Inside Elon Musk’s Midterm Spending Spree

This week on Uncanny Valley, Zoë Schiffer and Leah Feiger dive into how Elon Musk’s America PAC is spending millions on the most consequential Senate races of the 2026 midterms—and how most of that money goes to opposing Democrats rather than supporting Republicans. They also break down effective altruism, the once-niche philosophy now at the center of the AI safety debate, and why the Trump administration has called it a dangerous ideology. Plus, they discuss the backlash against the graphic designer who created the logo for Meta’s AI assistant, Muse.

Vote for us in the Signal Awards!

Shows, Best in Technology

Shows, Best in Interview or Talk Show

Individual Episode, Best in Documentary

Articles mentioned in this episode:

Elon Musk’s America PAC Is Spending Big on the Midterms. We’re Tracking It Daily

Elon Musk’s America PAC Is Quietly Funding November’s Most Consequential Elections

Spend Elon Musk’s Money

She Designed Meta’s New AI Logo. Then Came the Hate

You can follow Zoë Schiffer on Bluesky at @zoeschiffer and Leah Feiger on Bluesky at @leahfeiger. Write to us at [email protected].

How to Listen

You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:

If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “uncanny valley.” We’re on Spotify too.

Transcript

Note: This is an automated transcript, which may contain errors.

Leah Feiger: Hey everyone, this is Leah. We wanted to share with you that Uncanny Valley is a finalist for not one or two, but three Signal Awards. The judges pick who wins, but listeners also have a say with the listener's choice vote. You can go to the links we included in the show notes and vote for us. We promise it takes just a minute and your vote goes a long way. OK, onto the show.

Zoë Schiffer: Welcome to WIRED’s Uncanny Valley. I'm Zoë Schiffer, contributing editor.

Leah Feiger: And I'm Leah Feiger, director of politics and science. This week we're doing a deep dive into how Elon Musk's America PAC has spent millions of dollars to influence some of the most consequential races this midterm season. WIRED has created a tracker to follow America PAC's support in real time. We're going to take you through why these races matter and how Musk is throwing Republicans all of this cash.

Zoë Schiffer: We're also going to break down the once obscure philosophy that now seems to be everywhere from X threads to The Economist cover, effective altruism. We'll talk about what this ideology is actually all about, why many AI researchers subscribe to it, and how it has been actively shaping the debate around AI safety.

Leah Feiger: And we're going to get into why the designer of Meta's Muse logo has been receiving a ton of backlash. Zoë spoke with her all about it this week and she had a lot to say. Zoë, it's just me and you this week. We've officially pushed Brian off a cliff.

Zoë Schiffer: Yeah, we have. The FaceTime chat has gone live. We will not be talking about any tech conferences this week.

Leah Feiger: Absolutely not. But he'll be back next week. So at the very least, there's that. OK, Zoë, Elon Musk. He's back.

Zoë Schiffer: He's back. He never left for some.

Leah Feiger: He never really left, but he is back and so is his wallet. To refresh everyone's memories a little bit, Musk is the founder and main donor of America PAC, a super PAC that was started in 2024 to help elect President Donald Trump to the White House. They succeeded. Trump is in office. The PAC spent more than $260 million to make that happen. This time around for November's midterms, the PAC has been going about it a little bit differently. WIRED created a live tracker to monitor their donations in real time. You can check it out on the WIRED website. And we learned a lot putting this together. Basically, the PAC is donating to the election's most consequential races. They are not focusing obviously on the presidential race. There is no presidential race this year. But they are all in on the most critical Senate races in the country that are really going to decide the makeup of Congress next year. The PAC is primarily pumping money against Democrats as opposed to for Republicans, which is really interesting. For every dollar that America PAC has spent supporting a Republican candidate, more than two have gone to oppose a Democrat. And that only becomes more extreme in some of these Senate races, right? In Texas where several Musk companies are based, the group has spent tons and tons of money attacking Democrat James Talarico. We're talking like $9 million. Whereas promoting Ken Paxton, around the one million mark. Similar numbers can be found in the Ohio Senate race, in Iowa, really up and down the board. And these races are not random. They represent the path for Democrats to take control of the chamber this November and could open Republicans, Musk included, up to a lot of investigations and regulatory pressure. So this is critical for so many reasons. I'm so excited to talk with you about it. What did you think of the tracker? Did you get a chance to play around with it?

