Washington, D.C. — Former White House strategist Steve Bannon intensified his attack against entrepreneur Elon Musk, escalating tensions with demands for an investigation into Musk’s immigration status and a federal takeover of his aerospace company, SpaceX. This surge of criticism was voiced on Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and reiterated in a subsequent statement, where he accused Musk of undermining the Trump administration’s policies.
Bannon, a prominent figure during his tenure with President Trump, alleged that Musk is residing in the U.S. illegally and should be deported without delay. These remarks come amid a growing public feud between President Trump and Musk tied to disagreements over significant legislative measures.
In a dramatic move, Bannon has urged the use of the Defense Production Act—a relic from the Korean War era empowering the president to direct private companies’ production efforts during national emergencies. He suggested this act could be used to assume control of SpaceX, citing national security concerns.
The act famously was employed by Trump himself during the COVID-19 pandemic to expedite the manufacturing of essential medical supplies, including ventilators and test swabs. This law, however, does not typically extend to the outright seizure of private entities, making Bannon’s demands somewhat unconventional and legally dubious.
The tension has its roots in Musk’s outspoken criticism of President Trump’s proposed tax and spending legislation, which Musk harshly labeled as grossly detrimental to economic principles. Trump countered by expressing disillusionment over Musk’s comments, especially considering the aid he alleged to have afforded Musk’s business ventures throughout his term.
As this conflict spilled over into the public domain, both figures took to social media, escalating the dispute. Trump hinted at the possibility of slashing federal subsidies that largely benefit Musk’s enterprises, while Musk responded with comments supporting Trump’s impeachment, and insinuations about unsettling connections between the president and controversial figures.
This back-and-forth had immediate financial ramifications, with Tesla’s market value plummeting by an estimated $150 billion in a single day, emphasizing the gravity of presidential influence and public investor sentiment.
Further complicating matters, Musk threatened to shut down SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft program, an essential asset for NASA’s operational capabilities in space. However, later communications suggested a retreat from this position, underscoring the pivotal role of SpaceX in American space exploration, especially after the retirement of the space shuttle program.
The disarray also affected the staff at the Department of Government Efficiency, an organization Musk founded to aid Trump in streamlining federal operations. Employees of this body, distributed across various federal agencies, voiced concerns over potential repercussions and political targeting due to their association with Musk’s initiatives.
Amid these controversies, several of Musk’s colleagues, who had been involved in government through special temporary positions, opted to resign, following Musk’s departure after his brief stint in the administration.
Bannon’s accusations are not new, reflecting a seasoned distaste for Musk as he previously branded him a “parasitic illegal immigrant” alleging disruptions to traditional policy frameworks without respect to national values.
Musk, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002, has occasionally faced scrutiny regarding the regularity of his immigration status from critics like Bannon, despite no concrete evidence suggesting any impropriety.
The dispute highlights a complex narrative entwining national policy, personal vendettas, and the potential impacts on significant sectors of the U.S. economy, provoking keen interest and concern among political analysts and business observers alike. As both high-profile figures continue their public and legal maneuvering, the outcomes of these confrontations could have lasting implications on government policy and business operations in the tech sector.