The world’s wealthiest person, Elon Musk, has seen his influence increasing in the political arena. On October 25th, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Musk–CEO of Tesla, Starlink and a major U.S. government contractor–has been in contact with Russian President Vladmir Putin since 2022. More recently, this spring, Musk had a month-long dispute with Brazilian Supreme Court judge, Alexandre de Moraes, over the proliferation of far right accounts and misinformation on X (formerly Twitter). In October, Musk began appearing at Trump rallies, after former President Trump outlined his economic proposals that include a spot for the CEO. Musk’s ownership of X, a platform with over 335 million users, makes his political prestige alarming. According to the Pew Research Center, 59% of X users (roughly 197,650,000 people) regularly get news from the platform. Musk has already been accused of interfering with elections through the site, after launching an Election Integrity Community on X. The group invites users to share perceived incidents of election interference and voter fraud–a central concern to Trump’s base, many of whom view it as evidence of a Democrat conspiracy.
In a second Trump administration, Musk would helm a Government Efficiency Commission, tasked with identifying ways to cut $2 trillion USD from government spending, a third of the national budget. Musk has donated the legal maximum, around $118 million, to his own America PAC, which campaigns for Trump in battleground states, making him the second largest donor to Trump’s campaign.
International Actor or International Influence?
Musk exemplifies a new breed of international actor: the ultra-wealthy technocrats. Unlike traditional political figures, ultra-wealthy technocrats wield political influence through vast material capabilities and control over critical technological infrastructure, illustrated in Musk’s case by the Starlink satellite program. What makes the technocrat an international actor is not merely influence but the possibility of unilateral decision-making, a power which undergirds the sovereignty of nation-states.
However, unlike states, technocrats operate within the private sphere, subject to different checks and balances that govern institutions and grant legitimacy to international actors such as elections, constitutions or legal frameworks. This freedom, combined with their concentrated wealth, independence, and technological reach, gives them a distinct form of ‘soft power’ that increasingly shapes international politics.
The Company-State: The British East India Company
Ultra-wealthy technocrats are not the first instance of such a high political influence from non-state actors. By looking at how the latter have shaped global affairs historically, the influence wielded by today’s ultra-wealthy technocrats becomes clear. Established in 1600, the British East India Company (EIC) is a powerful example: by the 1800s, it ruled over one-fifth of the world: the EIC collected taxes, had a military force larger than England’s, and even minted currency. Its vast power led British parliamentarian Edmund Burke to describe it in 1788 as “a state in the disguise of a merchant”. Nearly twenty years earlier, in 1769, EIC official Robert Clive had already acknowledged the company’s extraordinary power, stating, “The East India Company are at this time sovereigns of a rich, populous, fruitful country in extent beyond France and Spain united; they are in possession of the labour, industry, and manufactures of twenty million of subjects.”
Working in tandem with Britain’s colonial administration, the EIC amassed economic and political power through the lucrative trade of spices, textiles, and opium. By exploiting political instability and wielding its military force, it established control of large regions of India and Bangladesh. Parallel to the ultra-wealthy technocrats of today, the EIC made unilateral decisions on the international stage through permissive politicians, overwhelming material resources, and dominance of international trade.
The Ultra-Wealthy Technocrat as a Proxy
As international actors, today’s ultra-wealthy technocrats operate in a grey area, acting simultaneously as private individuals with commercial interests, and as quasi-public figures with significant political influence. Unburdened by traditional mechanisms of accountability, they are not required to disclose their political dealings, making them attractive proxies for authoritarian leaders seeking influence outside of formal diplomatic channels. Musk’s relationship with Russian President Vladmir Putin is a striking example: according to the WSJ, Putin requested Musk to refrain from activating Starlink over Taiwan as a favour to Chinese President Xi Jinping. In 2022, Musk proposed that Ukraine drop its NATO aspirations and formally cede Crimea to Russia–a stance aligning with Putin’s geopolitical objectives. Similarly, Mr. Trump, reported to have been in contact with Putin by journalist Bob Woodward, has voiced criticism over aid for Ukraine while praising Putin’s leadership.
Recent disinformation campaigns further highlight the impact of ultra-wealthy technocrats on public trust and political stability. This October, videos falsely claiming voter fraud in Georgia circulated widely on X. On November 1st, the FBI, Office of National Intelligence, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned that, “In the lead up to election day, and … after, the IC expects Russia to create and release additional media content to undermine trust in the integrity of the election and divide Americans.” Given Musk’s ownership of X and his documented interactions with authoritarian leaders, the implications are concerning.
Viewing ultra-wealthy technocrats solely as private actors ignores their profound influence on global politics. As technology continues to evolve and to be deployed by such actors, they must be scrutinised with the same rigour applied to state conduct. Their influence is not merely economic or personal but is increasingly political and far-reaching. Future economic and security policies must adapt to this reality and implement regulatory measures to prevent influential figures from operating parallel to states in the international system.
Edited by Malin Braendeland
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by Flickr