As the wealthiest man in the world, with a net worth of nearly $200 billion - Elon Musk’s rising political influence is a reality not to be taken lightly. Born in South-Africa in 1971, the wealthy entrepreneur has expanded his corporate empire beyond electric cars and spacecraft, now encompassing ownership of mighty social media domains and Artificial Intelligence engines. In 2021, prior to his purchase of X (formerly Twitter), Musk proclaimed that he would much prefer to “stay out of politics”. Clearly, the tech billionaire’s interests have changed courses. On 20 January he stood upon a podium, claiming that President Trump’s inauguration means “The future of civilization is now assured”. However, it does not appear that the CEO is solely talking to the citizens of the United States, but rather the entire western world. Indeed, what is particularly interesting or otherwise frightening about Elon Musk as an American political figure is his elaborate interest in the political happenings of other nations, to a technological extent which has arguably never been seen before.
His ownership of X which sees an average usership of 661 million, means his soft-power influence spans much farther than simply one community or even a singular nation. This is not to say that global tech CEOs haven’t held similar levels of global influence previously, yet it is in Musk’s deep political involvement as a ‘special government advisor’ behind the very White House Walls which leads some to describe X itself as a front page for right wing, republican politics. Caught up in the controversy of fascist signalling, it is understandable that many world leaders have expressed worry about Musk’s influence and the future of moderate politics, including the very democratic processes which once appeared irreversible and even utopian. In Berlin, Chancellor Olaf Scholz firmly critiqued Musk’s fraternization with the far right, accusing him of endangering democracy in Europe. This statement of grave concern from the Chancellor came directly after the social media mogul’s appearance at a far-right AFD rally, a German party which is famously Eurosceptic and anti-immigration in nature, with a specific interest in anti-muslim immigration. The party has been consistently fined and entwined in legal disputes constituting hate speech, such as the deputy leaders’ remarks of Cologne police officers appeasing “barbaric, gang-raping Muslim hoards of men” after the force tweeted a 2018 new years message in Arabic.
In 2018, Von Storch was suspended on Twitter for these words. Now, she is being hosted and promoted by Musk on X to millions of users in what he argues is a way to enhance freedom of speech. There is a worry that Musk’s own ideology and determination to ensure free and uncensored expression has resulted in the obscurity of what exactly constitutes free speech – and hate speech. This has been a primary issue for critics of X, as ‘factual’ information has become hyper-politicised. His support and advocacy for controversial far-right candidates is not only contained to Germany, but can further be demonstrated by his appraisal of figures such as Tommy Robinson who was jailed for 18 months following his repetition of false allegations relating to a Syrian refugee. It was only last Summer that Musk had a particular interest in the democratic processes of the United Kingdom, deeming it inherently broken and even going as far as to describe it as a ‘Tyrannical Police state’ which requires liberating, he insinuated, by President Trump and himself.
Again, politicians have criticised the billionaires’ rather extreme language and intentions to influence the political systems of countries he perhaps does not fully understand. On the other hand, some have deemed him a visionary, breaking outside of conventional thought and arguably political norms. Perhaps both he and his supporters deem his actions necessary for the ‘future’ of ‘civilisation’. Certainly, Musk is directly connected to a president who secured the second highest vote share in American history. However, it seems that even republicans are growing sceptical of Musk’s involvement in federal and global politics. Again it must be highlighted here that while Musk is connected to Trump he is not elected, just as he is not legitimised to change or directly influence democratic systems in Germany, the UK or France. As of now, he is leading a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as a special White House government employee. While Trump’s administration has affirmed that the billionaire cannot make decisions without political ‘approval’, there have been simultaneous dismantling's of checks and balances which stand paramount to democratic scrutiny. A significant number of American citizens have voiced concern about Musk’s role as a close, elite advisor; 52% of registered voters hold an unfavourable opinion of him according to an AP-NORC poll.
Experts have shared similar concerns regarding the mass slashings of federal regulations DOGE has encouraged, including the laying-off of government employees attributed to his ‘blanket’ approach of reducing the federal workforce. The republican party has positioned itself in favour of reducing government spending, yet Musk’s measures have been viewed as radical. Such measures include locking federal workers out of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). What was established in the 1960s as a humanitarian force to detect where famines are most likely to arise and distribute prerequisites such as food to over 60 countries accordingly is now being branded by Musk as a ‘criminal organisation’. His response was to freeze nearly all aid spending as he says it should ‘die’.
This has shocked even senate Republicans. The actions taken by the Trump administration are certainly radical. Whether for better or for worse this is ideologically subjective. Some contend that DOGE has the capacity to reverse American democracy as we know it, with the dismantling of checks and balances ultimately stripping federal agencies without the rule of judges. Trump said he would make major change happen, even going as far as to call himself a ‘dictator’ on ‘day one’. However, perhaps the dismantling of the very foundations which root American democracy heavily advised and promoted by the richest man in the world is not exactly what American citizens bargained for.
