logo
Elon Musk wants to start a 3rd party — the America Party — to take on Trump and the Democrats. Could it work?

Elon Musk wants to start a 3rd party — the America Party — to take on Trump and the Democrats. Could it work?

Yahoo2 days ago
In 1992, Ross Perot — a billionaire frustrated with America's ballooning budget deficits and fed up with its two-party system — ran for president as an independent. He won 19% of the vote against the Republican incumbent (George H. W. Bush) and his Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton). A few years later, Perot formed a third party — the Reform Party — and ran again in 1996 as its first White House nominee.
Now Tesla CEO Elon Musk, another frustrated billionaire, seems to want to follow in Perot's footsteps and build an even bigger, better third party of his own.
'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' the world's richest man wrote earlier this month on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'
Is Musk serious? And could his plan really work?
It wasn't so long ago that Musk was calling himself Trump's 'first buddy.' After spending more than $250 million to help his friend win the 2024 election, Musk spent the first few months of Trump's second term waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy as head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
But then in early June the two tycoons had a major falling out over Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.'
Trump claims Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' — i.e., the $7,500 consumer tax credit that has long made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers. Musk insists he is concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit [by] $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America[n] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote last month on X.
'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.'
When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate earlier this month with an even heftier $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party scheme.
'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' he wrote on X. 'Should we create the America Party?'
More than a million X users responded to Musk's snap poll; 65% said yes; 35% said no.
'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day.
Of course, there's more to launching a third party than posting about it on social media. And so far, it appears that Musk hasn't taken any of the steps required to get his America Party off the ground.
For one thing, Musk can't officially start a new party until after 2028. Like Perot, a new, independent presidential candidate would first have to secure ballot access nationwide; in many states, they would actually have to compete in the 2028 election — and earn enough votes — to keep that ballot access. Then, and only then, could the so-called America Party petition the Federal Election Commission to become a real national political party — again, like Perot did with his Reform Party in 1995, three years after his initial presidential run.
In the meantime, Musk could file with the FEC to start an 'America Party' political committee to assist his preferred candidates. In fact, some filings under that name did appear on the FEC website right after Musk's X announcement; two even list Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja as treasurer and custodian of records. But according to Musk, those filings are bogus.
For now, the America Party seems short on substance. All we know is that Musk himself could never be its presidential candidate; he was born in South Africa, and the U.S. constitution requires the president to be 'a natural born Citizen.' And, at least to start, the party might not even concern itself with the presidency.
'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' Musk hypothesized on July 4. '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.'
It depends how you define 'successfully.' The Libertarian Party launched in 1971 and fielded its first presidential ticket the following year. By 1980, it had clinched ballot access in all 50 states. It remains America's third-largest political party today.
Yet none of its recent presidential candidates have earned more than 3.3% of the national vote.
