Musk can spend a fortune on the 'America Party,' but it likely won't succeed
One thing we can say for sure: There's an appetite for just that among Americans.
A Gallup poll released Oct. 1, just 35 days before the 2024 presidential election, in a time of extremely heightened political tension and public awareness, found that 58% of American adults said a third party was needed. Americans had Donald Trump or Kamala Harris to choose from at that moment, and a majority wanted more options.
That polling number has fluctuated over the years, but Gallup has found majority support for the issue in polls going back two decades. But that's theory. What about practice?
What if the third-party movement at the center of attention now was being spearheaded by one of the most politically toxic people in America? Is Elon Musk, currently viewed unfavorably by 55% of Americans, the best face for the "America Party" he announced on July 5?
Musk, the world's wealthiest person, spent about $290 million to help Trump win a second term as president.
Now they're spitting social media venom at each other after Musk was ousted from Trump's administration and then became infuriated by the deficit-busting spending in the president's new budget bill.
Musk casts his new political party as an attack on the "uniparty," a common shorthand to suggest that the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than different, especially when it comes to spending our taxes.
Opinion: Trump's tax bill will crush the rural voters who chose him
There's a glaring flaw in that claim ‒ Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act was crafted exclusively by his administration and Republican leaders in Congress. Democrats were locked out of the process and did not vote for the bill, which passed with thin Republican majorities.
But Musk, like Trump, is not the kind of politician who will let reality govern his rhetoric. So, in his framing, they're all bad guys in Washington, DC, and he's going to be the new sheriff who cleans up the town.
That's one way this might go. Another could be that political consultants squeeze Musk's fortune for as much juice as the America Party can produce, while not having much of an impact. Or, with Musk's businesses taking serious economic hits from his political combat, he might just talk a big game and then walk away.
Trump, in a long social media post on Sunday, July 6, said Musk was "off the rails" while noting that third parties "have never succeeded in the United States."
Then why did Trump need a 336-word post at all? He showed us his fear by adding that third parties are effective at causing "Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS" in American politics.
Here's what disruption and chaos probably looks like to Trump ‒ Musk's America Party impacts the thin congressional margins, tipping the House and Senate to Democrats, giving them the power of oversight or even impeachment (for a third time) to hold Trump to account.
Ryan Clancy, chief strategist for No Labels, told me that the "initial reaction from the Republicans suggests that they think (Musk) is more of a threat to them." And he would know.
No Labels, you might remember, was a significant concern for the Democratic Party and its allies in 2024 as the group tried, and eventually failed, to put on the presidential ballot a bipartisan centrist ticket. Will Musk's America Party be the threat to Republicans that No Labels was to Democrats?
Clancy said it's too early to say, and that will depend on what kind of candidates Musk recruits.
Musk has suggested that he might "laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts" in the 2026 midterm elections because the House and Senate have "razor-thin legislative margins," and that it might "be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws."
Opinion: Data centers are inevitable, but why should Indiana pay for their energy demand?
Clancy told me No Labels has not spoken to Musk or anyone close to him about the America Party. But the strategist hopes the new political party would inject a little competition into elections, which could pull some Republicans and Democrats back to the center of the political spectrum.
"I would encourage people to give it a chance, give it some runway, let it breathe a little," Clancy said. "Let's see what kind of candidates come around it."
Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, a progressive policy group, spent part of 2024 criticizing No Labels as a potential "spoiler" that could have helped Trump win a second term. She told me that "another party, paid for by billionaires like Elon Musk, is not the answer for this country's challenges."
Where Clancy sees potential, Epting sees only vanity and self-interest as motivation for Musk. She noted that Republicans, from Trump on down the ballot, ran last year on making life more affordable for Americans. And she thinks Americans are still looking for solutions like that in the midterms.
The MoveOn leader is just as opposed to the Big Beautiful Bill as Musk is. And she's just as opposed to his America Party as she was with No Labels.
"No Labels was a tactic without a plausible strategy to win, and I think Elon Musk's effort is a tactic without a plausible way to win," Epting said. "And both were in it for themselves and not for the people of this country."
