Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
The European Union flag is displayed on a laptop screen and Elon Musk's account on X is displayed on a phone screen.
Musk vs. Europe: How far will each go?
Musk, the richest man in the world and owner of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, used his money and social media muscle to help Trump become president again. Now, he’s turning his mind to European politics.
Musk is reportedly “probing how he and his right-wing allies can destabilize the UK Labour government” of Keir Starmer. Musk has been repeatedly sharing attacks on Starmer, alleging that he and his government have been complicit in covering up a child sex abuse scandal, although the evidence for that is not strong.
Musk favors the traditionally marginal right-wing Reform Party, although even its leader, Nigel Farage, has distanced himself from Musk’s celebration of Tommy Robinson, a far-right rabble-rouser in prison for contempt of court.
Before he can take down Starmer, though, Musk will host a conversation with the leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany.
European leaders are speaking out against Musk, and they have the power to prosecute him for election interference if they choose. But he is powerful enough and close enough to Trump to make that a forbidding prospect. Trump could punish them if they go after his friend, but not doing so could look like acquiescence to the tech titan.
They face a conundrum, and at the moment they are focused on discouraging Trump from invading Greenland.Photo illustration showing Elon Musk's post on X on a mobile phone, with a Union Jack in the background. Elon Musk has posted a stream of online attacks on British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on his platform X, formerly Twitter.
European leaders call out Elon Musk
Musk has referred to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who faces an election next month, as a “fool” and has argued that only the nativist Alternative for Germany party can “save Germany.” He has also offered the groundless suggestion that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was “complicit” in a series of sex scandals that involved the “grooming” of young girls over many years in the UK.
In response, leaders in France, Britain, Germany, and Norway have each found their own ways of telling Musk to stay out of European politics. “Ten years ago, who would have imagined that the owner of one of the world’s largest social networks would be supporting a new international reactionary movement and intervening directly in elections, including in Germany,” asked French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday.
“I find it worrying that a man with enormous access to social media and huge economic resources involves himself so directly in the internal affairs of other countries,” said Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre. “A line has been crossed,” said Britain’s Starmer. “Don’t feed the troll,” warned Scholz.
This criticism looks highly unlikely to chasten Elon Musk, and Trump isn’t going to rein him in. But by calling Musk out publicly these European leaders hope to highlight his broader political agenda for undecided voters.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) reacts following the passage of spending legislation to avert a government shutdown, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on Dec. 20, 2024.
Speaker showdown could delay election certification and more
Donald Trump is backing Johnson, whose path to the gavel is narrow. The would-be returning speaker needs the support of all Republicans but one to win, assuming Democrats unite to back Hakeem Jeffries. Trump’s backing of Johnson should help him, but it may not be sufficient. At least one Republican congressman, Chip Roy, of Texas, says Johnson lacks the votes as GOP members are divided; some back Johnson, but others were frustrated over his handling of the recent funding bill battle and are uncertain he’s the man for the job moving forward.
Should Johnson be unable to secure a win, there are Republican contenders waiting in the wings. Some Republicans, including Rand Paul, are consideringElon Musk – the speaker doesn’t have to come from the sitting Congress – while others back Vivek Ramaswamy. More likely candidates, currently serving in the House, include Jim Jordan and Tom Emmer, the majority whip. While other names might be getting more fanfare, Emmer seems to be the most likely second choice.
The looming showdown could drag on and make for Congressional chaos. The House can’t do anything until it elects a speaker – including certifying the election, which is scheduled for Jan. 6. In 2023, it took Kevin McCarthy15 ballots to win the speakership, and he was out less than a year later. A divided Republican side and a close seat count in the House could again make for a rough start to the new Congress and a portent of future impasses.President-elect Donald Trump greets Elon Musk before attending a viewing of the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket, in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., on Nov. 19, 2024.
Is Musk Trump’s muse – or his manipulator?
Is Elon Musk a 21st-century Svengali? Two weeks after being accused of acting like the president – instead of a presidential advisor – when he attempted to sway Congress to torpedo a spending bill, the tech magnate is wielding political influence once again – and enraging some supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.
