Veronique de Rugy writes for National Review Online about choosing sides in a high-profile political feud.
In the fight between President Trump and Elon Musk, I would say that Elon Musk is right. The One Big, Beautiful Bill is fiscally irresponsible because, for the benefit of special interests, it fails to make the most pro-growth provisions permanent. It is also because of its lack of spending cuts or the closing of tax loopholes. …
… Mr. Trump claims that “Elon’s upset because we took the EV mandate . . . which was a lot of money for electric vehicles and, you know, they’re having a hard time, and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidies.” The president also noted that these subsidies are silly and shouldn’t exist. He is correct. He added that “Elon knew this from the beginning; he knew it from a long time ago.” But his accusation doesn’t align with Musk’s public statements.
Sure, Musk’s companies have been the beneficiaries of loads of subsidies, which I have criticized him for many times. Still, his recent statements have been in favor of cutting them. More importantly, what seems to upset Musk is the fact that the Republican bill would cut EV subsidies but keep those for oil and gas. He said, for instance, “Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.” This statement reinforces a stance he has maintained since at least 2021, when he testified, “We don’t need the $7,500 EV tax credit. Honestly, I would just cancel this whole infrastructure bill. Delete. I’m literally saying get rid of all subsidies. But also for oil and gas.”
He is right. The argument is straightforward: Subsidies distort markets, breed inefficiencies, and encourage cronyism. Green subsidies — particularly those for EVs and solar — often channel funds toward politically favored companies rather than toward market-driven innovation.
