As U.S. President Trump signed
his “Big Beautiful Bill” into law on July 4, 2025, Elon Musk, shareholder and
CEO of Tesla, announced that he would create a new political party (or “group” in
European-speak). Musk opposed the projected trillions of dollars that the bill
would add to the debt held by the U.S. federal government, though, as CEO of
SpaceX, he was fine with cutting a trillion dollars from Medicaid, which provides
health coverage to the poorest of the poor, and from food assistance while the defense
budget was augmented. Musk’s proposed “America” group would likely draw support
from Trump’s “MAGA” base, rather than from moderate Republicans and any Democrats.
Whether Musk was more motivated by breaking up the political duopoly of the two
major parties, or groups, to increase the practical options for voters or to
split Trump’s support and punish the Republican party, such controversial
political involvement by a major shareholder CEO is without doubt risky
business. This is not to say that CEO’s should not be active politically apart from
business strategy, for even business managers are citizens and thus may feel
compelled to become active politically. This is to be lauded especially if the
motive is out of duty to repair or otherwise improve a political system.
On the next working day after
Musk’s announcement that he would be forming a new political party, “Tesla
shares plunged nearly 7 percent . . . as investors registered dismay” at Musk’s
“plans to form a third party and his intensifying feud with President Trump.”[1]
Even though 7% is not exacting “plunging” or “crushing” Testa shares, beyond
the hyperbole of journalists is the point that not avoiding controversy
politically has costed Tesla and Musk himself financially. To be sure,
billionaires can afford to lose significant wealth and still be left standing
comfortably, and even in the case of business practitioners, economic
reductionism doesn’t always hold. Also, political involvement can raise stock
prices, as, for example, “Musk’s involvement in politics and his financial
support for the president’s campaign were once seen by investors as a benefit
to Tesla, fueling a steep rise in company shares after the election” in
November, 2024.[2] No
one but the most cynical would deny, however, that Musk’s chief motivation that
led to his involvement in “DOGE” in the White House was for his businesses to
benefit even though they did, initially. So that they took a hit when Musk
broke from President Trump and then formed the America Party cannot be assessed
only as concerns the financial impact on Tesla or SpaceX.
In American history, the
notion that wealthy people should devote some time to public service for the benefit
of the Union or their respective member-states was once well-known. Both
because such people could afford financially to take time off from business and
because their experience could be useful in governing, the notion of public duty
was beneficial to the public good. Men like Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington did not make public service into a career and did not go into
politics primarily for its positive financial benefit. As a frustrated General
dependent on the sovereign states whose delegates met in the Second Continental
Congress, Washington would not have endured such hardships as he did were his
motivation simply to benefit himself and his landholdings in Virginia
financially. Even though Musk is by no stretch another Washington, more has
been involved in Musk’s political motivation than maximizing Tesla’s stock
price or gaining government contracts for SpaceX, and even getting back at
Donald Trump. Government, moreover, is not just the aggregate of business
interests without remainder.
Other billionaires might look to Musk’s example not in terms of his political ideology necessarily, but in terms of having enough financial cushion to weather political-turned-financial pushback from going beyond business to engage in public service—to give back, as it were, so to improve the system of government and add to the public good. It is admittedly very easy to be guided by personal and business financial considerations in delving into politics, whereas being willing to hold those at bay out of a sense of public duty is more difficult, and, frankly, increasing rare as American history has proceeded but not necessarily evolved politically. The notion that duty pertains to citizenship has become increasingly recessive in public discourse and consciousness. This is to say that duty-bound CEO’s are saints; rather, it is to say that we shouldn’t be so surprised when a billionaire businessman jumps into politics not merely for financial reasons, and thus not turn back to shore after a financial hit. Even if motivated by political ideology rather than in saving the union from itself (e.g., public debt), personal and business financial benefit is not the whole story, and the public good can still be a beneficiary.
Mozi says, "'worthy people [are] those who are well versed in virtuous conduct, discriminating in discussion, and broadly knowledgeable!’ . . . . When the wealthy and eminent in the state heard this they retired and thought to themselves, ‘At first, we could rely on our wealth and eminence, but now the king promotes the righteous and does not turn away the poor and the humble. This being the case, we too must be righteous.'"[3]
