“When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change; the devil changes you.” — Max California, ‘8mm’
The saga of Elon Musk’s entanglement with Donald Trump is not just another chapter in celebrity fallout; it’s a cautionary tale about what happens when a mercurial business leader steps into the unpredictable cauldron of politics.
Elon Musk, the iconic entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, once revered for disrupting industries thought impenetrable, now faces the harsh realities of aligning himself too closely with political power. Musk’s ascent in business hinged largely on his relentless pursuit of the seemingly impossible, from revolutionizing electric vehicles to pioneering private space travel. Yet, his decision to helm Trump’s ambitious Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has proven disastrous, undermining his business empire and exposing vulnerabilities in his judgment and temperament.
Initially heralded as a potential game-changer in reducing governmental waste, Musk’s tenure quickly descended into controversy and ineffectiveness. His attempt to slash $2 trillion from federal spending quickly revealed an unrealistic grasp of governance. DOGE’s brutal cuts, targeting foreign aid and federal employees, barely dented the budget but inflicted severe damage globally, allegedly contributing to hundreds of thousands of deaths, according to Boston University models. Musk’s personal battles also surfaced, amplifying concerns about his impulsive nature and psychological profile—traits that, while perhaps advantageous in innovation, proved disastrous in politics.
Musk’s unceremonious exit from DOGE, highlighted by his public feud with Trump over policy differences and personal insults, underscored his fundamental miscalculation: politics is not engineering, and political alliances, especially with figures as mercurial as Trump, can become toxic overnight. Tesla, Musk’s flagship company, suffered immediate repercussions. Tesla’s market share has tumbled, losing ground to agile competitors like BYD, whose technological advancements now eclipse Tesla’s once-unquestioned dominance. Protests branding Musk as “fascist” or “Nazi” have stained Tesla’s brand equity deeply, showing how Musk’s political flirtations directly jeopardized his business empire.
Interestingly, parallels emerge in India’s own startup ecosystem, notably with Bhavish Aggarwal, founder of Ola Electric, now frequently labeled “India’s Elon Musk.” Aggarwal appears increasingly to mirror Musk’s missteps—launching into ventures like Krutrim, an AI startup funded through complex financial maneuvers tied to Ola Electric’s volatile stock price. Aggarwal’s public spats, much like Musk’s, highlight an eerie alignment of entrepreneurial brilliance with worrying tendencies toward distraction and vanity.
Consider Musk’s infamous acquisition of Twitter (now X)—a deal he funded through elaborate leveraging of Tesla stock and banks’ debt. Aggarwal echoes this pattern with Krutrim, financed by loans against Ola Electric’s shares, similarly drawing banks into uncomfortable positions as company performance dips. Both Musk and Aggarwal have become cautionary symbols of what occurs when entrepreneurs veer away from core expertise and indulge in peripheral distractions fueled by ego rather than strategic sense.
Historically, business magnates stepping into politics, like Vijay Mallya in India or even Trump himself, tend to face severe consequences. Vijay Mallya, once a flamboyant tycoon, disastrously intertwined his business empire with political ambitions, culminating in ruinous debts and exile. The lesson remains clear: venturing into politics without clear boundaries or expertise risks self-destruction.
Ultimately, Musk’s downfall illustrates a broader warning. His psychopathic tendencies—bold risk-taking, grandiose visions, and impulsive actions—once celebrated for disruption, are catastrophic in politics, where relationships are nuanced, and consequences dire. His alliance with Trump, who himself embodies unpredictability, amplified the risks exponentially. Musk’s predicament now serves as a stark reminder: when the business elite dance with political power, particularly eccentric power, the outcome is rarely beneficial.
In closing, Musk’s tale is not just about a billionaire’s hubris or miscalculated political ambition; it’s about the delicate balance between innovation and egomania. Musk’s and Aggarwal’s concurrent stories highlight that, irrespective of geography, business leaders must guard zealously their core competencies. Politics, especially petty politics, can lure entrepreneurs into a treacherous dance from which few emerge unscathed.