In recent political discussions, claims circulated that authority over the presidency was being influenced by technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, described by some as a “new hoax.” Reports from various outlets noted the assertion that Musk played a central role in shaping policy during a heated debate on funding the federal government, a move that commentators say could heighten concerns about executive influence over legislative processes.
Observers pointed to Musk’s high-profile involvement in discussions surrounding the funding bill, which reportedly led to tensions over possible government shutdowns. The talks highlighted how a figure outside the traditional circle might affect policy timelines and the fate of essential government services. Some described Musk as a “shadow president” because of his behind-the-scenes impact on the legislative process.
During a rally in Arizona, Trump stated that Musk could not legally become president since the businessman was born outside the United States, a point rooted in constitutional eligibility considerations. The remarks were framed as part of a broader critique of contemporary political power, with the former president suggesting that birthplace would bar Musk from office.
Trump also credited Musk with performing a substantial role in his sphere, expressing praise for the tech executive’s contributions amid a challenging political climate.
In a separate remark, Trump suggested that if a government shutdown in the United States could not be avoided, it should be allowed to occur immediately, framing the issue as a crisis tied to the current administration’s management of the budget and governance.
Earlier discussions reportedly included Musk describing the proposed interim budget as criminal, signaling disagreement over fiscal policies and the direction of federal funding.
Overall, the conversation illustrates how prominent tech figures can become entangled in national politics, shaping debates about governance, funding, and constitutional boundaries. The ongoing budget process and the possibility of a shutdown remain central to the discourse, with observers urging careful analysis of claims and vigilant adherence to the legal framework that governs presidential eligibility.