Musk Announces New America Party Is Formed Amid Trump Split
Elon Musk says he has 'formed' his new political party titled the "America Party." The former lead of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) had promised to do just that if President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passed. Musk has been—and continues to be—a vocal critic of the policy bill, arguing that it will 'cause immense strategic harm' to America on account of the trillions of dollars the bill is projected to add to the debt of the country.
'By a factor of two to one, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' Musk said via his social media platform, X, on Saturday, a day after Trump signed the bill. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'
The Tesla CEO had opened a poll on July 4, Independence Day, asking his more than 220 million followers if he should create the new political party. Over 65% of the more than 1.2 million respondents voted 'yes.'
Read More: Musk Renews Promise to Start New Rival Political Party as Trump Debates Deporting Him
Musk went on to share his potential strategy for 'gaining independence from the two-party system,' arguing that he might try to 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts' for his party.
'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,' Musk elaborated.
But as for what exactly Musk plans to do with his rival third party is largely open for discussion. Musk has yet to share any specific proposed policies or explicitly state what the core tenets of his party would be.Here's what we do—and don't—know about Musk's vision for the America Party and how it came to be.
When Musk floated the idea of creating a new political party in early June amid the very public fracturing of his relationship with Trump, his one-time ally, Musk after conducting a poll said: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!' He appeared to be referring to those who may not feel seen or represented by either the Republican Party or Democratic Party.
Musk, the country's biggest Republican donor, is seemingly committed to campaigning against any Republicans who showed support and voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill that he so vehemently opposes.
'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk said on June 30. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.'
If he so desired, Musk could target pivotal congressional seats in an effort to turn them and thus potentially have the upper hand during votes on key matters. He seemingly referenced this plan with his July 4 post about establishing a 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts.'
Musk did not elaborate or specify which seats would be at the center of his focus.
While Musk has yet to share an actual policy platform for his party, he has reposted and responded affirmatively to some of his X followers' posts about what the platform could be. What appears to be on the docket is a platform that prioritizes cuts on debt and excess spending within the government, similar to what Musk pushed for during his time in the White House.
One of Musk's followers asked: 'Is this the America Party platform?' They went on to list the following stances:
Reduce debt, responsible spending only
Modernize military with AI/robotics
Pro tech, accelerate to win in AI
Less regulation across board, but especially in energy
Free speech
Pro natalist
Centrist policies everywhere else
In response, Musk said 'yeah!' and went on to repost the list to his millions of followers, but stopped short of providing his own official policy plan.
Read More: Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Faces Opposition From Musk and Some Republicans as Senate Narrowly Votes to Advance It
Though Musk had voted Democrat previously, he played a vital role for the Republican Party when he became the largest donor of the 2024 presidential race, predominantly funding Trump's campaign but also financially backing other Republicans via his super political action committee (PAC) titled America PAC.
Musk became a close ally of Trump's and appeared at major campaign rallies with him, addressing large crowds and urging them to vote for Trump. As a sign of their close working relationship, Trump appointed Musk as the lead of DOGE, a role he held until May. During his tenure, Musk became known for actualizing Trump's vision of cutting 'waste' in the government, which amounted to laying off thousands of federal employees.
But Musk and Trump's relationship soured, especially after the former took a public stance against the spending bill.
'I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,' Musk told CBS News in May, shortly before he announced his DOGE departure. 'But I don't know if it could be both.'
Going a step further in early June, Musk said the 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination' and told his millions of followers to 'call your Senator, call your Congressman… kill the bill!'
Musk and Trump engaged in an all-out war of words, exchanging jabs and lobbying threats—with Trump threatening to take away the government contracts for Musk's companies, including the SpaceX firm that has become a critical player for NASA. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the falling out stemmed from Musk being unhappy over changes to the Electric Vehicle [EV] mandate.
Tensions reignited once more when Musk renewed his calls for the policy bill not to be passed.
When asked by reporters on July 1 if he was planning to deport Musk, who has U.S. and South African citizenship, Trump replied: 'I don't know, we'll have to take a look.'
'We might have to put DOGE on Elon. The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?' Trump said, appearing to refer to the contracts and subsidies that Musk's prominent businesses have from the federal government.
Read More: Musk Floats Idea of Starting New Rival Political Party—and Even Names It—Amid Trump Feud
Though Musk is looking to build a viable, competitive third party, it requires more than an X poll to actualize it in the U.S.. In fact, many have tried before.
