-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Elon Musk unexpectedly interrupted a recent interview with former President Donald Trump, taking over the conversation with an extensive monologue about why he believes the judicial branch of government should not exist.
The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, known for his controversial opinions and unfiltered statements, made headlines once again with his latest remarks, which left both Trump and the audience surprised.
During the interview, which was meant to focus on Trump’s political agenda and potential 2024 strategies, Musk abruptly interjected, steering the discussion toward his views on the American legal system. According to those present, Musk launched into a passionate critique of the judiciary, arguing that it was an outdated institution that no longer served its intended purpose.
He claimed that courts and judges had become obstacles to progress, stifling innovation and creating unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks for both individuals and businesses.
Musk’s argument centered on the belief that modern technology and artificial intelligence could handle legal disputes more efficiently than human judges. “We are living in an era where AI can process information faster, analyze cases without bias, and deliver more accurate rulings than any judge ever could,” Musk stated.
“Why do we still rely on a slow, corrupt, and inefficient system that serves the interests of a legal elite rather than the people?”
His statements quickly sparked controversy, as critics pointed out that eliminating the judicial branch would violate the foundational principles of democracy and the U.S. Constitution. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting laws, ensuring justice, and maintaining checks and balances within the government.
However, Musk dismissed these concerns, arguing that traditional government structures were obsolete and needed to be radically transformed.
Trump, who had been nodding along at certain points, eventually attempted to regain control of the discussion. He acknowledged that the judicial system has its flaws but emphasized the importance of having courts to uphold the rule of law.
“Look, Elon, I get it. A lot of these judges, especially the liberal ones, are a disaster. But we need a legal system. You can’t just get rid of courts,” Trump responded, trying to redirect the conversation back to his own political priorities.
Despite Trump’s efforts to shift gears, Musk continued his rant, expanding his argument to suggest that laws themselves should be rewritten or even abolished in favor of a more “fluid, AI-driven” approach to governance.
“Laws are just human-made constructs that don’t adapt fast enough to the world we live in today,” he argued. “AI could create a better system, one that evolves in real-time and eliminates unnecessary regulations that slow down human progress.”
His remarks quickly went viral, with social media erupting in debates over the feasibility—and potential dangers—of such a radical overhaul. Some of Musk’s supporters praised his vision, arguing that the legal system is indeed outdated and in need of reform.
Others, however, expressed deep concerns over the implications of removing judicial oversight, warning that it could lead to chaos and unchecked power.
Legal experts were quick to weigh in, condemning Musk’s statements as both unrealistic and dangerous. “The idea that AI can replace the judiciary is not only impractical but fundamentally misunderstands the role of the courts in a democratic society,” said one constitutional scholar.
“While AI may assist in legal research or case management, it cannot replace human judgment, ethical considerations, or the ability to interpret laws in a nuanced way.”
Musk’s comments also raised questions about his increasing influence in political discourse. While he has long been known for his dominance in the tech industry, his forays into politics and governance have been met with mixed reactions.
Some view him as a visionary thinker pushing the boundaries of what is possible, while others see his ideas as reckless and disconnected from reality.
Following the interview, Musk took to social media to defend his statements, doubling down on his belief that traditional government institutions need to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.
“People laughed when I said electric cars would change the world. People laughed when I said we could go to Mars. I don’t care if they laugh at this too. Change is coming,” he wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
Trump’s team, meanwhile, sought to distance themselves from Musk’s more extreme views while maintaining a friendly relationship with the billionaire.
A campaign spokesperson clarified that while Trump appreciates Musk’s support and innovation, he does not share the belief that the judicial branch should be eliminated.
“President Trump recognizes the need for legal reform, but he stands firmly in support of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in protecting American freedoms,” the statement read.
As debates continue to swirl over Musk’s radical vision, one thing remains clear: his influence on political and social discourse is only growing.
Whether his ideas gain traction or are dismissed as another one of his eccentric rants, Musk has once again managed to capture the public’s attention in a way that few others can.
