Elon Musk at the White House: Between Ideology and Governance, What Future for Us Politics?

Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire at the helm of several companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and X, and openly advocating for libertarian and techno-solutionist ideas, made a dramatic entry into U.S. politics by publicly supporting Donald Trump during the last presidential campaign. Since Trump’s election, the two men have maintained a close relationship, and Musk was offered the leadership of the “Government Efficiency Department,” dedicated to reducing public spending. What impact could Elon Musk’s presence in the White House have on U.S. politics? To what extent will he adapt his ideology to the needs of governance? How might his proximity to Trump affect the role of his companies on the international stage? The insights with Camille Boulenguer, researcher at IRIS.

Elon Musk embodies a unique model of entrepreneur in the digital sector, often seen as visionary but also controversial. With his appointment within the Trump administration, how might his influence transform American politics in terms of technology and innovation?

Elon Musk’s appointment to the Trump administration marks a symbolic turning point for American politics in terms of technology and innovation. After Rex Tillerson, former CEO of ExxonMobil and U.S. Secretary of State from 2017 to 2018 under the first Trump administration, the billionaire was appointed, alongside entrepreneur and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, to lead a brand-new federal advisory committee: the Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE).

The acronym “DoGE” is a clear nod to Dogecoin, the cryptocurrency initially funded by Elon Musk and which sponsored a May 2021 SpaceX mission to the moon. The reference to the world of cryptocurrencies, as well as his exchange with Federico Sturzenegger, Argentina’s Minister of Deregulation and State Transformation under the government of Javier Milei, confirms Musk’s intent to implement his libertarian and techno-solutionist ideas, which he has already tested in managing his companies.

When Musk acquired the social network X, the South African-born billionaire adopted a “brutal” management style, laying off about 3,700 out of 7,500 employees. The majority of those laid off had “received no prior notice“; others “lost access to their credentials about eight hours before receiving an email.” Following this, the head of X handed over the moderation of the social network to artificial intelligence, thus limiting human intervention.

These restructuring methods suggest that Elon Musk will advocate for similar approaches within the federal government: “dismantling government bureaucracy, slashing excessive regulations, cutting unnecessary spending, and restructuring federal agencies.” In other words, Musk intends to draw inspiration from the libertarian “chainsaw” model popularized in Argentina by Javier Milei. The billionaire-turned-politician has recently mentioned a potential $2 trillion (about €1.88 trillion) cut in the U.S. federal budget, out of an annual revenue of $6.75 trillion.

For the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, the state should be reduced to a minimal role, or, according to some libertarian currents, disappear entirely in favor of a self-sustaining system based on markets and private initiatives. This philosophy is rooted in his belief that a streamlined government would unleash entrepreneurial initiatives. This is why the open-sourcing of all Tesla patents in 2022 must be interpreted within this context.

In this project, which Trump compared to the “Manhattan Project“, technological innovation is both a pillar that aligns public power with the profitability and efficiency principles of the private sector, and a means to fulfill a civilizational ambition in which technology would be salvific for the human race. Indeed, the integrated ecosystem developed by Elon Musk, often described as a “full-stack startup,” is based on innovative projects (SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and Starlink). This collective covers a broad spectrum, from technologies related to the human brain (micro) to space exploration (macro), and displays a civilizational ambition rooted in transhumanism and technological dominance.

For Elon Musk, efficiency is therefore not just about reducing public spending or saving time: it becomes a lever to redefine the relationship between technology, society, and power, while consolidating the United States’ position in the global race for innovation.

Elon Musk has always championed strong ideas regarding the regulation of technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and social media, often in opposition to traditional regulators. Now that he occupies a political role, do you think he will continue down this path, or will he adapt his rhetoric in response to governance constraints?

For proponents of libertarianism like Elon Musk, the goal is to weaken the state by dismantling its social and regulatory functions, symbolized by two essential pillars: tax collection and market regulation.

Regarding taxation, although Elon Musk has not directly commented on fiscal matters, it is known that his companies have benefited from tax credits and government subsidies. As early as 2015, a Los Angeles Times investigation estimated that Tesla, SpaceX, and SolarCity had received $4.9 billion in government aid since their inception. Musk’s presence in the government could lead to an intensification of these public-private synergies, redirecting public resources to significant technological projects led by these companies (aerospace, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc.). While the decision to reduce tax rates for businesses and individuals seems difficult to implement following the 2021 signing of the OECD/G20 BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) plan, which targets a global tax rate of 15% on multinational corporations, the second Trump administration could propose expanding subsidies for innovative American companies and extending tax breaks in the tech sector. These tax incentives could complement the stimulus measures initiated under the Biden administration with the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act).

Regarding market regulation, logic would dictate that Elon Musk, an outspoken advocate for efficiency and free competition, would support the recommendations in the 2020 competition report on digital markets[1], which called for restoring competition in the digital economy and strengthening antitrust rules and enforcement. However, while Musk views efficiency and free competition as levers to challenge “sleeping giants,” it is often with the goal of disrupting a market before reassembling, with public funds, a new monopolistic structure around his own companies: SpaceX now dominates aerospace, while Tesla has revolutionized the automotive industry. This market capture strategy has attracted criticism from Lina Khan, a leading figure in antitrust enforcement appointed by Joe Biden to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Throughout his entrepreneurial career, Musk has frequently clashed with regulatory bodies and judicial institutions. Under the Biden presidency, two investigations were launched by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), one concerning potential fraudulent practices related to Tesla’s driver-assistance systems, and the other regarding misleading statements Musk made to investors about the actual autonomy levels of Tesla vehicles. The investigations aim to determine whether these claims misled not only consumers but also financial markets, artificially inflating Tesla’s stock value.

