Is Elon Musk really stepping back from government? Why Trump may want him to exit now

As Elon Musk approaches the end of his legally defined 130-day stint as a “special government employee,” US President Donald Trump has privately signalled to top aides that the billionaire tech mogul may soon step back from his role in the administration. The statement, first reported by Politico and corroborated by ABC News, suggests a pivotal shift in the controversial partnership that has dominated headlines since Musk was tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Although no formal decision has been made public, the signs increasingly point to Musk concluding his tenure in Washington by late May. While some of Trump’s advisers believe Musk’s exit is procedural and tied solely to the expiration of his term, others see it as a calculated move to reduce political fallout tied to the Tesla CEO’s polarising policy decisions.

Why was Elon Musk brought into the government in the first place?

Musk’s entrance into public service was seen as part of President Trump’s broader strategy to bring private-sector efficiency into federal bureaucracy. Appointed as a special government employee, Musk was tasked with leading DOGE, a newly created entity aimed at cutting waste, streamlining operations, and implementing aggressive budgetary reforms across various federal agencies.

Under the special employee designation, Musk was permitted to serve up to 130 non-consecutive days within a calendar year—a status typically used to temporarily engage external experts. From the outset, the arrangement raised eyebrows. Critics questioned whether Musk, who continues to lead multiple ventures including Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), could realistically balance his commercial obligations with the demands of public office.

Musk’s defenders countered that his tech-forward mindset and business acumen made him uniquely suited to disrupt entrenched inefficiencies in government. The White House praised DOGE’s early successes in consolidating procurement systems and automating routine agency workflows. But behind the scenes, Musk’s unconventional approach sparked tension within the administration.

What caused friction between Elon Musk and Trump’s inner circle?

According to multiple sources cited by ABC News, Musk’s decision-making style has divided top aides in the White House. Some have described his leadership as erratic and unilateral, bypassing traditional protocols and clashing with career civil servants. At least two senior staffers reportedly resigned in frustration, describing Musk as a “disruptive force” whose directives often created more confusion than clarity.

Yet others in Trump’s orbit have fiercely defended him, portraying media narratives about his departure as exaggerated. One senior official close to the situation told ABC News that while Musk’s tactics have been unconventional, the results are undeniable—government spending has been cut, contracts renegotiated, and several agencies overhauled in record time.

President Trump has himself praised Musk’s efforts, stating publicly during a cabinet meeting in March that Musk “has done an amazing job” and that he would “likely have to go back and run Tesla at some point.” That remark was in response to a question about the 130-day rule, reinforcing that the president is aware of the statutory limitation and accepts Musk’s eventual departure as inevitable.

What does this mean for Tesla and Musk’s business empire?

The looming exit from public service coincides with mounting pressure on Tesla. The electric vehicle manufacturer reported a 13% decline in deliveries during the first quarter of 2025, its steepest drop in over two years. Industry analysts attribute the decline partly to consumer backlash against Musk’s high-profile involvement in politics, which they say has alienated some of Tesla’s core customer base.

At the same time, Tesla’s share price has shown signs of recovery, rebounding to $282.76 after an initial slump. Market watchers believe that Musk’s anticipated return to the private sector could provide a stabilising effect, allowing him to refocus on product development, market expansion, and investor relations.

Beyond Tesla, Musk’s absence from DOGE could allow him to devote more attention to SpaceX’s Starship program, which has faced delays in its lunar mission timeline, and to X, where content moderation and monetisation efforts have drawn criticism.

How has the White House responded to the rumours?

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has downplayed reports of any tension, saying that Musk and Trump have “both publicly stated” that the tech entrepreneur will depart from government once his “incredible work at DOGE is complete.” Her remarks, posted on social platform X, were a direct rebuttal to the Politico article suggesting Musk was being gently pushed out due to internal conflict.

Leavitt’s comments mirror the administration’s broader narrative—that Musk’s exit was always expected once his limited-term appointment ran its course. However, the timing and tone of internal discussions hint that Trump’s team may be seeking to create distance from Musk’s more controversial initiatives, particularly those that have drawn lawsuits and triggered backlash from federal employee unions.

What are the broader implications of Musk’s government exit?

The pending departure raises significant questions about the future of public-private partnerships in Washington. Musk’s stint at DOGE was the highest-profile experiment in importing Silicon Valley-style disruption into federal governance. Whether viewed as a success or a cautionary tale, it has set a precedent for involving private sector leaders more directly in national policymaking.

Government efficiency, once a bureaucratic buzzword, has become a headline issue, thanks in large part to Musk’s aggressive reforms. But the backlash he faced also underscores the limitations of applying corporate logic to public institutions. Critics argue that government operates under different incentives, with mandates for transparency, equity, and legal accountability that private enterprises are not typically subjected to.

At the same time, some industry observers believe that the DOGE initiative, even if short-lived, has laid the groundwork for future reforms. Artificial intelligence, automation, and predictive analytics are now part of the conversation in federal planning circles—topics Musk helped elevate during his tenure.

If nothing else, Musk’s presence in Washington has redefined what it means to serve in government. He brought celebrity, controversy, and a business-first mentality to a role typically occupied by anonymous technocrats. His departure will mark the end of a bold, if turbulent, experiment—one that has left a deep imprint on both the White House and the broader political discourse.

Whether history remembers his service as transformational or merely disruptive will depend on what follows. If Trump’s administration continues to build on DOGE’s foundations, Musk may be credited with catalysing a new era of bureaucratic reform. If the project falters in his absence, critics will claim vindication.

What remains clear is that Elon Musk’s relationship with Washington is unlikely to end completely. As a business leader with interests in infrastructure, space, AI, and energy, he will remain a powerful figure in future national conversations—regardless of whether he holds a government badge.