Musk is about to unleash more havoc on America
That was my first thought. My second was: thank God Rupert Lowe doesn't have $400 billion. It is, as my mother often says, 'very easy to mock'.
Nonetheless, although such a party would be unlikely to win a future election – if it did, it would be the first time in history that a third-party candidate became president – it could unleash even more chaos upon the American political system and even more volatility upon the world.
That could be the whole point. The announcement of the America Party was the latest escalation in a war of words between the two most powerful men on Earth over Donald Trump's signature megabill. As the legislation made its way through the Senate, Musk became furiously opposed to it.
'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their heads in shame!,' he posted on X on Monday. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.'
Not to be outdone, Trump fired back on his own social media site, Truth Social. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE,' he wrote. 'Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!'
The bill was signed into law on July 4. Then came the announcement of the America Party.
We mock at our peril. As the richest man on Earth, Musk's net worth is the equivalent of the GDP of mid-ranking countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia.
To put that in context, the 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since 1998, behind only the 2020 race, which was the most costly on record.
Donald Trump's latest victory cost about half-a-billion dollars in candidate committee cash, and about a billion in outside money. Musk could comfortably drop three or four times that sum on the America Party without his eyes watering.
He could also fund a private army the size of Britain's Armed Forces (annual budget: £57 billion) to go with it, should his ambitions take a more Team America turn.
With a political megaforce like this unleashed upon the United States, unpredictable numbers of votes would be hijacked both from the Democrats and Republicans. We would witness a three-way rhetorical battle, with Donald Trump's legendary bile haemorrhaging in all directions and the whole catastrophe given rocket boosters – almost literally – by social media.
But there are big caveats. Although Musk's post on X seemed unequivocal – 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' he wrote – no paperwork has been filed to the Federal Election Commission for the formation of a political entity by that name.
Given the impulsiveness that social media encourages and the volatile characters of the two big beasts, it is quite possible that by this time next week, Musk will have abandoned his political ambitions and once again be a card-carrying member of Team Trump. On the other hand, it is just as likely that the feud may have gone interstellar. All of this is terrible for America.
In the final analysis, this latest bombastic move is a gesture of spite by a man with a gold-plated god complex and a social media platform. But it is more than a fight between two Thunderbird-style caricatures competing for the attention of America.
The tragedy of the episode is that Musk's poll on X revealed that a majority of users felt that no political party was speaking for them. That is a real problem, and it is one that Musk's America Party would never solve.
Whether it becomes a reality or not, it is hard to avoid one conclusion. The United States deserves better than this.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani's mayoral bid?
A recent New York Times news story immediately drew fire from readers – and for very good reason. Headlined 'Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application,' the article centered on Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for New York City mayor who drew national attention recently with his stunning win in the Democratic primary election. Its gist was that as a high school senior in New York City, Mamdani – who was born in Uganda and is of Indian descent – checked a couple of different boxes about race when applying for admission to Columbia University. So what, you might ask. Why is this even a story, you might also ask. Excellent questions. Whatever its news value, or lack thereof, the story certainly got the attention of one of Mamdani's rivals – current New York City mayor Eric Adams, who will run in the general election as an independent candidate. Adams, who is Black, called it 'deeply offensive' that Mamdani would try to 'exploit' an African American identity even though he is not Black. And on Fox News, talkshow hosts used the Times story to trash Mamdani. Charlie Hurt, for one, called the mayoral candidate a racist on Fox & Friends and claimed that Mamdani despises America 'and everything that we stand for'. The rightwing cable network was having a field day with Mamdani, a Muslim and social democrat, even before the Times story. President Trump has called him a communist and suggested he should be deported. Other rightwing outlets picked up the story, too, presenting it as a DEI scandal – that Mamdani lied about his race in order to take advantage of the affirmative action admission policy at Columbia. (Making the story even more absurd is the fact that Mamdani didn't get in.) In print, the would-be scandal got some help from headline writers: 'Mamdani Faces Scrutiny Over College Application.' Mamdani has explained that he was trying to communicate his complicated background. His father is Indian Ugandan and his mother is Indian American; Mamdani himself was born in Uganda and lived briefly in South Africa before moving to New York City as a child. 'Most college applications don't have a box for Indian-Ugandans so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background,' he told the Times. The Times's decision to pursue and publish the story was, at the very least, unwise. For one thing, it came to the Times due to a widespread hack into Columbia's databases, transmitted to the paper through an intermediary who was given anonymity by the paper. That source turns out to be Jordan Lasker, who – as the Guardian has reported – is a well-known and much criticized 'eugenicist', AKA white supremacist. Traditional journalism ethics suggests that when news organizations base a story on hacked or stolen information, there should be an extra high bar of newsworthiness to justify publication. Much of Big Journalism, for example, turned their noses up at insider documents offered to them about JD Vance during last year's presidential campaign, in part because the source was Iranian hackers; in some cases, they wrote about the hack but not the documents. The Mamdani story, however, fell far short of the newsworthiness bar. A ranking Times editor, Patrick Healy, responded to criticism of the story in a thread on X, justifying it as part of the paper's mission 'to help readers better know and understand top candidates for major offices'. Soledad O'Brien, the prominent media entrepreneur and journalist, called that explanation 'a joke'. The publication of the Mamdani story is 'an absolute embarrassment' for the Times, charged O'Brien, who herself is of mixed-race ancestry and identifies as Black. Plenty of others agreed, seeing Healy's explanation not as admirable transparency but as damage control. The incident raises a larger issue: the Times's apparent opposition to Mamdani's candidacy. On the opinion side of the paper, there's little question about that. Even though the Times no longer makes endorsements for mayor, they published an editorial urging voters to avoid ranking Mamdani at all on their ballots because he was so unqualified. (New York City uses ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list several candidates in order of preference.) Remarkably, the Times stopped short of giving the same 'don't rank him' advice about disgraced governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned his office in 2021 and then ran for mayor against Mamdani in the primary. The opinion side of the Times is entitled to its opinion, however misguided. But straight news articles, by contrast, aren't supposed to go to bat for or against candidates. They're supposed to be neutral and non-partisan, not cheering on one candidate or kneecapping another. In practice, of course, that's often not the case. With this made-up scandal, combined with the pre-election editorial, the Times looks like it's on a crusade against Mamdani. And no lofty explanation about the mission can disguise it. