In July 2025, tech billionaire Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, stunned the political world by announcing, via his own social media platform X, his intention to launch a new political party: America Party. The announcement followed Musk’s brief and chaotic tenure as an unpaid “special government employee” leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),[1] a short-lived role that ended in a very public fallout with President Donald Trump. Backed by vast personal wealth and now untethered to the Washington establishment, Musk is positioning himself not just as a tech titan, but as a political disruptor aiming to reshape America’s traditional two-party system.

On America’s Independence Day, 4th July 2025, Elon Musk sparked political buzz on X by polling his followers on whether the U.S. needs a new political party, with 65.4% responding yes.[2] While there is no way to determine whether such responses came from eligible U.S. voters, there does appear to be a growing appetite for third-party options, just not necessarily ones hand-crafted by Musk. According to a recent CNN poll, 63% of adults said they would favor a third political party that would support candidates for president and Congress (both Senate and House) against Republican and Democratic candidates. However, the same poll found that 75% of adults opposed the idea of a third party founded by Elon Musk.[3]

Musk’s declaration of his intention to launch the America Party came on the heels of the passage of President Trump’s key domestic legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which calls for extending tax cuts first implemented during his first term, tax cuts on gratuity and overtime pay, as well as funding for Trump’s immigration policies—a cornerstone of his election promise. Just prior to its passage, Musk, who opposed the legislation, took to X to criticize the Senate’s version of the bill, calling it “utterly insane and destructive.” He warned that it would “destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” arguing that it “gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”[4]

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is projected to increase the U.S. deficit by approximately $2.5 trillion over the next decade,[5] a move Musk warned would “bankrupt” the country.[6]  In response to Musk’s announcement, President Trump stated that Musk’s proposed third party would only confuse voters, claiming Musk is unhappy that electric vehicle mandates will be terminated as a result of the new legislation.[7] Further venting his frustration with his former ally, Trump threatened to “look into” deporting Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen.[8]

What’s important to consider in the wake of this volatile, and very public, fallout is the scale of Elon Musk’s prior political influence. As President Trump’s largest campaign donor, Musk also poured money into the broader Republican Party during the 2024 election, spending over $288 million of his own fortune to support Trump and other GOP candidates, including serving as the sole funder of a pro-Trump super PAC with a $20 million contribution.[9] Now, that same financial firepower has the potential to shift to independent candidates, individuals who typically struggle to meet the minimum fundraising thresholds required to appear on national debate stages. Musk’s motive may not necessarily be to build a viable third party from the ground up, but rather to strategically upend the status quo, pulling votes away from both Democrats and Republicans.

The Disruptor

Buoyed by strong support from online followers for the creation of the America Party, Musk tweeted that focusing ‘on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts’ would be his initial goal, ‘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.’[10] While Musk has yet to officially file the necessary paperwork to implement his new party, his intention may be to serve as a disruptor rather than an implementor of bold new ideas. Musk’s ambition appears to be geared at targeting a handful of seats in Congress, supporting candidates in the 2026 midterm election who, if nominated, could serve as deciding swing votes on future key legislation. The goal is rather to pull or block votes from legislation Musk does not support, both from Republican- and Democratic-led legislation.

And the Challenge…

Despite voter frustration with the current political climate, Musk has an inherent branding issue that may not serve his future political agenda. Once widely admired in his pre-political life as a bold and eccentric visionary, Musk’s favorability has sharply declined following his short-lived tenure in Washington.

During his brief leadership with DOGE, a newly created agency charged with slashing federal spending, Musk pledged the agency would generate $1 trillion in savings over time. [11] His time at DOGE was marked by sweeping budget cuts, the cancellation of government grants and contracts, and mass layoffs across federal agencies. In one of the most aggressive downsizing efforts, millions of government employees were offered voluntary buyout packages in January 2025. Of those, 154,000 accepted early resignation in exchange for several months of paid leave. This figure does not include the thousands who were laid off or terminated outright.[12]

Among the most consequential changes was the dismantling of longstanding institutions like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which, since the 1960s, has played a critical role in global development, humanitarian relief, and advancing U.S. diplomatic interests abroad.

Public backlash has been swift. A Quinnipiac Poll found that 60% of respondents disapprove of Musk’s handling of the federal workforce, while 54% believe that both Musk and DOGE are doing more harm than good to the country.[13]

Elon Musk’s Favorability Timeline Since Entering the Political Scene in Washington:

Source: Silver Bulletin

Musk’s declining personal approval ratings weren’t the only setback. Tesla shares also dropped, driven by a 13% plunge in Q1 2025 sales, the company’s largest decline to date,[14] and an 8.4% fall in July compared to the same month in 2024.[15] This marks a sharp departure from Tesla’s historic growth trajectory, which has typically seen quarterly increases ranging from 20% to 100% in past years.[16] Furthermore, Tesla showrooms across the U.S. became ground zero for grassroots, non-violent protests against Musk’s government role, dubbed as “Tesla Takedowns,” organized in protest against the wealth Musk is generating from Tesla and the company’s perceived role in undermining democratic norms and public accountability.[17]

