Since April 2025, the relationship between Trump and his long-time ally, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has gradually fallen into a paradoxical deadlock. These once highly visible allies are now rapidly deteriorating, with the recent sensational “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” undoubtedly serving as a catalyst for their division. On May 22nd, local time, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the budget reconciliation bill, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” by a narrow margin of 215 to 214 votes. On July 1st, the Senate passed the revised version with 51 votes in favor and 50 against. The following day, on July 3rd, the House passed the Senate’s revised version with 218 votes in favor and 214 against. The next day, Trump officially signed the bill at the White House ceremony celebrating America’s Independence Day, making it effective. This comprehensive legislation integrates areas such as tax reform, spending adjustments, debt ceiling increase, and social welfare cuts, aiming to advance Trump’s government’s policy goals in economics, border security, defense, and healthcare through a single bill. The passage of this bill not only sparked intense domestic debate but also led to a public confrontation between Trump and Musk. As the former head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), Musk was committed to significantly reducing federal spending. However, the high deficit risk and policies that favor the wealthy contradict his philosophy, causing their relationship to rapidly deteriorate. Why did these once allies turn against each other? What divergences reveal about the future path of the United States?
Musk openly expressed his disdain for the “Big and Beautiful” bill, describing it as “revolting and ugly,” and then directly attacked Trump.
What is “Big and Beautiful”? The core content and policy objectives of the bill
At the beginning of 2025, the U.S. government faced significant fiscal pressures—the debt ceiling was approaching, economic growth was slowing, and international trade tensions were intensifying. Facing a dilemma between domestic and foreign affairs, the Trump administration attempted to fulfill its campaign promises by comprehensive legislation, aiming to consolidate the Republican base while addressing domestic economic challenges. In this context, the “Big and Beautiful” bill can be described as Trump’s most ambitious fiscal legislation during his second term. It encompasses tax reform, defense enhancement, border security, healthcare coverage, social welfare adjustments, and energy policies. The text spans 1,116 pages, aimed at fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises through significant tax cuts, enhanced security measures, and stimulating economic growth, attempting to redefine the American economy and society.
In terms of tax reform, the bill permanently extended the individual income tax cut provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), meaning that the tax rates will remain at 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%, avoiding a return to previous higher levels. Additionally, the bill increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000, applicable to taxpayers with annual incomes below $500,000, for a period of five years before returning to the original level. According to sections 110101 and 110102 of the bill, to stimulate consumption, temporary benefits such as tax-free tips, tax-free overtime pay, car loan interest deductions, and adjusted electric vehicle tax credits were introduced. The former supports service and labor-intensive industries, while the latter encourages car purchases. However, the reduction in the scope of the electric vehicle credit limits the applicability of high-priced models.
Additionally, the bill introduced a “Trump Account” (similar to the “529 College Savings Plan”), allowing parents to contribute up to $5,000 annually to this account, which is invested in a diversified fund tracking U.S. stock indices. Employers can also contribute up to $2,500 to their employees’ child accounts, with these contributions not counted as taxable income for the employee. However, the bill revoked the green energy tax incentives of the 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act,” including subsidies for solar, wind, and battery storage projects, instead supporting traditional energy development, sparking strong opposition from the new energy industry.
The “Big and Beautiful Act” on the White House website. Image source: The White House
Defense and border security are other key focuses of the bill. It allocates an additional $150 billion in defense budget for fiscal year 2026, aimed at military technologies such as upgrading nuclear arsenals, naval fleets, and air and space forces, accelerating research and development of hypersonic weapons and drones, investing in the “Golden Dome Missile Defense System” to counter missile threats from countries like Russia, while strengthening the United States’ military presence in the Indo-Pacific and Middle East regions. In terms of border security, the bill allocates $70 billion, with the budget for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department soaring from $10 billion to $100 billion, for the expansion of detention facilities, hiring of law enforcement personnel, implementing a plan to deport up to 1 million people each year, and fully funding the U.S.-Mexico border wall. This measure continues Trump’s tough immigration stance during his 2016 campaign, aiming to fulfill the promise of “border security first,” but has been criticized for its high costs and human rights concerns.
Significant adjustments have been made in the realms of healthcare coverage and social welfare.