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Texas news anchor's blistering on-air attack on Kristi Noem and Greg Abbott over flood press conference
A local news anchor launched a blistering on-air attack against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over their response to the deadly Guadalupe River floods. KSAT's Stephania Jimenez was obviously frustrated by Noem and Abbott's Saturday press briefing that saw them praise each other and President Donald Trump. Jimenez says she was 'struck' by how officials spent 'way too long' talking before actually updating the public on the flash flood disaster. 'We really didn't get any concrete information until 27 minutes into that news conference where you had the governor speak, you had Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speak for a while,' Jimenez said during her station's newscast. 'But you know what people are wanting is information.' 'I don't know what it is about people who run for federal office that whenever disasters like this happen, they take it upon themselves to first list all the names of people they want to thank. Um, not what we want to hear right now.' Jimenez, whose co-anchor appeared uncomfortable by her seemingly unscripted rant, further argued that Texans were waiting for and deserved 'real information'. 'That was a lot longer than it needed to be,' she continued. 'If they don't have the latest information that they can give us, they should've said so.' Jimenez was obviously frustrated by Noem and Abbott's Saturday press briefing that saw them praise each other and President Donald Trump. She says she was 'struck' by how the duo spent 'way too long' talking before actually updating the public on the flash flood disaster Jimenez, whose rant came after officials held their fifth news conference about the devastating Hill Country floods, highlighted how many questions remained unanswered. 'This disaster happened yesterday and what people want is information,' she said during Saturday's broadcast. 'They can't even tell us right now exactly how many people are missing. We understand why - the 4th of July holiday weekend, there were a lot of people there that are unaccounted for.' She admitted there were many campers and tourists visiting Kerrville at the time so officials were searching for more than just locals. Jimenez, noting that the issues of public thanking was bipartisan and happens during every disaster, said she hoped that officials would provide more substantial updates moving forward. 'People are on pins and needles waiting,' she added, to which her uncomfortable looking colleague replied 'yeah'. He then added how he was 'worried we weren't going to get any information at all' and that officials 'weren't going to tell us the death toll, how many people are missing, how many kids have been lost'. The death toll for the weekend's disaster has risen to 94, as of later Monday afternoon. That includes 27 killed at Camp Mystic, a Christian camp for girls. Dozens remain missing and the final death toll is likely to soar into triple figures. Liberal media outlets and Democrat lawmakers alike have blamed President Donald Tump, Noem and Trump and other Republicans have come under fire for the alleged lack of preparedness from the National Weather Service in wake of the tragedy. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has hit back at the 'depraved' critics who have suggested Trump's cuts to NOAA and FEMA contributed to the devastation. 'Unfortunately, in the wake of this once-in-a-generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media,' she said during a Tuesday press briefing. 'Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning.' She further alleged the 'National Weather Service did its job' despite recent staffing cuts, noting the agency's office in the region was 'overstaffed' when the flash floods erupted. 'Any person who has deliberately lied about these facts surrounding this catastrophic event, you should be deeply ashamed,' she added.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's border czar defends increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants: ‘We're gonna enforce law'
President Donald Trump 's 'border czar' has defended the increasing number of arrests of non-violent migrants, saying 'that's our job.' On Monday, Tom Homan said that although public safety threats were a priority, those who were in the country illegally were 'not off the table.' 'We're gonna enforce immigration law,' he said. Homan's remarks follow public backlash to the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. White House senior advisor Stephen Miller told Fox News last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement set a goal of a 'minimum' of 3,000 arrests a day. Miller also reportedly told ICE officials to target community hubs, Home Depot parking lots and 7-Eleven convenience stores to find suspects, according to The Wall Street Journal. Homan offered a similar hardline stance on Monday. 'National security threats, public safety threats are always the priority,' he told reporters. 'But if you're in the country illegally you're not off the table. ' 'I mean I see people saying we're arresting non-criminals. Well, they're in the country illegally, that's our job,' he said. 'We told ICE agents in the process of going out looking for the bad guy — and this is the problem with sanctuary cities. When we go to a community to go find the criminal, many times they're with others. Others that may not be a criminal target, but they're in the United States illegally they're coming too. We're gonna enforce immigration law.' Homan went on to claim that former Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, had instructed ICE agents not to arrest 'illegal aliens for simply being here illegally… 'They've got to be arrested [or] be convicted of a serious criminal offense.' He re-wrote the law. That's not what the law says.' 'We're gonna enforce the law,' Homan added. 'That's why the people put President Trump in office to do and that's what we're doing.' Despite the president's pledge to aggressively pursue 'the worst of the worst,' among immigrants in detention now, 47 percent have no criminal record whatsoever, and fewer than 30 percent have been convicted of crimes, according to analysis from The Independent. The number of people without a criminal record being arrested by ICE agents and held in detention has jumped 800 percent since January, according to reports.
