Unmasking Musk

Elon Musk is often praised as a self-made billionaire and technological visionary. But a closer look at his background reveals a more complex story, one that challenges the popular narrative of an immigrant with a student visa who forged his own path to success through sheer ingenuity and hard work. Musk’s journey to Silicon Valley is punctuated by privileges, family wealth, and strategic maneuvers that raise questions about his role as a self-made entrepreneur and tech genius, and even his citizenship status.

Musk came to the United States from South Africa in the early 1990s on a student visa. He enrolled at the University of Pennsylvania, where he pursued degrees in physics and economics. However, there are inconsistencies in Musk’s story about his path while completing his education. Musk’s focus shifted away from academic pursuits and towards launching a career in business, ultimately leading him to Silicon Valley, where he aimed to capitalize on the burgeoning tech boom.

While his initial student visa ostensibly allowed him to study, Musk quickly pivoted towards entrepreneurship, which could be seen as straying from the intent of the visa program. The student visa system is intended to support those pursuing academic growth, not those aiming to use it as a springboard into Silicon Valley. His journey raises questions about how Musk leveraged the visa system to gain entry to the United States, where he bypassed traditional education-to-employment pathways by founding a company instead.

One often overlooked aspect of Elon Musk’s story is his family’s wealth and how it played a significant role in his early ventures. Musk’s father, Errol Musk, was reportedly quite wealthy, with holdings in a variety of South African businesses and assets, including an emerald mine. While Musk often claims he lived modestly when he first arrived in North America, he benefited from financial support from his family, which allowed him a degree of freedom that many young entrepreneurs do not have.

This financial backing was crucial in Musk’s early ventures. His first company, Zip2, a software firm focused on providing online city guides for newspapers, was co-founded with his brother, Kimbal Musk, in 1995. This company was not the result of bootstrapping alone—the initial capital from family wealth gave Musk the foundation to pursue this venture without the typical financial constraints faced by other young immigrants or entrepreneurs. The privilege of having access to capital enabled Musk to take risks that others without such resources simply could not.

Following the sale of Zip2, Musk gained a degree of prominence, which he leveraged to co-found X.com, an online payment company, in 1999. However, the belief that Musk was the visionary behind PayPal is misleading. In reality, Musk’s involvement with X.com was marked by conflict and contention. X.com eventually merged with Confinity, a company co-founded by Peter Thiel and Max Levchin, who had already developed the software that would become PayPal. Musk was initially appointed CEO of the merged company, but his tenure was short-lived due to disagreements over the company’s direction.

In particular, he pushed for X.com to rely on Microsoft-based infrastructure, a decision that others in the company saw as problematic. Eventually, this conflict led to Musk being ousted from his position as CEO, and Peter Thiel took the helm. Thiel and Levchin were instrumental in refining and expanding the PayPal platform, which ultimately became the dominant online payment system. Musk’s contribution to PayPal’s success is often exaggerated, and he was effectively sidelined before the company achieved its most significant milestones. The myth of Musk as the mastermind behind PayPal disregards the contributions of Thiel, Levchin, and other key figures who truly shaped the platform.

In 2002, PayPal was acquired by eBay for $1.5 billion in stock. Musk’s association with PayPal, while brief, proved lucrative, as he received a substantial payout from the acquisition. However, it is worth noting that he did not drive the sale or the platform’s success. By the time of the sale, Musk’s involvement in PayPal was minimal, and his contribution to its growth was largely eclipsed by other leaders within the company. The eBay acquisition marked a turning point for Musk, providing him with the capital he would use to fund his future ventures, including SpaceX and Tesla. This windfall has since been portrayed as a testament to his business acumen and strategic vision. However, it is clear that his role in PayPal’s development and sale was less significant than popular narratives suggest. Musk benefited from the success of PayPal but was not its architect.

Musk’s reputation as a tech visionary was strengthened with his roles at Tesla and SpaceX, two companies at the forefront of electric vehicles and private space exploration, after the sale of PayPal. However, a closer look at his involvement reveals that Musk was neither the original founder of Tesla nor the sole “brains” behind SpaceX’s innovations. His contributions are often more aligned with his financial resources and relentless drive rather than groundbreaking technical expertise. In fact, many of Musk’s engineers have disagreed with his approaches, and his public statements on programming and engineering have drawn criticism from professionals in the field who question his depth of technical understanding.

Tesla was not originally founded by Musk. Instead, the company was started by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003. Both were engineers with a vision to develop electric vehicles that could compete with traditional gasoline-powered cars. Musk joined Tesla later, leading a $6.5 million Series A funding round in early 2004 and becoming chairman of the board. Musk’s early involvement with Tesla was largely financial, leveraging his earnings from the sale of PayPal to buy into the company rather than start it from scratch.

