When platform ownership becomes political power: Musk’s threat to form the ‘America Party’ reveals how tech billionaires can weaponize control over digital infrastructure to challenge democratic institutions directly.

Musk’s “America Party” Threat Weaponizes Platform Ownership for Political Power

When the world’s richest person controls the digital town square, democracy faces unprecedented challenges that traditional institutions weren’t designed to handle.

The collision of tech wealth and political power reached a dangerous new threshold this week as Elon Musk escalated his feud with President Trump by threatening to form a new “America Party” political party. This isn’t just another billionaire’s political tantrum. It’s the first time in American history that someone has weaponized ownership of critical communications infrastructure to challenge the two-party system directly.

Musk conducted a poll via his social media platform X, asking his 220 million followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” The results showed around 80% of respondents voted yes, leading Musk to declare: “The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!”

But this wasn’t just political theater. Musk made a concrete threat: “If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty, so that the people actually have a voice.” When Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” did pass the Senate, Musk followed through with his most direct political threat since the election, vowing to support primary challengers against any Republican who voted for the spending package.

The Platform Power Revolution

What makes Musk’s threat historically unprecedented isn’t his wealth — America has always had rich political donors. It’s his control over X, one of the world’s most influential information platforms. As X’s owner and most followed user, Musk has increasingly used the social media platform as a microphone to amplify his political views, transforming it into what he calls a “digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.”

This represents a fundamental shift in how political power operates in democratic societies. Traditional media moguls like Rupert Murdoch owned newspapers and television networks, but they operated within established journalistic frameworks and regulatory structures. Musk’s remarkable ability to avoid accountability through private ownership has distinguished him from almost every other major media mogul and corporate titan, as even Murdoch ruled over publicly traded companies with disclosure requirements and regulatory oversight.

With more than $400 billion in combined wealth and control over multiple companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, xAI, and X, Musk has become what critics call “a far-right activist and a threat to democracy” who has “used his ownership of X to engage in various political scuffles around the world.” The difference is scale and integration: no previous American figure has combined such vast wealth with direct control over critical communications infrastructure.

Digital Democracy Manipulation in Real Time

The mechanics of how Musk leverages X for political power reveal the sophisticated nature of modern influence operations. With nearly 400 million users worldwide, X has become a global town square where political leaders, journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens engage in debates, share news, and shape public opinion. By acquiring X, Musk gained control over this powerful platform, giving him unprecedented influence over global communication.

Research shows this influence translates into measurable political outcomes. Since Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Republican users have far more positive views of the site, while Democratic users’ views have become more negative. The share of Democrats who say X is good for democracy decreased from 47% to 17% over the past four years, while 53% of Democratic users now say X is bad for democracy.

This partisan realignment isn’t accidental. Despite years of regulation, we still lack basic tools to hold platforms accountable. Has Musk adjusted algorithms to boost preferred candidates, as whistleblowers suggest? We can’t verify. Is he fostering polarization or using voter-targeting tactics? Again, we don’t know. The opacity of algorithmic manipulation means Musk can potentially influence elections and political discourse without detection or accountability.

The Attention Economy Trap

Musk’s political evolution illustrates how social media dynamics can systematically corrupt democratic discourse. He’s spread memes and sometimes misinformation about illegal immigration, alleged election fraud and transgender policies, while positioning himself as a defender of free speech and democracy. Each controversial post generates massive engagement, which the platform’s algorithms reward with increased distribution and influence.

This creates a vicious cycle where political extremism becomes economically rational for platform owners. By relaxing content moderation, Musk is allowing harmful content to flourish, which can distort public discourse and undermine trust in democratic institutions. Moreover, there are concerns that Musk’s personal political biases are influencing the platform’s policies.

The “America Party” threat represents the logical endpoint of this dynamic. Rather than moderating his rhetoric to build broader appeal, Musk is using controversy to generate attention, then leveraging that attention to claim democratic legitimacy for his political agenda. The poll about creating a new political party received massive engagement, with 80% of respondents backing the idea, though this likely reflects the composition of Musk’s follower base rather than broader American sentiment.

Global Democratic Implications

The international dimensions of Musk’s political activities reveal how platform ownership transcends national boundaries. Musk is clearly meddling in European politics, offering vocal support and the X platform to far-right leaders. His underlying intention appears to be the fragmentation of the EU, as part of an American agenda aimed at turning Europe into a vassalized market where tech regulations lose their effectiveness.

European officials recognize the threat. Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck called for the EU to break its reliance on ‘tech oligarchs’ like Musk, who he claimed are undermining democracy. Speaking before Germany’s national election, the minister framed Musk’s influence as a direct threat to European values.

This global influence operation demonstrates how American tech platforms have become instruments of soft power that can destabilize allied democracies. In January 2025, at a campaign event staged by the German far-right political party Alternative for Germany, Musk stated that “There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that,” comments that were condemned by the chairman of Israel’s official memorial to Holocaust victims.

