As a special government employee charged with reducing federal spending, Elon Musk is starting to encounter resistance in his effort to slash the federal bureaucracy. Some of that has come from within Donald Trump’s cabinet itself.
But the pushback is also coming from the U.S. public. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans hold unfavorable views toward Musk and doubt his qualifications to advise the White House on government reforms. For instance, a CNN/SSRS poll earlier this month put Musk’s unfavorability rating at 53%, in line with a mid-March Fox News poll.
For Musk, one concern might be whether the hit to his reputation will in turn damage his other business interests. But the stakes are actually higher for the entire class of American billionaire elites. That’s because a wide body of research suggests that public backlash against the rich can lead to increased support for redistributive policies like higher taxes on the wealthy.
Americans aren’t fans of bureaucrats – or billionaires
Republican support for Musk’s cost-cutting crusade appears to be banking on Americans’ generally low opinion of the federal government. The White House assumes voters will perceive his slash-and-burn tactics as a necessary corrective to bureaucratic excess.
But who is best placed to make decisions on spending? A 2017 study by political scientists John Hibbing, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, Matthew Hibbing, and David Fortunato suggests that when surveys ask Americans who should make important political decisions, respondents distrust both ordinary people and politicians who they view as out of touch. Accordingly, voters are actually ready to delegate political power to (some) elites – as long as they think these leaders understand the real-world problems ordinary citizens face.
Indeed, the study by Hibbing and colleagues included a survey in which they asked Americans whose influence on government they wanted to increase and decrease. Not surprisingly, a majority of respondents (55%) said they wanted the influence of “bureaucrats” to decrease.
But here’s the problem for Musk.The only group Americans were more skeptical of was “billionaires.” In this survey, 58% of respondents said billionaires should have less influence on government decisions.
This finding is consistent with more recent evidence that Americans don’t have a particularly favorable view of wealthy tech elites. In an AP-NORC survey from January 2025, for instance, 59% of respondents said that it would be “very” or “somewhat” bad if the president relied on billionaires for advice.
Should wealthy Americans expect a backlash?
CEOs like Musk – if Americans see them as overreaching or making the government worse – may be setting the stage for backlash. One way this might play out is in the form of increased public support for higher taxes on the wealthy.
This type of reaction would align with research by political scientists Meghan Condon and Amber Wichowsky. Their work demonstrates that when less-advantaged Americans compare themselves to the wealthy, they become more aware of their own disadvantaged position and are more likely to advocate for redistributive policies. Applying this framework, the heightened public visibility of Musk’s wealth, influence, and unaccountability could prompt more upward social comparisons among the general public.
In turn, the increased salience of economic disparities might lead to greater public scrutiny of the affluent, and potentially bolster support for policies aimed at reducing wealth inequality.
Of course, people often lack a full understanding of the extent of economic disparities. A recent meta analysis (a review combining results from multiple studies) by economist Emanuele Ciani and co-authors, for instance, confirms that concerns about income inequality increase when participants in survey experiments learn more details about the skewed nature of income distribution in their country.
An interesting complication is that learning about inequality does not necessarily cause an increase in demand for income redistribution. Perhaps people believe that the economic status quo is mostly fair (see Charlotte Cavaille’s book for data on this possibility). But it is precisely those perceptions of fairness that can change. In a study by economist Rafael Di Tella and co-authors, respondents were reminded about the involvement of well-known business leaders in economic crimes. As a result, their trust in business elites declined, and this fueled a greater public appetite for higher taxation of the rich.
What can these studies tell us about ordinary Americans, and Musk?
Beyond these dynamics, the current DOGE campaign may also increase support for the federal government simply by virtue of the thermostatic mechanism. This tendency for public opinion to shift in the opposite direction of current policy positions has been well documented. Here at Good Authority, Alexander Kustov recently summarized how thermostatic politics work, for example.
Elon Musk’s aggressive push to slash the federal bureaucracy may advance some of the Trump administration’s ideological goals, particularly reducing public trust in government institutions. However, Musk’s prominence in the administration, along with his controversial approach, may also raise broader questions among Americans about the growing policy influence of one billionaire. Public scrutiny could also boost awareness of economic inequalities in America, potentially fueling greater support for policies like higher taxation, which ultimately would disadvantage elites like Musk himself.
As public opinion scholars Ryan Enos and Sam Fuller report, Musk faces widespread distrust not only from average Americans but even from people who see themselves near the top of the social hierarchy. This underscores the questionable wisdom of relying on billionaires as policy advisers, and the likelihood of voter backlash against the ultra-wealthy.
Jan Zilinsky is a 2025-2026 Good Authority fellow.
