Asma Mhalla
Researcher in digital policy and Big Tech geopolitics at the School of Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS)
The answer is not straightforward. From a strictly legal standpoint, Elon Musk has not committed any crime; he is merely expressing an opinion and offering political support. However, what is legal is not always legitimate.
From a moral perspective, there are three considerations. First, Musk’s underlying intention appears to be the fragmentation of the EU. The American agenda aims at turning Europe into a vassalized market where tech regulations lose their effectiveness under the threat of commercial coercion. This raises a critical question: Is Musk acting as a proxy for the new U.S. administration? The ambiguity is profound, yet he has never been publicly disavowed by Donald Trump.
Second, the American definition of “free speech” does not align with European legal standards, plunging Europe into existential and often irrational debates. Finally, the instrumentalization of the concept of free speech has become an ideological time bomb. It has evolved into a totem representing resentment toward the “media” and the “establishment.”
Under the guise of absolute freedom, Musk is paving the way for the erosion of our rule of law. The step from post-truth politics to post-law politics is short—and arguably one that we have already taken. In the face of this looming threat, our institutional defenses appear alarmingly weak.
Mikkel Flyverbom
Professor of communication and digital transformations at Copenhagen Business School
Yes, Musk meddles—in an unrestrained, transgressive manner. What we see now is an unprecedented alliance between politics, wealth, and technology using all available instruments to pursue more dominance. So when Musk meddles in politics around the world via the social media platform he bought, when Trump wreaks havoc with whatever statement will grab the world’s attention, and when Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook. and Pichai line up to support Trump with their wealth and technologies, it consolidates what my colleagues and I have termed an “internet-industrial complex.”
In the years to come, our lives will be shaped by this axis of money, technology, and political power in ways that are unfathomable. That is, unless we—individually, collectively, and institutionally—walk out of the dominant social media and digital platforms.
It is now obvious that big tech companies packaged their products in luring promises of free expression, democracy, and community, but gave us something else: a Trojan horse that turned out to be full of hazardous forces that may cost us our democracies, our kids’ well-being, and our economic opportunities. What we need are alternative digital infrastructures with less of what fuels the internet-industrial complex—less greed, less influence, and less disregard for the needs of humanity.
Raluca Csernatoni
Fellow at Carnegie Europe
Musk frames his amplifying of European populist movements as a heroic stand for free speech. Yet, a billionaire with a global platform has unimaginable reach and his primary political target is Europe, not Russia or China. This begs the question: Is he on an all-out campaign to undermine EU regulation by subverting the EU’s political balance?
Musk’s influence also bears uncomfortable parallels to the scrutiny faced by TikTok. U.S. lawmakers have justified banning the app, owned by China’s ByteDance, citing national security concerns, cybersecurity, and data misuse. While Musk’s actions cannot be compared to those of a state-designated foreign adversary like China, they exhibit similar hallmarks of soft interference: a foreign actor using algorithmic tools to amplify divisive political narratives.
Both Musk and TikTok exploit the opaque power of social media algorithms, dictating which voices rise and which are drowned out during elections. The EU has reason to worry. Alleged Russian manipulation via TikTok during the 2024 Romanian election highlights the challenges of unregulated platforms. The bloc, which quickly launched investigations into TikTok under the Digital Services Act, cannot afford to ignore Musk’s sway. Whether driven by geopolitical or personal interests, digital platforms’ unchecked influence on the information environment ultimately poses a systemic risk to democratic integrity.
Marietje Schaake
Fellow at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center
Yes. Musk is clearly meddling in European politics, although not all of the ways in which he does so are clear and transparent.
While his vocal support and offering of the X platform to far-right leaders happens openly, details about the X algorithm remain opaque. It is essential that the European Commission uses all regulatory tools toward transparency and accountability. And then, beyond possible sanctions under the EU’s Digital Services Act, there should be consequences for the trust in Musk’s companies for defense and other contracts. Efforts to manipulate elections are a national security risk.
Frederike Kaltheuner
Tech policy analyst
Elon Musk isn’t just an influential individual openly supporting far-right parties like AfD; he controls a major platform where people are (still) getting information and learning about the news. This isn’t merely about his personal views—it’s about his control over an infrastructure central to public discourse.
The problem is transparency. Despite years of regulation, we still lack basic tools to hold platforms accountable. Has Musk adjusted algorithms to boost preferred candidates, as whistleblowers suggest? We can’t verify. Is he fostering polarization or using voter-targeting tactics? Again, we don’t know.
Similar issues arise with TikTok, which has taken credible steps to separate U.S. data infrastructure from its Chinese counterpart. Yet, concerns remain: Could the Chinese government pressure the company? Probably. Is it shaping public opinion? Possibly, but we can’t know. Just today, a friend’s Instagram account mysteriously followed Trump—bug or feature?
Transparency gaps like these give platforms unchecked power over shaping public discourse, regardless of ownership. The solution isn’t banning platforms—such measures conflict with international freedom of expression standards. Instead, we need to enforce rigorous regulations to ensure transparency and accountability. Longer-term, we must rebuild the digital public sphere, investing public resources into infrastructures that protect rights and uphold democratic values. Our collective future depends on it.
José Ignacio Torreblanca
Head of the Madrid office and senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations
In the UK and Europe, freedoms are protected by laws and courts. In neither place do we have a free speech or information problem, let alone one for Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to diagnose or fix. The corporate profits of X or Meta are directly proportional to the lack of regulation of their platforms. That’s why they don’t want to take responsibility for illegal content that is dumped and amplified there.
Musk also has a political agenda. After helping Donald Trump win the U.S. election, he is now on a crusade to support far-right parties and groups and push an anti-immigration and anti-progressive agenda. He uses his platform to damage governments and elected officials to amplify the hate speech of these illiberal extremist groups and to help them come to power.
The United States banned TikTok because its parent company is subject to Chinese national security laws and can be forced to transfer private data to Chinese authorities, not so much because of political interference. This represents a major contradiction because U.S. law does not oblige its companies to protect the private data of its citizens. In the EU, by contrast, the same laws on data protection and foreign interference apply to all companies.
