The upcoming German federal election, scheduled for February 23, 2025, is shaping up to be one of the most consequential political moments in the history of the Federal Republic. Following the dramatic collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s “traffic light” coalition in late 2024, the nation has been thrust into a period of political uncertainty and intense campaigning. However, the traditional domestic discourse has been significantly disrupted by an external force: the active and highly controversial involvement of Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the social media platform X, Tesla, and SpaceX. Musk’s direct interventions in German politics, ranging from personal insults directed at government leaders to explicit endorsements of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, have raised profound questions about the role of tech moguls in democratic processes and the effectiveness of European digital regulations.
The tension between the German government and Musk escalated sharply in the winter of 2024 when the billionaire referred to Chancellor Scholz as a “fool” on his social media platform. This personal attack was not merely an isolated incident of online bravado but served as the opening salvo in a sustained campaign to influence German public opinion. As the election cycle progressed into early 2025, Musk’s rhetoric shifted from personal derision to ideological alignment. By declaring that “only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk positioned himself as a pivotal ally to a party that German security services have classified as a suspected right-wing extremist organization. This alignment has created a unique challenge for the German political establishment, which is accustomed to a media landscape defined by strict neutrality and established journalistic standards.
Observers note that Musk’s influence is amplified by the algorithmic structure of the platform he owns. Investigations into the “Musk effect” suggest that his posts receive disproportionate visibility, a phenomenon internally referred to as a “power user multiplier.” In the context of an election, this means that a single individual’s political preferences can be broadcast to millions of voters, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers and potentially distorting the democratic “marketplace of ideas.” The German government has responded with a mixture of outrage and caution, with senior officials accusing Musk of “despicable” interference while simultaneously grappling with the limitations of existing laws to curb such digital influence. The situation highlights a growing friction between global tech entities and sovereign democratic states.
The Disruption of Traditional Political Communication
Historically, German elections have been fought through a combination of televised debates, regional rallies, and rigorously regulated campaign advertising. The entry of a global social media owner as an active participant has introduced a level of volatility that the system was not designed to handle. Musk’s engagement with Alice Weidel, the co-leader of the AfD, has been particularly significant. By hosting conversations and amplifying her messages, Musk has provided the AfD with a level of international legitimacy and digital reach that no other German party can currently match. This synergy between a digital platform owner and a nationalist political movement represents a significant departure from the norms of European political communication, where media owners typically maintain at least a veneer of impartiality during election cycles.
The impact of this digital support is visible in the metrics of online engagement. Data from media monitoring organizations indicates that the AfD’s visibility on X has skyrocketed in direct correlation with Musk’s endorsements. This “artificial boost” has led to concerns about the fairness of the electoral landscape. In Germany, political parties are subject to strict rules regarding donations and campaign financing. Legal experts are currently investigating whether the “boosted reach” provided by X constitutes an illegal party donation from a non-EU entity. Since both Musk and the parent company of X are based in the United States, providing free, high-value promotional services to a German political party could potentially violate the country’s stringent electoral regulations, leading to significant fines or legal challenges for the AfD.
Furthermore, the nature of the content being amplified has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Musk has frequently shared posts from right-wing influencers that criticize mainstream German leaders like Friedrich Merz of the CDU and Robert Habeck of the Green Party. By framing the election as a choice between “cultural collapse” and the AfD’s platform, Musk has adopted the rhetoric of the “New Right,” focusing heavily on migration, national identity, and a rejection of what he calls “multiculturalism that dilutes everything.” This ideological intervention is particularly sensitive in Germany, where the historical lessons of the 20th century have resulted in a political culture that is deeply wary of nationalist extremism and the manipulation of public sentiment through propaganda.
The Digital Services Act and the Battle for Regulatory Oversight
The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) was designed specifically to address the risks posed by very large online platforms during sensitive periods such as elections. The legislation requires platforms like X to mitigate systemic risks, including the spread of disinformation and the manipulation of algorithms to influence electoral processes. However, the enforcement of the DSA has become a central point of contention between Brussels and Musk. The European Commission has already launched several investigations into X, focusing on its content moderation practices and its failure to provide researchers with the data necessary to track misinformation. A recent ruling by a German court has further increased the pressure, ordering X to release specific engagement data to allow civil rights groups to monitor the circulation of misleading narratives in real-time.
The stakes for X are remarkably high, as non-compliance with the DSA can result in fines of up to 6% of the company’s global annual turnover. In late 2024 and early 2025, the European Commission intensified its scrutiny, eventually imposing a fine of €120 million for violations related to transparency and deceptive design. Musk has responded to these regulatory efforts with defiance, characterizing them as attempts at “censorship” and “illegal secret deals.” This confrontation is not merely about administrative compliance; it is a fundamental struggle over who controls the digital public square in Europe. If a platform owner can ignore or bypass democratic regulations, the integrity of the entire European regulatory framework for the digital age could be called into question.
