"Launching a new national political party in the United States can be more difficult than sending a man to Mars." With this strong and round statement, written only half in jest, The New York Times summarized this week the latest adventure, or perhaps just whim, of Elon Musk, the world's richest man.
The rift between Musk and Donald Trump after a year of close collaboration has been total. During that time, the billionaire not only helped the politician return to the White House but also laid the groundwork for a revolutionary transformation in the administration, with tens of thousands of dismissals of officials, the closure of very important agencies, and access to data from hundreds of millions of taxpayers through DOGE, a hybrid of difficult classification conceived to start fresh under the umbrella of governmental efficiency.
But as it seemed inevitable with two uncontrollable personalities, the clash is now existential, navigating the dangers of possible mutual assured destruction. The president says he is saddened and disappointed with his former collaborator and has threatened to use his creation, DOGE, against him. The owner of X, Tesla, or SpaceX, after several retractions and unable to keep quiet after having already apologized once, has decided to raise the stakes by focusing on two aspects particularly sensitive to Trumpism.
The first one, references to the Epstein papers, the pedophile financier who died in 2019 in jail and whose case has since fueled all kinds of legends and conspiracies in the MAGA world. Musk has written that if the Government does not reveal what it knows, it is because the president appears in those alleged papers, a list of clients of child prostitution extorted by Epstein. And that is why "the entire Executive protects pedophiles." The second, at a completely different level, however, equally makes many nervous in the White House: the announcement of the creation of a new political force to break the bipartisanship. "Today the American Party is formed to restore freedom", "it won't be that difficult, to be honest," he boasted on his social media in dozens of messages about his new cause.
"He wants to found a third political party, even though they have never been successful in the United States; the system seems not to be designed for them. Third parties only serve to create complete and total DISRUPTION and CHAOS, and we already have enough with the radical left Democrats, who have lost trust and their minds," wrote last Sunday Trump, astonished by the possibility that Musk's fortune aligns with the fury of fiscal conservatives, upset by the new fiscal law of the Executive, which will skyrocket the country's deficit and debt. "Musk cannot create an American Party because he is not American, he is South African", retorted the alt-right guru and the MAGA movement Steve Bannon, calling for exploring the option of his deportation.
The US is a country where two, and only two parties, dominate everything at the national or federal level. Beyond Republicans and Democrats, there are only a few, almost testimonial, cases of independent congressmen and senators, who in reality are somehow always linked to one of the major parties. It is true that there are state parties (up to 55 right now) that influence and have a presence in some chambers. And that there are always independent candidates in the presidential elections, who despite the few resources and little coverage, can potentially sway the outcome. Just in the last elections won by Donald Trump, there were at least four other independent candidates with aspirations, and one of them was significant in the Michigan count, one of the swing states.
But none have changed anything. Musk, however, believes that there is room, that there are millions of potential voters for a new project, for "the 80%" of voters who are in the middle," in his words. According to Gallup data, he is right. 58% of American adults believe that a major third party is needed due to the "poor representation of the American people by the Republican and Democratic parties." The figure has been growing for 12 consecutive waves in the company's historical series, which dates back over two decades. "While it is five percentage points below last year's historical high, it remains in line with the average of 56% support throughout the trend since 2003," says Gallup's latest report.
Although he, an immigrant, could never be a presidential candidate, he can boost them. Or try. The figure of the world's richest man has proven to be polarizing, unattractive, or irrelevant to mobilize voters when he has directly intervened (the selection of a Wisconsin Supreme Court judge or opposition to the mentioned Big Beautiful Bill). But Musk knows that politics in the US is a matter of money, and perhaps there aren't many options to create a new party from scratch, as the requirements are deliberately very demanding, almost impossible to meet. But there are options to co-opt, buy one that already exists, and strategically enter Congress in very open districts in the upcoming midterm elections in 2026, where Trump is playing for his majority in both chambers.
In a tweet on his social media, he mentioned a possible founding congress in August in Texas, where he resides, and focusing "solely on two or three Senate seats and between eight and 10 House districts. Given the narrow legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as a decisive vote on controversial laws, ensuring they serve the true will of the people." He believes that fear alone would be enough to bring them in line with fiscal discipline.
There are many obstacles for that American Party. To run for Congress, for example, requires many signatures. Georgia, the most restrictive state, requires 27,000 signatures per district, which has prevented third-party congressional candidates from appearing on the general election ballot since 1943 when the law came into effect. Even the name of the party, America Party, if it were ultimately chosen (and it remains to be seen because Musk announced it but did not register it, something that a political activist seeking the limelight did), would be a problem. In the state of New York, for example, the word American (or any variant of it) is not allowed on the ballot as part of a party name. According to experts cited by The New York Times, "if Musk wanted to take his idea nationwide, it would require approximately three times more petition signatures than putting a presidential candidate on the ballot in each state and could cost over $50 million just in signature collection," a task that requires tens of thousands of volunteers coordinated by professionals.