The Infrastructure Dependency Crisis

What makes Musk’s political threats particularly dangerous is America’s growing dependence on his companies for critical infrastructure. SpaceX is currently the sole means by which NASA transports crew from U.S. soil into space, a situation that will persist for at least another year. The government’s plan to move the auto industry toward electric cars requires increasing access to charging stations along America’s highways.

This dependency creates unprecedented leverage over government policy. Trump threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk’s companies receive from the federal government, but Tesla has historically benefited from billions in tax credits while SpaceX has about $22 billion in federal contracts. When private companies control critical national infrastructure, their owners’ political preferences become matters of national security.

Musk has become a state within the state, setting policy rather than just advocating for it. Because of his economic dominance, he has near-kingly power where he can arbitrarily decide military policy on personal whim, as demonstrated when he restricted Ukrainian access to Starlink during combat operations.

The Constitutional Challenge

The “America Party” threat exposes fundamental weaknesses in how democratic institutions regulate concentrated private power. Traditional critics of media ownership focused on publicly traded companies with disclosure requirements and regulatory oversight. But Musk’s success comes from private ownership that avoids these accountability mechanisms while accumulating unprecedented influence over public discourse.

Starting a new political party faces significant structural barriers, as the Democratic and Republican parties already have ballot access in virtually every state. But Musk spent more than $275 million to support Trump and other Republican candidates in 2024, demonstrating his capacity to influence electoral outcomes through existing mechanisms.

The real threat isn’t necessarily a successful third party, but the systematic use of platform control to undermine democratic legitimacy. When powerful individuals like Musk use their platforms to attack government agencies, the media, or the electoral process, it undermines public confidence in these institutions, contributing to broader distrust that makes democracies harder to govern effectively.

The Authoritarian Pathway

Musk’s political evolution follows a predictable pattern toward authoritarianism. The Conversation analyzed Musk’s path toward far-right politics within the context of “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline,” noting that his online personality is “part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy” intended to disturb the left and claim persecution when criticized.

Like Henry Ford in the early 20th century, Musk’s politics are driven by an autocratic personality. He likes to get his own way and resents any force, be it social movements, unions, or government regulators, that stand in his way. Ford was a notorious anti-Semite who promoted fascist ideology, and the Nazi regime awarded him honors for his services as a fellow traveler.

The historical parallel is instructive but incomplete. Ford controlled automobile manufacturing; Musk controls information infrastructure. When tech billionaires like Musk weaponize their platforms for political organizing, it consolidates what researchers term an “internet-industrial complex” — an axis of money, technology, and political power that shapes our lives in ways that are unfathomable.

Democratic Responses and Limitations

The challenge for democratic institutions is that traditional regulatory approaches assume good faith participation in democratic norms. The solution isn’t banning platforms, as such measures conflict with international freedom of expression standards. But transparency gaps give platforms unchecked power over shaping public discourse, regardless of ownership.

Some attempts at accountability are emerging. The Washington Post planned to run an advertisement calling for Musk to be fired from his government role, but the ad was abruptly canceled, highlighting how media companies may self-censor when covering powerful tech figures.

European regulators are taking more aggressive action. The EU launched investigations into TikTok under the Digital Services Act following alleged manipulation during the 2024 Romanian election, and the bloc cannot afford to ignore Musk’s similar influence operations.

The Future of Democratic Governance

The “America Party” threat represents more than political theater. It’s a stress test of whether democratic institutions can govern individuals who accumulate power outside traditional accountability structures. We have missed the moment to create an Internet service as a public utility. Now we have to begin reckoning with the legacy of that failure as it wreaks havoc across the globe.

The Trump-Musk feud has drawn support from other billionaires, with Mark Cuban endorsing Musk’s poll about creating a new political party. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang floated a potential 2028 presidential primary including Cuban, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, and other business leaders. This suggests that Musk’s challenge to traditional politics may inspire other tech oligarchs to similar political activism.

The fundamental question is whether democratic societies can maintain their democratic character while allowing unprecedented concentrations of private power over public discourse. The world will only improve once we realize we don’t need any more Henry Fords. Democratic institutions, both Democratic and Republican, have allowed Musk to fill this role through inaction rather than regulation.

The Choice Ahead

America faces a choice between allowing tech oligarchs to reshape democratic institutions according to their personal preferences or developing new frameworks for democratic oversight of concentrated private power. The “America Party” threat makes this choice urgent and concrete.

Musk’s threat to support primary challengers against Republicans who opposed his agenda represents one of his most concrete political threats since leaving his White House adviser position. Whether he follows through will determine how seriously other political figures take his future threats and how effectively democratic institutions can constrain private power.

The stakes extend beyond any single election or policy dispute. When the world’s richest person can use control over critical infrastructure to threaten the two-party system, democracy enters uncharted territory. The outcome will determine whether democratic governance can survive the age of tech oligarchy, or whether platform ownership becomes the new basis for political power in the 21st century.

The “America Party” may never materialize, but the precedent Musk is setting that platform ownership grants the right to reshape democratic institutions represents a threat to democratic governance that will outlast any individual political dispute.