While Musk has since become the face of Tesla, his engineering contributions have been minimal compared to the foundational work done by engineers like Eberhard, Tarpenning, and others who were already working on Tesla’s first car, the Roadster, when Musk came on board. Eberhard, in particular, played a pivotal role in designing the vehicle’s battery and powertrain systems, critical components of Tesla’s success. However, Musk’s personality and management style led to conflicts with Tesla’s original founders. Eberhard was eventually ousted from the company after a series of disputes with Musk, who was known to overpromise on timelines and clash with engineers over design choices.

Unlike Tesla, Musk did start SpaceX in 2002, driven by his desire to make space travel more accessible and eventually colonize Mars. However, while he’s credited with SpaceX’s grand vision, Musk’s technical contributions are overshadowed by the work of his highly skilled engineering team. One of SpaceX’s earliest hires was Tom Mueller, an aerospace engineer with extensive experience in rocket propulsion, who played a critical role in developing the engines for SpaceX’s rockets. Mueller and other engineers at SpaceX were the true masterminds behind the technologies that powered the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Dragon spacecraft.

Musk’s influence at SpaceX is known for both driving innovation and creating tension. He has often set ambitious deadlines and imposed ideas that his engineers deemed unrealistic, pushing them to work in a high-stress environment with little margin for error. SpaceX engineers have reportedly disagreed with Musk on numerous technical aspects, including design choices and project timelines. In several instances, his approach to solving problems, such as his insistence on rapid test-and-fail cycles, has been seen by engineers as risky and unsustainable.

Musk’s Twitter presence has only added to the skepticism about his technical knowledge, particularly in programming and software engineering. On multiple occasions, Musk has tweeted about coding and programming concepts that appear to lack the depth expected from someone with significant technical expertise. For instance, he once tweeted about how coding is “essentially nothing more than typing” and implied that one could quickly gain proficiency in coding through a few months of practice. These statements drew backlash from programmers and software engineers who argue that his perspective minimizes the complexity involved in software development, systems architecture, and algorithmic thinking.

Further, Musk’s attempts to direct software decisions at Tesla, including the development of the company’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving software, have led to tensions with his technical teams. Musk has repeatedly claimed that Tesla vehicles will soon achieve full autonomy, yet engineers have pushed back on these claims, citing the extensive technical and regulatory hurdles that remain. Tesla’s former Director of AI, Andrej Karpathy, who was instrumental in leading the company’s Autopilot team, left Tesla in 2022. While no specific reason was cited, it’s widely speculated that Musk’s approach to development timelines and public promises may have played a role in creating a challenging work environment.

Musk’s well-publicized ideas about tunneling, such as the Boring Company’s Hyperloop and “Teslas in Tunnels” concept, have also faced criticism from engineers in the transportation field. Musk has promoted these ideas as revolutionary, yet experts have pointed out serious flaws, including ventilation, safety, and capacity limitations, that Musk often dismisses. In reality, many of Musk’s ambitious ideas are closer to high-concept proposals that lack the technical feasibility to scale as he envisions. The engineers responsible for implementing his ideas are often left to grapple with the constraints Musk tends to overlook, leading to friction and high turnover rates among his technical staff.

Musk’s public claims about his companies’ technology and future capabilities are frequently called into question by experts. For instance, he promised in 2019 that Tesla would have “one million robo-taxis” on the road by 2020, a milestone that remains far out of reach. Engineers at Tesla reportedly advised him against making these promises, understanding the technical limitations, but Musk has continued to make bold claims despite their feedback.

Over time, Musk’s relationship with government policies and intervention has been complex and often paradoxical. Though he has benefited substantially from government programs—including student visas, regulatory support, subsidies, and tax incentives that have propelled ventures like Tesla and SpaceX—Musk’s stance on government involvement has grown more critical. His skepticism of government regulations became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, as he openly clashed with public health authorities over lockdown measures and other restrictions.

As governments worldwide imposed lockdowns, mask mandates, and public health protocols, Musk voiced strong opposition, arguing that these measures were excessive and economically damaging. He publicly criticized lockdowns as economically reckless, even referring to them as “de facto house arrest” in tweets and interviews. In a highly controversial act in 2020, Musk reopened Tesla’s Fremont, California, factory against local health orders, stating he was prepared to risk his own arrest to keep the facility operational. This defiance highlighted his position against government-mandated lockdowns, reinforcing his advocacy for business continuity and limited government intervention.