Meanwhile, the Reform Party slowly collapsed after the high-water mark of Perot's 1996 campaign (8.4%). In 2000, it briefly flirted with Trump before nominating Pat Buchanan (0.4%). By the time Ralph Nader joined forces with the Reform Party four years later, it had lost its ballot line in all but seven states. Nader won just 0.38% of the vote.
The most successful third party, at least on the presidential level, was the Progressive (or 'Bull Moose') Party. In 1912, former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt broke with his protege and successor William Howard Taft and decided to run for a third term. Ultimately, Roosevelt earned 27% of the national vote — more than Taft (23%) and any other third-party candidate in U.S. history.
But note that it took a figure as familiar and well-credentialed as a former president to get that far — and even he didn't win. Because Roosevelt and Taft divided the GOP, Democrat Woodrow Wilson wound up flipping the White House with just 42% of the vote.
'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump told reporters earlier this month. 'The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion.'
'Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it — but I think it's ridiculous,' the president added.
The idea of another option — something different from business as usual — is perennially popular. According to Gallup, a full 58% of Americans said last October that the United States needs a third party because Republicans and Democrats 'do such a poor job' representing their interests. Over the past two decades, that number has averaged 56%; in 2023 it hit a record high of 63%.
Likewise, 43% of Americans told Gallup last year that they identify as independents rather than Democrats (28%) or Republicans (28%) — a number that has been rising for some time, especially among younger voters.
The problem is that the vast majority of self-described independents are actually just loyal Republicans or Democrats in disguise — and the few that remain generally seem unwilling to 'waste their vote' by casting it for a non-Democrat or non-Republican.
Political data journalist G. Elliott Morris recently attempted to estimate the size of Musk's potential coalition by taking the total U.S. voter pool and subtracting hardcore Republicans (24%), hardcore Democrats (32%), soft Republicans (22%) and soft Democrats (20%).
The America Party was left with less than 2% of the vote.
When Morris took a slightly different approach — removing (1) devoted partisans (67.5%); (2) any remaining pro-Trump voters (14%); (3) any remaining pro-spending voters (16%); and (4) any remaining anti-Musk voters (1.75%) — the America Party wound up with an even smaller slice of the electorate (0.75%).
Which isn't to say that Musk has zero chance of 'disrupting' America's partisan status quo the way he's already disrupted electric vehicles and space technology; no other third-party maestro has ever had his $400 billion fortune or his social-media megaphone.
Earlier this month, Nate Silver of the Silver Bulletin expressed skepticism about anchoring a new party to milquetoast 'No Labels' centrism — but suggested Musk could find some long-term success by exploiting 'blind spots in the major party agendas' on forward-facing issues such as AI and the fertility crisis.
'That's what I'd be thinking about instead of just wanting to get revenge on Trump, or applying a template for third parties that has failed so often before,' Silver said.
In the meantime, perhaps Musk will start that political committee after all — and spend millions in the 2026 midterms lavishly funding challengers to MAGA lawmakers who backed Trump's big, beautiful bill (while lambasting them on X).
If he does, he could potentially spoil the election for the GOP, according to a new poll by Echelon Insights, and head into the 2028 cycle with some third-party momentum.
'The way we're going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra,' Musk predicted on X. 'Extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.'
Or he could simply go back to posting about other things on X and wait for everyone to forget about his latest big promise — as he has been known to do in the past.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US auto safety agency shedding more than 25% of employees
US auto safety agency shedding more than 25% of employees

