Not even $200 million could help Elon Musk buy Texas

James Talarico, the Democratic Texas senator-elect, not only managed to flip the state in yesterday’s midterms but prevailed in the most expensive Senate election to date. More than $573 million was spent on advertisements between Talarico, his Republican opponent Ken Paxton, and their aligned PACs. And a big chunk of that money came from just one man: Elon Musk.

Musk reportedly spent more than $445 million supporting Republicans in the midterms, making him not only by far the biggest donor in the 2026 election cycle but also in American history. And most of his money was spent in Texas, his home state and the headquarters of both Tesla and SpaceX. Musk funneled more than $168 million to super PACs that supported Paxton; Musk’s own America PAC, to which he funneled $216 million, also spent $34.7 million of those funds in Texas. All told, that’s more than $200 million spent on a single state.

But Musk’s millions couldn’t buy him an election. Talarico beat Paxton by more than 12 points, becoming Texas’ first Democratic senator since 1988. And the governor’s seat flipped, too: Democrat Gina Hinojosa ousted Republican incumbent Greg Abbott, another beneficiary of Musk’s largesse. The Democratic fantasy of a blue Texas finally became reality — and it happened despite the efforts of the world’s first trillionaire.

[Media: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2117862767831159287]

More than a blue wave, the midterms were a bloodbath for Republicans, who underperformed nationally even in the states they won. Democrats’ victories across the country often came down to money. But in Texas, it didn’t happen in the way Musk hoped. Talarico framed the race as a “top versus bottom” struggle between the ultrarich and everyone else. Musk’s donations to Abbott and Paxton may have emphasized America’s wealth inequality at a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet under an economic crisis caused by inflation, tariffs, and the ongoing war against Iran — all the results of policy choices made by the current administration.

It’s hard to imagine just how poorly Paxton would have performed without Musk’s money. Paxton’s campaign received just $22.3 million in direct donations, a paltry sum compared with the $146 million Talarico raised from voters. Paxton got a much-needed boost from Musk, who ensured that Texans were flooded with anti-Talarico ads. Those ads, however, didn’t focus on the issues that mattered most to voters. In Texas, anti-Talarico ads largely focused on culture war issues like transgender people, a fixation of Musk’s. (Musk is estranged from his oldest daughter, who is transgender, and he has described her as having been “killed” by the “woke mind virus.”) One Facebook ad that cost between $15,000 and $20,000 urged voters to “defeat Talarico and his radical trans agenda.” According to an analysis of America PAC’s spending by 19th News, the ad was one of dozens of anti-trans ads paid for by Musk.

But Musk’s money was also a liability for Paxton, which is perhaps why the now-near-trillionaire chose to operate from behind the scenes this time around. Musk endorsed Paxton on X — claiming the “fate of Texas and America is at stake” in the election — but against all Musk’s instincts for public spectacle, he didn’t take on a surrogate role in the midterms, in Texas or elsewhere. There was no Musk-led rally, no onstage jumping, no chainsaw in sight. Instead, Talarico repeatedly emphasized the relationship between Paxton and Musk, suggesting that to vote for one man was to benefit the other. “Elon Musk is trying to buy this Senate seat,” he said at a rally in El Paso in late October. “In all likelihood, if you’ve seen an attack ad on your TV screen, that was Elon. If you’ve gotten lies in your mailbox, that was Elon. If you’ve received a text message saying scary things about me with scary black-and-white photos, that was Elon too.”

Talarico’s comments may have drawn even more attention to Musk’s cozy relationship with Paxton, which appears to be mutually beneficial. Paxton, who’s served as Texas attorney general since 2015 — aside from a brief stint in 2023 when he was impeached — has launched several investigations into organizations that criticize or antagonize Musk, according to a recent Wired report. Paxton has repeatedly followed Musk’s lead. After Musk sued the progressive media site Media Matters, Paxton investigated the publication; when Musk filed an antitrust lawsuit against an advertising federation, a Paxton probe followed.

“Elon Musk wants our land,” Talarico said at his El Paso rally. “He wants our water. He wants our tax dollars. He wants his very own personal United States senator.”

Beyond trying to buy a senator, Musk also tried to chip in for a governor. Though most of the money Musk spent in Texas went to Paxton, he also threw a few million to Abbott, with whom he also has a close relationship — so much so that Hinojosa sued to view all 1,400 pages of correspondence between the two. And Musk wasn’t the only tech executive to support Abbott. The Republican, who promised to make Texas the “epicenter” of AI development, also received $300,000 from Anthropic cofounder Tom Brown, as well as funds from several data center developers.

[Media: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2117862462976594112?a=Lwn8yVoR4zrv7e8vAIM&s=20]

Musk seems to sense that the political winds have shifted. Usually a prolific poster, Musk deleted a “Vote red early!” post from Election Day and barely had anything to say on X that night aside from a quip about putting data centers in space. The other states he threw money at hardly fared better. Democrats won in Ohio, where Musk’s America PAC spent $10.4 million, and Michigan, where he spent $9.8 million. The Republican party’s only real victory was in Florida, and they barely managed to eke out a victory there.

The amount of money Musk spent on this election cycle is both staggering and unprecedented — and it’s also meaningless to him. Musk lost half a billion dollars in his failed bid to buy the midterms, an amount that adds up to less than half a percent of his net worth. It’s possible that his loss will signal that even the world’s richest man can’t bend the electorate to his will. But it’s just as likely that he’ll spend even more money next time.