Musk’s skepticism extended to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Although he didn’t align himself with explicit anti-vaccine movements, his statements hinted at a degree of distrust. He questioned the necessity of vaccines for individuals at low risk, suggesting instead that they be prioritized for vulnerable populations. Musk also challenged vaccine messaging on social media, raising concerns that his statements could influence public opinion on a vital public health issue.

This evolving distrust of government regulation reflects Musk’s broader philosophy: he advocates for minimal bureaucracy and fewer restrictions on business and innovation. However, this perspective has been perceived as contradictory, considering Musk’s significant reliance on government contracts, tax incentives, and subsidies, especially for Tesla and SpaceX. His outspoken opposition to COVID-19 restrictions ultimately underscored his preference for limited government intervention, even in matters concerning public health.

Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was framed as a mission to champion free speech, with Musk claiming that the platform had become overly restrictive and censored viewpoints, particularly those critical of government policies. He criticized Twitter’s previous management for allegedly silencing conservative voices and expressed a desire to create a platform where diverse opinions—including controversial ones—could be shared without fear of suppression.

Following the acquisition, Musk quickly changed Twitter’s name to X and overhauled content moderation policies, significantly reducing restrictions he believed hindered open dialogue. His vision for “free speech” sought to permit a wide array of perspectives, even if they challenged mainstream narratives or government positions. Musk argued that this openness was crucial for democratic discourse, though critics voiced concerns that his approach could amplify harmful misinformation.

One of Musk’s earliest and most publicized decisions was to reinstate high-profile accounts that Twitter had previously suspended, including that of former President Donald Trump, who had been banned following the January 2021 Capitol riots, along with other figures known for promoting divisive or controversial content. Musk defended these moves as essential to restoring free speech on the platform, yet they faced backlash from those who felt replatforming individuals with histories of incitement or misinformation could negatively impact public discourse.

Since acquiring X, Musk has increasingly wielded the platform as a political tool, amplifying voices and opinions that align with his own ideological leanings. His commentary on topics like government regulation, environmental policies, and public health measures reflects a libertarian philosophy and disdain for bureaucratic oversight. Through X, Musk has actively supported politicians and public figures who oppose government intervention, especially those critical of restrictions on the business and tech sectors—an alignment that many view as strategic, given his companies’ dependence on both government contracts and relaxed regulatory environments.

Under Musk’s ownership, X has become a powerful vehicle for promoting libertarian and conservative views, especially during election periods. Leading up to elections, Musk has engaged with and retweeted content that resonates with his own ideological leanings, often targeting mainstream political figures, environmental policies, and progressive legislation. This influence has helped cultivate a community on X that leans toward Musk’s perspectives, raising concerns about the impact of his personal biases on public discourse in an era when social media profoundly shapes political opinion. His approach has fueled debates over how one wealthy individual can, in essence, shape a significant portion of the public dialogue.

The endorsement of Trump in 2024 marked a significant pivot for Musk, who has often positioned himself as an independent thinker averse to aligning with any single political figure. But Musk’s frustration with government intervention, particularly under the Biden administration, appears to have drawn him closer to Trump’s platform, which promises deregulation and a more business-friendly stance. Using X, Musk has actively promoted pro-Trump content, thereby fostering a community on the platform that increasingly resonates with Trump’s base. This shift from a largely apolitical image to a public, partisan stance demonstrates Musk’s readiness to harness his platform to push for specific political outcomes.

Musk also established a Super PAC, a type of political action committee, which offered financial incentives to encourage voting for Trump, pushing the boundaries of election law. Under U.S. election law, offering money or incentives in exchange for votes is illegal, as it undermines the integrity of the democratic process. Federal and state laws strictly prohibit gifts or financial inducements to influence voting behavior, viewing such actions as a form of bribery. These laws protect the foundational principle that votes should be cast freely, without undue influence or coercion.

If substantiated, Musk’s alleged actions could be seen as a deliberate attempt to interfere with voter autonomy, posing not only ethical but significant legal risks for both Musk and his companies if authorities pursue investigations. Legal experts point out that even indirect financial incentives aimed at influencing electoral outcomes could potentially breach election laws, making Musk’s reported actions a dangerous precedent in modern politics.

Musk’s strong support for Trump, while surprising to some, is motivated by a convergence of business and ideological interests. He has long voiced opposition to government regulations on tech, environmental standards, and labor practices—areas where Trump’s platform of deregulation aligns closely with Musk’s vision for minimal government intervention. Trump’s return to power could create a regulatory environment favorable to Musk’s ventures, including SpaceX, which relies heavily on government contracts, and Tesla, which could benefit from loosened environmental oversight. The stakes for Musk in this election are substantial, as Trump’s administration would likely reduce the regulatory scrutiny Musk views as burdensome.

