On a brisk late-September weekend, the world of politics and business collided in a storm of controversy, as two of its most recognizable figures—Ed Miliband, the UK’s Energy Secretary, and Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX—found themselves at the center of heated debates on both sides of the Atlantic. The sparks began to fly on September 28, 2025, when Musk, never one to shy away from provocation, posted on X (formerly Twitter) that former President Bill Clinton’s policies were “essentially MAGA,” drawing a direct, and for many, jarring, line between the centrist Democratic governance of the 1990s and the populist-nationalist movement of Donald Trump’s era.
According to the International Business Times, Musk’s post quickly went viral, amassing over 210,000 likes and 10,000 replies within hours. The response was a whirlwind of support, skepticism, and outright dismissal, as political leaders, analysts, and journalists weighed in. For some, Musk’s comparison was a provocative reframing of American political history; for others, it was a misleading oversimplification that risked distorting the record of a pivotal presidency.
But the controversy didn’t end there. On September 29, 2025, UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband entered the fray, and with characteristic directness, labeled Musk a “dangerous person” for what he described as Musk’s “incendiary rhetoric and alleged calls for government rebellion.” As reported by Political Controversy, Miliband’s remarks were as much about Musk’s skepticism toward renewable energy as they were about his political interventions. In Miliband’s view, Musk’s influence—amplified by his vast social media following and business empire—posed a real threat to the UK’s green energy commitments and the broader climate action agenda.
“Elon Musk is a dangerous person,” Miliband declared, doubling down on the UK government’s dedication to green energy in the face of Musk’s public doubts. The Energy Secretary’s comments highlighted the growing tension between governments seeking to accelerate climate action and influential business leaders who, intentionally or not, can undermine those efforts with a single viral message.
So, what set off this latest political firestorm? Musk’s original post on X read: “Funny to think that Bill Clinton’s policies when he was President were essentially MAGA.” Observers, as noted by the International Business Times, pointed out that Musk was likely referencing Clinton’s “Reinventing Government” initiative—a sweeping reform program launched with Vice President Al Gore. That initiative reduced the federal workforce by about 20 percent, translating to roughly 351,000 jobs cut, and slashed regulations in a bid to make government leaner and more efficient.
In a follow-up exchange with users, Musk added, “If Clinton and Gore tried those policies today, they’d be branded far-right Republicans.” The remark was a pointed jab at how far, in Musk’s view, the Democratic Party has shifted left since the 1990s. The comparison drew immediate reactions from across the political spectrum. On the supportive side, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy reposted Musk’s message, commenting: “Elon’s right—Clinton’s welfare reform and balanced budgets were MAGA in blue clothing. We’ve come full circle; time to finish the job without the scandals.” Ramaswamy’s endorsement reflected a shared admiration for government cuts and fiscal discipline, while not-so-subtly referencing Clinton’s well-known personal controversies.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky also chimed in, using the moment to advocate for fiscal conservatism. “Musk nails it. Clinton/Gore slashed bureaucracy by 20% and ran surpluses—today’s Dems call that far-right extremism,” Paul wrote in a lengthy thread. “MAGA isn’t new; it’s reclaiming sanity from both parties.” Paul’s comments linked Clinton’s record to his own opposition to what he sees as excessive government spending by the current administration.
But not everyone was buying Musk’s historical remix. Independent journalist Michael Tracey voiced skepticism, suggesting that “Somehow doubt ‘Bill Clinton was essentially MAGA’ would be legible to most MAGA voters.” He argued that Musk’s comment was simply the latest move in the billionaire’s ongoing transition “from tech bro to policy wonk.” Glenn Greenwald, a political commentator and co-founder of The Intercept, offered a more nuanced take, saying: “Musk’s take on Clinton as proto-MAGA exposes how the Overton window has shifted left. Remember when balanced budgets were bipartisan? Now it’s fascist to even suggest it.” While Greenwald acknowledged Musk’s point, he also warned that framing Clinton in this way could deepen ideological splits within the MAGA movement itself.
Back in the UK, Miliband’s denunciation of Musk was about more than just a viral tweet. According to Political Controversy, Miliband reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to green energy, pushing back against Musk’s skepticism and what he saw as the billionaire’s willingness to stoke division for personal or political gain. The Energy Secretary’s comments underscored the high stakes of the climate debate—where even the words of a single influential figure can have ripple effects on policy, public opinion, and international cooperation.
The episode also shone a light on the evolving role of social media in political discourse. As the International Business Times observed, Musk’s ability to ignite a nationwide (and now international) conversation with a single post demonstrates how the boundaries between business, politics, and social media have all but disappeared. Musk, one of the world’s most prominent business leaders, has repeatedly used his vast platform to weigh in on contentious issues, often blurring the line between personal opinion and political intervention.
For many, the debate over Clinton’s legacy and the meaning of “MAGA” is more than just a historical curiosity. It raises uncomfortable questions about how America—and the world—evaluates its political past, and how easily that past can be reframed to serve contemporary arguments. Clinton’s welfare reform bill of 1996, for example, was hailed at the time as a pragmatic move to encourage self-reliance and reduce long-term government dependency. Today, those same themes are echoed by MAGA supporters, while critics argue that the policies hollowed out the social safety net.
Clinton’s promotion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has also come under renewed scrutiny. Critics say the trade deal shipped American jobs overseas, a concern that became central to Trump’s protectionist message. And the budget surpluses of the Clinton years—once celebrated as a triumph of fiscal responsibility—are now, in some circles, seen as evidence of a centrist consensus that no longer exists in Washington.
As the dust settles from this latest clash, one thing is clear: the intersection of politics, business, and social media is only growing more volatile. Whether it’s Ed Miliband warning of the dangers posed by powerful voices like Musk’s, or Musk himself reshaping the political conversation with a single viral post, the debates of 2025 are being fought on new and unpredictable terrain. And in a world where a tweet can spark a transatlantic controversy, there’s no telling what—or who—will set off the next political firestorm.