Two major parties—Democratic and Republican—have dominated U.S. politics and no third party in recent memory has been able to penetrate the two-party system in a meaningful way.
Former 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Andrew Yang has pushed for representation beyond the two-party system, but has arguably encountered limited success with his Forward Party.
In June, Yang expressed a keenness to join forces with Musk, seemingly hoping that the two of them may have a stronger chance of succeeding.
'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang said in an interview with Politico. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon, or anyone else who wants to head down this road. A third party can succeed very quickly.'
Part of the reason third parties struggle is due to the U.S.' 'winner takes all' system in the Electoral College. 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (so does the District of Columbia).
This makes voting for third party candidates difficult. For example, support for the Tea Party held strong at 24% according to polls in the 2010s, though they rarely held significant political power, since the Republicans were often fearful of splitting votes in races with narrow margins, which would have risked giving the election to Democratic candidates.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Motor Trend
6 minutes ago
- Motor Trend
How the One Big Beautiful Bill Will Affect Car Buying and Ownership
On July 4, President Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Act into law. The budget reconciliation bill made big changes to federal spending, taxes, and regulation, some of which will have big effects on car owners, enthusiasts, and the automotive industry. We've read through the 879-page bill and outlined the parts that'll affect your next car purchase, the price of gas, and your commute. The "One Big Beautiful Bill" affects car buying by altering tax deductions on auto loans, ending EV tax credits, reducing CAFE penalties to zero, and cutting grants for clean vehicles. It also impacts gas and power prices by changing drilling and energy policies. This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article Read Next Because this is a reconciliation bill, which modifies existing budget legislation rather than starting from scratch, there are limits to what can be included in the legislation. Everything in the bill has to be directly related to government spending and taxation, so some of the changes are creatively written in order to make the cut. (As always, please consult your tax professional before making financial decisions. The below is provided for information purposes only and is not tax or financial advice.) 'No' Tax on Car Loan Interest This one is confusing, and 'no' is in quotation marks because it's misleading. Car buyers looking to finance their next purchase may be able to write off some—but not all—of the interest charged on the loan each calendar year on their taxes. That's not the same as abolishing or suspending the tax altogether, as the claim implies. There are also a number of rules for qualifying which will cut off a lot of buyers. First and foremost, the vehicle you're buying has to be assembled in the U.S. That will be confusing for some buyers, because some of the bestselling vehicles in the U.S, such as the Toyota RAV4 and Chevrolet Silverado, are built in multiple plants, not all of them in the U.S. The IRS will know where your vehicle is made because you have to supply the VIN when claiming the tax deduction, and that number includes a digit that represents the country of origin. The tax deduction doesn't apply to leases, either, only purchases. It appears to apply to both new and used vehicle purchases, as the legislation makes no distinction. Vehicles with salvage titles and parts cars don't count, either. Similarly, it doesn't apply to anything with a gross vehicle weight rating over 14,000 pounds (which is the rating of a Ford F-350, as an example). Commercial vehicles qualify but only if they're for personal use, not business use. Business fleet purchases don't qualify, so be careful if you're planning to register your vehicle to your small business in order to take advantage of other tax incentives. If your purchase qualifies, there are still more rules. The tax deduction is capped at $10,000 per calendar year, so if you pay more than that in interest, the balance will still be taxed. If you make more than $100,000 per year as an individual or $200,000 per year as a joint filer (married or similar), the amount of interest you're able to deduct goes down by $200 for every $1,000 of income you earn over $100,000 (individual, or $200,000 combined). Do the math and it means no tax credit for anyone making over $150,000 individually or $250,000 combined. Finally, the tax credit is only available for a limited time. You can't start counting interest payments towards a deduction until January 1, 2026, so the rest of this year doesn't count. The tax credit will expire on December 31, 2029 unless Congress extends it. EV Tax Credits End September 30 The (up to) $7,500 federal tax credit for new and used EVs now expires on September 30 of this year. Previously, both tax credits were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2032. Likewise, the tax credit for commercial EVs expires the same day. State tax credits are not affected. On a related note, the federal tax credit for installing an EV charger or renewable fuel dispenser at your home or business will expire even sooner, on July 30 of this year. Tax credits have been a huge driver of EV sales to date, so the end of them could cause final vehicle sale prices to rise and sales to plummet. A large drop in sales could lead automakers to discontinue some or all of their EVs, reducing choice in the market. Lower cost EVs with smaller profit margins would be vulnerable, which could lead to only more expensive EVs on the market. Less Help With Bad Auto Loans Stopping predatory auto loans had been a major focus for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Biden administration, but enforcement is likely to drop off substantially after the passage of this bill. Funding for the bureau is cut by 54 percent, which will