Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Musk Gambit: Can a Feuding Billionaire Fix American Democracy?

Opinion

The Musk Gambit: Can a Feuding Billionaire Fix American Democracy?

Billionaire businessman Elon Musk speaks during a town hall meeting at the KI Convention Center on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

Elon Musk has officially launched the America Party, dramatically breaking with Donald Trump and mounting an unconventional challenge to the country’s two-party duopoly. With populist messaging and a growing list of high-profile allies, Musk’s political move is already stirring national debate. But is this a serious attempt at democratic renewal or just another chapter in the era of billionaire-driven politics?

The ideological shape of the America Party is still fuzzy. What we know so far suggests a blend of libertarian anti-spending rhetoric, populist anti-establishment framing, and a self-proclaimed appeal to the “80% in the middle” who feel alienated by both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, as Nate Silver notes, that exhausted majority is not a monolith. Just because many voters dislike polarization doesn’t mean they agree on what should come next.


The party emerged from Musk's fury over Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," which he condemned for adding $3.4 trillion to the national debt. This fiscal outrage anchors his anti-spending stance, while Musk claims the U.S. is governed by a corrupt "uniparty" of waste and graft, promising to "give you back your freedom."

Still, contradictions loom large. Musk once supported progressive ideas like a Universal Basic Income and carbon taxes, positions that don’t exactly mesh with a hardline anti-spending platform. Whether these shifts signal genuine political evolution or a lack of ideological clarity is anyone’s guess.

Donald Trump responded swiftly and scornfully. In a July 6 Truth Social post, he wrote: "I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK," he posted, adding that third parties create "complete and total disruption and chaos." Trump suggested Musk was retaliating over eliminated EV mandates that would have benefited Tesla.

Musk's trademark response combined sarcasm ("What's Truth Social? Never heard of it.") with literary gravitas, quoting Dune: "Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration."

Despite the theatrics, there are signs Musk is serious about laying the groundwork. The presence of Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja as the party’s treasurer indicates that this is more than a publicity stunt. Billionaire Mark Cuban has voiced support and offered a connection to the Center for Competitive Democracy, and even former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci has expressed interest in advising the new effort. The centrist group No Labels and Libertarian Party leaders have indicated openness to collaboration.

Most significantly, Andrew Yang has offered to help guide the America Party effort, drawing on lessons from building his Forward Party. "I'm excited for anyone who wants to move on from the duopoly," Yang said, seeing potential for Musk's resources to catalyze real reform if paired with strategic discipline.

Unlike traditional third-party efforts focused on the presidency, Musk is aiming for legislative leverage. His goal is to win a small but impactful swing bloc—two to three Senate seats and 8 to 10 House seats—that could tip the balance of power. It’s a strategy straight out of Charles Wheelan’s The Centrist Manifesto, which argued that a handful of centrist lawmakers could break the gridlock in a closely divided Congress.

The strategy acknowledges reality: third parties rarely win presidential elections, but they can wield disproportionate influence in closely divided legislatures. With razor-thin majorities becoming the norm, even a handful of America Party legislators could uproot the status quo.

The America Party possesses unprecedented advantages: vast financial resources, unmatched media reach, and a founder whose ventures have repeatedly defied conventional wisdom. These assets could reshape the 2026 political landscape, but only if Musk commits to the unglamorous work of coalition building and developing institutional capacity.

Duke University's Mac McCorkle isn't convinced, calling ballot access "daunting" and questioning whether Musk would "spend the rest of his life trying to create a new party. I think this is all about his feud with Trump and trying to sink the Trump legacy right now.”

Kristin Hansen of the Civic Health Project offered a different path in an open letter, urging Musk to invest in the hundreds of organizations already working across political lines to fix our dysfunctional system. As she put it, America’s democracy doesn’t need another party so much as it needs deeper support for those already doing the work to bridge divides and strengthen civic trust.

Those who have spent years building alternatives grounded in accountability, transparency, and civic trust know that leaving what’s broken behind isn’t enough. The real work lies in building something genuinely better. So the fundamental question isn't what party Musk is building, but what kind of democracy he's building. Can he disrupt an entrenched industry through innovation and relentless execution? Or will the America Party become another cautionary tale about the limits of applying business thinking to democratic governance? American democracy has survived many would-be disruptors, but it has also been transformed by those willing to do the hard work of institutional reform. The difference between renewal and a vanity project will not be determined by Musk's ambitions or his bank account but by his commitment to building institutions that serve something larger than himself.

Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Protest sign, We the people.
Protests have been sparked across the country over the last few weeks.
Gene Gallin on Unsplash

Why Constitution Day Should Spark a Movement for a New Convention in 2037

Sept. 17 marked Constitution Day, grounded in a federal law commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. As explained by the courts of Maryland, “By law, all educational institutions receiving federal funding must observe Constitution Day. It is an opportunity to celebrate and discuss our Constitution and system of government.”

This week also marked the release of an important new book by the historian Jill Lepore: “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution” (as reviewed in the New York Times in a public link). Here’s an overview of her conclusions from the publisher:

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

Political violence has deep roots in American history. From 1968 to today, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino explore why violence remains a force for change in U.S. society.

Getty Images, B.S.P.I.

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

In 1968, amid riots and assassinations, a magazine asked leading intellectuals why America was so violent. Among the responses was one that stood out—H. Rap Brown’s now-infamous line: “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz dismissed the phrase as a cliché. But sociologist St. Clair Drake took it seriously. “However repulsive and shocking,” Drake wrote, Brown was “telling it like it is.” Americans, he said, must face the fact that their society is, by global standards, a very violent one.

Keep ReadingShow less

Political Violence Escalates: Charlie Kirk’s Assassination and the Fragility of Democracy

The appalling assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while speaking at Utah Valley University marks another escalation in the dangerous normalization of political violence in the U.S. The murder of such a high-profile political figure underscores the fragility of democracy when disagreement is expressed not through debate or ballots but through the barrel of a gun. The tragedy must be understood as part of a broader pattern of radicalization, identity threat, and inadequate safeguards for candidates and elected officials.

After the assassination of a state legislator in Minnesota, we published an analysis on the psychological roots of political violence. That piece examined how violence is often driven more by deep psychological insecurity than by ideology, which political psychologists refer to as “defensive extremism.” Individuals who feel excluded, humiliated, or stripped of control can come to see violence as the only way to regain significance. This is especially true in contexts of rapid change, social isolation, or echo chambers that amplify grievances. As research indicates, the majority of violent acts are expressive rather than strategic eruptions of anger and fear, which are framed as moral or political necessities.

Keep ReadingShow less
For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

The bell tower from Mission Concepcion in San Antonio, Texas.

Getty Images, Gabriel Perez

For Whom the Bell Tolls: What Political Violence Reveals About Us

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.”

The English poet, John Donne, wrote those words in the early 17th century, when it was customary for villagers to announce their fellow inhabitants’ deaths by the tolling of a single church bell.

Keep ReadingShow less