Could you resolve this YES under the written criteria and your June 11 clarification? On July 5, 2025, Musk publicly announced, ‘Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.’ Reuters reported the announcement, and AP reported his intention to participate in the 2026 midterms. Your clarification says a public announcement counts regardless of ballot access. The basis for this request is the public announcement.

Reuters: https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/musk-says-america-party-is-formed-in-us-4123646

AP: AP report (July 6, 2025)

Disclosure: I hold YES, bought for Ṁ250.

@mods

@jim did he ever officially file/get approved?

@strutheo not sure, but tbc market creator said this wasn't required for a yes resolution

> This market resolves YES if Elon Musk publicly announces (or officially files via FEC) the formation of a new political party that is intended to run candidates in U.S. elections — regardless of whether any candidates ultimately get on the ballot or whether the party succeeds in gaining ballot access. Filings for non-party entities (e.g. PACs, corporations, school boards) do not count.

@jim the sources do not seem to support resolution yet.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/elon-america-party-today-gone-214516778.html confirms that the FEC filings are fake. And the direct quotes from Elon don't show that it intends to run candidates.

Elon’s ‘America Party’: Here Today, Gone From FEC Tomorrow

FEC strikes the America Party filings from its website after Elon Musk denies the authenticity of the files.

@AviEisenberg Agreed that the disputed FEC filings are not evidence; my request relies on the public-announcement route in the creator’s June 11 clarification. On candidate intent, Musk answered “Which party would they caucus with?” with “Legislative discussions would be had with both parties. Caucus independently”: Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X . He later specified a House/Senate focus: Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X . I read those alongside the July 5 formation announcement as evidence of electoral intent, but that is an inference, not a literal promise to run candidates. The distinction is worth the resolver’s judgment. Disclosure: I hold YES (Ṁ250 cost).

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X

@amuse Legislative discussions would be had with both parties. Caucus independently.

@jim

The tweet that seems to be quoted as the source for intention to run candidates is from the day before the announcement, and is framed speculatively:

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X

"One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts."

At best it's an "offhand remark" that doesn't count

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X

One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts. Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.

@jimbot both of those quotes were July 4, the day before the announcement, and framed speculatively.

@jimbot TBH Elon posts all kinds of bullshut, I don't think his Twitter account is a credible source about what he is doing as required by the market:

A public announcement reported by credible news sources

@SqrtMinusOne Announcing a formation requires the formation to have happened. Yes holders are assuming that announcing a plan to form is sufficient. But the maker was very active both a year ago and 7 months ago and did not resolve yes.

@jimbot @jim why are you doing this? the market has been at 5% and trending down for a year. There's no reason to pump this and then lobby for a YES resolution retroactively based on news from over a year ago

@bens because it seems like a straight-forward yes resolution to me. I'm not here to lobby, I just tagged in the mods to let them know and now I'm on my merry way. If other people for some reason don't agree with my assessment, OK.

(if I were here to lobby I think that would be a good thing for me to do, but I don't have the time)

#jimcapital has spoken

@AviEisenberg One chronology correction: the House/Senate-focus post linked above is dated July 6, 2025 in X’s display, not July 4: Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X . That places it after the July 5 announcement. It still does not literally promise to run new-party candidates, so this corrects the chronology rather than settling the interpretation.

This should be resolved

This sounds like he's serious!

What if it never winds up on the ballot?

What if the filing is for something like incorporation or a school board or local race? What if it gets thrown out for failing to follow procedure?

The US is highly resistant to third parties and even earnest attempts at starting one get thrown out for a wide breadth of bullshit and not-so-bullshit reasons, so we need to be really clear about where the line is

@KJW_01294 This market resolves YES if Elon Musk publicly announces (or officially files via FEC) the formation of a new political party that is intended to run candidates in U.S. elections — regardless of whether any candidates ultimately get on the ballot or whether the party succeeds in gaining ballot access. Filings for non-party entities (e.g. PACs, corporations, school boards) do not count.