TOI correspondent from Washington: Trillionaire Elon Musk is asserting that he cannot be racist because his partner is half Indian and that one of their sons is named after Indian-American Nobel laureate Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The curious defense comes even as critics argue that his repeated public statements on race and immigration continue to amplify toxic far-right narratives and misinformation. “My partner is half Indian, and I have four children with her. One of them was named after a famous Indian physicist. So I would say I’m not racist,” Musk said in an interview to the Economist, referring to his partner Shivon Zillis, a Canadian-Indian tech executive whose mother was born in India. The son he referred to, Strider Sekhar Sirius, takes his middle name after astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Musk also argued that his companies employ senior executives “of all races,” and this demonstrated there was no racism in his organizations.However, commentators note that having relatives or colleagues from diverse backgrounds does not by itself answer questions about a person’s public rhetoric or political messaging. Much of the interview focused not on Musk’s family but on years of posts in which he has promoted sketchy claims about immigration, demographic change and “threats to Western civilization.”Pressed about accusations that he promotes far-right politics, Musk insisted his priorities were merely “secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending,” asking which of those positions were “far-right or fringe.” Yet the interviewer pointed out that many mainstream politicians across the political spectrum have advocated border security and fiscal restraint without portraying immigrants as an existential threat or entire religious communities as civilizational dangers. Asked whether he was anti-Muslim, Musk replied that he opposed people entering countries with beliefs “antithetical” to Western values, adding that he was “against rape and murder” and against the imposition of laws contrary to Western norms. The interviewer, Economist Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, challenged his repeated descriptions of Britain and Europe as being overwhelmed by violent immigrant crime — a theme promoted by MAGA boss Donald Trump — noting that London remains considerably safer than many major American cities by conventional crime measures. Remarkably for someone regarded as smart and data-driven, Musk has repeatedly used his social media platform X to warn that white people are becoming a “rapidly dying minority” and has endorsed posts claiming that “white solidarity is the only way to survive.” Demographers say such formulations conflate declining proportions within increasingly diverse populations with population decline itself. In both the U.S and Europe, white populations continue to number in the hundreds of millions while holding levers of power, even as immigration, intermarriage, and changing birth patterns make societies more ethnically diverse. Diversity resulting from migration and population movement has been a recurring feature of human history rather than evidence of demographic “replacement.”Musk has also repeatedly amplified claims of an “immigrant invasion” of Europe and the U .S and has echoed unsupported assertions about a “genocide” of white farmers in South Africa. Independent investigations and court findings in South Africa saw no evidence of a state-directed genocide against white citizens, while researchers say farm attacks are part of the country’s broader crime problem affecting multiple racial groups.Similarly, Musk’s frequent linking of immigration with soaring violent crime runs counter to a substantial body of academic research in America. Multiple studies by criminologists and economists have consistently found that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are incarcerated and convicted of crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans, even though isolated crimes involving migrants often receive disproportionate attention from right-wing nativists.The interview also featured several other contested assertions. Musk claimed, without presenting evidence, that “zero people” had died because of cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development USAID) made during his brief leadership of the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), despite humanitarian organizations warning that reductions in aid had consequences in vulnerable regions. At another point, when told that many people disliked him, Musk responded that he did not care because roughly a quarter-billion people followed him on X, adding that people disliked “the media” even more. The spurious argument drew criticism because following a prominent public figure on social media does not necessarily indicate approval; many users follow political leaders, celebrities and media organizations to monitor their statements rather than endorse them.Musk acknowledged during the interview that he had “got a little too involved in politics” during his association with President Donald Trump’s administration. But while expressing some regret about the time politics consumed, he showed little sign of retreating from the polarizing themes on immigration, identity, and demographic change that have increasingly defined his public interventions alongside his business ventures.