drastically reduce the number of investigations and actions it's able to execute. No Penalties for CAFE Violations Because this is a reconciliation bill, Congress could not make changes to vehicle emissions and fuel economy laws. Rather than replace or abolish the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program (CAFE), this bill keeps all the existing rules in place but reduces the penalties for breaking them to $0.00. This means automakers are free to ignore federal fuel economy regulations as the EPA cannot meaningfully enforce them. This could potentially affect consumers in multiple ways. If automakers stop following CAFE rules, fuel economy could go down and emissions could go up. Any savings on R&D could then be passed on to the consumer. This is unlikely, however. Automakers plan as much as a decade in advance, so vehicles for sale today were engineered years ago and the money already spent. Future iterations of Congress and future presidents could also reinstate the penalties in a few years, which would wipe out any savings and put automakers behind on R&D. Fuel economy regulations elsewhere in the world aren't changing, so there's little incentive for automakers to cut R&D spending regardless, meaning no reduction in pricing is likely. No More Money for Clean Commercial Vehicles Businesses and local governments around the country have taken advantage of federal grants to help offset the cost of replacing older heavy duty commercial vehicles with EVs. These grants were commonly used to replace old, diesel school busses with new, electric versions and also covered installation of chargers and training employees to work on those vehicles and chargers. Any grant money not already spent has been taken away. Similarly, grants for reducing diesel exhaust emissions in low income and disadvantaged areas have been cut, with all unspent money withdrawn. Funding has also been cut for an EPA program which studies the health and environmental effects of fuel additives. Reduction in Tax Credits for Commuters If your employer provides a transit passes, vanpool reimbursement, parking passes, or a bicycle commuting reimbursement, the amount you're able to deduct on your taxes is going down. Previously, you could deduct up to $175 per month each for your vanpool, transit pass, or parking pass. Now, you can only deduct up to $175 total per month for any combination of those services. The deduction for bicycle commuting has been eliminated entirely. No More Money or Credits For Home Solar and Battery Backups This is tangential to car buying and ownership, but if you were planning to take advantage of tax credits to install solar panels and battery backups in your home to offset the cost of charging an EV, you're out of luck. Any money not already spent on those grants and tax credits has been rescinded. Likewise, the business tax credit for building specifically energy efficient new homes has been cut, along with business tax credits for training contractors to install solar panels, batteries, and more efficient appliances. Gas and Power Prices Could Be Affected Portions of the bill addressing oil drilling and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may have a small impact on gas prices in the future. Various provisions restart new oil and gas drilling leases both in the U.S. and offshore in its oceans, which would eventually add to the global oil supply and potentially push down prices. However, it will take years for any new leases to be acquired, explored, drilled, and turned into production wells, and oil companies are already sitting on a large number of unexplored leases. Because oil is a globally traded commodity, adding more supply doesn't necessarily change the price of a barrel of oil, nor the price of a gallon of gas. The bill also requires the government to abandon a plan introduced during Trump's first term to sell down part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Instead, it requires the government to buy more oil it can store for future emergencies. Presidents like to draw on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high gas prices, but the quantities withdrawn are typically so small they have little to no impact on lowering the price at the pump. With regard to electricity generation, the bill paves the way to reopen old, closed power plants and cuts tax credits for wind and solar farms. Old power plants will now be able to reopen without any retrofitting of modern pollution controls, which could make them economically viable, although it depends on the individual plant. New wind and solar farms now have a shorter window to begin operations before the tax credits are cut off, and the lack of credits is expected to make new such farms economically unviable in the future. Fewer wind and solar farms means energy prices are less likely to go down or remain flat, while old power plants coming back online could partially offset their absence at the cost of greater air pollution in those communities. The bill also undoes several provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided loans and grants for electrical infrastructure improvements nationally, including transmission line improvements in particular, as well as integrating offshore wind farms into the power grid and improving electrical infrastructure on tribal land. Any reductions in electricity prices or increases in reliability these improvements may have provided are off the table. Similarly, by cutting the clean hydrogen production credit several years earlier than planned, the bill will likely slow or halt the adoption of clean sources of hydrogen and slow or stall the nascent hydrogen vehicle industry, both for private and commercial vehicles. Most hydrogen today is produced from gas and oil, which is both cheaper and dirtier than clean alternatives.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump caught off guard by Pentagon's abrupt move to pause Ukraine weapons deliveries, AP sources say