法案通过收紧医疗补助计划（Medicaid）的资格审查，提高收入门槛并新增资产评估，预计将数百万人排除在保障范围外，联邦拨款削减进一步迫使州政府承担更多成本。食品券（SNAP）、住房补贴和低收入家庭能源援助等福利项目新增工作要求，规定18至60岁的非残障成年人需每周工作至少20小时或参与职业培训方可领取福利。改革旨在降低联邦支出并鼓励自力更生，但可能导致低收入群体，特别是农村和少数族裔社区，失去关键支持。
法案削减约2万亿美元联邦开支，涉及教育、住房、环境保护及部分社会服务项目，具体分配尚未完全公开。为刺激经济增长，法案为在美国新建工厂的企业提供100%税收优惠，覆盖制造业、物流和科技行业，吸引海外企业回流并创造就业机会。在能源政策上，法案推动“释放美国能源”战略，放宽石油、天然气和煤炭行业的环境监管，加速化石燃料开发许可，扭转拜登政府的气候议程，与取消绿色能源补贴相辅相成，优先支持传统能源州的经济发展。此外，法案提出对非美国投资者的金融交易征收额外税收，税率和范围待定，旨在保护国内资本市场并增加财政收入，但可能削弱美国作为全球投资目的地的吸引力，引发资本外流风险。
二、法案背后：特朗普与马斯克的裂痕
从2024年美国总统大选到2025年“大而美法案”的通过，特朗普与马斯克的关系经历了从亲密盟友到公开对立的戏剧性转变。马斯克在竞选期间为特朗普提供了超过2.
With $500 million in funding and leveraging the X platform’s significant influence for its promotion, Trump appointed Musk as the “DOGE” leader, tasked with slashing federal spending. With ambitious goals, Musk pledged to cut a budget of $2 trillion by the end of 2026. However, the passage of the “Bigger is Better Act” completely disrupted this plan. The bill is expected to push the fiscal deficit to $2.5 trillion in the 2025 fiscal year, contradicting Musk’s fiscal discipline goals. Musk publicly criticized the bill as “a disgusting ugly act,” targeting Republican lawmakers supporting it. On X platform, he called on voters to oppose these lawmakers during the midterm elections of 2026 and threatened to fund candidates challenging Trump’s agenda, thoroughly tearing down Trump.
Trump’s reaction to Musk was intense, labeling him “lost patience.” He threatened to cancel SpaceX’s government contracts and withdrew the nomination of Jared Isaacman, a Musk-recommended NASA administrator, even hinting at possible expulsion of this tech giant. The elimination of green energy tax credits directly impacted Tesla’s electric vehicles and energy storage businesses, which Musk particularly resented. He pointed out that eliminating new energy subsidies while retaining oil and gas subsidies created an unfair competitive environment for the new energy industry. Moreover, Musk proposed using the “Starlink” satellite system for air traffic management by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to improve efficiency, but the Trump team resolutely rejected this proposal, further exacerbating his frustration. In reality, the disagreement between Trump and Musk was inevitable—because their ideologies were inherently conflicting.
Trump’s trade protectionism emphasizes the reshaping of global supply chains through high tariffs to secure short-term employment; Musk, on the other hand, is a believer in globalization, relying on the openness and technological innovation of global supply chains. Their collaboration is more based on the exchange of interests during the campaign than on genuine conceptual alignment.
More ironically, Musk, who was once seen as Trump’s “shadow president,” has actually had less influence than expected. His differences with core members of Trump’s team have long been apparent, with Trump’s veto of his recommended candidates and marginalizing his role in government decision-making further revealing Musk’s limitations. On X platform, Musk candidly expressed his “weariness at being marginalized” and accused Trump’s team of “lacking vision.” In retaliation, he attempted to leverage the 200 million followers on X platform to create public opinion pressure. However, Trump’s base of voters is highly loyal, preferring his “America First” populist agenda over Musk’s fiscal conservatism and tech-oriented vision. The influence of Musk within the Republican Party has been significantly limited, making it difficult to shake up legislation or Trump’s leadership.
Despite Trump’s attempts to ease tensions by publicly stating that he remains “friend and ally” with Musk and hosting a farewell ceremony at the White House, the cracks between them are unlikely to heal in the short term. In an interview with NBC News, Trump stated that if Musk financed a Democratic candidate, he would face “very serious consequences.” Trump also mentioned that he believes their relationship has ended after their dispute. Musk continues to exert pressure through X platform, but so far, it seems to be ineffective. The future trajectory of Trump and Musk’s relationship is uncertain.
On one hand, SpaceX, as a pillar of American space exploration, has deep-rooted cooperation with the federal government in NASA, the military, and the communication sectors, making it difficult to completely disentangle these ties in the short term. This provides room for potential compromises, suggesting that neither side is likely to part ways immediately. On the other hand, Musk’s public confrontations may prompt him to further lobby, even fund candidates opposing Trump’s agenda through X platform, thereby sustaining his influence. Overall, the ultimate implementation effect of the bill will be crucial: if the deficit surge leads to economic pressure or welfare cuts spark social unrest, Musk might gain more support; conversely, if the bill stimulates short-term economic growth, Trump’s position would be further solidified, potentially marginalizing Musk further.