Zoë Schiffer: I did get a chance to play around with it. I was really impressed, not least because you coding something for the internet, an app and web, honestly, groundbreaking.

Leah Feiger: I can take zero, zero coding credit. This all goes to our amazing investigations team who really knocked it out of the park. They did.

Zoë Schiffer: Well, jokes aside. No, I think it's really important. I mean, like you said, the total spending on America PAC's part is less than what they spent previously, but it's much more targeted. They're being really specific. And that's because the stakes are really high. I feel like we should just back up for a second and talk about that. Because there is this chance that Congress flips, that Democrats take control, and it seems like Musk and his associates are taking that very, very seriously.

Leah Feiger: Oh, as they should. Democrats are already telling us, all of our sourcing in Democrats, both on House and Senate side are hungrily talking about all of the investigations and subpoenas that they're going to release the minute that the chamber is theirs. And right now, the polls are looking pretty good for them. This is very much a, if Dems don't mess this up, they have a very good chance of making this happen. I can only imagine that Musk and a similar coterie of fellows are kind of freaking out right now.

Zoë Schiffer: I mean, I am on the record and I'm going to say it again, I think Republicans are going to do just fine. I feel like we've had this conversation before, and I'm sus on the polling. However, you are the politics director, so ultimately I defer to you. That said, I think it is 100 percent true that Musk takes the possibility of investigations and regulations really, really seriously. This was a primary reason why he ultimately decided to go all in on Donald Trump. He said very publicly that if Kamala Harris won the presidential election during the last cycle, the whole country was going to look like California, which was the worst thing that could happen to it, apparently. As someone from California, I disagree, but neither here nor there. It is really hard to build things here. I'll give you that. That said, I find it very hard to imagine a world where really harsh regulations actually do come down on the Elon Musk empire. I think part of the reason for that is SpaceX, and just how dependent the government is on Starlink, on SpaceX technology, on their ability to get stuff into space. SpaceX is the company doing that on behalf of the government now. And so while I do think subpoenas, all of this stuff could happen, will it impact Elon Musk's empire ultimately? I don't know if we have the tools to hold someone like that accountable at this point, frankly.

Leah Feiger: I think that's a really, really good point, honestly. And obviously there's a clear fear that a Lina Khan-esque figure could come in and wreak havoc. But to your point, that havoc will be paperwork. No, I hear you. I hear you.

Zoë Schiffer: I mean, think about it. The one time he was held accountable in a real way was for saying that he had money to take Tesla private. He had funding secured to take Tesla private. What was the outcome of that? He was fined $20 million? How much is Elon Musk worth? Ultimately, even if that number hurts, he doesn't want to pay it, it's kind of a drop in the bucket.

Leah Feiger: No, he's a trillionaire now, again, I guess. And I guess to that point, this is not the first time that super PACs or big money in politics has stirred up a little bit of controversy. We had this big conversation in 2024 about how crazy it was that Elon Musk was just throwing money at the wall, and now he's throwing money again via America PAC, which now feels like a pattern, and it feels like other tech founders and their influence and their PACs are already outsized in this administration. You have PACs from all sorts of groups up and down Silicon Valley that are very involved this election cycle. I'm really interested in what you're hearing about how folks are thinking about this midterm cycle and how they're kind of thinking more future.

