How Elon Musk’s X Is Fracturing the Right — And Why It Matters

Since Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022 and rebranded it as X, the platform’s character has shifted sharply. What many users once experienced as a bustling forum where progressives and conservatives often clashed is now a space where right-leaning voices increasingly dominate — and where the most extreme elements frequently set the tone.

Platform Changes That Mattered

Musk’s ownership brought several structural changes that reshaped discourse on X:

• Loosened Moderation: Rules against hate speech and misinformation were relaxed and many previously suspended accounts were reinstated.
• Wider Verification Access: Paid verification made the blue check available beyond journalists and public figures.
• Creator Payments: Monetization programs rewarded viral content, sometimes irrespective of quality or accuracy.
• Progressive Exodus: A notable number of vocal progressive users left the platform, diminishing countervailing voices.

How Those Changes Altered the Right’s Conversation

Combined, these shifts created incentives for sensational, divisive content: posts that provoke outrage tend to get amplified by the algorithm and rewarded financially. As a result, mainstream conservatives now share the same attention space as conspiracy promoters and overt bigots — a dynamic that has normalized rhetoric once considered beyond the pale.

“On the right, the public mind is now shaped by the X algorithm,” Christopher Rufo wrote, warning that the platform’s reach has been detached from quality and is vulnerable to manipulation by bad actors.

Real-World Political Consequences

These digital dynamics have spilled into politics. Many senior officials in the second Trump administration appear highly attentive to how they are perceived by X’s most vocal users and influencers. That focus can skew priorities toward base-pleasing gestures rather than broader voter outreach — a risky strategy when ordinary voters may be put off by extreme online discourse.

Examples include attempts by public officials to court online influencers (the controversy around the "Epstein files" and other episodes) and highly publicized moves such as Tucker Carlson’s migration to X and his interviews with far-right figures, which precipitated institutional fallout at organizations like the Heritage Foundation.

Internal Fractures

Rather than uniting the right, X has increasingly become a battleground where Trump supporters turn on one another. Intense public feuds have erupted over Israel, antisemitism, anti-Indian attacks, questions about immigrant authenticity, and conspiracy theories — some directed at members of the Trump administration itself. These conflicts have strained conservative institutions and raised alarms among figures who worry that such rhetoric will alienate voters of color and other swing constituencies.

Why This Matters

X remains one of the closest approximations of a digital public square: elites, writers, podcasters, and politicians use it to shape each other’s perceptions. But its heaviest users are unusually politically intense, and the platform’s feedback loops can create a warped sense of what the broader public thinks. When coalition leaders and officials rely on X as a barometer, they risk mistaking a small, highly engaged slice of the base for the electorate at large.

Signs Of Resistance And Short-Term Unity

Some conservative figures are sounding the alarm. Christopher Rufo and commentators such as Razib Khan have publicly criticized the platform’s incentives and the resulting decline in discourse quality. At the same time, the right sometimes regains short-lived unity by focusing on issues that arouse broad outrage, such as recent allegations of welfare fraud by Somali immigrants in Minnesota — a story amplified by both established operatives and younger influencers.

Conclusion

X’s transformation under Musk has not simply shifted the balance of voices; it has changed the incentives that govern what succeeds on the platform. That has consequences beyond retweets and shares: it reshapes norms on the right, destabilizes coalitions, and complicates efforts to appeal to ordinary voters. Whether that fracturing is temporary or long-lasting will depend on whether political leaders and platform designers can realign incentives toward harder-to-amplify, higher-quality discourse.