Elon Musk has gone from being just a tech tycoon to becoming a key player in international politics.
It controls companies that not only shape entire sectors, but also impact military conflicts and decisions of governments around the world.
Its influence transcends borders, and no one, neither states nor international organizations, seems to know how to respond. The case of Brazil is the latest example of this new reality.
“Musk, the disruptor”: Beyond a tycoon
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
The figure of Elon Musk cannot be explained in the traditional terms of a billionaire with political interests.
Throughout recent history, we’ve seen how oil, media, and finance tycoons have influenced politics, but what Musk has accomplished goes beyond that influence.
Its control over companies such as SpaceX, Tesla, Neuralink, and especially Starlink, places it in a unique space: a geopolitical agent with the power to intervene directly in international conflicts and in the world’s digital architecture.
The war in Ukraine was one of the first scenarios where this dynamic became evident. When Russia invaded the country in 2022, Starlink became a crucial tool for keeping communications standing within Ukraine’s borders, a function that would usually be the responsibility of international bodies or allied powers.
With Musk at the helm, however, the service wasn’t simply a concession, but a tool of power.
At a key moment, Musk restricted access to Starlink to prevent Ukraine from using its network in an attack on the Russian base in Crimea. This, far from being an altruistic act or based on humanitarian principles, was a unilateral decision by an individual who holds excessive control over critical infrastructure in conflict zones.
This asymmetrical power, where an individual entrepreneur makes decisions that affect the dynamics of wars, technological rivalries, and digital governance conflicts, sets him apart. According to historian Niall Ferguson, Musk represents the rise of a new class of “tech oligarchs,” whose decisions are no longer merely financial, but also deeply political.
What distinguishes Musk from other tycoons, however, is his ability to intervene directly and his disregard for traditional democratic controls.
“China Dependence”: A Risky Geopolitical Game
While Elon Musk’s influence in the Ukrainian conflict has been widely discussed, there is another geopolitical front where his presence is also wreaking havoc: the relationship between the United States and China.
Tesla’s Shanghai factory has been a monumental success, not only in terms of production, but as a symbol of technological expansion between rival powers. For the United States, this success is not without its concerns.
Tesla is significantly dependent on access to the Chinese market, which puts Musk in a vulnerable position in the face of Beijing’s policies.
In contrast to his defiant attitude toward other governments, Musk shows remarkable deference to China. While evading Brazilian justice and making decisions that directly affect Ukraine’s sovereignty, in China it makes lightning visits to Beijing to ensure its relations with political leaders. The risk here, as political scientist Ian Bremmer has pointed out, is technology transfer.
Tesla’s dependence on production and sales in China is causing concern in Washington, which sees in Musk an entrepreneur who has no problem bowing to a geopolitical rival, but who at the same time can destabilize key alliances.
China, for its part, has been very shrewd in handling this relationship. Beijing understands the value of having someone like Musk aligned with its interests, and has done its best to ease the way for him, something that contrasts with the more cautious and regulatory strategy of the European Union and the United States. In short, Musk’s presence in China has become a piece of the geopolitical chessboard that increases the complexity of bilateral relations between the two powers.
“The Enigma of Free Speech”: A Global Conflict
Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now known as X) marked the beginning of a new stage in his control of key infrastructures, in this case, global digital discourse.
Musk, who is a self-proclaimed defender of free speech, has used the platform to spread his views, challenge governments and sometimes dodge the law. His most recent confrontation with Brazil’s government is a perfect example of how his vision of freedom clashes with state authorities.
In 2023, the Brazilian government imposed restrictions on the spread of fake news on social media, something X avoided through a software update that modified its network structure. The maneuver prevented the Brazilian government from blocking the platform, an action that Musk justified as a defense of freedom of expression. However, as critics such as legal scholar Lawrence Lessig have pointed out, this version of “freedom” that Musk advocates is deeply problematic. While in Brazil Musk dodged the law, his respect for the rules varies by country.
Its flexible stance on China shows that its principles are negotiable when commercial or personal interests are at stake.
This conflict has highlighted the growing difficulty of nation states to regulate digital platforms that have a massive impact on public opinion, but are in private hands.
By controlling platforms like X, Musk has the power to intervene in key debates about free speech and digital rights, a terrain that usually belongs to governments and international bodies.
“The Starlink Dilemma”: Innovation with Consequences
The use of Starlink in conflict zones poses a dilemma that few would have foreseen. In Ukraine, for example, the satellite network has been both a lifesaving tool and a point of controversy. After his intervention in the attack on Crimea, it became clear that Musk controls not only the communications of a country at war, but also the fate of its military offensives.
A similar case has occurred in Brazil, where the Starlink network has been used to circumvent judicial and regulatory sanctions. Musk, under the shield of freedom of speech, has opposed the restrictions imposed by the Brazilian government, demonstrating that his power is not limited to war zones.
In conclusion, the figure of Elon Musk has surpassed that of a simple technology tycoon to become a geopolitical actor with the power to alter the international balance. From his influence in Ukraine to his relationship with China and his confrontation with Brazil, Musk has proven to be an unpredictable figure who defies established norms. The most worrying issue, however, is that no one seems to know how to control this influence.
