regular show on Monday morning. Today's show was produced by Pierre Bien-Aimé and Anthony Bansi with supervising producer Michael Cosmedes. Michael LaValle wrote our theme music. Aisha Al-Muslim is our development producer. Scott Salloway and Chris Zinsley are our deputy editors. And Falana Patterson is The Wall Street Journal's head of news audio. I'm Alex Osola. Thanks for listening.