Donald Trump has attacked Elon Musk as “crazy” and threatened to rip up his government contracts, as the spat between two of the world’s most powerful men erupted into an all-out public feud.

In a flurry of bitter comments in the Oval Office and online on Thursday, the US president said he was “very disappointed” in Musk for criticising his signature tax bill, suggested he had “become hostile” after being turfed out of government, and accused the billionaire of intervening in politics to serve his business interests.

Musk, who spent more than $250mn bankrolling Trump’s re-election bid last year and said in February that he loved the president “as much as a straight man can love another man”, returned fire on X.

The billionaire called for Trump to be impeached, suggested his trade tariffs would cause a US recession, threatened to decommission SpaceX capsules used to transport Nasa astronauts and insinuated the president was associated with the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The enmity deepened through the day, opening a breach that could widen long into Trump’s presidency and even influence US electoral politics, with Musk talking of starting a new party and removing Republicans from office.

Trump, who had previously defended Musk against charges of corruption and self-dealing, said the Tesla boss had soured on his “big beautiful bill” because it would end policies that benefited the electric-car maker.

“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday afternoon.

“The easiest way to save money in our Budget . . . is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” he added, in an apparent threat to end billions of dollars’ worth of business between the US government and Musk’s companies, including SpaceX and Starlink.

Musk, who is upset that the tax bill now before the Senate would increase the US deficit, accused the president of lying about his motives.

The exchanges were an extraordinary escalation of the feud between Trump and Musk, who had refrained from criticising the president directly even as he opposed the White House’s trade and tax policies.

The billionaire, who in April began his retreat from politics because of the “blowback” against his businesses, also suggested that he now regretted backing Trump during last year’s White House race.

“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” he posted on his social media site X soon after the Oval Office tirade. “Such ingratitude.”

Shares in Tesla fell by almost 11 per cent following Trump’s remarks and were down 13.5 per cent on the day, wiping more than $150bn from its market valuation — its biggest one-day drop in value ever.

Musk, the US’s largest political donor, also suggested that Republican lawmakers should side with him over the president.

“Some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,” the billionaire wrote on X.

He also hit back at Trump’s suggestion that he had opposed the “big beautiful bill” because it axed tax credits for electric vehicles and clean energy, which have long benefited Tesla in the US.

“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 in the bill,” Musk posted.

The deepening discord between Trump and “first buddy” Musk has in recent days spread through Washington.

Last week, Trump pulled the nomination of billionaire astronaut Jared Isaacman, a close ally of Musk, to lead Nasa, ostensibly over contributions he had made to Democratic candidates in the past.

Isaacman, who was on track to receive bipartisan support from the Senate, disputed the White House’s justification for the decision.

“I don’t think the timing was much of a coincidence,” Isaacman told the All-In podcast on Wednesday. “There [were] some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good, visible target.”

Musk had already announced that he was stepping back from his involvement in the Trump administration, where he had led the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).

Steve Davis, one of Musk’s lieutenants at SpaceX who led Doge on a day-to-day basis, had also now left the administration, according to a government official.

More senior figures close to the billionaire were set to abandon the initiative in the coming days, the official said.

Musk himself has suggested that the tax bill would wipe out any savings made by Doge, which claims to have identified roughly $180bn in cuts to date. On Wednesday, the congressional fiscal watchdog said the legislation would add $2.4tn to the US debt by 2034.

MBW Views is a series of op-eds from eminent music industry people… with something to say.

That’s certainly the case with this latest edition, with one important difference: the person who has penned the below commentary has requested anonymity.

We can tell you, however, that this individual is a reputable figure in the world of independent music distribution and services, running a company with global influence.

They’ve cloaked their identity due to obvious business sensitivities, to speak openly and honestly on a matter that worries every legitimate music rightsholder: streaming fraud.

In an email accompanying the below op/ed, our anonymous executive said: “I detest fraudsters… [and] we should do everything in our power to clamp down on them.”

He continued: “The twist is that those very DSPs who have forced us into the role of policing streaming are not giving us – and companies like ours – the most basic tools to fight that fight.”

Read on for his full views on the matter…

The Invisible Epidemic of Artificial Streaming

Streaming fraud remains one of the most persistent and destructive challenges in the digital music ecosystem.

From bot-driven artificial streams to the unauthorized distribution of unlicensed content, the result is distortion of royalty distribution, chart inflation, and the diversion of revenue from legitimate creators. While the music industry has advanced Know Your Customer (KYC) processes and fraud detection tools, the platforms who could do the most to solve the problem remain largely passive.

“The current system is not working. Artists and label distributors are being hurt by the fraud, while the fraudsters are not being punished.”

Fraudulent streaming is not just a nuisance; it’s a systemic problem that undermines the legitimacy of stakeholders across the ecosystem. Yet the parties most often penalized aren’t the bad actors themselves — but rather the distributors and labels who rely on good faith relationships with these platforms.

The current system is not working. Artists and label distributors are being hurt by the fraud, while the fraudsters are not being punished.

Streaming platforms, meanwhile, have the power to significantly change this reality. Why aren’t they helping?

An Uneven Playing Field

Streaming platforms have full visibility into behavioral data — IP addresses, device types, listening patterns, app sources, geographic and OS consistency — but they choose not to share it.

They can detect:

• A single user looping a track 200 times from a high-risk region
• 90% of a song’s plays originating from one app source in two days
• Whether streams are organic or synthetic

This makes platforms the only entities with a panoramic view of the entire ecosystem. They can trace anomalies to specific devices, accounts, or locations — but they don’t act consistently on this insight.

