The Monday essay: Elon Musk, the clear and present danger

Everyone has a right to participate in democracy, even the people who we believe to be fools and spivs, but no one has the right to manipulate the electoral system to serve their vested interests.

Elon Musk, once lauded as a wily entrepreneur and an innovator by many people, has become a controversial and extreme character on the global political stage and his acquisition of Twitter/X has given him the opportunity to shape the public opinion and political processes to a far greater extent. Over the past few months, Musk’s actions have become more unacceptable as he uses his wealth and worldwide recognition to support extreme right-wing movements, attack democracy and shake the political systems of America and Europe. The effects of his actions could become catastrophic and have generated important questions on the role of billionaires in determining political outcomes.

In Germany, the support Musk has given to the Alternative für Deutschland has raised many concerns: the AfD, a party that spreads anti-Muslim propaganda and has links with the neo-Nazi movement, poses a threat to Germany’s democracy and pluralism, and Musk’s recent promotion of the party is a clear interference in politics. Musk’s statement that ‘Only the AfD can save Germany’ puts him in the same category as a party which has been branded as an extreme right-wing organisation by German intelligence services and by backing the AfD, Musk is not only spreading some controversial opinions – he is endorsing a project that aims at eroding the German democracy.

This behaviour is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of Musk’s political interventions in many countries, and his endorsement of far-right figures and movements across Europe is a deliberate strategy to erode centrist and leftist political structures. In Britain, Musk has called on King Charles to dissolve parliament, and has offered £80 million to fund the right-wing Reform UK, and this highlights his intent to reshape British politics in favour of far-right populism. Such actions are a flagrant disregard for democratic processes and an alarming concentration of political influence in the hands of a single individual.

Musk’s affinity for far-right leaders extends to Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leaders who are emblematic of the rise of authoritarianism in Europe, characterised by attacks on judicial independence, press freedom, and minority rights. Musk’s alignment with these figures suggests a shared disdain for democratic institutions and a willingness to embrace authoritarian methods under the guise of “saving” nations from perceived decline.

The implications of Musk’s political activities are far-reaching: his financial resources and control over a major social media platform give him the tools to manipulate public opinion on a scale that few others can match. Musk’s actions in Europe mirror his interference in the United States, where he played a central role in enabling Donald Trump’s resurgence and his substantial financial contributions and use of Twitter/X to amplify far-right propaganda have emboldened anti-democratic movements.

The prospect of Musk exporting his influence to other regions, such as Australia, raises many other concerns. Australia’s media landscape is already dominated by abnormally influential figures such as Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes, whose conservative agendas shape public discourse and already have a strong influence in domestic politics. While Clive Palmer’s attempts to directly enter politics through the United Australia Party have had limited success, Musk’s vast resources and control over Twitter/X allows him to bypass traditional barriers and exert significant influence. The question remains whether Australia’s democratic institutions have sufficient safeguards to resist such interference.

How unchecked influence could undermine elections and promote extremism

While Australia’s political and legislative framework includes safeguards against foreign interference, significant vulnerabilities do still exist. These gaps, when combined with Musk’s existing and rapid strategies of influence, suggest that Australia is ill-equipped to prevent such interventions without a significant overhaul of its regulatory and legal systems.

Musk’s most obvious avenue for influence lies in his control of Twitter/X, by leveraging its algorithms to amplify far-right narratives, conspiracy theories, or anti-establishment rhetoric to shape public opinion and distort electoral debates, as he has done with suppressing pro-Palestine voices and promoting Israeli propaganda since the war and ongoing genocide in Gaza re-commenced in October 2023.

This control provides an unprecedented ability to set agendas, sway perceptions, and boost specific candidates or policies, all while operating outside Australia’s existing media ownership regulations. Unlike traditional media outlets, social media platforms such as Twitter/X are not subject to cross-media ownership rules or requirements for balanced reporting (albeit very low requirements), and this allows Musk to manipulate public discourse with minimal oversight, a loophole that urgently needs addressing.

Beyond media influence, Musk can also exploit Australia’s political funding system. Although the Commonwealth Electoral Act prohibits foreign donations to registered political parties, the law’s enforcement is riddled with loopholes. Foreign-controlled entities registered in Australia can still funnel money into the system, and donations below the disclosure threshold of $15,200 can escape public scrutiny (and yes, Twitter Australia Holdings Pty Limited is registered in Victoria, with its head office located in the Sydney CBD). This creates fertile ground for indirect funding of far-right groups or political actors sympathetic to Musk’s interests, such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or other Clive Palmer-style campaigns. By channelling funds through subsidiaries, third-party campaigners, or “associated entities”, Musk can effectively bypass restrictions while maintaining plausible deniability.

Another avenue of influence lies in the symbiotic relationship between social media platforms and far-right ideology. Social media tends to prioritise inflammatory and divisive content, which aligns with the strategies from far-right movements. Musk could leverage this dynamic to amplify voices that support his preferred political agendas, further legitimising these movements, creating a feedback loop of amplification and normalisation.

