Elon Musk claims he has ‘formed' his own political party after fallout with Trump: ‘Give you back your freedom'
Musk asked his 221.7 million X followers to vote in a poll deciding whether he forms the new 'America Party' on Friday. After 65 percent of respondents voted 'yes,' Musk says he's following through.
'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it,' Musk wrote a day after posting the poll.
'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' he added. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.'
Musk threatened to form a new political party if Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passed.
"If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day," Musk wrote Monday night.
The bill passed in the Senate with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday. The House passed the bill the next day, and Trump signed it into law on Independence Day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Many say Elon Musk 'wants to be the US President' – but there's reason he can't
Elon Musk has announced that his new America Party has been "formed" in what appears to be a dig at former ally-turned-foe Donald Trump, sparking speculation that he could be looking to run for presidency himself Elon Musk has declared that his new America Party has been "formed", seemingly taking a swipe at his one-time ally, now adversary, Donald Trump. The tech mogul floated the idea of creating a new political force on X on America's Independence Day (July 4), asking followers if he should establish a party to rival Democrats and Republicans, despite having financially supported the GOP in the previous election with a hefty sum. The poll results showed a significant 65.4% of the 1.2 million respondents backing the formation of a new America Party, although the actual number of American citizens among them remains uncertain. The next day on July 5, Elon Musk, 54, took to X to proclaim: "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" He lambasted the current political system, saying: "When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." Speculation has since erupted on X over whether Musk harbours presidential ambitions. One user emphatically posted: "ELON MUSK HAS OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED THE FORMATION OF 'AMERICA PARTY.' Its Time for President Elon." Another queried the X community: "If Elon Musk ran for president, would you vote for him?" A third sceptically remarked: "Elon Musk really thinks he can be president." Yet, there's a significant hurdle in his path. Why can't Elon Musk be US President? Elon Musk, the tech mogul behind Tesla and SpaceX, is barred from running for US President due to constitutional restrictions. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution stipulates that only a natural-born citizen can hold the presidential office, which excludes South African-born Musk despite his US citizenship. What does Trump think about the issue? Donald Trump has weighed in on the topic, dismissing any possibility of Musk taking over the presidency. Speaking in Phoenix, Arizona, in 2024, Trump addressed rumours about Musk's growing political clout. "President Trump has ceded the presidency to Elon Musk? No, no, that's not happening," Trump declared. "But no, he's not going to be president, that I can tell you. And I'm safe. You know why he can't be? He wasn't born in this country," he continued. Musk himself has consistently dismissed the idea of pursuing a political career, citing both the constitutional barrier and his lack of interest in holding office. "My grandfather was American, but I was born in Africa, so I cannot be president," Musk acknowledged last year. "But I actually don't want to be president. I want to build rockets and cars. "I believe we want to be a spacefaring civilisation, and that's where my focus will remain."
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Maga influencer and de facto national security adviser Laura Loomer holds outsized sway on Trump
After years of claiming to be the vanguard of a new 'America First' isolationist movement rebelling against the neoconservative policies of the George W Bush administration that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Maga's online influencers are cheering for another war in the Middle East. And not just any war: they are applauding Donald Trump's high-risk decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a move that was considered a war too far even by the Bush administration. Maga's quick flip-flop has made it clear that Maga was never really anti-war. Maga is about xenophobia, not isolationism, and its support for Trump's decision to bomb a Muslim country fits in with its support for his draconian campaign against immigrants. But above all, Maga is about fealty to Trump. That formula certainly helps explain why Laura Loomer, who has emerged as the most prominent Maga America First influencer in the early days of Trump's second term, has given her full support to his Iran strike. In early April, Loomer, a 32-year-old pro-Trump online influencer widely seen as a rightwing conspiracy theorist, met with Trump and gave him a list of names of people on the staff of the national security council that she believed were not loyal enough to Trump or at least had professional backgrounds that she considered suspect. Trump fired six staffers. Later, national security adviser Mike Waltz, whom Loomer had criticized for his role in the Signalgate chat leak scandal, was ousted as well. Loomer doesn't have a job in the government, but she has still emerged as one of Trump's most important and most polarizing foreign policy advisers in the early days of his second administration. She has had direct access to Trump and has used it to push for ideological purges inside the administration, instilling fear and anger among national security professionals. In fact, when it comes to the national security side of the Trump administration, Loomer has been something akin to a one-woman Doge. Now the big question is how long her influence with Trump will last, or whether she will soon go out the same way as Elon Musk. Loomer's power in the Trump administration is ill-defined. Her many critics say she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning. But Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump's de facto national security adviser. Press reports recently suggested that Loomer's status in the White House was waning because she had overreached, much like Musk. She has left a trail of bitter Trump aides, while there have also been reports that Trump himself has grown weary of her. But, as if to disprove the reports that she was getting frozen out, Loomer had a private meeting with JD Vance in early June. In a revealing interview on journalist Tara Palmeri's podcast in late April, Loomer said that her White House access came directly from Trump himself, and that she maintained her relationship with the president even as his aides tried to keep her out. 