Tensions between Musk and the Biden administration may have further motivated Musk’s shift to Trump. Under Biden, Musk grew increasingly frustrated with policies that seemed to favor traditional automakers over Tesla, particularly in the allocation of EV incentives and government funding for clean energy initiatives. Feeling sidelined, Musk has seized the opportunity to back an administration he perceives as more sympathetic to his interests.

Musk’s ideological affinity with Trump’s anti-establishment rhetoric also plays a role. Musk often brands himself as a renegade in both the tech and media spheres, consistently criticizing mainstream media, governmental “overreach,” and established narratives. Trump’s populist campaign, which similarly rails against the establishment, offers Musk an avenue to promote his worldview while leveraging his influence over X to amplify those ideals. By endorsing Trump, Musk positions himself not only as a supporter of conservative principles but also as a guardian of “free speech” on X, fostering a platform where conservative and libertarian voices dominate.

Musk’s involvement in the 2024 election highlights a growing concern about the influence of billionaires on democracy, particularly when their actions push the boundaries of legality. Musk’s reported use of financial incentives to sway voting raises red flags around the undue influence of wealth in the democratic process. His active participation in the election and alignment with Trump reflect a broader trend of oligarchs attempting to mold political landscapes to serve their business and ideological interests. If unaddressed, Musk’s actions could set a concerning precedent for future elections, where billionaires feel increasingly emboldened to use their wealth and influence to steer political outcomes, potentially at the expense of democratic integrity.

A powerful example of billionaires aligning with politicians to establish an oligarchic structure is seen in Russia during the 1990s and early 2000s. After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Russia’s rapid privatization of state-owned assets, overseen by the Yeltsin administration, aimed to transition the country into a market economy. However, this transition occurred with minimal regulation, allowing a select few, well-connected businessmen to acquire control of critical sectors—such as oil, gas, mining, and media—for a fraction of their true value. These “oligarchs,” as they came to be known, amassed immense wealth and wielded it to exert significant political influence, notably backing Boris Yeltsin’s re-election campaign in 1996. In exchange, they received access to political power and protection for their burgeoning business empires. Their wealth and control over key media outlets played a crucial role in securing Yeltsin’s narrow victory, demonstrating the profound sway that concentrated wealth could have on the political landscape.

When Vladimir Putin assumed power in 2000, he initially appeared to curb the oligarchs’ influence, aiming to consolidate the Kremlin’s authority over the economy and politics. Instead of dismantling oligarchic power, however, he reorganized it. Putin offered protection to oligarchs who supported his administration, allowing them to retain their wealth and influence, while those who challenged his authority faced severe repercussions, including imprisonment or exile. One notable example is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oil magnate and one of Russia’s wealthiest men, who was imprisoned after openly challenging Putin and supporting opposition movements. The remaining oligarchs aligned themselves closely with the Kremlin, effectively operating as extensions of the state. They controlled large sectors of the economy, provided financial and political support, and used their media networks to reinforce government agendas. In return, they enjoyed legal and financial protection, creating a mutually beneficial, tightly interwoven relationship between the Kremlin and Russia’s wealthiest.

To solidify this oligarchic power structure, Putin and the oligarchs secured control over major Russian media outlets. Loyal oligarchs acquired key television stations, newspapers, and media platforms, which were subsequently used to promote pro-Kremlin narratives and suppress dissent. This monopoly on information allowed the government and its allied oligarchs to shape public opinion and eliminate opposition, ensuring a favorable image for Putin’s administration. Independent news and investigative journalism were stifled, marginalizing critical voices and exposing the Russian population predominantly to content that supported government policies. This control over media effectively silenced public scrutiny, consolidating Putin's grip on power and strengthening the oligarchs’ positions.

As power became more centralized, Russia’s political and economic landscape transformed, with a few elites monopolizing both. By dominating critical industries, controlling the media, and maintaining close ties with the government, the oligarchs and Putin’s administration effectively dismantled democratic institutions, leaving opposition parties and policies that might challenge their interests little room to thrive. Genuine electoral competition diminished, and civil liberties, especially press freedom, were curtailed. This oligarchic system undermined Russia’s democratic structures, ensuring that the ruling class retained control without meaningful checks and balances.