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to send more defensive weapons to Ukraine came after he privately expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a pause in some deliveries last week — a move that he felt wasn't properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter. The Pentagon, which announced last week that it would hold back some air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other weapons pledged to Ukraine because of what U.S. officials said were concerns that American stockpiles were in short supply. Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. will have to send more weapons to Ukraine, effectively reversing the move. Two of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the sensitive internal discussions, said there was some internal opposition among Pentagon brass to the pause — coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby — before it was announced. One of the people described Trump as being caught 'flat footed' by the announcement. The White House did not respond to queries about whether Trump was surprised by the Pentagon pause. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson denied that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had acted without consulting the president. 'It is the job of the Secretary of Defense to make military recommendations to the commander-in-chief. Secretary Hegseth provided a framework for the President to evaluate military aid shipments and assess existing stockpiles. This effort was coordinated across government. The Department will continue to give the President robust options regarding military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end and putting America first,' Wilson said in a statement to The Associated Press. The pause in critical weapons deliveries had come at a difficult moment for Ukraine, which has faced increasing — and more complex — air barrages from Russia during the more than three-year-old war. Trump acknowledged that in announcing the reversal on Monday night, saying, "They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now." Asked by a reporter Tuesday who approved the pause, Trump bristled at the question while he was gathered with his Cabinet. 'I don't know. Why don't you tell me?" Trump's change in tone on Putin The president also laid into Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting he was unnecessarily prolonging the war that Trump has said he's determined to quickly conclude. Trump has struggled to find a resolution, with talks between the sides stalled. The Republican leader has sounded increasingly exasperated with Putin in recent days. The two spoke by phone last week. 'We get a lot of bull---- thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth," Trump said during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting. "He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.' He has threatened, but held off on, imposing new sanctions against Russia's oil industry to try to prod Putin into peace talks. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said last week that Trump has given him the go-ahead to push forward with a bill he's co-sponsoring that calls, in part, for a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil. The move would have huge ramifications for China and India, two economic behemoths that buy Russian oil. Trump said Tuesday that he's 'looking at it very strongly.' Pentagon says it's going to resume shipments to Ukraine The weapons pause announced last week impacted shipments of Patriot missiles, precision-guided GMLRS, Hellfire missiles and Howitzer rounds and more, taking not only Ukrainian officials and other allies by surprise but also U.S. lawmakers and other parts of the Trump administration, including the State Department. The Pentagon said late Monday that at Trump's direction, it would resume weapons shipments to Ukraine 'to ensure the Ukrainians can defend themselves while we work to secure a lasting peace and ensure the killing stops.' Still, spokesman Sean Parnell added that its review for Trump to evaluate military shipments worldwide continues as part of 'America First' defense priorities. It's also unclear which weaponry would now be sent, though Trump said that the U.S. will primarily be assisting Ukraine with defensive weapons. Counting the weapons On Tuesday, each of the services and the combatant commands — the multiservice organizations that spearhead U.S. military operations around the world — were still sending up information on their stockpiles of specific munitions to Pentagon leadership, a U.S. official said. 'They are literally still doing the math,' the official said. The information was being presented on a stoplight chart — where munitions were either in a red, yellow or green status, similar to slides that had been created the week before, the official said. That earlier study had concluded that some munitions were OK to keep sending to Ukraine — but others were reaching concerning levels. Getting a full visibility on the numbers of actual munitions on hand takes time, the official said, because while Patriot missiles, for example, initially belong to the Army, once they are requested and sent to a combatant command, such as U.S. Central Command, the service loses visibility on those numbers in inventory. The vast majority of the munitions and weapons the U.S. has shipped to Ukraine have been pulled from the Army, which has monitored levels closely in recent years, particularly for high-demand items like 155mm artillery shells and Patriot missiles for air defenses. It's been harder for the Army to ramp up production on those items than had been planned: It was trying to hit a goal of producing 100,000 155mm shells a month by the end of 2025 but won't meet that goal now until 2026, Army spokesman Steve Warren said. Ramping up Patriot missile production also has been challenging, Warren said. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Tuesday that he was glad Trump was resuming deliveries to Ukraine. 'This time, the President will need to reject calls from the isolationists and restrainers within his Administration to limit these deliveries to defensive weapons," McConnell said. 'And he should disregard those at DoD who invoke munitions shortages to block aid while refusing to invest seriously in expanding munitions production.' ___ Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
14 minutes ago
What would it take for Elon Musk to create a new political party in America?
