Opinion | ‘Puerility, Provocation and a Strain of Nihilism’: 3 Writers on What Binds Trump and Musk

Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Bethany McLean, an author of “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” and Nate Silver, the author of “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything” and the newsletter Silver Bulletin, to discuss a fascinating dynamic in the new Trump administration.

Frank Bruni: Bethany, Nate, we gather to ponder what is arguably, at this moment, the most consequential and combustible partnership in President Trump’s life. No, not him and Melania. Not him and Mike Johnson. Him and his beloved (for now!) ambassador to Mars, Elon Musk. What, in a nutshell, does their relationship tell us about Trump, his presidency and this moment in America?

Bethany McLean: Musk is just one of the C.E.O.s who are racing to cater to Trump. It tells us that right now, in today’s America, no one knows what anyone really believes or stands for, other than money. There are a lot of dangerous elements in this, both between C.E.O.s, between C.E.O.s and Trump, and between them and all of us. It’s nice to believe that unleashing growth benefits all of us, but can growth be unleashed? And if so, who does it benefit?

Nate Silver: I saw a lot of criticism when Joe Biden invoked the term “oligarchy” in his farewell address — but the richest man in the world is now also one of the most politically powerful men in the world, if he wasn’t already. And the optics of the inauguration made clear that other very rich men will also be dealt into the hand — so long as they play by Trump’s rules. However, it is not a completely one-sided deal. The “tech bro” side winning the fight with the MAGA side over skilled immigration is significant.

Bruni: So, Nate, what does Trump get in return — and will it come with headaches and grief he’s not anticipating? Will he regret his oligarchy and rue his bros?

Silver: Trump gains a lot of financial resources, for one thing. Musk’s donations to Trump-backing super PACs will encourage other billionaires to play along — especially since it seems to have already produced an extremely high return on investment in terms of Musk’s net worth. Silicon Valley also brought Trump a certain cultural relevance and a permission structure for new voters (and perhaps just as important, wealthy donors in other industries) to come into the Trump coalition.

But there’s a lot of change coming all at once. Because Trump’s win was far more anticipated than in 2016, there were a lot of plans already in place. And it comes from people who have a philosophy of throwing a lot of crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. “Move fast and break things” is a risky way to run a government.

Bruni: Bethany, you mentioned “dangerous elements.” What’s an especially dangerous element in the Musk-Trump bromance?

McLean: I worry most that what Musk has called the Department of Government Efficiency will be inherently corrupt, by which I mean that it will deliver favors to those with power and pain to those without it. That has the potential to be combustible for Musk and Trump — Trump’s tolerance for voters’ pain may be very different than Musk’s — but it also may mean that we all feel very betrayed.

Bruni: Bethany, Trump revels in being the most powerful man on the planet, demands constant attention, is never wrong, values people in proportion to their obsequiousness and lords over a social media platform (Truth Social) made in his likeness. Musk revels in being the richest man alive, seems intent on being the most feared and talked-about as well, and lords over a social media platform (Twitter-cum-X) transformed in his likeness. How soon does this kennel of only alphas become a dogfight? And what might prompt it and what does it look like?

McLean: Right now it’s all easy, because they’re both basking in the headlines. But the task that “DOGE” has in front of it is real and deeply serious. America’s debt problem is a big issue. That means Musk has to inflict real pain if he’s going to accomplish anything, and accomplishing something might be existentially important. If the pain is inflicted upon Trump’s base, will they turn on him, and then will Trump turn on Musk?

I also think that Musk might have a different tolerance for negative press than Trump does, and that could cause a break. Musk doesn’t care and doesn’t have to care. Trump both cares — he always has — and has to care.

Bruni: Nate, I’d love to hear your prediction, too, about the timing and probable shape of the great Trump-Musk breakup. Or do they, against all odds, like Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson in a milquetoast rom-com, endure?

