The world's richest person, Elon Musk — notably a supporter of Donald Trump during his successful U.S. presidential campaign and owner of Tesla and the social media platform X — has recently made headlines for his comments on European domestic politics.

Before Christmas, Musk called for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to step down. Since then, he has repeatedly stated that the country's only option is the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Similarly, Musk has demanded the resignation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling him a national disgrace. How should we interpret these statements? Are they simply the opinions of a businessman or do they have an impact on European politics?

It certainly has an impact. What is particularly interesting about Musk is the significant shift in his stance after the attempted attack on Trump. He has moved closer to Trump and become one of his supporters, which has not been a consistent position for Musk in terms of his personal, philosophical or societal views. After all, in both 2016 and 2020, he supported Democratic candidates.

It's a fascinating question to consider what his true motives were. How much of it was driven by economic interests? We can see from the rise in his stock prices that it has at least been financially beneficial for him. And how much of it stems from his philosophical outlook on freedom, society and the role of individuals, where he has often expressed very distinctive ideas.

One of the key issues that will be highly interesting and have a broad international impact is what Musk proposed to Trump. Specifically, how is it possible to reduce rampant bureaucracy within a democratic framework? How can an inspiring leader from the private sector influence the U.S. federal government in this way? This has been a widely discussed issue. Even in the Estonian media, there have been calls asking, "Who is our Musk?" We see a sense of helplessness in achieving such goals here as well.

Now, turning to German politics — for example, Friedrich Merz follows a similar logic: that Germany's federal expenditures need to be significantly cut in various sectors.

Regarding Musk's involvement in European politics, we still need to interpret his motives. Why is he doing this? Is it driven by his own economic interests? We know there have been significant debates surrounding his X platform, which he aims to develop into something akin to China's WeChat — a platform for both everyday business transactions and entertainment.

Is his intervention driven by these business goals? Or is it more of an advance effort to strengthen Trump's political positions? Or perhaps it's entirely independent from that. Naturally, no one likes it when an outsider meddles in their affairs. This has irritated some European politicians who feel it undermines their positions. On the other hand, those receiving support from Musk certainly aren't complaining.

Since we're talking about the world's richest man, who owns some highly influential companies, wouldn't any reduction in bureaucracy ultimately benefit him as a businessman? He would be able to grow faster, with fewer restrictions and obstacles.

Of course. I doubt he's even tried to hide that. But if we look at the logic of business interests and influence, it's important to consider the broader picture. On one hand, Musk's contribution was quite significant. He donated a quarter of a billion dollars, which, while not necessarily a game-changer, played a major role in leveling the playing field.

We also have to ask why Mark Zuckerberg did what he did in 2020. Back then, Biden's campaign had around a billion dollars in funding, while Trump's had slightly less. Zuckerberg contributed nearly $400 million to support the election process through various foundations.

His own claim was that this money was primarily intended to support efforts in managing the spread of information related to COVID-19.

Well, yes. It's pretty clear that if you motivate more voters to show up in certain areas, you inevitably influence the election outcome. In the 2020 U.S. election, the decisive swing states were decided by margins of about 10,000 to 20,000 votes — so even relatively small shifts had a significant impact.

This is a much broader issue, even in Estonia, when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. These are central questions for both individuals and society, especially in today's technological world. Elon Musk himself has published dialogues with federal agencies that involved discussions about imposing restrictions on Twitter. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg has admitted before Congress that the U.S. administration influenced Facebook to impose censorship and expressed regret over this.

Musk's criticism of freedom of speech restrictions in relation to the European Union's Digital Services Act is quite valid. His concerns aren't just personal; they reflect real tensions between state regulation and the boundaries of free expression.

Can Elon Musk, who is the world's richest person, wields significant political influence and owns one of the world's largest media platforms, be considered a classic oligarch?

I don't think we can label Musk an oligarch in the way we traditionally understand the term, particularly as it has emerged from the Russian or Slavic context. There, the concept implies a semi-monopolistic intertwining of political power, business interests and media control, typically for the purpose of advancing personal or commercial goals.

In Musk's case, his influence is much more global and, in some ways, more transparent and direct. He doesn't try to hide his impact. The idea that leaders of such global enterprises wouldn't seek to exert political influence would be naive. Musk's actions simply make this influence more visible than usual. He operates within the framework of international capitalism, which undeniably has a significant role in shaping global relations and policies. In that sense, his influence is perhaps more genuine and openly acknowledged compared to what we often see behind closed doors.

Musk has made a strong intervention in German politics ahead of elections, issued recommendations regarding the UK prime minister and has also made sharp remarks toward Norway and France — though those mostly came after leaders from those countries criticized Musk's influence. To what extent could this impact politics? If Musk were to choose a political favorite in Germany, for instance, how much could he actually influence the election outcome?

In some way, it definitely has an impact. But I'm not sure in which direction it will go. The majority of people likely don't want to see external interference in their country's affairs and perceive it as meddling. That could even mobilize the very forces Musk criticizes. However, it's undeniable that he drives media debates.

For example, in the UK, accusations against Keir Starmer related to his time as director of public prosecutions have become a central topic. It's worth noting that this wouldn't have gained as much prominence if it hadn't been strongly supported by the opposition Conservatives or figures like Nigel Farage, who also received criticism from Musk. The reality is that interventions via social media are starting to have a broader impact.

Is this setting some kind of precedent? Perhaps. We remember last year's U.S. presidential elections, where members of the UK Labor Party were reportedly sent to assist with campaign work on American soil, although they later distanced themselves from it. When we talk about interference in internal affairs or expressing preferences, it's also worth noting that the European political elite made no secret of their desire to see Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party win.

