Elon Musk’s Unclaimed Political Power
Since Elon Musk’s bold July 5 declaration that he was starting a new political party, little has been heard from the boisterous billionaire on the subject. Over the past two months, Musk has walked back many of his statements in his short-lived feud with the president. Meanwhile, Musk appears to be forging an alliance with JD Vance – potentially in an effort to maintain his political clout and stave off attacks on himself or his companies by a vindictive administration.
While this was a disappointing U-turn for those in the resource-constrained political reform movement, it will also likely reduce the long-term influence of Musk himself. One of Musk’s most powerful qualities was his willingness to speak his mind regardless of the consequences. While many may disagree with his perspectives, it’s hard to dismiss someone who is willing to lose billions of dollars in service to genuine beliefs. Contrast this behavior with that of his peers who founded or are running the so-called Magnificent Seven stocks. Collectively, they seem unwilling to risk even a fraction of their already unimaginable fortunes to stand for anything principled if it means disagreeing with the Trump administration.
While Musk would have risked some of his fortune to continue his America Party efforts, he arguably could have made himself the most consequential person in our nation’s politics. Some may disagree with that statement, suggesting that Musk has made himself politically toxic and unable to appeal to enough Americans to make his party viable. No doubt that was the conundrum that many in the reform community and third-party space were pondering when Musk appeared to briefly align with their general point of view.
That perspective, however, misunderstands the nature of political influence. The closest analogy to Musk’s is Ross Perot, who was arguably the third-most powerful U.S. politician in the mid-1990s despite never winning an election. Perot made ignoring burgeoning federal budget deficits a politically risky strategy after garnering 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and shining a light on the fiscal negligence of Washington, D.C. The net result, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, was the first balanced budgets since Lyndon Johnson’s administration.
Some might suggest that Musk should seek to repair his reputation before embarking on a new political party. I think that would be a mistake. It would take some time for Musk to rebuild his reputation and trust with his current detractors. Many may never forgive his support for Donald Trump in 2024 or what they consider to be his callous approach to civil servants, the less fortunate, and societal norms.
Instead, Musk should lean into his legions of admirers to create a political force first. Polls suggest that a third of Americans and over half of Republicans admire Elon Musk. Many of those admirers are younger men, whose political leanings have vacillated significantly over the past decade. Recent research defines a cohort of persuadable voters as “Libertarian Millennial Men.” They are defined as anti-government and fiscally conservative, though they also support some social reforms surrounding personal liberties. While they voted disproportionately for Trump in 2024, they’re up for grabs, and most of them admire Elon Musk.
Musk could give them an identity, a political home, and a pathway to personal fulfillment. In the process, he could create a powerful political force that could sway the outcome of many elections and advance a policy platform that gets America back on the right fiscal path. In addition to recruiting their own candidates, the America Party could support fiscally responsible candidates in either major party. Given the make-up of Musk’s supporters, this strategy would be particularly effective in Republican primaries and in the roughly 80 districts where Republicans have a registration advantage of less than 10% in the general election. Musk could make fiscal irresponsibility a political liability again for Republicans and remake the policy bankrupt party as he builds a third force.
Arguably, Musk could end up exerting substantially more influence than Ross Perot did in his heyday. The tools for cost-effectively organizing Americans are far more effective today than they were in 1992 and 1996, when he ran for president a second time. Musk’s control of X and its algorithms gives him a megaphone that Perot could only have dreamed of during his first campaign.
Contrast this with the path Musk appears to have chosen. Yes, it’s less risky on its face. But risk-aversion has never been a Musk trademark. In Vice President Vance, Musk has chosen the ultimate chameleon. No doubt, Vance has said all the things that Musk wants to hear, not dissimilar to how Sam Altman, at OpenAI, appears to have mirrored Musk’s opinions on artificial intelligence in order to gain his trust and support. When Vance’s interests and Musk’s principles fail to align, as they invariably will at some point, Musk will have little recourse. Lawsuits, his preferred response to fraud, aren’t a remedy for deception in the political arena. If they were, every voter in America would have cause to bring suit.
If Musk really wants to put America back on firm fiscal footing, he should stop supporting a party that has demonstrated for decades its willingness to cast principles aside and lean into his disruptive nature that defines who he really is.