At issue: the H-1B Visa program, which Musk says is crucial to attracting foreign tech talent, but which many Republicans claim takes jobs away from Americans. Last Friday, Musk and fellow Department of Government Efficiency head Vivek Ramaswamyfeuded publicly with GOP firebrand Laura Loomer, who posted to X Thursday, “Donald Trump promised to remove the H1B visa program and I support his policy.”
On Friday, Musk posted that “hateful unrepentant racists” – a swipe at MAGA anti-immigrant Republicans – must be removed from the Republican Party “root and stem.” The next day, Trump seemed to toe Musk’s line: Despite having previously criticized the H-1B program as “very bad” and “unfair” for US workers, Trump told the New York Post, “I’ve always liked the visas. I have always been in favor of the visas.” Hmm.
But it’s not clear just whose team Musk is playing for. While telling racists to leave the GOP and praising the contribution of foreign workers in the US, Musk declared his support for Germany’s far-right anti-immigrant party, Alternative for Germany, aka AfD, ahead of Deutchland’s February elections. Three state chapters of the AfD in the former communist East are classified as extremist – and are under surveillance by Germany’s domestic intelligence service.
But the contradictions don’t seem to bother Trump. “Where are you?” Trump posted on his Truth Social account Friday morning, entreating Musk to visit him and Bill Gates at Mar-a-Lago, aka “the center of the universe.”
For more on MAGA, the American dream, and immigration, check out Ian Bremmer’s latest Quick Take here.
MAGA, the American Dream and immigration
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take in this holiday season on the back of the biggest fight in the United States that we have seen among Trump supporters since his election win.
Started off when Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire, the co-director of this new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE as they're calling it, writing that we have to bring in lots of high-talent immigrants, complaining that American culture isn't getting it right for the people that they need to hire in order to make the United States win and more competitive. We hear it all the time. You need to staple a green card to every STEM PhD that's being awarded to non-Americans in the US so they can stay. You need to keep those students here. You need to bring in far more talented legal immigrants in larger numbers to address the talent gap in the United States, and if Americans want to win, that's what you need to do.
The average American has heard this before, and they've heard it for a long time. To be clear, it is not like the US economy isn't winning right now. You look at the stock market, you look at corporate profits, you look at Elon Musk, the dude is worth nearly half a trillion dollars, and that's with a very strong dollar. Look at how the United States' economy has performed since the pandemic, while Europe, and Japan, and South Korea, and Canada, and others just are not, and they're not innovating, and they don't have the big companies. I've heard this about other issues. I've heard about tariffs. I've heard about even free trade. You hear it about investments and capital flows around the world and need to make things work more effectively for the big money in the United States. And working-class and middle-class Americans know that when elites in the US say that the US is going to win, that it doesn't mean 'em. The United States, for so many Americans, is a country of second-class healthcare, and second-class education, and second-class opportunities. And if the American dream doesn't work for the average American citizen, then you're telling them we should be bringing in really much more talented Indians? Good luck with that argument for them.
And those of you that know me, know that that's not my personal perspective. I grew up in the projects with a mother though that did absolutely everything for her kids. And I had opportunities. We had opportunities. I feel very lucky to have been born in America, not better than anyone else, not having any more intrinsic worth, just super, super fortunate. So the American Dream absolutely worked for me. Capitalism in the US and the ability to be an entrepreneur absolutely worked for me. But most of the kids that grew up in my neighborhood don't feel that way today, along with far too many working and middle-class Americans.
And if the United States felt like the land of opportunity instead of a two-tier system where you buy your way into privilege, and you buy your way into opportunity, and then you make sure you do that for your kids, and the best indicator of how well an American is going to do is how fortunate your parents are compared to other advanced industrial democracies, rich democracies around the world, well, that is not a country that's going to say, "Yeah, we need to do more to help the wealthiest win." Because the wealthiest have already figured out how to win for themselves, and there are lobbying dollars, and their access to the best that the world has to offer for them in the United States. If the average American felt that way and felt that applied to them, then Trump wouldn't be president today. You wouldn't have "America First" resonating for so many people that want to undermine globalism because globalism wasn't about the globe and it wasn't about all Americans. It was about just getting it done for that small, small group of people with access to capital.
