Elon Musk’s wild final night in West Wing: Rebel aide reveals what REALLY happened in snug office… the nauseating texts… and why Trump snapped
A new memoir by former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) official Tyler Hassen describes Elon Musk’s final days in the Trump White House, including a late-night tequila toast with senior aides in May 2025. Hassen portrays a tense atmosphere as Musk’s opposition to President Donald Trump’s spending bill and clashes with senior officials contributed to his departure, followed by a public rupture with Trump.
According to the account, Musk offered Tesla-branded tequila to about a dozen DOGE deputies in his small West Wing office; several declined, while Hassen drank two shots. Hassen says the meeting took place on the day Musk reportedly clashed with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and that DOGE staff were frustrated by new spending in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”. After leaving government, Musk denounced the legislation, made allegations involving Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump responded by expressing disappointment and threatening action against Musk’s federal contracts and subsidies.
- Memoir depicts Musk’s tense final days in the White House.
- Spending disputes helped trigger Musk’s break with Trump.
- Their disagreement quickly escalated into public attacks.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Musk’s stance would argue that his opposition to the spending bill reflected a legitimate concern about fiscal discipline and the integrity of DOGE’s mission. From this view, challenging additional expenditure—even when politically inconvenient—was consistent with a promise to reduce government waste, and frank disagreement with senior officials can be an appropriate part of public service. They may also see the late-night farewell as an informal attempt to thank a small team after an unusually intense period of work.
The case against
Critics would argue that effective government requires discipline, professional restraint and the ability to resolve disagreements without escalating them into public conflict. They may contend that publicly attacking the President’s central legislation, and later making serious allegations amid a personal and political rupture, weakened the administration and distracted from substantive policy debate. From this perspective, a senior adviser who cannot support the elected President’s agenda should depart respectfully rather than allow tensions to damage institutional trust.