The German government’s internal debates about its own presence on X reflect this tension. Several ministries and public institutions have already deactivated their accounts, citing concerns that the platform’s algorithms encourage polarization and extremism rather than constructive discourse. However, others argue that leaving the platform would cede the digital territory entirely to radical voices, leaving the “vast majority of reasonable and decent people,” as Chancellor Scholz described them, without a voice in one of the most active arenas of political debate. This dilemma underscores the lack of viable, high-reach alternatives to X and the difficulty of maintaining “digital sovereignty” in an era where key communication infrastructures are owned by a handful of individuals in the United States.
Political Polarization and the Rise of the AfD
The rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the primary context in which Musk’s interventions are occurring. Currently polling in second place with approximately 19% to 20% of the projected vote, the party has successfully tapped into widespread dissatisfaction with the “Traffic Light” coalition’s handling of the economy, energy policy, and migration. The AfD’s platform, which is characterized by a “Germany First” approach and a skepticism of European integration, aligns closely with the anti-establishment and libertarian-leaning views expressed by Musk. By endorsing the AfD, Musk has effectively internationalized a domestic political struggle, framing the German election as a front in a broader global battle against what he terms the “woke mind virus” and bureaucratic overreach.
The reaction from German voters to Musk’s involvement has been deeply divided. For supporters of the AfD and other anti-establishment groups, Musk is seen as a champion of free speech who is exposing the failures of the “old” political order. His criticisms of the German government’s migration policies and his calls for a return to “German values” resonate with a segment of the population that feels marginalized by mainstream politics. Conversely, a large portion of the electorate views Musk’s interference as an undignified and dangerous intrusion into German sovereignty. Protests have occurred at the Tesla “Gigafactory” near Berlin, and social media campaigns have emerged calling for a boycott of Musk’s companies in response to his political activities.
The “Nazi guilt” controversy has added another layer of intensity to the debate. During a campaign event for the AfD in Halle, Musk participated via video link and urged Germans to “move beyond past guilt,” referring to the country’s responsibility for the Holocaust. This statement was met with widespread condemnation from historians, Jewish organizations, and political leaders, who argue that Germany’s “culture of remembrance” is a fundamental pillar of its post-war democratic identity. Chancellor Scholz responded by stating that Germany remains thankful to the United States for its liberation from the Nazis but is “angry” that a prominent American businessman is now supporting the very forces that seek to undermine that historical responsibility. This clash of values highlights the cultural chasm between Musk’s libertarian world-view and the consensus-driven, historically-aware political culture of modern Germany.
The Role of X and Algorithmic Amplification
At the heart of the technical controversy is the way the X algorithm functions. Researchers have long suspected that the platform’s “recommender system” is tuned to favor high-engagement content, which often translates to more extreme or polarizing viewpoints. In the case of the German election, this means that posts attacking the government or promoting conspiracy theories about the “collapse” of the country are more likely to be seen by users than nuanced policy discussions. The “Power User Multiplier” attributed to Musk himself ensures that his personal political endorsements reach a global audience, regardless of whether the users follow him or expressed an interest in German politics. This creates a “filter bubble” effect where users are increasingly exposed to a single narrative, further entrenching political divisions.
A recent study by AlgorithmWatch and other digital monitoring groups found that interactions between Musk and AfD leaders, particularly Alice Weidel, drove a significant portion of the party’s engagement on the platform. Interestingly, a high volume of this engagement came from English-language accounts, suggesting that the German election is being used as a piece of content for a global right-wing audience. This “globalization of domestic politics” complicates the efforts of German regulators to maintain a fair and balanced campaign environment. When a domestic political debate is flooded with international attention and artificial amplification, the local democratic process can be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of digital noise.
In response to these concerns, German authorities have called for “algorithmic transparency.” Under the DSA, platforms are required to explain how their recommender systems work and to give users the option to opt-out of personalized tracking. However, X’s compliance with these transparency requirements has been inconsistent. The platform’s decision to de-activate the European Union’s advertising account following the €120 million fine was seen by many as a retaliatory move, further straining the relationship between the tech company and democratic institutions. The ongoing legal battles will likely determine whether the EU has the teeth to enforce its vision of a “safe and transparent” internet or if the power of individual platform owners will continue to supersede regional laws.
Broader Implications for European Democracy
The situation in Germany is being watched closely by other European nations, many of which face similar challenges with the rise of populist movements and the influence of social media. Leaders in France, Italy, and Spain have expressed varying levels of concern about Musk’s role as a “political disruptor” in Europe. While some, like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, have maintained a cordial relationship with the billionaire, others see his actions as a threat to the stability of the European Union. The fear is that the “German model” of interference—combining personal insults, algorithmic boosting, and direct endorsements—could be applied to other upcoming elections across the continent, effectively turning X into a tool for geopolitical influence.
The concept of the “Broligarchy”—a term used to describe a small group of extremely wealthy tech CEOs who use their platforms and financial resources to influence political outcomes—has gained traction in European academic and political circles. These individuals often share a libertarian ideology that is skeptical of government regulation and supportive of anti-establishment movements. In the case of Elon Musk, his close ties to the incoming administration in the United States add a layer of geopolitical complexity. His role as a co-leader of a commission aimed at reducing the size of the US government under Donald Trump suggests that his activities in Europe are part of a broader ideological mission to reshape governance on both sides of the Atlantic.
