Musk, Trump and the EV Paradox

Trump and Musk: An Alliance No One Understands

The man producing the product most associated with the UN’s 2030 Agenda sits beside the politician promising to dismantle it. Tesla sells electric vehicles, the car championed by Greta Thunberg, Brussels, and low-emission zones, while its owner, Elon Musk, is now Donald Trump’s right-hand man. The paradox is so stark that the discussion begins with a question: what is an EV manufacturer doing alongside a president intent on burying the Green Deal?

The short answer is that Musk doesn’t just sell cars. The long answer is that no one agrees on who is using whom.

Why does Musk support Trump if he makes electric cars?

The most common explanation involves a personal crusade. Musk has stated he lost his son Xavier due to what he calls the "proge mind bicho," claiming his support for Trump aims to combat the culture he believes took his son away. Under this logic, the electric vehicle isn’t an ideological banner but just another industrial product, and Tesla wouldn’t rely on European regulatory frameworks to survive.

Some argue the EV itself isn’t proge: China develops them for strategic reasons—oil dependence, urban pollution—not environmental slogans. Counterarguments note that in Europe, EVs were imposed through regulation, fines, low-emission zones, and subsidies, giving them a pogre label.

What confuses skeptics is that Tesla isn’t just a car factory: it’s autonomous driving, AI, and robotics. Here, Musk and Trump share an agenda: both want the US to avoid dependence on China for upcoming technologies.

Who Uses Whom in the Trump-Musk Relationship?

The theory of the magnate pulling power strings has traction. Musk donated $260 million to Trump’s campaign, a figure that, compared to the $440 million from oil companies combined, doesn’t make him the top lobbyist but still a major player. In this view, Trump is the puppet and Musk the puppeteer.

The opposite reading circulates too: Trump is the seasoned politician, hardened by real estate and Wall Street negotiations, while Musk is a tech genius incapable of politics or social relations. In this version, once Musk becomes inconvenient, Trump will devour him.

Friction has already occurred. News reports mentioned a first clash over new technology funding: disagreements on who pays and for what. Nothing confirmed, but the episode shows the alliance isn’t monolithic.

Gestures vs. Facts: The Argument That Stands

Skepticism centers on evidence hierarchy. Anti-proge tweets and catchy phrases miccionan little, this school argues, when the core business remains the same: electric cars and brain chips. Neuralink and transhumanism fit poorly with the anti-proge narrative, just as Tesla fits poorly with the anti-2030 Agenda narrative.

The Bill Gates vaccine comparison is frequent: Gates makes the product, but Brussels mandates it and media pressure drives adoption. Musk makes the car, but governments fine non-compliance and city councils close centers. If the logic applies to one, it applies to the other.

Conversely, some recall Musk appearing on stage with Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), noting his presence at far-right events isn’t trivial. For this group, hatred of the pogre-proge world is the relationship’s real glue; everything else is industrial nuance.

The Backdrop: Who Controls Future Tech?

Beyond cars, the debate shifts to control. Some argue it’s not about vehicles but who dominates technological infrastructure: autonomous driving, AI, chips. They see the Trump-Musk fight as a battle for resource allocation, not ideology.

A deeper suspicion emerges: that two hands of a new world order take turns, leaving citizens to choose which hand strikes them. This is the most conspiratorial view, best treated as an unproven hypothesis, not fact.

What is factual is that the relationship began with intensity many compare to a lover’s infatuation. And like any infatuation, it has an expiration date if a serious conflict arises.

How long until that clash arrives?