On the heels of the Fourth of July -- and amid his feud with President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans over the president's tax policy bill -- tech billionaire Elon Musk announced plans for a brand new political party, dubbed "America Party," to represent what he called "the 80% in the middle." Musk, who recently left his temporary government post as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, told his X followers that his new party will "give you back your freedom." In a series of posts over the weekend, Musk said his party would use "extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield" to target "2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts," which he believes "would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws." So what would it take for Musk to launch his third-party effort? Here's an overview. Getting on the ballot To start, Musk would have to get his party on the ballots in the states where he wants to compete -- each with its own process for qualifying. In many states -- including Kentucky, where the race to fill retiring Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell's open seat in 2026 is heating up -- a party-designated candidate must win a nomination from a state-recognized political party that has received a certain percentage of votes in the previous presidential election -- or else a candidate has to run as an independent or a write-in candidate. In other states, the America Party's name itself could present a problem -- like in New York, where state law prohibits political parties from having the word "American," or any part of it, as part of their party names, according to Election Law Blog. Bankrolling these state-level efforts would take significant resources. Experts would be needed to navigate each state's election laws and political systems in order to identify and nominate promising candidates, and canvassers would have to gather thousands to tens of thousands of signatures for each candidate to get them on the ballot. Traditionally, candidates and their parties spearhead these operations, working together to strategize signature-gathering, voter registration, and campaign fundraising and spending. But Musk's America Party is unlikely to become a certified political party anytime soon, because the Federal Election Commission, which reviews political organizations' qualification as political parties, has not been in quorum to do so since a commissioner resigned in April, leaving the agency with just three commissioners. FEC commissioners can only be appointed by President Trump himself. It's not yet clear if Musk has filed any paperwork for his America Party, and an FEC spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency has received any paperwork from Musk's team. Going the PAC route Faced with the long odds of gaining party certification, some election experts say that Musk, at least for the time being, could focus on House and Senate candidates through a super PAC. That's because ballot access for congressional races is governed by the states -- not the federal government -- so the America Party could still put its designated candidates on the ballot without the FEC's certification, as long as they pass state qualifications. And because super PACs are unconstrained by fundraising or spending limits, an America Party super PAC could be funded by unlimited donations from supporters including Musk himself, and could independently spend an unlimited amount of money in support of its candidates. The only catch is that super PACs are unable to work directly with campaigns the way FEC-certified political parties can -- but election lawyer Matt Sanderson of Caplin and Drysdale told ABC News that the efficiency of a super PAC can actually outweigh the advantages of a political party. "Form a super PAC, just call yourselves a political party -- that's not against the rules. The FEC blessing is not needed," said Sanderson, who was legal counsel for the No Labels movement during the 2024 election. "I actually don't think it makes a lick of sense in this day and age to try to form yourself as a national party committee." "They can call themselves whatever they want," Sanderson said, explaining that the FEC doesn't prohibit a super PAC from calling itself a political party as long as it doesn't coordinate directly with campaigns. "Just skip right past this very cumbersome and not-all-that-beneficial process, hold themselves out as a political party, and move forward." Joining forces Additionally, Musk could enlist the help of existing third parties, like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. However, third parties historically have had little success in gaining office in the United States. During the 2024 election, the centrist group No Labels led a third-party presidential movement but ended its efforts months before the Republican and Democratic national conventions, after failing to find their candidate before their self-imposed deadline. Longstanding Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver ran in the 2024 presidential race but received less than 0.5% of the total vote. Still, a possible collaboration could be in the works: Musk has been in touch with one-time Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who in recent days has spearheaded a third party centrist effort of his own, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News. Caleb Burns, an election lawyer at Wiley Rein, acknowledged the potential significance of obtaining an official party status through the FEC instead of bypassing that step with a super PAC -- stressing the role of a political party as a "brand for politicians." "The success of any new political party will turn on whether there are sufficient candidates -- and, by extension, members of the public -- interested in aligning with that new brand," Burns said. "If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to do everything possible to enhance and promote that brand -- which means proceeding with the organizational and legal burdens necessary to create and formalize a new political party." "The critical predicate, however, is the political question of whether or not there is sufficient interest in a new brand of politician," Burns said. "For that, it seems we will have to wait and see what Mr. Musk concludes."