Silver: Both men are tempestuous, so you have to put some odds on a breakup at any given moment. But it depends partly on what Democrats do. Do they want to play ball with the oligarchs, or even nominate their own oligarchs (Mark Cuban, anyone?), or instead run more of a populist campaign? It seems at least possible in the long run that Silicon Valley concludes that the political parties need them more than the other way around, and they have the real power in the relationship.

Bruni: Bethany, you mentioned the Department of Government Efficiency, which is a reminder that Musk isn’t just a private citizen anymore; he’s a government official who might end up with an office in the West Wing. Shouldn’t we be talking about his stiff-armed salute — or whatever we’re calling it — at that rally on Monday in that context? What do you think it meant? And whatever was going on there, isn’t it incumbent on Musk in his new role with his new responsibilities to check his speech and spasms in a manner that forbids anyone from seeing a “Sieg Heil” and flashing back to the Nazis?

McLean: I’m willing to believe that he did not intend it as any kind of Nazi salute. I’m more interested in the power Musk has to actually change the shape of our country and tear up institutions. I worry about focusing on the wrong things.

Bruni: Nate, what’s your take on Musk’s emphatically outstretched, palm-of-hand-pointed-down gesture?

Silver: I’d say it’s about the 103rd-ranked item on the list of the 100 most important things to pay attention to. Trump rescinding Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order — even though Musk himself has often expressed concern about A.I. safety — is many orders of magnitude more important to the world’s future course. It reminds me of some of the very early Trump news cycles circa 2015-17, where Democrats were chasing shiny objects. I don’t know if it was just an innocent gesture by Musk or deliberately trollish or something darker.

Bruni: I at once agree and disagree with you. The specifics of that moment — sure, it’s hard to say they matter, in all their ambiguity, as much as the Jan. 6 pardons and commutations, as much as the government purge, etc. But that moment onstage captured a brattiness, an in-your-face-ness, a contemptuousness that defines Trump and Musk, that’s a big part of their glue and that informs the most consequential policy matters as well as the most obnoxious antics. This is about puerility, provocation and a strain of nihilism. And it really does scare me.

McLean: I agree with that. Both Trump and Musk have that quality — I’m going to call it carelessness, in a nod to “The Great Gatsby.” It’s one of the things that draws them to each other. Perhaps the deeper significance of it is that neither of them has any built-in respect for anything or anyone. The good of that, if we’re trying to be optimistic, is that it might enable them to start from scratch in places others wouldn’t touch. But we need belief in institutions. There are things that should be respected. Robert Rubin wrote an interesting opinion essay about how work in government requires humility. If you believe that, then we’re in trouble, because neither Trump nor Musk has humility.

Silver: Silicon Valley does have its values. At least they give lip service to free speech rather than putting “free speech” in scare quotes, as some people on the left have been prone to do — as hypocritical as they can be about implementing it. There’s more I agree with than disagree with in “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto.”

But power can be intoxicating, and they’re on a huge winning streak. It’s very hard to convince a poker player who’s just won a bunch of all-in bets (not that Musk was really staking his entire net worth) to take a more prudent course. On top of that, after a censorious period where people felt like they had to be careful not to offend the left’s various sensitivities, there’s a sense that you can do and say whatever you want.

Bruni: Let’s return for just a moment to the Department of Government Efficiency, which Bethany brought up before. It’s already made one big cut: Vivek Ramaswamy. He was supposed to head the new advisory group alongside Musk, but now Ramaswamy is off to run for governor of Ohio. Does this foreshadow the initiative being a P.R. stunt that ultimately goes nowhere? I mean, “government reform” screams “slog,” and Musk can’t simply play the swashbuckling C.E.O. and order everyone around. Do his skills and background really match this mission?

McLean: If Rubin is right about government work requiring humility, then no — I have yet to see any sign of humility in Elon Musk. There’s also an oddity at work here in that Musk has made at least some of his fortune thanks to government policies. Since 2012, over a third of Tesla’s profits have come from the sale of regulatory credits that are paid by rivals for exceeding emission limits. SpaceX obviously relies on government funding. So, is Musk the cleareyed person we might all agree we need, or is he ultimately just another self-interested hypocrite who wants the government spending and government policies that benefit him?