This is the failure of globalism, and this is why the United States doesn't want to take the lead on global security, or global trade, or even global democracy anymore. You have to be a leader at home before you can effectively lead anybody, nevermind everybody else. This is what we're facing come January 20th. I think it's a useful fight to see play out publicly because there's a very big difference between those that have access to decision-making, power and authority in the United States and those that turned out and actually voted, the masses that voted against the establishment. And to the extent that they continue to be hard done by and every expectation for the last 40 years in the US is that that will be the case, whether it's a Democrat or Republican running the country, this situation is only going to get more toxic.
That's it for me. I wish everyone Happy holidays. Hope you had a merry Christmas. Looking forward to the new Year. I'll talk to you all real soon.
A ship passes through the Panama Canal's Culebra Cut, heading northbound for the Caribbean, Dec 30. The Canal, built and operated by the United States, will transfer to Panamanian control at a noon ceremony on December 31.
Trump talks of taking the Panama Canal - and jokes about Elon Musk
The President-elect is also making waves for saying that the United States must"retake" control of the Panama Canal. At a rally in Arizona on Sunday, Trump claimed that the canal's 1999 handover to Panama under the terms of an agreement signed by President Jimmy Carter was a "terrible mistake" and argued that the US must act to stop being“ripped off” by Panama and thwart the influence of China in the region.
The Panama Canal, built and managed by the US for decades, handles 2.5% of global ocean traffic, facilitating US imports from Asia and exports of key commodities including LNG.
At the same rally, Trump addressed chatter about Elon Muskusurping the US presidency. Last week, Musk had unsuccessfully attempted to sway Republican members of Congress to oppose US President Joe Biden’s latest spending bill, prompting fears of a government shutdown and accusations that Musk was acting like the President instead of an unelected advisor.
On Sunday, Trump joked that the South African native “is not going to be president. That I can tell you. I’m safe. You know why? He can’t be. He wasn’t born in this country.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks to the media following the passage of spending legislation to avert a government shutdown, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on Dec. 20, 2024.
US averts shutdown but offers preview of Trump 2.0
US lawmakers early Saturday struck an 11th-hour deal to avert a government shutdown. On Friday, the House voted overwhelmingly to pass a stopgap spending bill after a week of chaos on Capitol Hill in which President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk intervened to scuttle two earlier bipartisan bills. The Senate followed suit shortly after midnight.
The final measure passed on Friday funds the government through March, includes $10 billion in economic assistance for farmers, and earmarks $100 billion in fresh disaster relief funds. It doesn’t include Trump’s demand to suspend the debt ceiling, which limits how much the federal government can borrow.
Three things are immediately clear from this week:
First, Elon Musk has real government power even without a real government position. Musk’s extensive criticisms of the initial bill’s length and contents, some of which included false or misleading claims, shaped the politics immediately, sinking the first version of the spending bill. Musk does not hold an elected or even an official post, but with his 208 million followers on X, which he owns, he hardly needs to.
Trump’s grip on the GOP is hardly complete. The president-elect could not force his party to accept the idea of scrapping the debt ceiling, which would have given him substantially more spending room during his first two years in office. Instead, lawmakers pledged to take up the issue separately once he is in office.
This week was a preview. With a bold and controversial Trump policy agenda, a slim House GOP majority, and another hugely influential risk cook in the kitchen, the past few days offer a window into what legislating may often look like beginning in January. Buckle up.
How will Trump 2.0 impact AI?
In this episode of GZERO AI, Taylor Owen, host of the Machines Like Us podcast, reflects on the five broad worries of the implication of the US election on artificial intelligence.
I spent the past week in the UK and Europe talking to a ton of people in the tech and democracy community. And of course, everybody just wanted to talk about the implications of the US election. It's safe to say that there's some pretty grave concerns, so I thought I could spend a few minutes, a few more than I usually do in these videos outlining the nature and type of these concerns, particularly amongst those who are concerned about the conflation of power between national governments and tech companies. In short, I heard five broad worries.