The “Elephant” and the “Zebra” in the “American Party”: A Step Towards a “Third Way”?
After Vice President Pence cast the decisive vote, the “Big Beautiful” bill narrowly passed in its first round of voting. On July 4th, Musk initiated a vote on X social media platform to establish an American party, receiving over 60% support. The next day, Musk announced the establishment of the “American Party,” claiming it would represent “80% of the middle voters” in American society. Amidst the escalating “MAGA” movement and the increasingly polarized American society, the “Big Beautiful” bill not only deepened the divide between American elites and the lower classes but also created a wider gap within the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as within the Republican party itself. The contradictions among Democrats, traditional populists close to the Republicans, Silicon Valley establishment, defense and military sectors, and emerging tech right-wing are evolving into a complex situation of turmoil.
对于占相当部分的美国普通民众而言，民主党在总统竞逐中的败选令其感到软弱和无能，而特朗普麾下“MAGA”集团的一系列“艺术操作”又令许多原本持观望态度的民众感到过犹不及。虽然民主党和共和党已像一块磁铁的两极将政见契合的人群尽数吸引，但有许多厌倦了两党政治的美国人既对“软弱驴子”不满，又对“疯狂大象”不齿。根据盖洛普（Gallup）等多家美国咨询机构的民调显示，2024年自称支持共和党（28%）和民主党（28%）的美国民众总和仅过半6%，比自称独立于二者的美国人多13%，这表明美国两党政治的民众吸引力正面临窘境。因而，马斯克所推崇建立的“美国党”，或许可能成为美国“驴象之争”以外的“第三条道路”。
马斯克在社交平台X上发起建立美国党的投票。图源：X
回顾历史，“第三条道路”有许多指代，在政治学领域最为著名的乃是吉登斯所言之“激进中间主义”（Radical Centrist）。在其看来，资本主义不仅仅面临着经济增长的难题，还有更多广泛深层的社会问题。而“第三条道路”所要做的就是要从政治、经济、社会、文化等诸多领域入手，找到一个全面医治资本主义社会弊病的方案。其主要有四点主张：一是要建立新型的合作包容型社会关系以缓解社会的原子化状态，二是要确立新型的政治中心用以团结各种政治力量，三是要推动政府由管理转变为治理，四是要改革福利制度。
For Giffords, the “third way” should not be understood as a middle-of-the-road compromise but rather as one with a pronounced combativeness. Therefore, in this sense, the policy platform and direction of the “American Party” are still unclear, more akin to an ideology targeting Trump and both Democratic and Republican parties, making it difficult to categorize within the realm of centrism. However, as the leader of this reformed and radical “third way,” Musk has been destined from the outset to engage in battles and confrontations with various factions on either side of American politics. This group of tech rightists pursuing significant changes rather than moderate adjustments, seemingly embodying the combativeness highlighted by “radical centrism,” seems to have embraced the very qualities that define their approach.
Against the backdrop of Trump’s vigorous promotion of personalization in political life, using social media platforms like Twitter to espouse political views and even national policies, traditional political community consciousness is now fragmented or even disintegrating in contemporary America, with the “silent majority” increasing. Traditional party politics, especially two-party politics, are losing their appeal to voters, with many neither Democrats nor Republicans but merely indifferent to either. As modern politics evolve, the Democratic and Republican parties, which were once strong at attracting voters beyond their core base, are now showing signs of weakness in terms of garnering support. Hence, the emergence of the “American Party” seems both logical and necessary. Relying on its X-platforms among other social media platforms, Musk and his political allies are effectively establishing a new political center. These tech rightist policies tend to encourage the US government to reduce national debt through governance-oriented modernization, establish an efficient “small government,” decrease the country’s control over markets and society, boost confidence in emerging technology industries, and even fully deregulate tech giants deemed “representative of human future.”
However, whether Musk and his “American Party” can successfully navigate the “third way” remains an unfavorable reality. Before the American Civil War, the Republican Party, relying on its golden seal of abolishing slavery as its core platform, succeeded in replacing the Whig Party’s dominance, turning its own path into a common one. However, the contradictions faced by contemporary American society and their responses have already been absorbed by both parties, with progressive and conservative banners flapping loudly on their shoulders, leaving little room for the emergence of a new political force under the “third way.” Musk and his tech-right wing, though representing only a small part of the American public, find it difficult to compete against the traditional power brokers within the “paper houses” and more covert state institutions. Although there are numerous urban voters who remain detached from traditional politics but actively active on social media, they struggle to form a tight community to support Musk. Therefore, Musk must create greater political synergy outside the basic voting blocs of both parties, particularly in key swing states, to break through the existing web of influence.