Silver: The agency has quickly evolved into something that basically just deals Musk more directly into the White House. I wouldn’t mind if there actually were an agency devoted to improving governmental efficiency. The size and scope of government have gradually built up over many generations. But I don’t expect a lot of precision in implementing the new policies (to the extent there are any) — for instance, eliminating Daylight Saving Time, one early proposal, is a bad idea once you scratch beneath the surface.

Bruni: On the subject of where Trump’s and Musk’s mind-sets overlap and what draws voters to them, I want to revisit, actually, Covid. Over recent years, Trump and Musk have been united in their derision of — even fury about — the lockdowns and restrictions of the early pandemic years. Have we underestimated the impact of those measures on American politics? Did the desire for liberation from school closures and mask mandates intensify voters’ anti-establishment passions and drive them to destructionists like Trump and Musk?

McLean: I think it was part of what drove people to Trump and Musk. I happen to have been deeply skeptical of some of our Covid-era policies — Joe Nocera and I even wrote a book about it. I understand people’s anger. The policies generally did benefit the well-off, whether it was the ability to work from home or the way the flood of money from the Fed juiced the stock market, which benefits those wealthy enough to have money in the stock market. It also created or deepened a very dangerous distrust of institutions that Trump and Musk are now benefiting from. And it made people feel like free speech was at risk — and it was. That’s resulted in a huge backlash.

Silver: Yeah, I think Covid, the most traumatic event of most of our lifetimes, has been oddly underrated as a cause of political turmoil. Partly because of the inflation it produced as the world tried to restart the economy, but also because of both the mass death of the pandemic and the massive amount of change it brought to everyday life. I say that as someone who thought some of the increased distrust in institutions was deserved. When I look back on what made Biden’s presidency turn south, I think the seeds were laid early and partly by Covid. Biden promised a quick return to normalcy, but the pandemic and the fights over restrictions were a huge story well into 2022.

Bruni: While we’re on the subject of the past, I’d like to recall that ​​once upon a time, Musk cheerfully supported President Obama. Now he’s just about surgically attached to Trump and is besotted with him, or at least does a very persuasive imitation thereof. Is there any ideological through line there? Something fixed and coherent about Musk’s politics and priorities?

McLean: No. I think that that’s one of the things that he and Trump have in common. Neither of them has any fixed ideology. There are good things about this. A willingness to be pragmatic isn’t all bad.

Bruni: I’m so glad you made the point, Bethany, that ideological elasticity can be a good thing — it’s much better than rigid orthodoxies, and we’ve seen what those have done to the Democratic Party. We’re seeing it now. But the key is for elasticity that’s not motivated principally by, and lousy with, self-interest.

McLean: Right, it can also turn self-serving very quickly. Said differently, a belief in something fixed, something bigger than yourself, can help keep you intellectually honest. Or it can blind you. Philosophically, I struggle with this, and am not sure there are easy answers.

Silver: I saw some of Silicon Valley’s right wing turn coming when working on my book. I never got to speak with Musk, but I did talk with most other principals (such as Marc Andreessen and Sam Altman). There are a lot of factors behind it, but two big buckets. On the one hand, you can read it as straightforward, self-interested politics. The Biden administration went hard after Big Tech under Lina Khan, and Silicon Valley wants lower taxes and fewer regulations. It’s not like business interests aligning with the Republican Party is a shock over the broader arc of American history.

On the other hand, they clearly feel very aggrieved, whether by their progressive/woke workforces or things like Tesla being snubbed by Biden at the electric vehicle summit back in 2021. Given that aligning with Trump seems to have paid off well for Silicon Valley’s bottom line, those things might seem like rationalizations — but I tend to think the grievances were sincere (which isn’t necessarily to endorse them).