Clancy estimates that a competitive Senate campaign next will cost "easily nine figures," while a House seat "can easily be low eight figures." And then there is the complicated and costly infrastructure of getting on ballots, state by state.
Put another way: Musk might be about to spend some serious money again. But I'm not sure if he can repeat his 2024 success. And it's worth pointing out that Musk himself no longer sees 2024 as a success.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The GENIUS Act Killed Yield-Bearing Stablecoins. That Might Save DeFi
Congress may pass the most consequential crypto law of the decade this week while drawing a bright red line through one of DeFi's murkiest gray areas: yield-bearing stablecoins. At first glance, the GENIUS Act appears to be a straightforward regulatory win. It will finally grant over $120 billion in fiat-backed stablecoins a legal runway, establishing clear guardrails for what qualifies as a compliant payment stablecoin. But dig into the details and it becomes clear this isn't a broad green light. In fact, under the law's rigorous requirements—segregated reserves, high-quality liquid assets, GAAP attestations—only about 15% of today's stablecoins would actually make the cut. More dramatically, the Act explicitly bans stablecoins from paying interest or yield. This is the first time U.S. lawmakers have drawn a hard line between stablecoins as payment instruments and stablecoins as yield-bearing assets. Overnight, it turns decades of crypto experimentation on its head, pushing DeFi to evolve or risk sliding back into the shadows. For years, DeFi tried to have it both ways: offering 'stable' assets that quietly generated returns, while dodging securities treatment. The GENIUS Act ends that ambiguity. Under the new law, any stablecoin paying yield, whether directly through staking mechanics or indirectly via pseudo-DeFi savings accounts, is now firmly outside the compliant perimeter. In short, yield-bearing stablecoins just got orphaned. Congress frames this as a way to protect U.S. banks. By banning stablecoin interest, lawmakers hope to prevent trillions from fleeing traditional deposits, which underwrite loans to small businesses and consumers. Keeping stablecoins yield-free preserves the basic plumbing of the U.S. credit system. But there's a deeper shift underway. This is no longer just a compliance question. It's a total rethink of collateral credibility at scale. Under GENIUS, all compliant stablecoins must be backed by cash and T-bills with maturities under 93 days. That effectively tilts crypto's reserve strategy toward short-term U.S. fiscal instruments, integrating DeFi more deeply with American monetary policy than most people are ready to admit. We're talking about a market currently around $28.7 trillion in outstanding marketable debt. Concurrently, the stablecoin market exceeds $250 billion in circulation. Therefore, even if just half of that (about $125 billion) pivots into short-term Treasuries, it represents a substantial shift, pushing crypto liquidity directly into U.S. debt markets. During normal times, that keeps the system humming. But in the event of a rate shock, those same flows could reverse violently, triggering liquidity crunches across lending protocols that use USDC or USDP as the so-called 'risk-free leg.' It's a new type of monetary reflexivity: DeFi now moves in sync with the health of the Treasury market. That's both stabilizing and a fresh source of systemic risk. Here's the irony: by outlawing stablecoin yield, the GENIUS Act might actually steer DeFi in a more transparent, durable direction. Without the ability to embed yield directly into stablecoins, protocols are forced to build yield externally. That means using delta-neutral strategies, funding arbitrage, dynamically hedged staking, or open liquidity pools where risk and reward are auditable by anyone. It shifts the contest from 'who can promise the highest APY?' to 'who can build the smartest, most resilient risk engine?' It also draws new moats. Protocols that embrace smart compliance, through embedding AML rails, attestation layers, and token flow whitelists, will unlock this emerging capital corridor and tap institutional liquidity. Everyone else? Segregated on the other side of the regulatory fence, hoping shadow money markets can sustain them. Most founders underestimate how quickly crypto markets reprice regulatory risk. In traditional finance, policy shapes the cost of capital. In DeFi, it will now shape access to capital. Those who ignore these lines will watch partnerships stall, listings vanish, and exit liquidity evaporate as regulation quietly filters out who gets to stay in the game. The GENIUS Act isn't the end of DeFi, but it does end a certain illusion that passive yield could simply be tacked onto stablecoins indefinitely, without transparency or trade-offs. From here on out, those yields have to come from somewhere real, with collateral, disclosures, and rigorous stress tests. That might be the healthiest pivot decentralized finance could make in its current state. Because if DeFi is ever going to complement, or even compete with, traditional financial systems, it can't rely on blurred lines and regulatory gray zones. It has to prove exactly where the yield comes from, how it's managed, and who bears the ultimate risk. The GENIUS Act just made this law. And in the long run, that could be one of the best things to ever happen to this industry.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legal group urges state Supreme Court to order Florida Bar to investigate Bondi