Instead, they push the burden of responsibility downstream. Distributors and labels must cobble together manual KYC checks, ISRC scans, and metadata vetting — without access to the behavioral data which actually reveals fraud.

And when fraud is flagged, it’s these partners who face takedowns, withheld royalties, or account suspensions.

Despite lacking critical data and working in the dark, many distributors work hard to prevent fraud:

• Authenticating documentation;
• Verifying social and streaming presence;
• Vetting ISRCs and content rights;
• Analysing royalty data for anomalies.

They often exceed platform standards — rejecting unauthorized remixes, spotting metadata red flags, and reviewing geographic inconsistencies.

But without visibility into anonymized user behavior, they can’t detect patterns or repeat offenders.

So why are the entities with the least insight the ones held most accountable?

A Broken Model

Here’s the core injustice: platforms hold the keys to fraud prevention but expect labels, distributors, and rights managers to police an ecosystem they can’t fully see. The data needed to identify and block bad actors sits in platform silos, locked away behind proprietary APIs and opaque review processes.

Distributors are expected to run sophisticated KYC/AML processes, audit metadata, verify rights, artist authenticity, cross-reference catalog ownership, track ISRC reuse, and analyze earnings for anomalies. Some even reject content based on metadata that suggests sped-up/slowed-down versions, mashups, or suspicious derivative works.

But when the most critical indicators — real-time streaming behavior, user demographics, device concentration — are withheld or delayed, these efforts are only half-effective.

When fraud is detected, the takedowns hit the distributors – the very companies that exist in service of labels and artists. The account suspensions land on their heads. Royalties are withheld. Reputations are damaged. Trust is eroded.

All while the platforms (and sometimes the fraud) quietly continue business as usual, often refusing to even explain the reason behind enforcement actions.

This system punishes compliance and undermines trust instead of incentivizing collaboration.

What Needs to Change: A New Shared Responsibility Framework

Platforms must match the efforts they demand of labels and distributors and become active partners in the fight against activity which damages the credibility of the entire music ecosystem… which includes DSPs.

Just a few things they could do:

• Offer real-time dashboards: Provide real-time artificial streaming data.
• Share fraud signals (e.g., device uniformity, OS concentration)
• Give transparent feedback: Provide data when taking down tracks or withholding royalties.
• Share intelligence: Enable cross-platform fraud flagging. Create shared fraud libraries for flagged ISRCs and metadata patterns
• Enforce fairly: Align accountability with data access. Shift from reactive strikes to proactive alerts

The Bottom Line: Platforms Must Stop Being Passive Observers and Join Music’s Collective Fight Against Fraud

Music is fighting an uphill battle against streaming fraud — but that fight could be so much more effective if every part of the legitimate supply chain played their part.

DSPs need to recognise that it is fraudsters, not legitimate labels and distributors who are the enemy.

It’s not enough to wash your hands and pretend it’s somebody’s else problem. Platforms have a duty not only to their users, but to the entire music value chain. That starts with transparency, timely data, and shared accountability. Without it, the wrong people will continue to pay the price.

Fraud isn’t just a distributor issue. It’s also a platform problem — and platforms need to start acting like it.Music Business Worldwide

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The European Central Bank has signalled it is nearing the end of its rate-cutting cycle as it lowered borrowing costs by a quarter point to 2 per cent in response to uncertainty over the impact of Donald Trump’s trade war.

With the latest widely expected cut, ECB president Christine Lagarde said the Eurozone would be in a “good position to navigate the uncertain conditions” facing the bloc, as she also insisted she was “determined” to complete her term at the Frankfurt-based institution.

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab said Lagarde had discussed cutting short her term at the ECB to join the body behind the annual meetings of business and political leaders in Davos in Switzerland.

Lagarde said the central bank had “nearly concluded” the latest monetary policy cycle, which has led to rate-setters halving borrowing costs from a peak of 4 per cent since June 2024.

The euro climbed following Lagarde’s remarks, trading 0.5 per cent higher against the dollar at $1.147. Traders reined in their bets on rate cuts, with swaps markets pricing in just one further reduction in the second half of the year. Prior to a press conference on Thursday at the ECB’s headquarters, markets had implied a small chance of two further cuts.

“She said several times ‘we are well positioned at the moment’,” noted Andrew Kenningham at Capital Economics. “[This] perhaps implies that interest rates don’t need to [fall] any more.”

“For the time being, the ECB can claim to have achieved a soft landing for Europe and the last mile seems to have come to an end,” said Kaspar Hense, a portfolio manager at RBC BlueBay Asset Management.

The central bank lowered its inflation outlook for this year to its medium-term 2 per cent target, down from the 2.3 per cent it predicted in March. It also revised its estimate for 2026 to 1.6 per cent from 1.9 per cent previously, which Lagarde said was purely driven by volatile oil and gas prices and the stronger euro, which has unexpectedly strengthened since the US president’s “liberation day” tariff announcements.

Core inflation, which strips out those volatile factors, is “hardly moving”, Lagarde said. The bank expects inflation to return to its 2 per cent target in 2027.

Lagarde acknowledged that “uncertainty surrounding trade policies” risked weighing on “business investment and exports, especially in the short term”.

The bank has not changed its expectations for GDP growth of 0.9 per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026, arguing higher real incomes and a “robust” labour market “will allow households to spend more”.

Additional reporting by Alan Livsey in London