Donald Trump’s first term gave the world a taste of deliberately disruptive unwanted involvement in the domestic affairs of other countries, with examples ranging from Britain in the throes of Brexit to North Korea where the 45th US president attempted to forge a personal deal with Kim Jung-Un.
US tech billionaire Elon Musk, however, has taken this to a whole new level. Musk appears willing to intrude in other nations’ affairs by using his personal influence with specific decision-makers, governments and institutions, or by attacking them from the sidelines of social media in order to remake them in the way he wants them to be. In contrast, Trump is more pragmatic and could do a deal with any nation provided they fall in line with his “America first” mission, and give him what he demands.
In the past six months, many countries have been subjected to Musk’s “personal foreign policy” initiatives. Until fairly recently, there were two schools of thought on his interest in global politics. Initially, Musk was merely “a mischievous antagonist” who simply loved to shock and appeared largely driven by social media.
But that has given way to nervousness in the face of Musk’s increasingly deliberate attempts at destabilising governments, including his persistent stoking of populist support for far-right parties, and potentially funding populist allies. This comes as current president Joe Biden warns of the growing power of the ultra wealthy in his final address to the nation before he steps down.
Musk wields enormous global influence not merely because of his wealth, connections, and fleet of companies. But arguably because he is a self-proclaimed populist, with increasingly far-right political preferences. As of January 20, he will also be a significant member of the Trump administration.
His political toolbox includes supporting or (more usually) strafing individual politicians (for instance UK prime minister Keir Starmer, or German chancellor Olaf Scholz ). He also backs populist parties such as Reform UK and AfD in Germany. He criticises government officials in other countries, judges and broadcasting outlets in places where he doesn’t live.
Musk’s political involvement appears to be largely aimed at giving succour to populist individuals, parties and causes, as well as actively hollowing out centrist parties in other countries. Musk’s political intrusion, however, has expanded of late, with an apparent eye on election results.
Examples include countries with elections some way off (Canada by attacking prime minister Justin Trudeau), or much sooner (Germany), giving him scope to criticise the incumbents while backing his chosen opposition party.
Musk’s attention is extensive, from attacks on Starmer, to support for Italy’s Georgia Meloni and Argentina’s Javier Milei.
WHOSE FOREIGN POLICY?
The worry for those working in foreign policy is that Musk has proven effective in the role of Trump’s pre-inauguration disruptor of choice, and may well be deployed in the name of the US government to continue his interference and destabilisation. The challenge will then be discerning where Musk’s personalised foreign policy ends, and where precisely US foreign policy begins.
Musk positions himself as the global defender of free speech , in order to soften the ground for Trump’s preferred combination of far-right populism and protectionist, tariff-driven trade approaches.
Musk’s way of working is to encourage national communities and leaders to “rally against rules”, thereby empowering far-right parties, and industry leaders who have spotted an opportunity to deregulate key sectors.
Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg recently announced an enormous transformation of the social media giant’s content moderation policy in the US. The European Parliament’s far right grouping Patriots for Europe supported Musk’s call for greater media freedom.
Both of these conveniently aligned with Musk’s targeting of the EU and EU regulation as “institutionalised censorship”, paving the way for Trump himself to kickstart any number of quarrels.
The buffer zones of common sense, including former UK deputy PM Nick Clegg as (the now former) head of policy for Meta, have been dispensed with. Zuckerberg’s thinking now echoes that of companies, regulators and politicians who agree with Trump.
DISRUPTIVE AND DIVISIVE
Musk represents both indirect and direct state interference as a solo global disruptor and as Trump’s preferred front man. Sitting at Trump’s right hand and – as of January 20 – heading the new US Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) – means it is unclear who is acting, and in whose interests and crucially, who benefits.
Are countries less likely to tell Musk and Trump to back off, aware of the risk of a deluge of ire with very real consequences in terms of trade spats? This is certainly the approach of many, including Marietje Schaake, former European parliamentarian, arguing that: “Musk must be seen as representing the US president when he bets against the leadership of key European nations, allies until now.”
Or are countries just as likely to disregard Musk, betting that the ramped up performative bullying inherited from Trump can be largely ignored?
RESPONDING TO INTERFERENCE
While many may push back, only a few have the ability to make a difference in global politics, and the EU is one such example. The European Commission made clear that it closely watched Musk’s recent X livestream session with Alice Weidel, leader of German’s far right party AfD. This was in order to decide whether X itself provides (in this case) the AfD with an unfair public advantage – largely through the manipulation of algorithms designed to swamp competing non-AfD voices ahead of February’s German election.
The European Commission – in its role as enforcer of Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) – could impose high fines, or blocks. But it will need serious political will to do so, as well as incontrovertible evidence to prove that X is causing risk to the public by augmenting unlawful hate speech.
What are the consequences of Musk’s rollercoaster ride into global affairs? Deregulation is likely to be the order of the day. Maga has long pushed for a “small state/big companies” approach and this is likely to continue under Musk’s leadership of Doge.
There could also be problems ahead for those who don’t understand Musk’s role. Casualties here could include prospective secretary of state Marco Rubio along with US foreign policy officials in Washington (and their counterparts around the world), all of whom may be confused by whose agenda is being carried out.
But a slew of angry international allies is a poor start for any new government. Violating the “norms of responsible conduct” – however flippantly Musk regards them – will not ultimately assist in Trump himself being effective, but rather just more disruptive.
(Author: Amelia Hadfield, Head of Department of Politics, University of Surrey)
(Disclosure Statement: Amelia Hadfield has received Jean Monnet /Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe funding from the European Commission)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