Bruni: Moving on, though, to some more paradoxes and points of looming tension: Musk attained his greatest fame and riches through Tesla, which makes electric vehicles. Trump expressly demonized electric vehicles in his Inaugural Address, elevated gas-powered cars and shouted “Drill, baby, drill.” How does all that shake out? How does Musk persevere with the MAGA faithful, who rather like their fossil fuels?

McLean: That will matter only if it matters in practical, monetary terms. If Trump is hollering “Drill, baby, drill,” and that doesn’t affect Musk’s business interests, I’m not sure he’ll care. If, on the other hand, Trump wants to slash the subsidies other car makers have to pay Tesla, then there will be an issue. That’s where Musk’s self-interest might slam into the reality of gutting rules and regulations, and then you’ll have a big break between the two. Is it also helpful to specify that Trump might have done himself no favors, other than the financial ones — which might be what matter to him most — with the launch of his coin. It’s caused a somewhat quiet schism in the industry. This will be an interesting first test.

Silver: I think the equation has changed because A.I. is a very energy-intensive industry.

McLean: That’s such a good point, Nate. When it was in Musk’s financial interest to be anti-fossil fuels in order to promote the sale of E. V.s, he was. But now that he is in the A.I. business and it is demanding so much energy from basically every source available, will he still be anti-fossil fuels?

Bruni: Let’s finish with a lightning round. Brief, off-the-cuff answers. There’s an undeniable buddy-pic aspect to Trump and Musk with their different bearings and rival eccentricities. Which famous pair of Hollywood co-stars do they most resemble: Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis? Mel Gibson and Danny Glover? Robert DeNiro and Charles Grodin? Rock Hudson and Doris Day?

McLean: Sorry, I can’t do any of those. At least one of the men in each of those pairings is too classically handsome.

Silver: I suppose I’m revealing my lack of canonical movie knowledge, so in the spirit of today’s conversation, I asked ChatGPT. It said the best comparison is “Step Brothers” from 2008, starring Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly.

Bruni: Who would have won the promised-then-abandoned Elon Musk-Mark Zuckerberg cage match?

McLean: My bet would be on Zuckerberg. He’s done the whole physical-fitness thing, which is both wonderful — who can be against health? — and annoying, given what a cliché it’s become.

Silver: Yeah, Zuckerberg would go off as the heavy favorite. In sports betting terms, about -1,000, I’d think, meaning a 91 percent chance.

Bruni: On a scale of 1 (never crosses his mind) to 10 (keeps him up at night), how intense is Jeff Bezos’s Musk envy?

McLean: I’d have to say it’s a 10. Space is the last frontier, right? It’s the ultimate proving of one’s manhood. It cannot be easy for Bezos that at least right now, Musk is the clear winner. They both have too much money for money to be the determinant of ego.

Silver: Probably a 7? Bezos doesn’t strike me as a terribly insecure guy. But his investment in The Washington Post has brought him what he increasingly seems to regard as a number of headaches, whereas we’ve already spoken about the cultural and political returns to Musk’s purchase of X.

Bruni: Finally, in honor of Musk the space explorer — if you had to live on another planet, which would you choose?

McLean: We know too much about the planets for me to choose one. I’m going to pick a yet undiscovered planet, but obviously, one that supports canine life as well as human life.

Silver: Mars! When was the last time Mars was mentioned in an Inaugural Address? I do think Musk’s interest in space exploration accounts for some of his popularity. We don’t build things like we used to anymore, and there’s not much territory left unexplored. That’s a part of techno-optimism that I can get behind — but I’m certainly not volunteering for the mission.

Bruni: Bethany, Nate, I’m glad to have you on this planet. We’re better for it. Thanks so much.

Bethany McLean (@bethanymac12) is a contributing editor at Business Insider, a host of the podcast “Capitalisn’t” and an author of “The Smartest Guys in the Room.”

Nate Silver, the founder and former editor of FiveThirtyEight and the author of “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything,” and writes the newsletter Silver Bulletin. He is a part-time adviser for Polymarket, a political prediction market.

Source photographs by Christopher Furlong and Brandon Bell via Getty Images.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.