First, that we're going to see an unprecedented confluence of tech power and political power. In short, the influence of US tech money is going to be turbocharged. This, of course, always existed, but the two are now far more fully joined. This means that the interests of a small number of companies will be one in the same as the interests of the US government. Musk's interests, Tesla, Starlink, Neuralink are sure to be front and center. But also companies like Peter Thiel's Palantir and Palmer Luckey's Anduril are likely to get massive new defense contracts. And the crypto investments of some of Silicon Valley's biggest VCs are sure to be boosted and supported.
The flip side of this concentrated power to some of Silicon Valley's more libertarian conservatives is that tech companies on the wrong side of this realignment might find trouble. Musk adding Microsoft to his OpenAI lawsuit is an early tell of this. It'll be interesting to see where Zuckerberg and Bezos land given Trump's animosity to both.
Second, for democratic countries outside of the US, we're going to see a severe erosion of digital governance sovereignty. Simply put, it's going to become tremendously hard for countries to govern digital technologies including online platforms, AI, biotech, and crypto in ways that aren't aligned with US interests. The main lever that the Trump administration has to pull in this regard are bilateral trade agreements. These are going to be the big international sticks that are likely to overwhelm tech policy enforcement and new tech policy itself.
In Canada, for example, our News Media Bargaining Code, our Online Streaming Act and our Digital Services Tax are all already under fire by US trade disputes. When the USMCA is likely reopened, expect for these all to be on the table, and for the Canadian government, whoever is in power to fold, putting our reliance on US trade policy over our digital policy agenda. The broader spillover effect of this trade pressure is that countries are unlikely to develop new digital policies over the time of the Trump term. And for those policies that aren't repealed, enforcement of existing laws are likely to be slowed down or halted entirely. Europe, for example, is very unlikely to enforce Digital Services Act provisions against X.
Third, we're likely to see the silencing of US researchers and civil society groups working in the tech and democracy space. This will be done ironically in the name of free speech. Early attacks from Jim Jordan against disinformation researchers at US universities are only going to be ramped up. Marc Andreessen and Musk have both called for researchers working on election interference and misinformation to be prosecuted. And Trump has called for the suspension of nonprofit status to universities that have housed this work.
Faced with this kind of existential threat, universities are very likely to abandon these scholars and their labs entirely. Civil society groups working on these same issues are going to be targeted and many are sure to close under this pressure. It's simply tragic that efforts to better understand how information flows through our digital media ecosystem will be rendered impossible right at the time when they're needed the most. At a time when the health and the integrity of our ecosystem is under attack. All in the name of protecting free speech. this is Kafka-esque to say the least.
Fourth, and in part as a result of all of the above, internationally, we may see new political space opened up for conversations about national communications infrastructure. For decades, the driving force in the media policy debate has been one of globalization and the adoption of largely US-based platforms. This argument has provided real headwind to those who, like in previous generations, urged for the development of national capacities and have protectionist media policy. But I wonder how long the status quo is tenable in a world where the richest person in the world owns a major social media platform and dominates global low-orbit broadband.
Does a country like Canada, for example, want to hand our media infrastructure over to a single individual? One who has shown careless disregard for the one media platform he already controls and shapes? Will other countries follow America's lead if Trump sells US broadcast licenses and targets American journalism? Will killing Section 230 as Trump has said to want to do, and the limits that that will place on platforms moderating even the worst online abuse, further hasten the enforcement of national digital borders?
Fifth and finally, how things play out for AI is actually a bit of a mystery, but I'm sure will likely err on the side of unregulated markets. While Musk may have at once been a champion of AI regulation and had legitimate concerns about unchecked AGI, he now seems more concerned about the political bias of AI than about any sort of existential risk. As the head of a new government agency mandated to cut a third of the federal government budget, Musk is more likely to see AI as a cheap replacement for human labor than as a threat that needs a new agency to regulate.
In all of this, one thing is for certain, we really are in for a bumpy ride. For those that have been concerned about the relationship between political and tech power for well over a decade, our work has only just begun. I'm Taylor Owen and thanks for watching.