Zoë Schiffer: Yeah. I mean, Silicon Valley is not a monolith. You hear a lot from the really loud voices in the room, and a lot of those voices are people who have gone all in on supporting President Trump and the Republican Party. And I think those people kind of align with Elon Musk in some of the fears that you have said, that there will be investigations, that if Democrats take control, it'll slow growth, that they won't be able to lead the race in AI and these other areas. And so they need to go all in and protect that future that they want to see happen. Of course, there are a lot of rank-and-file employees who have more liberal values, and they are staying a little more quiet, but they are contributing to different causes. It's an interesting conversation in the Valley right now because there are a lot of newly minted millionaires, people who worked in AI research and now have a ton of money, and they are having active conversations on what is the best way to deploy, to allocate capital right now? Where do we put the money to have the biggest effect? Is it in philanthropy? Is it in politics? If it's in politics, where should we contribute? There's not one defining take right now, but it is definitely a topic of conversation. Leah, as you and our listeners both know, the debate over AI safety has been everywhere lately. It has escaped containment in a big way. And in that debate, there is one central philosophy that keeps coming up again and again, and it's starting to become kind of the center of attention, effective altruism. Last month, AI researcher Jacob Coxon loudly voiced support for one of effective altruism's central concerns, that advanced AI could destroy humanity. This kicked off a wave of headlines and a pretty intense response from the Trump administration. Senior Pentagon officials labeled effective altruism as a, quote, unquote, 'dangerous ideology' and an official Department of Defense social media account implored people to choose, quote, 'Americanism, not effective altruism.' So we're really seeing these dividing lines. But Leah, just to back up a little bit, when did you become aware, because you're not in Silicon Valley, you're in New York, when did you learn about effective altruism?

Leah Feiger: What's amazing is I can actually pinpoint it to, I would say, maybe 16 months ago, and it was from you. We were on a phone call, and you were like, 'Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. And this person is all in on effective altruism.' And I was like, 'I have no idea what that means. I have never heard of this before. I have never heard of this belief.' And you should really describe it to our listeners, but it really, really helped me understand that there was a split in Silicon Valley over AI. I wasn't aware of that before. I just though that people were like, 'Yep, we work for these companies. We're ready to go.' And you took me through the effective altruists in Anthropic and different side in OpenAI, and it was, I'm sure, like the kindergarten version, but it was really, really helpful. So please take it away.

Zoë Schiffer: So at a very basic level, effective altruism is a belief system built around the idea that people should use their time, money, and resources as efficiently as possible to improve or even save the lives of as many people and animals as they possibly can. At its core, it doesn't fundamentally have anything to do with AI specifically. It really is how can we make as much money as possible and then deploy it in such a way to help as many people as possible or save as many people as possible? This concept or these ideas of effective altruism were popularized by blogs like LessWrong, which is fringe, but in Silicon Valley, it did have a real prominence in the early 2000s. There was researchers at Oxford talking about it. The reason that AI has become a part of this is a lot of the AI researchers came up in this philosophy and they see AI as a true existential risk. And if you're concerned with the welfare of humanity, and then you start to engage a lot with a technology that you think maybe doesn't have a huge risk, but nonetheless a substantial risk of killing everyone, then that becomes the central concern. I think one thing though that I wanted to just lay out, far be it from me to come out swinging for effective altruists, but like any movement, it's a spectrum. You have people who are real fanatics. And when you hear their viewpoints and the trade-offs that they would make to save a maximum number of people, that kind of utilitarian belief system, it sounds totally nutty. But I talk to a ton of people who identify as effective altruists who are completely normal. I was going to say rational, but that feels really loaded in this context. But they're thinking about it really deeply. They don't sound like religious fanatics. They don't seem like people who are members of a cult. And it's not like all these people are getting together and talking. It's a movement, it's widespread. There are different groups.

Leah Feiger: And when you apply it to AI, there is something that I find there's an appealing aspect where you're saying, look, we're just saying that we should be concerned about where this technology is going to go and what it could do to people. That's the baseline, right? Is that a pretty decent summary?

Zoë Schiffer: 100 percent. And if you thought that you were working on a technology that might, 10% chance, kill everyone, the rational thing to do would be to quit and warn everyone about it. So in that sense, what Jacob Coxon did i