Snubbed by The Florida Bar last month, about 70 liberal-leaning scholars, attorneys and former judges have asked the state Supreme Court to order the Bar to investigate their complaint claiming U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi violated Florida's ethics rules as the nation's top law enforcement official. The coalition's legal argument in a petition filed on Tuesday may be compelling, but it's a long shot given the fact that the seven justices on Florida's high court were all appointed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and former GOP Gov. Charlie Crist. In June, the group filed an ethics complaint against Bondi with The Florida Bar, but the Bar rejected it on jurisdictional grounds, saying in a formal response that it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' READ MORE: Group accuses Bondi of 'misconduct' as Attorney General; Florida Bar rejects complaint However, in their petition to the Florida Supreme Court, the coalition challenged that assertion, noting that in 1998 Congress passed the McDade Amendment, which explicitly rejected The Florida Bar's argument that investigating federal officials would encroach on federal authority. The McDade Amendment states: 'Attorneys for the [U.S.] Government shall be subject to State laws and rules ... to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.' In their petition filed with the Florida Supreme Court, the coalition preemptively confronts the likely criticism that their legal bid to have The Florida Bar investigate Bondi — who has aggressively carried out the Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, elite universities and law firms — amounts to political grandstanding. 'Some have criticized ethics complaints against public officials as being 'politics,' or a vehicle for adjudicating policy disputes,' said the petition, which was filed by seasoned South Florida criminal defense attorney Jon May. 'As a review of the complaint will make clear, however, its aim is to assure that lawyers who occupy positions of public trust continue to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct that they are obliged to follow,' said May, who represented Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega in his drug-trafficking case in Miami. 'The long list of signatories to the complaint, many of whom are distinguished professors of legal ethics, vindicates that intent.' On Tuesday, The Florida Bar did not respond to a Miami Herald request for comment. 'The Florida Bar has this view that the Attorney General is too busy to be bothered with an ethics complaint,' said Jamie Conrad, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with Lawyers Defending American Democracy, which helped author the complaint and petition. 'We think it's just the opposite. 'She, of all people, has to set an example for the government and the rest of the country,' Conrad told the Miami Herald. 'But she and her team are being allowed to operate in an ethics-free zone and that's a very dangerous situation for the country.' The coalition, which includes retired Florida Supreme Court justices Barbara J. Pariente and Peggy A. Quince, took aim at Bondi in their complaint filed on June 5 with The Florida Bar. Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles appointed Pariente to the Court in 1997 while Chiles and Republican Jeb Bush, then governor-elect, jointly appointed Quince. The coalition's complaint accuses Bondi, a Florida Bar member, of violating her ethical duties as U.S. Attorney General, saying she has committed 'serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.' The complaint claims Bondi 'has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy' ' that she espoused in a Feb. 5 memo to all agency employees on her first day in office. The complaint further says Bondi threatened agency lawyers with discipline or termination if they failed 'to zealously pursue the President's political objectives,' alleging her conduct violates Florida Bar rules and longstanding norms of the Justice Department. The coalition noted that The Florida Bar rejected two other recent ethics complaints against Bondi filed, respectively, by two California congressmen and a California lawyer. The Bar's lawyers cited a jurisdictional issue in those prior instances, too. At the time, the Department of Justice, speaking on behalf of Bondi, condemned these collective efforts, saying they were trying to 'weaponize' a complaint using The Florida Bar to attack the U.S. Attorney General. 'The Florida Bar has twice rejected performative attempts by these out-of-state lawyers to weaponize the bar complaint process against AG Bondi,' Justice Department chief of staff Chad Mizelle said in a statement provided to the Miami Herald. 'This third vexatious attempt will fail to do anything other than prove that the signatories have less intelligence —and independent thoughts — than sheep.' The coalition's complaint accuses Bondi — the 59-year-old former Florida Attorney General and State Attorney in the Tampa area — of playing a central role in the improper firings and resignations of numerous government lawyers during her four-month span at the helm of the Justice Department. Three examples are cited in the complaint: ▪ In mid-April, Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired a seasoned immigration lawyer who the Trump administration accused of sabotaging its legal case over the mistaken deportation of a Maryland man to his native El Salvador. Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni argued the government's case in the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was sent to a Salvadoran mega prison in March due to an 'administrative error,' despite an immigration court order that he not be removed from the United States. Reuveni was initially placed on administrative leave days after informing a federal judge: 'Our only arguments are jurisdictional. … He should not have been sent to El Salvador.' In April, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judge's order directing the Trump administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release. Abrego Garcia, who had not been charged with a crime despite being accused by the Trump administration of belonging to the notorious MS-13 gang, remained in the Salvadoran prison for nearly three months. But in late May, Bondi announced that Abrego Garcia was flown back to United States and charged in a new federal indictment, accusing him of conspiring to transport undocumented migrants within the country who had crossed the southern border illegally. 'Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice,' Bondi said at a news conference in Washington. 'He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. ... This is what American justice looks like.' After his return, the coalition that filed the ethics complaint that was rejected by The Florida Bar also submitted a similar one with the federal district court in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's immigration case was reviewed. Reuveni filed a whistle-blower claim with the U.S. Senate in June. 'The Department of Justice is thumbing its nose at the courts, and putting Justice Department attorneys in an impossible position where they have to choose between loyalty to the agenda of the president and their duty to the court,' Reuveni told the New York Times in an interview last week. Bondi denied his account on social media: 'This disgruntled employee is not a whistle-blower — he's a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame.' Last Friday, Bondi also fired her personal ethics adviser, removing the Justice Department's top official responsible for counseling the most senior political appointees, according to published reports. Joseph Tirrell, a career attorney who'd spent nearly 20 years at the department, received a termination letter from Bondi. READ MORE: Judge orders Trump administration to bring Venezuelans back from El Salvador prison ▪ In mid-February, a longtime federal prosecutor resigned rather than carry out what she described as orders from Trump-appointed officials to pursue enforcement actions unsupported by evidence, according to a copy of her resignation letter. Denise Cheung, who was the head of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, wrote in her resignation letter to interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin that she had 'always sought to offer sound and ethical counsel' and that she had been asked to take investigative and law enforcement actions despite what she called the lack of 'sufficient evidence.' Cheung wrote that she was asked to review documentation provided by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General 'to open a criminal investigation into whether a contract had been unlawfully awarded by an executive agency.' The contract was reportedly granted by the Environmental Protection Agency during President Joe Biden's administration. ▪ Earlier in February, several senior federal prosecutors in New York and Washington resigned after they refused to follow a Justice Department order to drop the corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. They resigned after Emil Bove, the acting U.S. deputy attorney general, issued a Feb. 10 memo ordering federal prosecutors in New York to dismiss the case against Adams, saying it hampered the mayor's ability to tackle 'illegal immigration and violent crime.' Danielle R. Sassoon, the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned one day after appealing to Bondi. Sassoon said she attended a meeting on Jan. 31 with Bove, Adams' attorneys and members of her office. 'Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed,' Sassoon wrote on Feb. 12. According to the coalition's 23-page complaint, Bondi's 'principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of 'zealous advocacy' into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.' In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team 'ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so,' the complaint says. May, who helped write The Florida Bar complaint, said he believes 'zealous advocacy operates within the rules of ethics, not outside them.' Others in the coalition agreed. 'The Florida Bar has a responsibility to hold Bondi — and every lawyer under its purview who is implicated in her conduct — to account for actions that threaten the rule of law and the administration of justice,' said Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit legal advocacy group in Washington, D.C. Eisen is the former ambassador to the Czech Republic during the Obama administration.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats are trolling Trump and the GOP over the Jeffrey Epstein case