Musk’s position within the government could therefore intensify these regulatory issues. His ability to influence public decisions, particularly by directing resources to his technological projects (aerospace, artificial intelligence), raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. This issue was highlighted in April 2021 when NASA awarded SpaceX, rather than Blue Origin, a $2.9 billion contract to develop a lunar lander, prompting accusations of favoritism and challenges from the competition.

Finally, regarding informational regulation, Musk declared during the acquisition of Twitter that “the bird is freed“, signaling his intent to restore free speech, which he believes is threatened by Twitter’s moderation policies. Since then, the European Commission is expected to present the conclusions of its investigation into X for violating the Digital Services Act (DSA). The inquiry will examine gaps in transparency, management of illegal content, and the spread of misinformation. In this case, the European Union’s position as a legal power is at stake: if the EU fails to impose sanctions commensurate with the violations committed by the platform, its credibility in regulating major tech companies on the international stage would be undermined.

Elon Musk has had sometimes tense relations with other major players in the digital sector, particularly those in social media. What could his presence in government mean for the balance of power from an international relations perspective?

More than ever, Elon Musk’s arrival in the second Trump administration is redefining the place and role of businesses in international relations—once the exclusive domain of states. Although corporations are not recognized as subjects of international law, the economic power of these multinational corporations (MNCs) on one hand, and their growing influence in national and international institutions (OECD, WTO) on the other, enables them to assert themselves as true actors in international relations. The entry of multinational firms onto the international stage is theorized in economics by Paul Krugman’s model, Nobel Laureate in 2008, which, unlike earlier models[2], places firms at the center of international trade. This model reflects a gradual shift in the global economy, in which multinational companies are taking over from nations as the primary actors in international trade.

However, this dynamic has undergone a major evolution since the beginning of the 21st century, initially driven by the GAFAM and later by the companies of the “Musk galaxy.” The acceleration of the paradigm shift from “nations to firms” indeed shifts the scope of actions for multinational leaders, who no longer merely act as influential economic players but become direct interlocutors of states, negotiating on equal terms with heads of government. While the GAFAM are involved in commercial partnerships with states in strategic sectors such as telecommunications, cloud computing, and defense, they generally remain discreet on the international stage, preferring to act behind the scenes. Elon Musk, on the other hand, takes a very different approach. His personal involvement in managing the Russia-Ukraine conflict illustrates his desire to position his companies as essential players in international relations, placing his technological power at the heart of major geopolitical issues. As early as February 2022, shortly after the start of the Russian invasion, Musk activated the Starlink satellite telecommunications network in Ukraine, ensuring the continuity of communications and coordination of Ukrainian military forces. This move was hailed as a demonstration of the capacity of private technologies to intervene in international crises, bypassing the bureaucratic delays of states and international organizations. However, this political stance in favor of Ukraine significantly evolved in February 2024: revelations showed that Russia was also using Starlink’s infrastructure for some of its operations. This shift in position follows direct exchanges between Musk and the Kremlin, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, while the Washington Post highlights the involvement of Petr Aven and Vadim Moshkovich’s sons—two oligarchs sanctioned by the West after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—in financing Twitter’s acquisition through the 8VC investment fund. In fact, this shift toward Russia coincides with a set of signals that must be analyzed simultaneously: on one hand, the signing, at the end of Donald Trump’s first term, of a contract between SpaceX and NASA (as previously mentioned), and on the other hand, Musk’s numerous legal troubles under Biden’s presidency (as outlined earlier). Musk’s ambivalence regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict should raise concerns about the dangers of a figure so versatile disrupting traditional diplomatic channels and meddling in already complex international relations.

Elon Musk’s long-term vision far exceeds his appointment in the U.S. government, as evidenced by the creation of a company named United States of America Inc. His quest for political power seems to fit into a double movement: on one hand, the deconstruction of the very foundations of the U.S. state, and on the other, the promotion of a handful of multinational corporations to the status of key players on the international political stage. The insertion of Starlink into the Russia-Ukraine conflict can indeed be analyzed as a symptom of the disruption of traditional international institutions, more than the promotion of peace as a catalyst for free trade. The model proposed by Musk, although still in its early stages, could signal—if his alliance with Trump endures—a new era in which a small handful of technological companies would become central actors in international relations: Trump’s second term will likely open the way to new dynamics and alliances that will redefine, in the long term, global geopolitical relations.

---

[1] Judiciary Committee, subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, October 4, 2020.

[2] This model is part of a historical evolution of economic theories: it follows the classical Ricardian model, which, until 1960, characterised the exchange of goods between nations based on their comparative advantages, and the neoclassical Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson (HOS) model, which deepens the analysis of exchanges between nations by integrating factor endowments (capital and labour).