On May 30, 2025, local time, in the Oval Office of the White House, President Donald Trump (right) and Elon Musk spoke at a press conference.
Throughout history, those who have successfully adopted the “third way” have often been few and far between, with defeats and regression being the norm. In the context of the Democratic Party resting and seeking revival, the Republican Party internal disputes and the “MAGA” movement gaining momentum, Musk and his American party are becoming a critical point in the game of politics between the two major parties. Both democratic and republican parties hope that the American party will become a tool for their own political gains, using it to counterbalance each other.
If the American party splits the Republican vote in key districts, the Democrats would reap the benefits, enjoying a “winner-takes-all” scenario; if Vanessa and other Republicans successfully bring Musk back to Trump’s side as mediator of the special election conflict, then the aftermath of Musk assisting Trump in winning the presidential election could continue to play a role. However, if Musk decides to pursue a “dual non-attachment,” it is likely that both parties will choose to politically annihilate the American party under conditions where they cannot profit. At that time, Musk will not only find himself in a disadvantageous position politically but also his fundamental business, technological, and industrial base could be eroded by other competitors. Compared to Trump, who has a similarly wealthy family and has already reached the top, Musk’s success in becoming a “red-crowned merchant” is no easy feat. In the political struggle characterized by intrigue and constant change, money often takes a secondary place. It is not a problem if there is less political donations, but having them is better. The billions of wealth Musk possesses are essentially the most visible card in this tumultuous shift. Boldly opening up a “third path” may lead to an unforeseen downfall.
When will the division in America cease?
As the “MAGA” “godfather,” Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist during Trump’s first term, was furious with Musk’s “rebellion.” He suggested expelling Musk and harshly criticized him. Bannon openly stated: “Brother, you’re not American. You’re South African. If we spend enough time proving it, you should be expelled because you’ve committed a crime.” On his social media platform “Truth Social,” Trump posted: “Elon’s subsidies might be more than any person in history. Without subsidies, Elon might have to shut down and go back to South Africa.”
Upon the cessation of rocket launches, satellite production, and electric vehicle manufacturing, our country could save a significant amount of money,” Musk himself, tired of endless partisan bickering, is mostly powerless in the face of harsh reality. “He’s not a populist or nationalist; he’s a globalist,” Bannock said when discussing this tech billionaire. “There’s an insurmountable chasm between us.”
Beyond the disputes, the “Bigger Than Beauty” bill’s tax cuts and spending increases might stimulate American consumer and investment levels in the short term. However, the bill significantly favors high-income groups, with families earning less than $50,000 receiving only about 10% of the tax cut benefits, while those in higher income brackets benefit significantly more. Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told CNBC: “The most beneficial effect would be on middle-to-high income earners because low-income individuals typically do not itemize deductions.” The meager gains for low-income groups may be offset by inflation and price increases triggered by tariffs, limiting the effectiveness of economic stimulus. More seriously, the bill cuts social welfare programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, potentially leaving millions without health insurance or facing disruptions in food assistance, severely impacting low-income families, the elderly, and disabled individuals. The American Medical Association has warned that rural hospitals could close due to insufficient funding, leading to a decline in access to healthcare services. A reduction in food aid will also affect school lunch programs, thereby increasing the rate of malnutrition among children. The ongoing widening of wealth inequality will continue to trigger social unrest, increasing the risk of protests and conflicts.
In Iowa, Republican Senator Joni Ernst faced direct questions from voters about welfare cuts. Low-income communities in New York and California also rallied to protest the reduction of medical and food assistance. The advancement of this bill could further exacerbate social tensions and elevate the boiling point of inequality.
Undoubtedly, Trump’s dispute with Musk has transcended personal grievances, reflecting profound divisions within the United States on economic priorities, social equity, and global roles. The societal impact of the bill—intensifying inequality, deepening political polarization, and a decline in America’s soft power—intertwines with the divergent visions of the two men for the future of the country. Musk once stated on X that he aims to break the Spartan myth of invincibility by emulating “Icarus’s act of breaking the Spartan monopoly in the Battle of Leuktra.” However, even Icarus, despite his significant contributions to Sparta, was repeatedly interrogated and accused after returning to Sparta. He did not receive the heroic treatment he had hoped for, and his final fate was grim—he died on the battlefield. If the outcome of a tug-of-war between two parties is inevitably one side’s defeat, then does it hold any deeper significance to claim the definition of “making America great again”? “Adding new wounds to old ones” seems rational, but history repeatedly points towards the former. However, the question arises: Is it truly worth engaging in cowardly games under less dire circumstances?