Making sense of Elon Musk's embrace of European far-right

It appears that tech billionaire Elon Musk enjoys making surprise appearances at European far-right events. He recently joined a rally in London via livestream, organized by the controversial Tommy Robinson where he demanded the “dissolution” of the British parliament, falsely linked immigration to violence, and warned that the only option for protesters was to “fight back” or “die.” He did something similar in January 2025 when he joined a campaign event of the German far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Again over video, he told supporters that “the German people are really an ancient nation” and the AfD is “the best hope for the future of Germany.”

Although the saying goes "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern," many already view the South Africa-born, North America-educated Musk as a mascot for the European far-right movement. It has left many puzzled, with one question in mind: Why?

In 2022, Musk bought one of the major social media platforms, then Twitter, to promote “free speech.” He stepped directly into the ongoing “culture war” that is polarising US politics and gaining traction across Europe. This makes him a problem for democratic politics. The combination of massive wealth, radical ideology, and power over a large share of public discourse is a recurring issue for democracy in general, but its negative effects have become even more pronounced in the age of social media. In their latest article, The Conversation points to two aspects it believes are particularly important: social media companies’ monetisation of user data and the dependence of democratic politics on platform discourse.

Financial mechanisms behind social media

Social media operates on an advertisement-based revenue model. Every click or lingering over a post produces data and metadata, which are lucrative resources. Social media companies earn the lion’s share of their revenue by charging advertisers to show ads to specific users based on such data.

Importantly, advertisers are not limited to clothing brands, restaurant chains, or protein shakes. Political parties, governments, think tanks, and foundations have all paid for ads on social media. Studies show that social media has contributed to political polarisation during critical political moments such as Brexit. It also undermines democratic discourse when it facilitates online abuse.

Differing interpretations of "free speech"

“Free speech” regulations on social media platforms and their leaders’ political stances increasingly conflict with democratic guidelines. Meta, the parent company of major platforms like Facebook and Instagram, has followed X’s turn toward a right-leaning interpretation of “free speech.” It has abolished its third-party fact-checking program, widely credited with helping to manage disinformation.

Politicians across Europe struggle to determine how to respond to Musk’s destabilising comments. Keep in mind that governments are doing (or considering doing) business with big tech leaders. This situation is politically complex, to say the least, because Musk and others, while outspoken about their frustrations with aspects of democracy, are also at the forefront of developing AI technologies that many nations rely on for economic growth.

This means Musk has cracked the code for success in capitalist democracies: he makes headlines with extreme statements, allows debates to unfold “freely” on his platform, and generates revenue from the resulting data.

This situation has created a strange relationship between democratic politics and social media leaders. For people like Musk, there is an economic incentive to engage in politics, stir public debate, and pressure governments. He is simultaneously a business leader and a political actor.

While the article's author does not claim to have a perfect solution to this unprecedented relationship, which creates multiple conflicts, he calls on democracies to foster a more focused debate on how to minimise this incentive structure for destabilising politics.

By Nazrin Sadigova