Corporate leverage adds another dimension to the potential threat. Musk, with his many business ventures such as Tesla and SpaceX, could pressure Australian politicians into adopting policies favourable not only to these interests but also his broader ideological goals.

To address these vulnerabilities, Australia should adopt a comprehensive approach to safeguarding its democratic processes. The first step is to close the loopholes in political funding laws – while there were some minor reforms that were belatedly adopted by the Albanese government towards the end of 2024 (with the support of the Liberal Party), these are still inadequate – all donations, regardless of size, should be disclosed, and foreign-controlled entities operating in Australia must be prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, directly or indirectly.

Media regulation must also evolve to meet the challenges posed by global platforms such as Twitter/X. Cross-media ownership rules should be extended to include social media companies, ensuring accountability for their role in shaping public discourse. The Australian Communications and Media Authority should be empowered with stronger enforcement capabilities to hold these platforms accountable for amplifying harmful content or engaging in political interference.

The federal government must also recognise the broader implications of unregulated social media and corporate influence on its democracy. While these essential legislative reforms can’t be, or won’t be implemented before the next federal election – there just isn’t enough parliamentary time available for this – empowering citizens to critically evaluate information and resist manipulation is vital.

Without decisive action to strengthen its democratic processes, Australia risks becoming the next target of Musk’s or other foreign billionaires’ influence campaigns – Musk isn’t the first, and he won’t be the last – political power needs to remain in the hands of the Australian electorate, not external actors with extremist agendas.

A threat to Australian democracy and global stability

Musk’s rapid radicalisation toward far-right extremism demonstrates an unsettling trend: the deliberate exploitation of economic power and media influence to amplify dangerous ideologies, align with extremist groups, and destabilise democratic institutions.

The comparison to Nazi Germany, while provocative, is apt. Critics suggesting that such comparisons are a cliché or just a simple invocation of Godwin’s law miss the point: if the historical parallels exist and reflect the failures from the 1930s, these comparisons must be made, otherwise, the mistakes of the past will be repeated.

The alliances between German industrialists and business entities with the Nazi regime at that time were instrumental in facilitating fascism’s rise to power. Musk’s approach reverses this dynamic – he is the initiator, actively courting far-right extremists in the United States and Europe, providing them with legitimacy, financial support, and an amplified platform to propagate their ideologies. This dynamic is not confined elsewhere: Australia must recognise that it, too, is vulnerable to such interference.

The Australian political landscape, particularly under the increasingly reactionary leadership of figures such as Peter Dutton, is mirroring the trends seen in far-right movements abroad. The Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, with its flirtations with pro-Nazi and far-right elements, shows a party playing with the allure of extremism, and this drift creates fertile ground for individuals such as Musk to exert influence, either overtly or covertly.

Australia has invested heavily in developing its democratic culture and while it’s nowhere near perfect, it needs to be protected and fortified. Elon Musk represents a dangerous nexus of wealth, power, and extremist ideology and his interventions in global politics are not anomalies but part of a broader trend of billionaires leveraging their resources to reshape societies in their image.

Recently, mining magnate Gina Rinehart – heavily invested in Trump’s election campaign in the United States and urging the Coalition to adopt his make our bank accounts great again ethos, an inane and hedonistic ethos that suggests the sole purpose of humanity is to make money – was spotted in Thailand hosting a lunch with Pauline Hanson, reportedly deep in conversation (!). While Rinehart is not a foreign agent, her ability and desire to influence Australian politics appears to be growing, as evidenced by her Bush Summit programs and persistent calls for Australia to emulate the right-wing MAGA movement in the United States.

Both of these individuals are inadequate and polarising figures but wield significant clout: Rinehart, with her obscene net worth of $40 billion, amassed primarily through favourable legislation and mineral assets that were inadequately taxed by successive state and federal governments; and Hanson, who has manipulated the Australian media and political landscape since 1996, ultimately securing a Senate seat in 2016 after Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to call a double-dissolution election backfired.

Certainly, everyone has the right to participate in Australia’s democracy, even the people who we believe to be fools and spivs, but no one has the right to manipulate the electoral system or distort the results to serve their own vested interests – whether it be Gina Rinehart, Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Stokes, Gerry Harvey, or, especially, a foreign actor as depressingly inadequate as Elon Musk, whose primary intention is to disrupt existing democratic structures for self-gain. While there is an argument that democratic systems do need disruption and renovation, it should not come at the behest of a handful of radical, wealthy, and powerful individuals seeking to dismantle the system for their own gain and profit from the resulting chaos.

If Australia fails to recognise and address this threat, it risks becoming the next battleground in Musk’s campaign – or that of any other actor – to erode democratic institutions and promote far-right agendas. The time to act is now, before the fabric of Australian democracy is irreparably torn.