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US auto safety agency shedding more than 25% of employees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. auto safety agency is shedding more than 25% of its employees under financial incentive programs to depart the government offered by the Trump administration, according to data provided to Congress seen by Reuters. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Transportation Department, is shrinking from 772 employees as of May 31 to 555 under the program. The Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Agency are also both losing more than 25% of their staff. Representative Rick Larsen, top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, expressed concerns about the cuts, questioning how USDOT can "expedite project delivery and advance safety with a decimated workforce." Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

The next Fed chair's dilemma: Maintain Fed independence while pleasing Trump
The next Fed chair's dilemma: Maintain Fed independence while pleasing Trump

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The next Fed chair's dilemma: Maintain Fed independence while pleasing Trump

It is becoming clear what the major challenge will be for Jerome Powell's successor: Maintaining the Fed's independence while keeping President Trump happy. Even if the president doesn't remove Powell before his term is up in 10 months, he has made it clear that he wants the next Fed boss to do what he wants: Bring interest rates down. "I'm only interested in low-interest people," he said Wednesday, while denying reports that he intended to fire Powell yet leaving the door open to doing so for "fraud." The various candidates who are being considered by Trump have all expressed a support for lower rates, including National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, Fed governor Christopher Waller and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Trump "is putting somebody in place who he says he expects to cut interest rates very aggressively," StoneX senior adviser Jon Hilsenrath told Yahoo Finance. "Whoever becomes the next Fed chair is going to have some implicit promise to live up to.' Media reports this week suggested that Hassett is now rising as a leading candidate. He benefits from being close to Trump, having worked for the president during both of his terms, but whether Wall Street will view that as a shot to central bank independence remains an open question. 'Kevin has the qualifications to get the Fed job because he is close to the president,' Hilsenrath added. 'In terms of doing the Fed job well, I think it will be a real challenge.' Hassett told NBC Wednesday evening that "everybody at the White House understands the independence of the Fed is super important." When central banks lose their independence, Hassett said, 'it's bad for the economy and bad for markets.' Hassett did agree that rates should be lower than where they are right now, matching the easing cycles of other central banks around the world. And the fact that rates have not been lowered raises a "legitimate concern that independence of the Fed is not being respected by Fed members themselves." Another candidate for Powell's job, Warsh, told CNBC Thursday that 'history tells us that the independent operations in the conduct of monetary policy is essential.' 'But that doesn't mean the Fed is independent in everything else it does,' he added, while arguing that the Fed's reluctance to cut rates "is actually quite a mark against them." 'Fed independence is a myth' US history is full of examples where American presidents challenged Fed chairs, including a confrontation between President Johnson and Fed Chairman Bill Martin in the 1960s. President Nixon also leaned on former Fed Chair Authur Burns to bring rates down before the 1972 presidential election. Nixon's White House even leaked false stories about Burns seeking a pay raise as way of undermining his authority. 'What's currently unfolding before our eyes has been happening for decades behind closed doors,' wrote JPMorgan Chase's Ilan Benhamou said in a note Thursday that cited the Johnson-Martin clash. 'What's happening for everyone to see is definitely damaging for the institution, but let's be honest, the Fed independence is a myth,' Benhamou added. The pressure on Powell is not due to let up, with Trump and other White House officials continuing to raise questions about Powell's handling of a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's headquarters. 'It seems as though every single day now we have the White House beating up the Fed' and Powell 'in particular,' Yardeni Research president Ed Yardeni told Yahoo Finance. Some Republicans are supportive of a Powell firing but others in that party that now controls Washington are starting to warn that any removal of Powell would in fact deal a blow to Fed independence. 'If anybody thinks it would be a good idea for the Fed to become another agency in the government subject to the president, they're making a huge mistake,' GOP North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said Wednesday. Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota added on Fox News Wednesday night that 'I think the markets want an independent Federal Reserve. I think they want a central bank that isn't subject to the whims of politics.' Even Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a past critic of Powell, said Wednesday that 'markets will tank' if Trump fires Powell. 'When his initial attempts to bully Powell failed, Trump and Republicans in Congress suddenly decided to look into how much the Fed is spending on building renovations,' she added. 'Independence does not mean impunity and I have long pushed for more transparency and accountability at the Fed. But give me a break.' Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices

US authors suing Anthropic can band together in copyright class action, judge rules
US authors suing Anthropic can band together in copyright class action, judge rules

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US authors suing Anthropic can band together in copyright class action, judge rules

By Blake Brittain (Reuters) -A California federal judge ruled on Thursday that three authors suing artificial intelligence startup Anthropic for copyright infringement can represent writers nationwide whose books Anthropic allegedly pirated to train its AI system. U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the authors can bring a class action on behalf of all U.S. writers whose works Anthropic allegedly downloaded from "pirate libraries" LibGen and PiLiMi to create a repository of millions of books in 2021 and 2022. Alsup said Anthropic may have illegally downloaded as many as 7 million books from the pirate websites, which could make it liable for billions of dollars in damages if the authors' case is successful. Spokespeople for Anthropic did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision. An attorney for the authors declined to comment. Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic last year, arguing that the Amazon- and Alphabet-backed startup used their books without permission or compensation to teach its chatbot Claude to respond to human prompts. The case is one of several high-stakes lawsuits brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright owners against companies including OpenAI, Microsoft and Meta Platforms over their AI training. AI companies argue their systems make fair use of copyrighted material to create new, transformative content. Alsup determined in June that Anthropic's AI training made fair use of authors' works, but said the company still violated their rights by saving pirated copies of their books to a "central library of all the books in the world" that would not necessarily be used for AI training. Alsup said on Thursday the three authors could represent all writers whose books Anthropic allegedly downloaded from LibGen and PiLiMi, rejecting Anthropic's argument that identifying all of the copyright-eligible works and their authors would be impractical.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store