Is Elon Musk already wearing out his welcome with Donald Trump?

Just earlier this week, I wrote how some observers, such as podcaster and tech reporter Kara Swisher, wondered how long Donald Trump and Elon Musk could coexist, seeing as how they both have massive egos and there’s really only room for one when it comes to running the country.

Has the honeymoon already ended?

NBC News’ Dasha Burns, David Ingram and Julie Tsirkin wrote, “Musk has been so aggressive in pushing his views about Trump’s second term that he’s stepping on the toes of Trump’s transition team and may be overstaying his welcome at Mar-a-Lago, according to two people familiar with the transition who have spent time at the Palm Beach, Florida, resort over the past week. The sources said that Musk’s near-constant presence at Mar-a-Lago in the week since Election Day had begun to wear on people who’ve been in Trump’s inner circle longer than the tech billionaire and who see him as overstepping his role in the transition. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak publicly.”

One of the sources told NBC News, “He’s behaving as if he’s a co-president and making sure everyone knows it. And he’s sure taking lots of credit for the president’s victory. Bragging about America PAC and X to anyone who will listen. He’s trying to make President Trump feel indebted to him. And the president is indebted to no one.”

For the record, Trump-Vance transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, “Elon Musk and President Trump are great friends and brilliant leaders working together to Make America Great Again. Elon Musk is a once in a generation business leader and our federal bureaucracy will certainly benefit from his ideas and efficiency.”

And to be clear, Musk now has an official role within the administration. He and Vivek Ramaswamy have been named co-heads of the new “Department of Government Efficiency.” (Anyone else find it amusing that there are two people in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency?”)

Meanwhile, Mother Jones’ Inae Oh writes, “According to multiple reports, Musk is everywhere you turn at Mar-a-Lago, from the resort’s gift shop to nearly every meeting and meal with president-elect Trump. That constant presence has also extended to social media, where Musk calls himself the ‘First Buddy’ and appears in photos with Trump’s grandchildren.”

Politico’s Rachael Bade and Eugene Daniels wrote, “The bigger picture, however, is how Musk is starting to wear out his welcome with some in Trump’s orbit. After initially making a huge splash with his endorsement, made just moments after the July attempt on Trump’s life, some insiders now say he’s become almost a comical distraction, hanging around Mar-a-Lago, sidling into high-level transition meetings and giving unsolicited feedback on Trump’s personnel decisions.”

One “insider” told Politico, “Elon is getting a little big for his britches.”

So these are all the things that people in Trump’s orbit are saying. But Trump, for now, seems to not mind Musk hanging around. He might even be enjoying that the world’s richest person is a hanger-on.

Then again, Musk might be more than that.

The New York Times’ Theodore Schleifer wrote that Musk “has ascended to a position of extraordinary, unofficial influence in Mr. Trump’s transition process, playing a role that makes him indisputably America’s most powerful private citizen. He has sat in on nearly every job interview with the Trump team and bonded with the Trump family, and he is trying to install his Silicon Valley friends in plum positions in the next administration.”

Schleifer added, “Behind the scenes, Mr. Musk’s behavior has been far more hands-on than even some of his allies expected.”

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Support journalism and win the trip of a lifetime

$100 buys you a 1-in-100 chance to win a dream vacation in Tuscany and support Poynter’s mission to strengthen journalism. Winner is chosen Saturday at Poynter’s Bowtie Ball, but you don’t need to be present to win.

Buy your chance here.

The X exodus

Speaking of Musk, people and places are leaving X.

The Guardian put out a story on Wednesday: “Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X.”

The Guardian says the negatives of X now outweigh the positives, and that they will look to promote their work elsewhere.

The news outlet wrote, “This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.”

The Guardian noted that users of X will still be able to link to Guardian content, and that Guardian reporters will still use X for “news-gathering purposes.”

It added, “Social media can be an important tool for news organizations and help us to reach new audiences but, at this point, X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work.”

Meanwhile, former CNN anchor Don Lemon said he is leaving X entirely. His statement included him saying, “I once believed it was a place for honest debate and discussion, transparency, and free speech, but now I feel it does not serve that purpose.”

X’s competition

Suddenly, the social media platform Bluesky is gathering some momentum. CNN’s Clare Duffy reports that Bluesky rocketed to the No. 1 spot on the Apple App Store’s U.S. chart this week. Its user base has doubled in the past 90 days and it has gained 1 million new users in the past week, giving it more than 15 million total users.

“But,” Duffy wrote, “while Bluesky may be having A Moment three years after its launch, any claims that it will kill X should be taken with a grain of salt. As a private company, X doesn’t share user numbers. Recent third party estimates of user trends are mixed, although the consistent user growth the platform enjoyed prior to Musk’s takeover does appear to have been upended in the past two years. But — for better or, probably, worse — the site has so far weathered the creation of multiple other competitors, the reinstatement of White supremacists and the spread of racist conspiracy theories from Musk down without fading into irrelevance.”

The truth of Truth Social

Donald Trump's winning the election likely went a long way in keeping his social media network, Truth Social, alive. For the moment, anyway. Had Trump lost, Truth Social likely would have lost much of its relevance. It might have eventually limped away.

But The New York Times’ Matthew Goldstein writes, “The social media company that bears his name and represents the bulk of his personal fortune is not going away anytime soon. The market valuation of Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of the platform Truth Social, currently rivals toy company Mattel. And Mr. Trump’s majority stake in Trump Media is worth about $3.3 billion.”