This development poses a significant challenge for the “Transatlantic Partnership.” Traditionally, the US and Germany have been close allies, sharing a commitment to democratic values and the rule of law. However, if a prominent figure within the US political establishment is actively working to undermine the German government and support extremist parties, it could lead to a significant diplomatic rift. Chancellor Scholz’s decision to label Musk’s interventions as “disgusting” and “not good for democratic development” reflects a growing sense of betrayal among traditional allies who feel that the digital tools developed in the US are being weaponized against them.
Case Studies: Specific Incidents of Interference
To understand the depth of the controversy, one must look at specific instances where Musk’s digital activities intersected with the German electoral campaign. These incidents provide a roadmap of how a platform owner can systematically influence public discourse and pressure political actors.
- The “Olaf ist ein Narr” Post: In late 2024, following a disagreement over economic policy, Musk posted a short message calling the German Chancellor a “fool.” This post reached tens of millions of users and sparked a week-long media cycle in Germany, effectively setting the agenda for political talk shows and forcing government spokespeople to respond to a social media insult.
- Endorsement of Alice Weidel: During an “X Space” conversation, Musk praised Alice Weidel’s approach to the economy and migration. This endorsement was significant because it bypassed the “firewall” that mainstream German parties have maintained against the AfD, presenting the party as a legitimate and even desirable alternative to a global audience.
- The Halle Rally Appearance: Musk’s surprise appearance via video at an AfD rally in Halle was a major turning point. By directly addressing the party’s base and echoing their rhetoric on “past guilt,” Musk signaled that his support was not just digital but active and coordinated with the party’s campaign leadership.
- Amplification of Naomi Seibt: Musk frequently reposts content from Naomi Seibt, a right-wing influencer known for her criticism of climate change policies and her support for nationalist causes. This amplification gives Seibt’s views a global platform and legitimizes her as a credible voice in the German political debate.
- The “Nazi Salute” Controversy: During Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, Musk was photographed making a hand gesture that some social media users compared to a Nazi salute. While Musk denied this, the controversy was heavily covered in German media, where such symbols are illegal and carry immense historical weight, further polarizing public opinion about his character.
- Legal Challenges to X’s Advertising: In response to the EU’s fines, X de-activated official EU accounts, an act seen by many as an attempt to stifle the “counter-narrative” during the election campaign. This move demonstrated the platform’s willingness to use its technical control to silence political opponents or regulators.
Each of these incidents demonstrates a different facet of digital influence. Together, they form a pattern of behavior that challenges the traditional boundaries of political participation for non-citizens and corporate entities. The cumulative effect has been to create an atmosphere of constant crisis and confrontation, which many argue benefits the AfD’s narrative of a “failing” state and a “corrupt” mainstream media.
The Future of Digital Democracy in Germany
As the February 23 election draws closer, the focus is shifting to how the German public will ultimately respond to these digital interventions. Polls suggest that while the AfD remains strong, a significant majority of German voters remain wary of external interference in their democracy. The “vast majority” that Chancellor Scholz spoke of may yet prove to be the deciding factor. However, the long-term impact on the political culture remains to be seen. If the 2025 election is remembered as the moment when the digital public square was successfully manipulated by a foreign tech mogul, it could lead to even more restrictive laws regarding social media and digital communication in Europe.
Furthermore, the election will serve as a test case for the Digital Services Act. If the European Commission is unable to effectively curb the spread of disinformation or ensure algorithmic transparency during this period, the credibility of the EU as a digital regulator will be severely diminished. This has implications far beyond Germany, as the DSA is often seen as a “gold standard” for platform regulation globally. A failure in Germany would embolden other tech leaders to challenge regional laws and would signal to other democratic nations that the power of global platforms is currently beyond the reach of traditional legal frameworks.
In the final weeks of the campaign, the German government has increased its efforts to promote “media literacy” and to encourage voters to seek out verified information from trustworthy sources. The role of public broadcasting and established news organizations like the BBC, Reuters, and Deutsche Welle has become even more critical in providing a fact-based counterweight to the viral narratives on social media. The outcome of the election will not only determine the next government of Germany but will also provide a definitive answer to the question: can a modern democracy survive and thrive in an age where the infrastructure of public debate is owned by those who seek to disrupt it?
Conclusion
The involvement of Elon Musk in the 2025 German federal election represents a watershed moment in the intersection of technology and politics. Through a combination of direct endorsements, personal attacks on leadership, and the strategic use of his platform’s algorithms, Musk has successfully inserted himself into the heart of Europe’s most important political contest. This interference has empowered the far-right AfD and forced the German political establishment to confront the vulnerabilities of its democratic systems in the digital age. While the legal and regulatory response from both Berlin and Brussels has been firm, the ongoing struggle highlights the significant power imbalance between sovereign states and the owners of global communication platforms. As voters head to the polls on February 23, the ultimate impact of the “Musk effect” will be revealed, potentially setting a precedent for how future elections are fought and won in an increasingly polarized and digitized world. The fate of German democracy, and perhaps the future of digital governance in Europe, now rests in the hands of an electorate navigating a landscape where the line between free speech and electoral manipulation has never been more blurred.
Recommended For You
