How Elon Musk's Third Party Gamble Could Succeed
It's a daring scheme if Musk commits to it, which is by no means certain. His alliance with President Trump lasted less than a year, his role at DOGE just a few months and his recent vow of abstinence from national politics only days.
So what would a serious attempt at this plan look like? The usual third-party fantasy in Washington involves finding unicorn candidates who can claim the ideological center and rally temperate problem-solvers on all sides (see: Unity08, No Labels, Americans Elect, Bloomberg 2016.) This is a recipe for failure in a divided country where most Americans have chosen a side.
Musk's plan can only work if he learns from the most successful political disruptors, including Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, and identifies places where both political parties are neglecting the real preferences of voters. This means not finding a midpoint on a left-right spectrum but rather seizing issues beyond the standard D-versus-R menu.
Trump built his political rise on three areas of policy where much of the electorate felt unrepresented: immigration, trade and global security. He rejected Clinton- and Bush-era consensus on all three.
For Musk's new party to have a purpose, it must find similar ideological targets of opportunity.
Here are three that might make sense:
— Championing free trade. Trump shattered U.S. trade policy and reorganized national politics around protectionism. In a way, he was too successful. Now, there is no longer a major party that consistently backs lowering trade restrictions and defends free trade as a force for good.
The Republican Party is so deferential to Trump's worldview that even former free-trade conservatives now mouth support for the most aggressive tariff policy in generations. Among Democrats, there are plenty of officials eager to trash Trump's version of protectionism — and far fewer making an affirmative case for free trade. Even the Biden administration tried to coopt rather than roll back MAGA trade policies.
This protectionist consensus excludes most voters.Gallup has found since 2015 that at least 60 percent of independent voters consistently see foreign trade as an opportunity rather than a threat; this spring, that number stood at 81 percent and even higher among Democrats. This is a fat opportunity for a political disruptor willing to defy regional voting blocs and special interests.
— Radical fiscal rebalancing. Most Americans say they worry about government overspending and debt. Neither major party is credible on this issue. The Biden administration grew the size of government, failed to enact promised tax hikes on the wealthy and only proposed raising taxes in the first place to pay for more spending. Republicans, meanwhile, have put tax cuts ahead of fiscal responsibility at every opportunity for a quarter century; Trump's Big Beautiful Bill put America on track to assume trillions in new debt,obscuring that reality with a brazen congressional accounting trick.
It is unclear how many Americans would vote for a take-your-medicine party that advocates fiscal austerity, even if that means asking conservatives to raise taxes and left-leaning voters to give up on resurrecting the New Deal era. Perhaps someone should find out.
Musk — whose sneering, chainsaw-swinging DOGE theatrics alienated much of the public — is not the ideal figure to test this proposition. Other wild-card outsiders, running for office backed by Musk's money, might connect on this issue.
— Securing American technological and scientific supremacy. Both parties say they want the United States to outcompete China and dominate this century. When it comes to scientific research and technological competition, Republicans and Democrats tend to subordinate that goal to factional and cultural politics.
The Trump administration's onslaught against elite universities, its crackdown on foreign students and academics and the grant-slashing spree carried out by DOGE have upended some of America's core strategic assets in a global intellectual arms race. In his post-DOGE persona, Musk also blistered Trump's sprawling tax law for 'severely damaging industries of the future' — a reference to the legislation's attempt to throttle growing parts of the clean-energy sector where the United States is already lagging behind China.
Democrats have not gone on the attack like this against incubators of innovation. But they have treated investment in technology as a vehicle for other social change, rather than as an end unto itself. Exhibit A is the Biden administration's implementation of the CHIPS Act, when a law aimed at upgrading U.S. semiconductor manufacturing became an instrument for advancing progressive workplace equity policies. And Biden kept tech tycoons like Musk himself at a distance, viewing them as malignant oligarchs despite some obvious overlapping interests.
Despite his DOGE record, Musk could be a magnet for this strain of politics: one that says the United States must win the future by amassing all the intellectual and industrial might it can muster, using every available lever of policy — including the tax code, trade deals, immigration policy, energy regulation and more.
High-tech research policy is not typical soapbox fare. But American leaders have a history of inspiring voters with scientific goals, separated from other cultural and interest-group politics. John F. Kennedy did not say the United States would put a man on the moon, so long as rockets were built in compliance with Davis-Bacon. Ronald Reagan did not call for scientists to help make nuclear weapons obsolete, provided that no woke postdocs were working in the lab.
Is all this an agenda for Musk's America Party? Probably not. It's unclear that the party will exist in any organized form or that Musk is even capable of executing a disciplined political strategy.
