In a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Experience #2281 - Elon Musk, Elon Musk presented a series of controversial theses regarding an alleged Democratic Party plan aimed at changing the electoral demographics of the United States by supporting illegal immigration. According to Musk, the goal of this plan is to ensure a permanent electoral majority for Democrats and establish what he described as a permanent one-party socialist state.

The following analysis of Musk’s statements reveals both elements based on facts and claims that are imprecise, exaggerated, or contain characteristics typical of conspiracy theories. I will gladly analyze these statements by separating facts from speculation.

Analysis of facts and inaccuracies in Musk’s statements

1. False claims about voting rights for illegal immigrants

At Rogan’s, Musk states:

“In New York, illegal immigrants can already vote in state and municipal elections (…) Currently, there are about 600,000 illegal immigrants registered to vote in New York.”

Facts: This claim can be quickly verified as false. Illegal immigrants cannot vote in New York state elections or in any other US state. The New York City Council attempted to introduce a law allowing non-citizens legally residing in the US (not illegal immigrants) to vote in local elections, but it was challenged and overturned by a state court in 2022. Illegal immigrants cannot vote in any federal or state elections in the US, and the cited number of 600,000 registered illegal immigrants is not supported by official data.

2. Funding accommodation for migrants – facts and exaggeration

Musk claims:

“FEMA, the agency that is supposed to support Americans during natural disasters, was paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants in New York.”

Facts: Musk is partially right that federal funds, including from FEMA, were allocated for migrant accommodation. In 2023, New York received about $150 million from FEMA to manage the influx of migrants. Some hotels, like the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan, were converted into temporary shelters.

However, describing these places as “luxury hotels” is an exaggeration designed to evoke an emotional reaction. In reality, the money was spent on basic needs such as temporary shelter, food, and emergency services. Many of these hotels were mid-range facilities, used due to the lack of sufficient shelter infrastructure in the face of a sudden influx of migrants. This is an old method of Goebbels propaganda 40/60, i.e., 40% truth and 60% manipulation. Here, the true element lends credibility to the entire statement, while emotionally charged terms direct the recipient’s interpretation in the intended direction.

The controversies indeed arose from the use of FEMA funds in the context of simultaneous needs of natural disaster victims, e.g., in North Carolina or Maui, which Musk also emphasizes in his statement.

Factual elements in Musk’s statements

While Musk’s narrative contains numerous inaccuracies and elements characteristic of conspiracy theories, some of the issues he raises have a basis in facts. It’s very important for you to see how this eristic technique works.

1. Demographic changes and their impact on politics

Musk notes that swing states are often decided by a small number of votes:

“In seven swing states, the winning margin is often maybe 20,000 votes.”

This is an observation that aligns with reality. In the 2020 elections, the differences between candidates in several key states amounted to tens of thousands of votes. Theoretically, significant demographic changes could affect election results in these states.

The political history of California, which Musk mentions, also shows how demographic changes over decades could have contributed to changing the political balance in that state. It’s worth remembering that Musk himself is an immigrant.

2. Differences in immigration policy between parties

Democrats historically have indeed supported more liberal immigration policies than Republicans, which is a fact that Musk uses as the foundation for his narrative.

3. Diverse political preferences of immigrants

Demographic studies show, however, that immigrants do not constitute a uniform voting bloc, which undermines Musk’s thesis about “buying voters.” According to Pew Research Center data from 2020, about 61% of naturalized Latinos voted for Joe Biden, while Donald Trump received 36% of the votes. However, among Cubans in Florida, the situation was reversed - Trump won 56% of this group’s votes, and Biden 44%. This diversity undermines the narrative about the existence of a homogeneous immigrant voting bloc.

4. Complexity of the legalization and naturalization process

Musk suggests that Democrats could quickly “legalize” illegal immigrants so they become voters. In reality, this process is lengthy and complex. Illegal immigrants cannot vote in federal, state, or local elections. To obtain the right to vote, they would first have to receive permanent resident status (green card) and then go through the naturalization process, which together takes an average of 18-24 months, not counting the time needed to meet basic conditions (e.g., 5 years of residence as a permanent resident).

5. Historical precedents do not confirm the conspiracy theory

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, signed by President Reagan, legalized about 2.7 million immigrants, mainly from Latin America. However, this amnesty did not lead to a permanent Democratic dominance, as Musk’s theory would suggest. Amnestied immigrants had to go through the naturalization process to become voters, which took years, and their political preferences were diverse and not necessarily uniform.

Elements of manipulation and building a conspiracy theory

Musk’s statements contain numerous elements characteristic of manipulation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda:

1. Emotional and polarizing language

Musk uses terms such as “Democratic propaganda machine,” “giant magnetic force,” “destroying democracy in America” – all these formulations aim to evoke a strong emotional reaction rather than substantive discussion.

“That was the plan. That’s still the plan. (…) That would be the end. That’s why I supported Trump so hardcore. Otherwise, it would be the end.”

This type of apocalyptic rhetoric is typical of conspiracy theories, presenting the world in terms of an existential threat that can only be averted by radical action.