It's not just about what Musk says or doesn't say. It's also about what he does through his social media platform — how he sets up algorithms and how he doesn't. For example, Estonian politicians also pay to promote their messages on social media channels to ensure their content reaches further, faster and higher. But if, on a platform like X, a certain politician's message automatically gets more reach because the platform's owner supports them, doesn't that create an unequal playing field?

Absolutely. These kinds of manipulations are entirely possible. It's a problem that needs to be addressed very objectively in a democratic society. But it's a two-way street. One aspect is amplifying certain voices, but there's also the reverse scenario. We've seen this before — for example, when Trump was outright banned and effectively canceled from social media, including Facebook.

So, it can go both ways. On one hand, a favorable message can be endlessly boosted. On the other hand, political opponents can simply be silenced and turned into non-persons.

Let's imagine a scenario where Estonia's parliamentary elections are approaching and Elon Musk announces that Isamaa, led by Urmas Reinsalu, is the only salvation for Estonia, while all other parties, especially those with more liberal views, are leading the country to ruin. He then adjusts his platform's algorithms to boost those messages. Would Isamaa, led by Urmas Reinsalu, respond with a strong international statement saying that this is inappropriate?

I think Isamaa's opponents would respond strongly to that — I say that half-jokingly. But the reality is that one thing is what someone says and the opinions they share. International politics has become increasingly intertwined with local politics. Next week, I'll also be traveling to Germany to support Mr. Merz. And I do believe that Scholz's government has been a poor one and should be replaced by a government led by Merz.

The real issue is that we've chosen a certain logic for controlling these large social media platforms. We've said that a private censorship environment must be created — a global censorship system for freedom of speech. There are very noble and legitimate arguments for doing so. But we've given the power to determine the extent of censorship or the flow of information — whether positively or negatively — to these tech giants themselves.

That has been a clear political choice under the European Digital Services Act. And I think there are very legitimate questions to ask about whether that has been the right choice.

Should we eliminate these gatekeepers entirely or should the responsibility for controlling these gates be transferred to national or international institutions?

The starting point must be transparency. In a democratic society, there cannot be anyone operating outside democratic oversight who, from behind the scenes, is able to set the rules of the game in a public square or forum.

For example, Facebook announced that it is abandoning fact-checking in the U.S., but due to the European Digital Services Act, it is still maintaining it in Europe. They're doing this solely because European regulations require it.

I believe that humanity has not yet found a relevant solution to this issue.

We could pick one. Do we remove the restrictions entirely or do we start imposing them with state power?

If we ask what the basic rule should be regarding freedom of speech, particularly given the geometric progression of interaction on social media, my starting point would be more freedom. Of course, there are legitimate, objective limits — starting with things like child pornography, incitement to terrorism and calls for crimes against humanity.

Should Putin's speeches be allowed to be shown?

Should Putin's speeches be shown? I think there have been very legitimate public restrictions applied in a wartime situation against the ideology of what is essentially a hostile force.

When engaging with European countries, is Elon Musk advancing Donald Trump's agenda or his own? Is he preparing his platform for Trump's future messages or is he offering competition to Trump's messaging?

The honest answer is that we don't know. We can speculate. The question is whether he plays the role of a hostile actor — which some have attributed to him, pointing to alleged ties with Russia. I would be very cautious about making such accusations without solid evidence.

Another question is whether his actions are purely about advancing his own economic interests and asserting himself in that context or whether it's more about expressing a philosophical stance.

Let's be frank — someone who has, in such a short time, seemingly from nothing, built an empire and become such an innovator in technology must have a very unique way of thinking. The line between genius and radicalism is extremely thin, as we've seen in art, sculpture, science and certainly in business. Here's a man actively developing ideas like Mars colonization and introducing direct democracy through technological solutions.

Is he a proxy advancing Trump's political agendas? Given his ego — or inevitably egocentric approach — and his signature style, I believe he is certainly an independent figure compared to Trump. And I'm not sure whose ego is bigger.

This is an important question in many foreign ministries — whether and how sharply to condemn Musk's messages or respond to them. Right now, no European leader wants to openly clash with Trump. Should the Estonian prime minister or foreign minister state that Musk's interference in the domestic politics of other countries is inappropriate?

We don't need to shape our positions based on whether someone likes us or not. At the same time, we shouldn't approach this from a standpoint of mere political correctness. Freedom of speech has both painful and positive sides. In that sense, I wouldn't rush to label or elevate individual social media criticisms to a huge political issue.

In this context, I actually liked Angela Merkel's statement from 2021. She was a very strategic opponent of Trump, and by that time, Trump was already out of office — she had no reason to make such a statement out of political courtesy. Merkel said that the cancellation of Trump on social media platforms did not align with her understanding of the scope and limits of freedom.

What should be said about Donald Trump's messages? For example, he said he wouldn't rule out the use of military force to bring Greenland under U.S. control.

In this regard, it's clear that if we are expected to express a position or if we're asked about it, we naturally support the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. No matter how close a friend might be when raising such questions, we firmly stand by the principle that the sovereignty of states is inviolable.

The prime minister of Greenland's autonomous government has already initiated a debate about Greenland's independence. I don't know how much fuel Trump's statements have added to that discussion. We are back to a situation where, through social media platforms, Trump has essentially taken de facto control of state leadership in the free world — even before his inauguration. To be honest, I can't recall anything like that in modern American politics.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!