EU faces triple threat from Elon Musk: Far-right activist, owner of X and Trump’s right-hand man

The clash between Elon Musk and several EU political leaders is unprecedented. The showdown with the world’s wealthiest individual poses a challenge to European legislation itself. The technology entrepreneur is shielded by the principle of freedom of expression. There is no doubt that he is entitled to voice his opinions publicly — a fact acknowledged by the European Commission on Monday.

However, his social media platform, X, is subject to the EU’s digital services regulation. Adding complexity to the situation, Musk is not only a far-right agitator and businessman, but also a figure poised to enter the government of the world’s leading superpower, the United States. This blend of roles, coupled with his open support for ultra-right movements across Europe, has prompted leaders such as Germany’s Olaf Scholz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and the U.K.’s Keir Starmer to criticize him for foreign interference.

In theory, the legal separation between the various roles of Musk — the primary supporter of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump — appears clear. However, the situation becomes far more complex upon closer examination.

Ricard González, a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Valencia, highlights that the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) requires companies with over 45 million users to adhere to strict “due diligence obligations.” These include ensuring algorithmic transparency, assessing social and civic risks — such as electoral risks — arising from managerial decisions, and implementing objective content moderation practices.

And this is where things start to get complicated. Musk, as the principal shareholder of the social network X, is not just a corporate leader but also “a qualified user with a high level of reach,” boasting 212 million followers. The platform is therefore obligated to enforce its rules and regulations on Musk himself, who recently has taken to compulsively posting messages on X, often disseminating easily debunked falsehoods.

Another point raised by Ricard González, a former member of the Spanish Data Protection Agency, is that Musk, as the majority shareholder of X, “defines himself with an editorial stance, effectively abandoning any pretense of neutrality.”

The issue is not merely about determining the extent to which Musk’s actions constitute foreign interference — a claim made by several European politicians. The most recent voice to raise this concern is Valérie Hayer, president of the liberal group in the European Parliament. “Europe cannot be naïve or blind to Mr Musk’s determination to use X to interfere in the democratic affairs of EU member states, supporting the causes of the far right,” said the French politician.

However, some experts are more cautious about labeling Musk’s actions as interference. “In principle, I would say that one cannot [call it interference], because social networks per se have no borders. The question is also where the limit is,” says Cecilia Danesi, director of the master’s degree in ethical governance of artificial intelligence at the Pontifical University of Salamanca, without giving a firm opinion.

“In principle, I would say it’s not interference, as social networks are inherently borderless. The question is where to draw the line,” explains Cecilia Danesi, director of the master’s program in ethical governance of artificial intelligence at the Pontifical University of Salamanca. Danesi stops short of offering a definitive conclusion.

There are experts who are not so sure that one can speak of interference. “In principle, I would say that one cannot, because social networks per se have no borders. The question is also where the limit is,” says Cecilia Danesi, director of the master’s program in ethical governance of artificial intelligence at the Pontifical University of Salamanca, who stops short of offering a definitive conclusion.

It is not as though social media platforms have historically been characterized by neutrality. As Danesi herself points out, “They have always had an ideology.” What is new — and more concerning, she adds — is Musk’s “interventionist role” in this case. She also notes that the South African-born businessman often “doubles down” in his responses.

Moreover, digital platforms are not typically models of legal compliance. Networks such as TikTok, Temu, Meta, and Instagram are already under investigation for various breaches. However, as European sources highlight, there is no precedent for a social media owner with such clearly defined political positions and a mix of overlapping roles. The legal implications of this situation push regulators into largely “unexplored” territory.

And not because Brussels has avoided taking action against X. In fact, the European Commission has already determined that the platform violates EU rules governing digital traffic. The EU’s digital spokesperson Thomas Regnier found that these violations extended to “management of risks on civic discourse and electoral processes”

But these conclusions are preliminary, not definitive, and are not directly linked to Musk’s latest actions. The company has submitted its objections, though official Commission spokespeople have hinted at focusing on electoral concerns.

The specific allegations of non-compliance outlined in the Commission’s document center on three key issues.

The first is the contentious blue verification label offered to certain X users. According to the Commission’s technical services, this label is misleading, as it conveys a sense of credibility that, in reality, is simply purchased. Additionally, the platform is criticized for lacking transparency in its advertising practices and failing to provide researchers with access to data, both of which are required under European regulations.

Before making this accusation, Brussels had requested explanations from the technology company regarding its decision to dispense with a significant portion of its fact-checkers and to eliminate its fake news control service in four European languages, reducing coverage to just seven.

No decision has yet been made on the matter. X has already submitted its arguments, but if these fail to satisfy the European Commission, the company could face a fine of up to 6% of its annual turnover — approximately €190 million ($196 million), based on its 2023 revenue. Its operations could even be suspended. But before reaching this point, X would have to breach the previous orders from Brussels and a judicial authorization would be necessary.

In any case, such a step would require time. This delay leads González, the constitutional law professor, to argue for more proactive rules. He points out that regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were developed in response to major issues, such as the right to be forgotten and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In a way, González suggests that the EU — or its member states — should be able to more diligently when they find “solid and well-founded proof of interference in a democratic process.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition