Elon Musk’s political influence has intensified ahead of the US midterm elections, with more than $400 million donated to Republican causes and his companies retaining a major dependence on government support.
The scale of his intervention has prompted historians and political commentators to question whether a private individual can wield too much power over elections, public policy and even wartime decisions.
Musk’s political spending is reported to exceed the combined contributions made to Democrats by mega-donors Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His influence has also extended beyond campaign finance.
This month, SpaceX temporarily restricted Ukraine’s use of its Starlink satellite system, causing some Ukrainian drones to fall from the sky. Kara Swisher, a technology journalist and long-standing critic of Musk, said no private citizen — including the world’s richest person — should be making decisions affecting a war.
David Nasaw, an emeritus professor of history at the City University of New York, said wealthy individuals had always exercised undue influence over politics, but argued that Musk represented something different.
“The millionaires, billionaires and now trillionaires have always exercised undue power over the political system,” Nasaw said. “But there’s never been anyone like Musk.”
Nasaw said Musk was the first person to cross the trillionaire threshold and highlighted his role in DOGE, which dismantled the US Agency for International Development, a large foreign aid operation created by Congress.
His companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have received more than $30 billion in federal contracts, subsidies, loans and tax credits, according to the material reviewed by the historians.
“I call it an unholy alliance,” Nasaw said. “He makes money and then he returns that money to keep those who are friendly to him in power.”
Nasaw argued that the current democratic system was not equipped to restrain Musk. He called for higher taxes on billionaires and limits on campaign spending, warning: “Democracy is in a death spiral towards oligarchy.”
Historical comparisons to Musk’s political influence
Richard White, an emeritus history professor at Stanford University, rejected the idea that Musk’s power was without precedent. He said it was less extensive than that of J.P. Morgan, the dominant banker of America’s Gilded Age.
Morgan helped the US through a financial crisis in 1895, an intervention that gave him considerable influence over the government. “J.P. Morgan thought that he was a co-partner with government,” White said.
That influence did not last. After Morgan combined three major continental railways into the Northern Securities Company, President Theodore Roosevelt broke up the monopoly.
Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said non-conformists such as Musk could lead innovative companies and drive economic growth. He also regarded political spending as a constitutional right and opposed limits on campaign contributions, while acknowledging the controversy surrounding the influence of the ultra-rich.
“Wealthy accomplished people, having been participants in the global economy and in the American capital system, may actually have better views on what makes the American economy grow than the median voter,” Tupy said.
However, Musk’s spending has not guaranteed political success. He contributed more than $20 million to a Wisconsin Supreme Court race last year, but his preferred candidate lost by 10 percentage points.
White said Musk could face a tougher political environment if Democrats took control. “If you had a president and a Congress who were opposed to Musk, they could break him in a year,” he said. “SpaceX doesn’t exist without government funding.”
Democrats have already discussed investigating Musk if they win the House in the midterm elections, according to White. Musk responded on X: “Live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who pick fights with me should understand that I will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them.”
H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, said the dispute reflected a long-standing conflict between democracy and capitalism. Democracy was based on equality and the principle of one person, one vote, he said, while capitalism rewarded unequal wealth and talent.
Brands said the late 19th century had produced powerful industrialists such as Morgan and Andrew Carnegie, alongside a huge wealth gap. Progressive-era reforms then sought to restore democratic control by breaking up trusts and banning corporate donations to candidates.
He said some Americans now viewed the country as entering a second Gilded Age, with technology and infrastructure magnates including Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Ellison at the top of the wealth hierarchy.
“I think it’s coming over the horizon,” Brands said, referring to the prospect of another period of democratic reform.
