Elon Musk is stepping back from his role in the US government amid growing personal and professional turmoil. Conflicts with officials, controversial family life, and faltering business results have contributed to his diminishing influence and raise questions about his priorities.
Elon Musk, long hailed by some as a visionary entrepreneur, is reportedly retreating from his role in the U.S. government amid mounting personal controversies and professional setbacks, according to an exclusive report by the Daily Mail.
Last Tuesday, Musk, 53, declared he would slash his involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) starting next month—a move widely expected among Washington insiders who describe Musk’s tenure as fraught with discord. Descriptions of heated clashes with top White House officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, paint a picture of a man increasingly isolated within the corridors of power. One senior official dismissed Musk as the “most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with,” signaling his diminishing influence. Former President Donald Trump’s recent references to Musk in the past tense further underscore the cooling of what was once a close alliance.
Behind the sanitized explanation of seeking “more family time” lies a more complicated reality. Musk’s prolific and unconventional approach to family-building—fathering at least 14 children with four women, and allegedly more—raises questions about his priorities and sense of responsibility. His estranged transgender daughter, Vivian Musk, has admitted uncertainty over the full extent of her half-siblings, shedding light on a sprawling and chaotic personal life. This obsession with progeny appears aligned with Musk’s controversial ideology favoring population growth through IVF gender selection.
Musk’s known partners include writer Justine Wilson, his first wife, with whom he had six children (one died in infancy); Canadian singer Grimes; Shivon Zilis, a senior Neuralink executive who has four children by Musk; and most recently, Ashley St Clair, a conservative influencer who disclosed nine secret months ago that she gave birth to Musk’s son Romulus—only confirmed through a court-ordered DNA test after Musk initially declined paternity acknowledgment. St Clair alleges diminishing financial support and restricted involvement in their child’s life after speaking publicly. She also unveiled Musk’s alarming ambition to create a “legion” of children to stave off what he deems a looming demographic catastrophe—a vision that smacks more of dystopia than reasoned leadership.
Further revelations reveal Musk’s disturbing offers to supply sperm to various acquaintances, including prominent Japanese officials and Silicon Valley elites, aiming to manufacture an elite class supposedly capable of ‘saving civilisation.’ Such bizarre personal schemes coincide with his colossal investments in sprawling Texas estates meant to house his extended family, a setup reflecting not stability but an unsettling detachment from traditional family responsibilities. Grimes notably refuses to join this ‘family enclave,’ underscoring growing fractures within Musk’s private domain.
Meanwhile, Musk’s professional empire shows clear signs of faltering. Tesla recently reported a staggering 20 per cent drop in car sales in the first quarter of this year and a 71 per cent profit plunge, with analysts attributing declines partly to Musk’s increasing polarizing political stances. The entrepreneur’s penchant for courting controversy extends across his political interventions—public backing of far-right figures like Tommy Robinson and support for extremist parties such as Germany’s AfD reveals a troubling alignment that runs counter to the pragmatic governance urgently needed in the post-election landscape.
His confrontational style has not only put strain on relationships with key Cabinet members but has also disrupted government functions, with aides reportedly intervening to physically separate Musk from ministers during explosive disagreements. This erratic leadership contrasts sharply with the stability sought by recent electoral verdicts where strong opposition voices have gained ground, advocating for a more measured, accountable approach.
In this context, the recent announcement that Musk is stepping back from his government role marks a critical juncture. While he claims to balance ambition for technological and space innovation with family endeavors, the truth is far more sobering. His expansive and controversial approach to family life, coupled with erratic political interventions and failing business metrics, epitomizes a disconnect from the serious challenges facing modern societies.
What is clear is that the current Labour administration, backed by a robust opposition advocating for national renewal and common sense governance, will have no tolerance for distractions that threaten the nation’s progress. It is in this climate that voices stressing the need for responsible stewardship, economic stability, and cultural cohesion—hallmarks of the emerging opposition—gain ever more resonance. Such principles stand in stark contrast to the chaos surrounding Musk’s fading political influence and unraveling personal saga.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
2
Notes:
The narrative references events, roles, and relationships that do not match verified public facts as of 2025. For example, Elon Musk is not officially known to hold any government role such as in a ‘Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’. References to a Treasury Secretary named Scott Bessent and other officials do not align with known US government personnel records. Musk’s personal life claims, including a plan to father thousands of children and controversial political alignments, appear highly sensational and uncorroborated. There is no indication this is a press release, and the claims appear recycled or fabricated with no timestamped verifiable original announcement or prior coverage, indicating possible outdated or fabricated content.
Quotes check
Score:
1
Notes:
The narrative contains numerous direct quotes attributed to unnamed or vaguely referenced officials (e.g., ‘most irritating person I’ve ever had to deal with’) and references conversations with political figures with no traceable original source. No verifiable earliest known references or original sources for these quotes are found online, suggesting either fabricated or unverified quotations.
Source reliability
Score:
3
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, which is a widely known publication but often criticised for sensationalism and less stringent journalistic standards compared to top-tier outlets like Reuters or BBC. The sensational nature and the lack of corroborating reports from other reputable outlets reduce reliability.
Plausability check
Score:
1
Notes:
The claims regarding Musk’s governmental role, millions of children, extreme family-building schemes, and extreme political alignments are implausible based on publicly available, credible information up to 2025. Musk’s known public profile and verified facts contradict the narrative. The lack of evidence and internal inconsistencies strongly indicate low plausibility.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative fails multiple factual and plausibility checks. It references unverified and implausible claims about Elon Musk’s governmental role, personal life, and political activities that conflict with known facts as of 2025. The lack of identifiable original quotes or credible corroboration, along with the sensational and improbable nature of many assertions, combined with the moderate reliability standing of the originating publication, leads to a confident conclusion that the narrative is inaccurate and unreliable.