“But,” Goldstein adds, “the company remains very much at a crossroads given Truth Social’s paltry revenues and limited advertising base. And though Mr. Trump has no official role at Trump Media, his 57 percent ownership stake raises the potential for conflicts of interest.”

That conflict? Well, suppose a foreign government or rich person bought a bunch of shares in Trump Media to gain favor with the future president.

Check out Goldstein’s story for all the possibilities moving forward with Trump and Truth Social.

Who the blank is this guy?

One minute, Pete Hegseth is a host on Fox News. The next he’s … (checks notes … and then checks notes again) the Secretary of Defense?

One unnamed defense industry lobbyist told Politico, “Who the (expletive) is this guy?”

Eric Edelman, who served as the Pentagon’s top policy official during the Bush administration, told Politico, “(Trump) puts the highest value on loyalty. It appears that one of the main criteria that’s being used is, how well do people defend Donald Trump on television?”

What is this, Oprah? You get a cabinet post. And you get a cabinet post. And you get a cabinet post. All you have to do is say nice things about Trump on TV.

The New York Times’ Helene Cooper wrote, “… several Pentagon officials questioned Mr. Hegseth’s lack of experience — other than serving in the military — and raised concerns about his ability to win Senate confirmation, even with Republicans winning control of the chamber.”

In addition, Hegseth has questioned women serving in combat roles. Just last week, he said on “The Shawn Ryan Show” podcast, “Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse. I’m straight-up just saying that we should not have women in combat roles — it hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.”

Marc Short, the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, told MSNBC, “I’m sure there’ll be a long confirmation process for several appointees, but I wouldn’t underestimate Pete — Pete served 20 years, he was awarded the Bronze Star twice in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s somebody that I got to know when he was running Concerned Veterans for America. I think people too quickly underestimate Pete, and I think this is a welcome change for a lot of people who want to see a change at the Pentagon.”

Mediaite’s Zachary Leeman noted that MSNBC’s Jen Psaki said of Hegseth, “Maybe he could be the secretary of Veterans Affairs, maybe he could do something else. The secretary of defense is someone who oversees the men and women serving around the world. It’s not about someone who is good on TV and who is fighting woke or cultural issues.”

The Associated Press’ Meg Kinnard correctly points out, “Since then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat roles to women in 2016, women have successfully passed the military’s grueling tests to become Green Berets and Army Rangers, and the Naval Special Warfare’s test to serve as a combatant-craft crewman — the boat operators who transport Navy SEALs and conduct their own classified missions at sea.”

Check out Kinnard’s story: “What to know about Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to serve as defense secretary.”

Harris’ next move?

For now, Kamala Harris is not going to be President Harris. But could she end up being Gov. Harris?

A new poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times found that if Harris decided to enter the 2026 California gubernatorial race, nearly half of voters would be very or somewhat likely to support her. Gavin Newsom’s term as governor ends in 2026, and by that time, Newsom could be gearing up to run for president.

Harris still has a home in California, and has served California as a San Francisco district attorney, the state’s attorney general, and as a U.S. senator. She has not indicated that she would run for governor. With the presidential election having just ended after a whirlwind three-month campaign, as well as still serving as vice president, Harris likely will need some downtime to figure out what she might want to do next. California also figures to have plenty of seasoned politicians interested in running for governor.

The Los Angeles Times’ Laura J. Nelson wrote, “Harris would have stronger support overall from Democrats, who have a nearly 2-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans. About 72% of Democrats said they would be very likely or somewhat likely to consider Harris for governor, compared with 8% of Republicans and 38% of voters with no party preference.”

But, Nelson added, “… the poll suggests that Californians could be less supportive of Harris running for governor compared with her run for president this year. Forty-six percent of likely voters were somewhat (13%) or very (33%) likely to support her for governor in 2026, the poll found. As of Tuesday, Harris had won 59% of the presidential race votes counted in California.”

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

Are you an up-and-coming newsroom leader?

If so, Poynter's Essential Skills for Rising Newsroom leaders is for you. This dynamic, in-person, five-day workshop will focus on the critical skills that new managers need to help forge successful paths to leadership in journalism.

Read more and apply now.

Media tidbits

• CNN’s Liam Reilly and Hadas Gold with “LA Times owner says Harris’ stance on Gaza war contributed to non-endorsement, plans editorial board revamp.”
• And after reading the CNN piece, former Los Angeles Times journalist Matt Pearce wrote a scathing piece on Substack: “Well, Patrick Soon-Shiong lied.”
• The New York Times’ John Koblin with “Viewers Flee MSNBC, and Flock to Fox News, in Wake of Election.”
• Media Matters’ Matt Gertz with “A comprehensive review of the revolving door between Fox and the second Trump administration.”
• Mediaite’s Alex Griffing with “Nexstar Hires Bill Sammon, News Veteran Ousted By Fox Over Trump Election Loss.” Sammon is joining as senior vice president of editorial content for its website The Hill and network NewsNation.

Hot type

• Vanity Fair is out with its 31st annual Hollywood issue.

More resources for journalists

• It’s time to apply for the Leadership Academy for Women in Media.
• Consider this dynamic, in-person, five-day workshop for new newsroom managers.
• Reinvigoration for the unsung heroes of the TV newsroom.