2. Attributing hidden, malicious motives

The theory presented by Musk attributes to Democrats a hidden plan aimed not at implementing a specific immigration policy, but at seeking permanent power:

“What’s really happening is buying voters. (…) It’s an attempt to destroy democracy in America.”

Attributing malicious, hidden intentions to an entire political group without specific evidence is a characteristic element of conspiracy theories.

3. Simplifications of complex issues

Musk presents complex issues of immigration, social policy, and demographics as a simple, bipolar scenario:

“If they had another four years, they would legalize enough illegal immigrants in swing states for these states to no longer be swing states. (…) Then they would make DC a state, maybe Puerto Rico, they would get four additional senators, they would pack the Supreme Court.”

Such presentation of multidimensional political processes as a simple, predetermined plan omits the complexity of the American political system, including the variability of electoral preferences, legislative resistance, and the independence of courts.

4. The “do your own research” technique and entering the rabbit hole

Musk concludes his arguments with an encouragement:

“I encourage people to do their own research. The more research they do, the more they’ll see that what I’m saying is the absolute truth.”

This tactic of conducting one’s own research is commonly used when promoting conspiracy theories. It’s a gradual descent into the rabbit hole, amplified by algorithms. Elon Musk, instead of presenting specific, verifiable evidence, encourages unspecified “research,” suggesting that the truth is hidden and can only be discovered through independent searching, often in alternative sources of information. This is, of course, also a strategy of constantly undermining authorities and deprecating the mainstream in order to pull the model recipient down the rabbit hole. (see sources and excellent analyses of radicalization, especially The Global Network on Extremism and Technology GNET)

Podcasts as a medium for spreading conspiracy theories

This is nothing groundbreaking, as for some time now disinformation researchers and media scholars have been pointing out that podcasts have become one of the key media for spreading conspiracy theories. Dr. Stawiszyński has repeatedly drawn attention to this in his podcasts “Godzina Filozofa” (Philosopher’s Hour) on TOKFM, talking about the rabbit hole of common sense, which fuels conspiracy theories.

Podcasts and the audio format, resembling ordinary conversation, create an illusion of authenticity that increases the credibility of the presented content. This medium offers voice intimacy (how many of us fall asleep listening to hypnotic podcasts?) and a conversational format that builds a stronger bond with the recipient than written text. When a listener regularly engages with the same voices, a sense of trust is created, reinforced by the confirmation effect, which can lead to a less critical reception of content.

The format of long, free-flowing conversations, characteristic of Joe Rogan’s podcast, creates ideal conditions for presenting false information in a convincing way. The lack of immediate fact-checking, combined with a pleasant atmosphere and seemingly deep analysis, leads to accepting the presented theories without appropriate skepticism.

Particularly problematic in the case of Musk’s conversation with Rogan is the lack of counterarguments. Rogan does not question Musk’s claims, but rather seems to confirm them with brief remarks like “That’s true” or “And that was the plan”. This mechanism makes all claims seem equally credible to the listener.

According to researchers, such a conversation format favors the normalization of extreme views and radicalization. When controversial theories are presented between jokes and anecdotes, and the host does not question them, their radical nature is masked, and the recipient receives a signal that the presented content is acceptable and factual. Maybe that’s why radicals avoid conversations, reducing everything to absurdity and black and white choices, where there are no shades of gray, and being outside the mainstream becomes attractive by smuggling and sipping radical content.

Sources

Godzina Filozofów: Korelacja: Trump i spiskowcy

2020 United States presidential election in Florida - Wikipedia

Article: At Its 25th Anniversary, IRCA’s Legacy Li.. | migrationpolicy.org

Become a U.S. citizen through naturalization | USAGov

How Long Does It Take USCIS To Process Form N-400 for Citizenship Applications?

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) (1986) - Immigration History

Joe Rogan Experience #2281 - Elon Musk

The nation’s most populous states are home to most immigrant voters | Pew Research Center

I also recommend these podcasts

Podcast: Whitney Phillips and Ryan Milner on our polluted information environment

Dr. Jason Hannan, Associate Professor in the University of Winnipeg’s Department of Rhetoric, Episode 11: How are we trolling ourselves to death?

and the entire BBC series The Coming Storm

Podcasts and conspiracy theories:

The challenge of detecting misinformation in podcasting

Tracing the Anti-Establishment Shift Among Podcasts and the Role of Platforms - highly recommended!

How online misinformation is ‘supercharging’ conspiracy theories

The Global Network on Extremism and Technology (GNET) is the academic research arm of the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism – A Digital Megaphone: The Far Right’s Use of Podcasts for Radicalisation

What Musk and Rogan Got Very Wrong About Climate Change and Meat

Elon Musk, Joe Rogan spread misinformation on agriculture

Counterarguments Are Critical to Debunking Misinformation - and this is why authorities are undermined and debate and critical arguments are not allowed.

• Disinformation
• Conspiracy Theories
• Elon Musk
• Joe Rogan
• MAGA