'Donald Trump is my biggest ally in the White House,' she said. 'I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I certainly do believe that a lot of the information I have given him has protected him and has prevented disasters from happening,' she added. 'I believe that the information that I provide is valuable. And I believe that it has proven itself to be an asset to President Trump and his apparatus. I don't know why some of the people that work for him don't want that information around him. But I'm not going to let that stop me. I'm going to keep on uncovering information and finding ways to get it to President Trump – and informing President Trump about individuals within his inner circle that are working against his agenda.' Loomer added that 'it all comes down to vetting at the end of the day'. Loomer's close ties to Trump first became big news during the 2024 presidential campaign, when she traveled with the Republican candidate on his campaign plane despite repeated efforts by Trump aides to keep her away. The aides were particularly upset that Loomer traveled with Trump on September 11, since she had earlier gained online infamy after posting a video claiming that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an 'inside job'. To be sure, fears by his aides that Trump was associating with a conspiracy theorist ignored the fact that he relishes in spreading conspiracy theories far and wide. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio; that xenophobic lie became the hallmark of Trump's fall campaign. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Once Trump returned to office, Loomer began to flex her newfound power, and even professional ties to top Trump administration officials weren't enough to protect staffers from being fired after Loomer gave her list of names to Trump. Among those fired at the NSC was Brian Walsh, who had worked on the staff of the Senate intelligence committee for Marco Rubio, now serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, when Rubio was in the Senate. The most stunning purge attributed to Loomer came in April when Trump fired Gen Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with his top deputy, after they had found their way on to Loomer's list as well. The fact that Loomer could trigger the firing of a senior military officer in charge of the nation's largest intelligence agency finally led to a bipartisan outcry in Washington. A group of Senate Democrats wrote to Trump saying that the firings were 'inexplicable', while Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican senator who is now a leading Trump critic, lamented that experienced military leaders were being ousted while 'amateur isolationists' are in senior policy positions. The moves even troubled Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican senator and Trump loyalist who is the chair of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate armed services committee. Rounds made a point of praising Haugh during a subcommittee hearing soon after his firing and noted that 'men and women capable of leading the National Security Agency … are in short supply. We do not have enough of these types of leaders, and a loss of any one of them without strong justification is disappointing.' But like Musk, Loomer has been so red-hot in the early days of Trump's second term that her fall seems almost inevitable, especially after she began to call out White House actions she didn't like. In May, for example, she publicly criticized Trump's decision to accept a luxury jet from Qatar. When news of the gift was first reported, Loomer posted a statement saying: 'This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.' She added: 'I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I'm so disappointed.' She later backtracked and became more supportive. But later she was critical of Trump's decision to withdraw the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the head of Nasa, whose nomination she had supported. 'There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with @elonmusk,' Loomer posted as the news first broke. Days later, Isaacman suggested that he also believes that his nomination was withdrawn because of his ties to Musk. Loomer has been careful to try to limit her criticism to Trump's aides, and not to Trump himself. But it is an open question how long that distinction will make a difference for Loomer. During the Palmeri podcast, Loomer said that she is 'not going to be a sycophant and sit there and pretend that every little thing is great'. She added that 'there's a lot of incompetence in the White House. There's a lot of people in positions they shouldn't be in and they embarrass the president on a daily basis.' That is the backdrop for Loomer's strong support for Trump's decision to attack Iran. Perhaps concerned that her earlier criticism was damaging her ties to Trump world, Loomer has been profuse with her praise of Trump's Iran attack, while also defending her America First credentials. In one post, she asked 'How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant 'DEATH TO AMERICA' … never have an opportunity to have a nuke?' She has even gone on the offensive against other rightwing influencers, including Tucker Carlson, who have dared criticize the Iran strike. 'I am screenshotting everyone's posts and I'm going to deliver them in a package to President Trump so he sees who is truly with him and who isn't,' Loomer posted. 'And I think by now everyone knows I mean it when I say I'm going to deliver something to Trump.' For Maga influencers, staying on Trump's good side seems to matter more than issues of war and peace.
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting
The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%. In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone. Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion. There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting. To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast. But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice. Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.) A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally. Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved. When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign. The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible. Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections. David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