Russia’s oligarchic model soon became a cautionary template for other nations where democracy is weak, and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. It exemplified how powerful elites could leverage their economic power to influence politics, shape public opinion, and build a power structure that served their own interests. Similar, though less extreme, dynamics can be seen in other democracies where campaign finance laws enable wealthy individuals or corporations to exert significant influence over political outcomes, at times leading to policy decisions that favor elite interests over the broader population. These cases highlight the vulnerabilities in democratic systems, particularly where concentrated wealth intersects with politics, threatening to tilt power toward a privileged few at the expense of the general public’s interests.

Musk has allegedly been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since 2022, according to The Wall Street Journal. The most recent report reveals that several current and former U.S., European and Russian officials had confirmed that the discussions between Musk and Putin touched on everything from business and geopolitics to personal topics.

"At one point, Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping," according to the report from the Journal. It is not known if Musk agreed to the request, the report said.

The report arrived on the same day that Musk announced he would be resuming his America PAC town halls, where he has previously handed out awards for his controversial $1 million sweepstakes giveaway for registered voters who sign his political action committee's petition pledging to uphold free speech and the right to bear arms in swing states.

Trump stated earlier this month, that he would tap Musk to lead a government efficiency commission if elected.

Ultimately, Musk’s rise to popularity—and his alignment with Donald Trump—is layered with ironies, beginning with his immigrant background and the advantages he gained from government policies he now critiques. Musk, who immigrated from South Africa and capitalized on U.S. immigration policies to build his path to success, now aligns with Trump’s anti-immigration platform, which targets policies that enabled his own journey. Additionally, Musk’s companies, such as Tesla and SpaceX, have thrived on substantial government support, including grants, tax credits, and billions in federal contracts. Despite these advantages, Musk now vocally opposes government intervention and advocates for deregulation, mirroring Trump’s stance on reducing government oversight. His companies still rely on public funding—SpaceX, for instance, secures substantial contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense—yet Musk frequently criticizes the very government agencies that bolster his enterprises, casting himself as anti-establishment.

Adding to the irony is Musk’s reputation as a "tech genius" behind his ventures, a title he readily accepts but one that many former employees and industry insiders dispute. Numerous reports reveal that Musk’s actual technical contributions are minimal and that he lacks deep knowledge of many of the technologies behind his companies. In fact, some employees privately mock his limited grasp of complex engineering, noting that his success is largely attributable to the expertise of his teams rather than his own technical insights. While Musk has expertly branded himself as the visionary behind Tesla’s electric vehicles and SpaceX’s space exploration, his employees are often the real innovators. Yet, Musk’s alignment with Trump, another figure known for self-promotion over substance, suggests a pattern: both capitalize on public perception and bravado, often at the expense of the people who do the real work.

Musk’s support for Trump underscores a broader paradox: while he owes much of his success to the same public structures he derides, he now advocates for dismantling them in favor of a free-market ideal that serves his narrative of individual genius. This contradiction not only raises questions about Musk’s stance on government’s role but also calls into question the authenticity of his “self-made” image, which obscures the contributions of his employees and the foundational support of government programs. In endorsing Trump, Musk aligns himself with an anti-establishment stance that runs counter to the reality of his success, highlighting the complex, often contradictory values that shape his approach to politics and policy.

At its core, the story of Elon Musk is a story of modern oligarchy. Musk’s success illustrates how wealth, influence, and access to public resources can be leveraged to shape public opinion and policy, sometimes against the very systems that supported his rise. Although Musk’s narrative is often framed as one of genius and grit, it’s equally a tale of how immense wealth can insulate individuals from the same constraints faced by ordinary citizens. Through strategic use of government subsidies, contracts, and policies, Musk has built an empire that relies on public support yet positions him as a libertarian icon advocating for less government—a position that ultimately serves his interests and shields his empire from regulation.

This modern oligarchic tale is evident in how Musk wields his wealth and influence to bend not only markets but also political landscapes, using platforms like X to promote ideological views that further consolidate his control. Musk’s relationship with Trump underscores this dynamic: despite benefiting from government interventions in the tech, automotive, and aerospace industries, he aligns himself with an anti-establishment stance, supporting a candidate who promises deregulation and limited oversight. This support is strategic, reinforcing a system where a few wealthy individuals—unbound by traditional checks—exert disproportionate influence over the rules that shape society.

Ultimately, Musk’s story isn’t simply about a tech visionary’s journey but about the influence of billionaires in modern governance. His path highlights the troubling trend of oligarchic power structures forming within democratic societies, where wealth confers the ability not only to shape industries but also to sway political outcomes. This story serves as a reminder that the unchecked rise of figures like Musk has implications beyond business; it impacts the very foundation of democracy, raising questions about the role of money in politics and the risk of allowing a few powerful individuals to dictate public policy.