Still, in an age of churning disorder in U.S. politics, these ideological gaps and blind spots are opportunities for any political entrepreneur — especially one who can freely spend billions of dollars on an electoral experiment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ethics Board upholds finding against Mayor Lily Wu in proclamation incident
WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) — The Wichita Ethics Board has voted to uphold its original decision that Mayor Lily Wu violated part of the City Code of Ethics during a March proclamation for Transgender Day of Visibility. The proclamation was missing Wu's signature and the mayor did not read it aloud at the March 18 city council meeting. At that meeting, Wu 'yielded the floor' to a council member who supported the proclamation. She also stated that proclamations are typically signed electronically by staff and claimed she did not request her signature to be removed. Between March 19 and April 16, the city received 22 ethics complaints against Mayor Wu. Twenty cited the missing signature, and six also took issue with her not reading the proclamation aloud. According to city code, the mayor must sign all proclamations, and the presiding officer is responsible for presenting them. Sedgwick County firefighters weigh in on schedule change On June 12, the Ethics Board ruled that evidence supports the mayor's original claim that her name was left off the proclamation due to a clerical error, but that she should have arranged for someone else to present the proclamation. Those who filed the complaints and Wu had seven business days to request additional review. Both Wu and one of the original complainants appealed the decision. On July 11, the board voted 5-1 to uphold its ruling. Following the vote, Wu shared a statement on Facebook: I'm disappointed the Ethics Board was unwilling to change its decision on the one violation they were able to find regarding the transgender proclamation. It's unfortunate we're forced to entertain distractions that impede our city's progress, but here we are. For full transparency, I'm sharing a link which includes both my appeal to the Board and my original response to the complaints. It's important our community understands the facts in this matter, which clearly reflect my conduct was appropriate in all respects. Political attacks will not stop me from representing the will of the vast majority of Wichitans, which I will continue to do fully, fairly, and honestly. Wichita Mayor Lily Wu You can find the final report from the Ethics Board below: Final-EAB-Report-2025-13-ProclamationDownload For more Kansas news, click here. Keep up with the latest breaking news by downloading our mobile app and signing up for our news email alerts. Sign up for our Storm Track 3 Weather app by clicking here. To watch our shows live on our website, click here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court rules former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators
A federal appeals court determined that former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin 'indisputably' had the authority to cancel plea agreements made last year with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other defendants accused of plotting the 9/11 terror attack. The decision overturns a ruling by a military judge last year that plea agreements setting aside the possibility of the death penalty for the men were 'valid and enforceable,' after Austin revoked the deals months before. 'The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements; the plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun,' court documents outlining the decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said. Wells Dixon, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who previously represented another Guantanamo detainee, Majid Khan, criticized the court ruling on Friday, saying it will 'ensure nothing but the continued lack of justice and accountability for anyone involved in the military commissions.' 'The Biden administration's effort to invalidate the plea agreements that would resolve in lasting convictions and life sentences for the 9/11 defendants was inexplicable,' Dixon said. 'It was a painful betrayal of the 9/11 victim family members, because we know after more than two decades of litigation at Guantanamo, and we know from experience, that the 9/11 cases will never be resolved through a contested trial.' 'Putting aside the fantasy that this case is ever going to go to trial — assuming it does go to trial and that there's a conviction — you get to sentencing, and they have a right to put forward evidence … that they were tortured. That's never going to happen,' Dixon added. The military trial against Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators has been delayed for years as the US government tried to determine how to handle the issue of the torture of individuals at CIA prisons, and the question of whether evidence obtained through torture was admissible in court. Dixon previously told CNN that the government is 'unwilling' to admit evidence in trial 'about the defendants' torture.' The pretrial agreements were announced last summer after 27 months of negotiation, and took the possibility of the death sentence off the table for Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi, and Walid Bin 'Attash. They required that the accused plead guilty to all charges against them and would undergo a public sentencing hearing in which they would be required to answer questions by family members and survivors of the September 11 attack. The agreements drew fierce backlash, both politically and from some groups representing 9/11 victims and their families who had pushed for the death penalty. But just days after the news of the agreements was publicized, Austin revoked them, saying the final decision should be left to him and not the official overseeing the military courts at Guantanamo Bay, Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier. Austin also withdrew Escallier's authority over the cases. Austin's revocation kicked off a months-long legal battle. Attorneys representing the three conspirators called Austin's actions corrupt and unprecedented, and argued that it was not legal due to a regulation in the military's own Manual for Military Commissions, which says a pretrial agreement can only be withdrawn before the accused begins 'performance of promises' or if they do not hold up their end of the agreement. A defense attorney for Mohammed argued in August last year that his client had already begun 'very important, substantive, specific performance,' and therefore Austin's actions were too late. The military judge overseeing the trials of the three men appeared to agree, ruling in November that the plea agreements were 'valid and enforceable.' A defense official told CNN at the time that the judge, Col. Matthew McCall, rules that not only are they legal and enforceable but 'that [Austin] was too late in doing that.' A military appeals court also ruled against Austin in December. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling on Friday that Austin had 'full legal authority' to withdraw from the pretrial agreements, and said there 'no prior performance of promises contained in those agreements prevented the Secretary's withdrawal.' CNN's Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Which European economy stands to suffer the most from US tariffs?
