Elon Musk’s Controversial Politics: Beyond the Financials

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]

---

1. Jack Ewing, “Musk’s Idea of 3^rd Party Is Crushing Testla Shares,” The New York Times, July 8, 2025.

2. Ibid.

3. Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden, ed.s, Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy (New York: Seen Bridges Press, 2001), 58.

Deficit Reduction and Tax Breaks: Rhetoric and Priorities

Actions speak louder than words. A tree is known by its fruit. Where your treasure is, therein lies your heart. These three sayings each have at their root a value on integrity or authenticity that cuts through purported assertions designed to manipulate or otherwise mislead. Integrity here is consistency between word and deed. When members of Congress have cried that the sky was falling under the weight of the annual deficits and the accumulated debt of the U.S. Government, a person might ask by looking at the actual votes on legislation whether the representatives really considered the fiscal imbalances as so dire. If someone exclaims that her house is about to explode but does not act accordingly, such as in running out of the house rather than finishing dinner, it is reasonable to doubt that the person really believes that a blast is imminent. In protecting tax breaks even amid a deficit of over $1 trillion in 2011, members of Congress belied their own warnings concerning the American governmental debt crisis. The American people as a whole let their representatives get away with the Janus-like stances, and this in turn eventually allowed the U.S. Government debt to exceed $20 trillion. 

Generally speaking, a crisis truly acknowledged does not admit the luxury of granting the status quo a continuance. In other words, if the elected officials really did view the trajectory of deficits as unsustainable in 2011, then continuing the tax breaks would have been off the table. In prioritizing protecting constituent interests by tax breaks and by insisting that deficit-reduction is only to be accomplished by spending cuts, a member of Congress is actually saying that the deficit/debt problem is not really a crisis. 

So when the U.S. Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell said in 2011 that he was open to ending tax breaks for special interests yet without including those of his constituents, he undermined his insistence that the deficit must be significantly reduced.  He argued that the tax break that he had secured in 2008 for the owners of thoroughbred racehorses was essential for the protection of jobs in Kentucky. Of course, the financial interests of racehorse owners were not necessarily in line with—or reduce to—the protection of jobs. In political diction, the interests of capital hide behind those of labor even while going after those interests in private so as to maximize profit. That is to say, subterfuge may be the name of the game in the public square. The same can be said of Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, who claimed to want to eliminate tax breaks except for a proposal for a tax cut for small breweries, such as Samuel Adams in Boston. The deficits must not be such a big problem if the U.S. could afford additional tax cuts. At the time, mega-wealthy “operations like oil refineries, Hollywood productions and hedge funds have all profited” by tax breaks.[1] Tax breaks for industries in general added up to an estimated $123 billion a year—hardly chicken feed.

The “disconnect between the lawmakers’ words and deeds" reflected the hurdles that Congress and the White House faced as they looked to cut at least $1.2 trillion from the government's debt.[2] Talk of cutting tax breaks to raise money and reduce the debt had become a mantra in Washington, but it threatened sacred ground; "such breaks are a favorite tool among both Republicans and Democrats to reward supporters and economic interests in their home states.”[3] Given Fed chief Ben Bernanke's remarks on October 4, 2011 before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress that even reducing the debt by $1.2 trillion would not be enough, talk of protecting favorite tax breaks undercuts any claim that the public debt is a dire problem. To be sure, obviating another recession was also on Congressional minds. However, even as he was urging Congress to act in order to avoid a double-dip recession, Bernanke said of deficit-reduction efforts, "More will be needed to achieve fiscal sustainability."[4] That is to say, the U.S. Government could lose even its AA rating. Risking this by protecting local interests is short-sighted; it is like a biker accelerating down a hill while looking only a few feet ahead. We might save a few deck chairs for weary passengers, but what about that iceberg ahead? Is anybody even looking?

I contend that we, the electorate, ought to accord claims of crisis as valid only if sacred ground is given up. “Whether any of [the tax breaks] are scrubbed from the books may ultimately prove how serious Congress is about reducing the debt.”[5] It is the price of admission, as it were, to having a legislator’s claim of a serious problem being recognized as authentic rather than as possibly just hyperbolic, attention-getting rhetoric.

Without a verifiable indication of some actual give on a sacred cow, a legislator should be told, “prove it!” regarding his or her claim on the necessity to reduce the deficit. If no such sacrifice is proffered and made, then the politician ought to be ignored as if he or she were crying wolf. Otherwise, we enable two-faced Janus behavior that undermines public confidence in the government and misleads us into being too confident that the serious problems are being solved. The American electorates as well as the media companies are perhaps too accustomed to letting our elected legislators off the hook by taking their words at face value as if they were self-validating. In the case of the U.S. Government’s continuing deficits and accumulated debt, the United States can ill-afford other priorities (even in terms of presumed GNP and job increases) coexisting antithetically with the baleful platitudes of crisis if the imbalances truly are unsustainable and a danger to the American union and its republics. That is to say, given the magnitude of the problem, the members of Congress should be held closer to account in terms of deeds matching words. Priorities, the making of which is part of the job of a legislator, should match the rhetoric in front of the cameras.

1. Ron Nixon and Eric Lichtblau, “In Debt Talks, All Tax Breaks Are Not Alike,” New York Times, October 3, 2011. 

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Jon Hilsenrath and Luca Di Leo, "Bernanke Issues Warning, Urges Action on Economy," Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011. 

5. Nixon and Lichtblau.