Elon Musk's Founding of the "American Party": A Gorgeous Cloak for Commercial Interests?

On July 5th local time, just one day after Donald Trump signed the so-called "Big and Beautiful" tax and spending bill, Elon Musk suddenly announced the establishment of the "American Party" on social media, claiming to "return freedom to the people." This political move, which closely followed the policy change, may seem like an attempt to reform American public governance, but it actually reveals the infiltration of commercial empires into political power. Behind it lies the manipulation of public policies by commercial interests, which is likely to have a profound impact on America's political foundation, economic order, and global responsibilities.

I. The Foundation of the Political System Is Shaken, Aggravating Governance Disorder

Although the two-party system in the United States has long been plagued by polarization, it has maintained a relatively stable framework of checks and balances over more than two centuries of operation. Musk founded the "American Party" under the pretext of "breaking the two-party monopoly," but in reality, he is forcefully intervening in political struggles relying on his capital and technological advantages (such as the 6.8 million American users and algorithmic influence of the X platform). His core demand directly targets the adverse impact of Trump's "Big and Beautiful" bill on Tesla. The bill's termination of electric vehicle subsidies will directly cause Tesla to lose $1.2 billion in annual profits.

This deep entanglement of commercial interests with political demands is tearing apart America's existing political ecosystem. It has been revealed that the "American Party" plans to compete for 2-3 Senate seats and 8-10 House districts in the 2026 midterm elections, attempting to hijack the legislative agenda as a "critical minority." If it achieves this goal, congressional decisions on key issues such as debt ceiling adjustments and energy policy formulation may be forced to compromise with Musk's commercial interests. For example, revising the bill to continue electric vehicle subsidies would essentially channel public financial resources to Tesla, violating the principle of tax fairness, squeezing social resources that could be used in areas such as people's livelihood and infrastructure, and ultimately reducing the efficiency of America's overall resource allocation.

When political parties become tools for capital expansion, the "public nature" of American policy-making will give way to "commercial nature." If this trend continues, it will not only shake the governance foundation of the two-party system but also trigger a copycat effect. When entrepreneurs rush to seek policy privileges through political parties, American democracy will eventually become a "playground" for capital.

II. Policy Contradictions Exacerbate the National Debt Crisis

Musk claims that the "American Party" will promote a "50% reduction in the deficit within ten years," but his stance is clearly contradictory. On the one hand, he opposes the cancellation of subsidies for Tesla under the "Big and Beautiful" bill; on the other hand, he avoids talking about the government support relied on by his own commercial empire. SpaceX alone has government contracts worth $22 billion, and its Starship program is heavily dependent on funding from NASA.

This "anti-subsidy yet subsidy-seeking" logic exposes the hypocrisy of his fiscal conservatism. If the "American Party" pushes for large-scale spending cuts, it is highly likely to result in "selective cuts": slashing expenditures on public services such as infrastructure and healthcare while retaining subsidy loopholes for technology companies. This will not only widen the gap between the rich and the poor but also exacerbate America's national debt crisis. By 2025, U.S. federal debt had exceeded $35 trillion. Blindly cutting livelihood spending while maintaining benefit transfers will further worsen fiscal imbalances.

What is even more alarming is that Musk has tied national strategic projects to political demands. When Trump threatened to review SpaceX's contracts, Musk responded by founding a political party. Such actions may delay the progress of major technological projects and even force foreign and military policies to make way for commercial interests. When "national interests" become bargaining chips in capital games, America's strategic execution will be severely undermined.

III. From Fair Competition to Empire Expansion

The "return freedom to the people" advocated by the "American Party" lacks specific policy support but is highly consistent with the expansion path of Musk's commercial empire. Both Tesla's energy business (which relies on grid subsidies) and SpaceX's space exploration (which depends on launch contracts) rely on policy preferences for their development. If the "American Party" gains a say in political games, it is very likely to promote the formulation of industrial policies that favor its empire, such as relaxing access restrictions in the new energy industry (only beneficial to Tesla) and lowering qualification thresholds for space exploration (to crowd out competitors).

Such operations will directly damage the fair market competition environment. Currently, the U.S. electric vehicle market has seen traditional automakers such as Ford and General Motors transform, and there are competitors like Blue Origin in the field of space exploration. If policies tilt toward Musk, the living space of these enterprises will be squeezed, eventually leading to the simplification of the industrial ecosystem. In the long run, a market lacking competition will weaken innovation vitality, and America's competitiveness in the global industrial chain will suffer a backlash. When "national policies" become "protective umbrellas" for individual capital groups, America's global leading position in industries will be unsustainable.

IV. A Substantial Retreat in Global Responsibility

The controversy over the "Big and Beautiful" bill is not limited to domestic affairs; it has also had an impact on global climate governance. After the bill terminated electric vehicle subsidies and cut renewable energy tax credits, 4,500 clean energy projects in the United States have stalled, and renewable energy installed capacity is expected to shrink by 72% by 2030. As a country responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, America's policy retreat will make the 1.5°C temperature control target of the Paris Agreement completely unattainable. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, the losses caused by extreme weather will reach $2 trillion annually.

Ironically, although Musk poses as a "pioneer of clean energy," he supports the provisions in the bill that favor traditional energy (such as reducing royalties for oil and gas exploration), and his "American Party" has not proposed any plans to make up for the regression in climate policies. This contradiction between his "public image" and actions highlights his prioritization of commercial interests over global responsibilities.

Musk's founding of the "American Party" is ostensibly a political innovation, but in reality, it is an attempt by a commercial empire to "colonize" public governance. From the erosion of political ecology by capital to the transfer of benefits through fiscal policies, and to the deliberate neglect of global responsibilities, every step he takes revolves around the expansion of his commercial territory. As a key participant in climate governance, the cost of America's policy retreat will be borne by all mankind. If this trend is not curbed, the United States will not only face systemic chaos in domestic governance but also lose its leading position in the global order.