Trump’s victory back in the White House could be the most successful investment yet by the South African tycoon, who goes from being a risk-taker to a king-maker. Is Elon Musk a champion of democracy or the latest symptom of its dangerous mutations?

“A star is born,” Donald Trump exclaimed to a jubilant crowd in Florida, referring to Elon Musk’s lively presence on stage. Soon after, the septuagenarian celebrated his unlikely return to the White House in a more intimate tone. “He’s a special guy… We have to protect our geniuses,” he said. In retrospect, these words not only frame a moment, but outline Musk’s role on the political stage . He is an unexpected ally, a controversial collaborator and a symbol of the complex relationship between money, technology, and democracy.

Elon Musk is, according to the most recent estimates, one of the richest men on the planet . His ability to shape narratives, push forward disruptive projects and, in recent years, influence the political landscape , put him in a position with few precedents since the Gilded Age . What was once declared neutrality and a diffuse agenda was transformed for Musk into determined ideological activism . The South African not only donated hundreds of millions to the Trump campaign . He also put his platform, X (formerly Twitter), at the service of a narrative, not without exaggerations and misrepresentations, that resonated with young voters and skeptics of the establishment . 

At this point, three important clarifications are in order. First, criticizing the impact of money on American politics is almost a rhetorical exercise. The system is designed to amplify the voices of the wealthiest, and in that no party is innocent. Second, as a Venezuelan, I cannot forget that Musk has been a vocal critic of authoritarianism . Third, my comments on this page over the years force me to be consistent. If I have pointed out the danger of authoritarian populism in figures like Trump, I cannot neutrally address how Musk, with his peculiar mix of resources, ambition and effectiveness, fits into this panorama. 

Musk and the unlikely return of Trump

Although Trump’s campaign was fueled by multiple sources of support, Musk’s figure stands out for his particular effectiveness. Not only did he manage to mobilize economic and digital resources , he amplified a conservative cultural message that connects with the concerns of many Americans. Such as criticism of wokeism, feminist movements, and debates on racial nativism and immigration. All from the iconography of a certain technocratic libertarianism. He revamped Trump’s already popular call, renewing his brand.

Musk, a technology icon, became a spokesman for a malaise that goes beyond the ballot box. He deployed himself as a living example of the manosphere, jumping on the campaign stages in key states. He seems to have given everything for the triumph of the controversial president. The scope of that effort, especially in its most controversial aspects of potential political influence beyond civic deliberation, may never be known.

The result: Trump is back in the White House, and with him an agenda that now includes the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE , like the eponymous cryptocurrency — Dogecoin — that Musk popularized with memes and winks). Led by the “Great Elon Musk” — as the president-elect said on his networks — and the also entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, this new agency promises to cut public spending under the motto of innovation and austerity. It seems like a spectacle designed to satisfy the libertarian narrative of “less government, more freedom.”

The problem is the methodology. Musk promises to cut costs with the same aggressiveness with which he reduced X’s workforce by 80%. The results of this measure in terms of functionality have been, at the very least, controversial. Is it sustainable to apply this same logic to the state machinery? 

The paradox of public spending 

The promise of deficit reduction has always been a historically popular banner in the US, whose independence was forged in a fiscal rebellion. Yet there is a persistent paradox: Americans value public services, but distrust the taxes that support them and the officials who administer them. Musk and his allies seem to be betting on a narrative of efficiency. While it is attractive, it underestimates or dismisses the complexity of the system. 

The cuts that DOGE enthusiasts are pushing for including eliminating departments like Agriculture, Commerce, and Education, seen by some as symbols of the “deep state.” Nonetheless, any serious effort to reduce the deficit would need to address politically sensitive areas like Social Security, Defense, or debt service. That’s where 60% of the trillion-dollar U.S. government spending is located. So far, these priorities seem to be beyond the reach of Musk’s utopian scalpel. This seems to be where real cuts can be meaningful in terms of the historic deficit. 

The real challenge is not in identifying areas to cut, but in ensuring that those cuts do not undermine the functionality of government. Or in not fearing unpopular measures if the excess is therein identified. As every partial shutdown of the US government has shown, whenever there is conflict between Capitol Hill and the White House, there are seemingly invisible tasks whose interruption creates immediate chaos. It is not unlikely that these cuts will become a cause for the now battered opposition.

Musk, symptomatic exception

Beyond the rhetoric, Musk’s influence raises fundamental questions about the state of democracy in the US. As a defense contractor and entrepreneur with global interests in regulated sectors — from electric vehicles, mining, social media, space travel, satellite communications and even artificial intelligence — Musk is uniquely positioned to benefit from the changes he proposes. Even to impose transactional mechanisms in his favor. His frequent contacts with other world leaders also impose a necessary distance.

This is not the first time a Trump administration has done this. During its first term, it tried something similar by appointing controversial stock investor Carl Icahn as an adviser on regulatory reform, a role that ended in accusations of insider trading. Musk, although more charismatic and media-savvy than Icahn — who remembers him? — is not exempt from the same criticism. 

Liberal democracy is built on checks and balances, but the relationship between Trump and Musk defies these traditional dynamics. Despite their past tensions — Musk reportedly called Trump a poor reflection of American society, while Trump accused him of being a “bullshit artist” — the two share an insatiable ambition and a willingness to break rules. But this alliance could prove short-lived: Neither Trump nor Musk are known for their zeal for the rules, or for their willingness to share the spotlight. 

Put the genie back in the bottle

To expect potential personal friction between Trump and Musk to limit the scope of their actions is to rely more on human emotions than on democratic institutions. The real challenge is not just Musk, but what his rise symbolizes: a system in which those considered geniuses are not only admired but also placed above the rules. In the end, Trump is the one who has his authority exposed at the ballot box. Whereas Musk can play on that proposition from his newfound influence. Trump’s return, with Musk as his star ally, is not just another episode in American political history, but a reminder that in a democracy, the genie out of the bottle can be both a promise and a warning.

_{*Text originally published on Diálogo Político (DP). Translation performed by artificial intelligence according to DP’s website.}