Germany and Ireland are standing out as the two most exposed EU economies threatened by higher US tariffs, as Brussels works towards a trade deal with Washington, amid reports that pharmaceutical tariffs could be as high as 200%. When US President Donald Trump imposed a new 25% tariff on auto imports and car parts in April, Germany was identified as the EU country with the most to lose. Brussels-based think tank Bruegel's estimation at the time was that tariffs could cost 0.4% of the country's GDP in the long term. While awaiting a new EU-US trade deal, other details emerge that could put Ireland, Denmark, and Belgium, as well as other countries, in the crosshairs should Washington target the pharmaceutical sector next. The overall impact on the European economy will depend on the actual tariff rate the US settles on and the EU's response, but the blow will not be spread evenly. According to Bruegel, the EU economy is facing significant but manageable macroeconomic consequences. They estimated in a report in April that, regarding the possible scenarios, the damage could be approximately 0.3% of the EU's GDP, depending on the outcome of the negotiations. This compares to the 1.1% real GDP growth expected in the bloc in 2025, by the European Commission's Spring Forecast. Trade with the US is significant. In 2024, the United States was the largest partner for EU exports of goods, making up 20.6% of all EU goods exports outside the bloc. Pharmaceuticals account for 15% of the EU's goods exports to the US. They are followed by the auto sector. Until there is more clarification on potential US tariffs on the pharma sector's products, 'the auto sector seems to be the most vulnerable to US tariffs as there doesn't seem to be any major exemptions planned,' said Savary. The industry has been slapped with a 25% tariff in April. 'Tariffs alone could shave around 8% off total EU trade volumes over the next five years,' said Rory Fennessy, Senior Economist at Oxford Economics, in a recent report. Countries with the highest value in goods exports to the US, facing the biggest threat to their economies, include Germany, Ireland, Italy, France and the Netherlands. The German economy relies heavily on exports, boosted by the country's motor vehicle sector. Nearly one-quarter (22.7%) of the total German exports are heading to the US. 'Germany stands out as the major European economy likely to be hit hardest by US tariffs, and we expect GDP growth to slump in the second and third quarters," Andrew Hunter, Associate Director and Senior Economist at Moody's Ratings, said to Euronews Business. Hunter also added that smaller economies, including Austria and others in central and eastern Europe, 'which are heavily integrated into Germany's industrial supply chains, will also be hit hard'. According to Bruegel, after 2025, the long-term negative impact of the tariffs could be around 0.4% of the GDP in Germany, once 'the effect has fully built up and initial short-term effects dissipated,' said Niclas Frederic Poitiers, Research Fellow at Bruegel. 'For France, the average effect would be around 0.25% of GDP.' Related Lengthy trade wars could cut global investment by one-tenth, warn economists Trump the unifier? How Europe could benefit from Trump's policies Uncertainty could lead to lost investments and jobs across the entire 27-member bloc. Hunter said that, 'even for those countries where direct exposure to US exports is relatively limited, such as France or Spain, growth is still likely to be weighed down by global weakness and uncertainty. Regarding long-term impacts, Ireland stands out as one of the most affected countries, as more than half of its goods exports (53.7%) are directed towards the US market. A lot depends on whether the pharmaceutical sector will be hit with tariffs. If so, 'Ireland will be the EU economy most at risk from these tariffs,' said Mathieu Savary, chief strategist for our European Investment Strategy at BCA Research. The research-based pharmaceutical industry is a key asset of the European economy. It is one of Europe's top-performing high-technology sectors. It contributed €311 billion in gross value added (GVA) and 2.3 million jobs directly and indirectly to the European Union's economy in 2022, according to a recent study by PWC. And the US market is crucial to the European pharma sector. According to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, in 2021, North America accounted for 49.1% of world pharmaceutical sales compared with 23.4% for Europe. And more than one-third of EU pharma exports are going to the US. If the pharma sector is hit by a 25% tariff, as it is expected by Moody's in the coming months, 'most exposed would be a number of smaller European economies like Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and Ireland, which are generally where we think the risks of recession in Europe are highest,' Hunter said. BCA Research's chief strategist added that in this case, 'Ireland is particularly exposed to this risk,' citing that exports to the US represent 18% of Ireland's GDP, and pharma exports represent nearly 55% of Irish exports. According to BCA, the impact 'could curtail 4% to 5% to growth over time'. Bruegel estimated that Ireland's cumulative real GDP loss could be 3% by 2028. The think tank also singled out the country as the most vulnerable regarding the impact of the US tariffs on employment. Regarding how vulnerable a country is to job losses in light of US tariffs, Bruegel said that Italy was the second most-exposed country, with a high exposure in transport equipment and a high level of exposed employment in fashion and car manufacturing. Italy would also have high exposure in pharmaceuticals. Trump said on Tuesday that pharmaceutical products imported to the US are facing a 200% tariff, without disclosing any further details. According to BCA's Savary, it is not likely, because 'that would massively increase the cost of healthcare for US consumers, which is already a major issue for voters.' He sees it as a 'strong message to foreign pharma companies to adjust their pricing down and invest into producing their drugs in the US.' Savary expects 'that FDIs into the US and drug prices reduction announcements will be the end result of these talks and threats'. 'The pressure is now on for drug companies to expand US production facilities so they are effectively on the doorstep of American customers,' said Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at AJ Bell.