In the United States, it is not possible to formalize a national political party until after an election because, according to the rules, it is necessary first to obtain votes in a significant number of states and, above all, to retain the right to vote, a difficult and expensive task that has sifted the system for decades and expelled the few adventurers whose funds are depleted in the procedural part. Only after this phase has been completed can a request be made to the Federal Election Commission for conversion into a national political party. A few have achieved this, but most perish along the way, without time to develop their programs. If you do not win quickly and completely, you are out. It is not like in other democracies, where a small party is created that gradually grows, enters the system, obtains funds and presence, allowing the building of an alternative. It is always all or nothing.
The U.S. is full of political consultants, fundraisers, strategists, pollsters, analysts. Each campaign requires a huge staff, and these professionals, recognized and experienced, usually make a living through recurring contracts with new aspirants across the country. Anyone working for Musk or a third party would almost certainly face perpetual veto from Trumpism and the Republican Party while he and his family control it. In the past, he has punished those who led campaigns for his rivals in the primaries and does not easily forgive or forget.
"Breaking through as a third party is difficult, not only due to name recognition and other factors. It is mainly due to access to the ballot," explained Steven Nekhaila, president of the National Libertarian Committee this week. "Access to the ballot is something that takes decades to achieve because the infrastructure of the state party is needed to facilitate it, tens of thousands of signatures are required to meet the requirements, and often there are only a few months available to achieve it." With overlapping deadlines from one constituency to another, state officials willing to sabotage, and hundreds of lawyers hired by parties to challenge not only the signatures but also the voting rights of residents based on their residence, history, affiliation...
"Musk should be prepared for the signatures collected by his team to be thoroughly questioned. In a state like Pennsylvania, there is usually a 30% error rate in ballot access applications," Larry Otter, an electoral law specialist who advised Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 2024 campaign and is now a minister in Trump's cabinet after battling him, explained to Politico. In Georgia, tens of thousands of voter registrations are challenged each year, forcing those affected, if they realize in time, to go through additional procedures to exercise their rights.
Although libertarians were a nightmare for Republicans in the past, with former Senator Ron Paul at the helm (father of Senator Rand Paul, Musk's ally in the fight against Trump's tax law) as a presidential candidate, and the Greens were a challenge for Democrats, especially with environmentalist Ralph Nader, who cost Al Gore the presidency against George W. Bush, the only example of relative success in modern times is another populist billionaire, Ross Perot.
The Texan businessman received nearly 19% of the vote in the 1992 elections and almost 8.5% four years later. However, he did not win any state and therefore did not receive any electoral college votes. The last time a non-Republican or non-Democrat presidential candidate achieved this was in 1968 when five Southern states voted for the candidate of the American Independent Party, the radical segregationist George Wallace.
Perot's Reform Party became a third option for a few years, not only leading a wrestling star to become governor of Minnesota but also tempting Trump himself to run for president in 1999. The New York magnate, after much consideration and realizing he had no chance and it was better to wait for the right moment, declined. And the Reform Party eventually dissolved.
Perot's main advisors at the time believe Musk does not have many options, especially with his character. They believe he would be better off financing something that already exists, like the libertarian option. It would be a much more natural alliance, leveraging its structure and bases. They just need resources to compete and have options. Because even with a lot of cash, the process is not just about money but about patience, work, fatigue. It is not something that can be achieved with a few tweets and attention.
Experts say that often what matters is not direct success but indirect success. Perot's stance against the deficit transformed the political debate in the 90s and ended up defining the framework in which Bill Clinton passed his budgets, with greater fiscal restraint than his six predecessors. If that were Musk's goal, and not revenge, provocation, or noise, he might succeed. Like President Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912 with the Bull Moose Party, breaking away from the Republicans and handing the White House to Woodrow Wilson.
It is not surprising that Musk is exploring a libertarian alliance or has contacted businessman, lobbyist, and activist Andrew Yang, who has used his organization-party, The Forward Party, to try to persuade more states to reform their electoral laws to favor open primaries and preferential voting. Yang, who has known Musk for some time, ran for Mayor of New York and for the 2020 presidential elections with a universal basic income proposal, believes it is possible to disrupt the system. There are a good number of popular congressmen and senators known for being outsiders in their parties who could fit as independents and achieve victories. Thomas Masie, the Republican from Wyoming whom Trump has declared war on. The more or less Democratic John Fetterman from Pennsylvania. Or Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who has been reluctantly complying with Trump's wishes since January but with many doubts and reservations.
So far, there have only been tweets and extensive media coverage. There is no evidence of real movements, hiring of experts, fundraising, or filing of papers. Musk is studying his options and the best way to maximize his money, his media platform, and the country's political moment, which is very turbulent, with structural changes among the population and factors driving to the polls. The decision has to be very precise because as historian Richard Hofstadter once said, "Third parties are like bees: once they sting, they die."