PHOENIX (AP) — Democrats are latching on to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, demanding records be released and trolling Republicans on social media, news shows and in the U.S. House as they revel in a rare fissure between President Donald Trump and his fiercely loyal base. Conspiracy theories over Epstein's death in prison and potential evidence in his sex trafficking case, including an alleged 'client list,' have largely been a fixation for the right, one egged on by Trump himself. But Democrats sensed an opening after the Justice Department said last week no additional evidence will be released, and some of Trump's most influential allies refused to heed his pleas to move on. They're highlighting the dramatic about-face by some Republicans, which has divided the MAGA movement and could weaken a critical following for Trump. The more in-your-face approach also may help Democrats appease elements of the party's own base, who are hungry for a more aggressive confrontation with the other side. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat and likely 2028 presidential candidate, was among those who joined in Tuesday. Khanna tried to put Vice President JD Vance — who has previously called for the Epstein files to be released — in the hot seat. Khanna shared an X post from 2020 GOP presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who called for the Trump administration to 'release the Epstein files and let the chips fall where they may.' 'A 2028 power move, @JDVance,' Khanna wrote to Vance on X. 'Where do you stand on the Epstein files these days?' Vance and Haley are both possible 2028 Republican presidential candidates. A split in MAGA MAGA followers were incensed after the Justice Department and FBI abruptly walked back the notion there's an Epstein client list of elites who participated in the wealthy New York financier's trafficking of underage girls. Some called the Republican president 'out of touch,' and many have continued to demand transparency. Trump has tried to downplay the Epstein case's importance and close the book on the controversy. 'I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody,' Trump told reporters Tuesday. He also said there were credibility issues with the documents, suggesting without citing evidence they were 'made up' by former FBI Director James Comey and former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats. The controversy puts many elected Republicans in an uncomfortable position, caught between a president who demands loyalty and a sizable segment of their base convinced the files will expose a vast conspiracy covered up by elites. House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday became the highest-ranking Republican to break with Trump on Epstein, telling conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that 'we should put everything out there and let the people decide." A topic of House debate Some of Trump's rivals have noted the president's own connections to Epstein. 'Wonder why we're not getting that list,' the anti-Trump Lincoln Project posted on X with a photo of Trump and Epstein together. Trump has acknowledged knowing Epstein socially in the 1990s but said they had a 'falling out' many years ago. The debate over the Epstein files even spilled over at a meeting of the House Rules Committee late Monday evening. The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, offered a pair of amendments from colleagues seeking the release of the documents. On the first tally one Republican, conservative Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, voted with the panel's Democrats for the proposal. It was rejected on an otherwise party-line vote. The second amendment was rejected in a party-line vote. 'You guys are tying yourself into knots trying to find a way to avoid dealing with this issue,' McGovern told Republicans. Super PAC highlights about-face by GOP Meanwhile, a super PAC working to elect Democrats to the House is naming and shaming Republicans who once demanded to see records from Epstein's sex trafficking investigation but voted against the Democratic effort to release them. GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Anna Paulina Luna and Cory Mills of Florida are 'complicit' with a Trump administration that's trying to bury documents about the wealthy financier who abused underage girls, the Democratic-aligned House Majority PAC said in an emailed memo. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said if the Trump administration doesn't act, then Congress should step in to help resolve what he called a conspiracy that has been aired by the president and his supporters. 'The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as it relates to this whole sordid Jeffrey Epstein matter,' Jeffries said during a press conference at the start of the week at the Capitol. 'This was a conspiracy that Donald Trump, (Attorney General) Pam Bondi and these MAGA extremists have been fanning the flames of for the last several years,' he said. 'And now the chickens are coming home to roost.' Said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday at the Capitol, 'They should release the files now.' ___ Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.