Celebrities and politicians, including musician Sheryl Crow, actors Jason Bateman and Bette Midler, and Senator Mark Kelly, a Democrat from Arizona, all took to social media, announcing they were selling their Teslas in response to Musk and his politics. Meanwhile, other EV manufacturers, including Ford, Chevrolet, and Volkswagen, saw a 44% increase in car registrations in January 2025.[18]

From Roosevelt to Perot: A History of Third-Party Disruption

In terms of historical context, Musk’s intentions to launch a third party, despite his low approval rating, do have some merit. Frustration among American voters with the status quo and incumbent candidates in Washington is at an all-time high. Following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, for the third consecutive presidential race, the party in power in the U.S. lost. Such a recurring defeat hasn’t occurred in the U.S. since the 1800s.[19]

A third-party candidate is one who runs outside America’s traditional political parties, i.e., the Democrats and Republicans, and typically campaigns on issues that are often overlooked or mismanaged by the traditional parties. Such efforts help to draw attention to issues disregarded by the media or those underprioritized in Congress.

The idea of supporting a third-party or independent ticket is nothing new in the world of politics. Ironically, America’s only candidate to win the presidency who did not have ties to a political party was the first President of the United States, George Washington; however, in 1789, the idea of divergent political parties we’ve come to know today was only just beginning to take shape.[20] Since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, every U.S. president has belonged to either the Republican or Democratic Party. Before that, the presidency was occupied by members of various political parties, reflecting a more diverse electoral landscape:[21]

Source: Liberal Party of New York

Rather than being mandated by the Constitution, the current political party system is the product of historical tradition. In modern times, these parties have been increasingly shaped by forces outside the direct will of many voters, particularly the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups.

Defying the system: Structural challenges faced by Third-Party candidates

Considering there is no federal law for how states must run their elections, state ballot laws, which vary from state to state, can often undermine a third-party candidate’s chances of winning. Likewise, election-year debates typically include only the top Democratic and Republican candidates for both president and vice president. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), established in 1987 to ensure that general election debates remain a permanent feature of the electoral process, sets the eligibility criteria. To participate, candidates must meet constitutional requirements, appear on enough state ballots to win at least 270 electoral votes, and poll at 15% or higher in five national public opinion polls selected by the CPD.

These thresholds, which have long remained a hurdle, often exclude third-party or independent candidates, keeping the debates focused on the major party nominees. Even further stifling their agenda, debates for Senate and House candidates do happen occasionally, but they are typically less frequent, less formal, and receive less media coverage than presidential debates.

In 2014 and 2015, the voters’ rights advocacy group known as Level the Playing Field, along with the Green Party of the United States, the Libertarian National Committee, and Dr. Peter Ackerman, a philanthropist and a prominent advocate for electoral reform, filed two administrative complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).[22] These complaints alleged that the CPD violated federal debate staging regulations by using a 15% polling threshold that unfairly excluded third-party and independent candidates from participating in general election debates.

The complaint argues that the CPD’s requirement for candidates to poll at 15% in five national surveys by mid-September—less than two months before election day—creates an insurmountable barrier for third-party and independent candidates. Without access to party primaries or the media exposure they provide, these candidates struggle to build name recognition on the national stage. Yet the debates, which could help them gain that recognition, are inaccessible without already having widespread support, creating a Catch-22 situation. The complaint further explains that historical data show that only major party candidates have ever met the threshold, and expert analysis indicates that “on average, a candidate needs a minimum of 60% name recognition—and probably as much as 80% name recognition—in order to achieve 15% in polls.”[23]

Level the Playing Field also submitted a Petition for Rulemaking, urging the FEC to revise its debate regulations to prohibit such polling thresholds. However, the FEC dismissed both complaints, finding no reason to believe the CPD violated existing rules, and declined to initiate rulemaking.[24]

While restrictive state laws and exclusion from national debates due to stringent eligibility criteria are already formidable barriers for third-party candidates, another major obstacle looms even larger: funding. This is one area where Elon Musk may hold significant influence over the political system. Unlike Democratic and Republican candidates, who benefit from deep-pocketed lobbyists, interest groups, super PACs, and, in some cases, foreign donors, most third-party candidates must rely on grassroots fundraising, an uphill battle against well-financed opponents. Here, Musk could potentially fill a glaring gap. What remains to be seen, however, is whether he can overcome his unfavorable public ratings in the years ahead.

Even with Musk’s endless capital, there remains one final hurdle that is no match for the checkbook, the electoral college. While laws again vary from state to state, the electoral college is often a ‘winner-takes-all’ system in most states, awarding legislative seats to the party that wins the most votes. This structural reality is closely tied to a political science theory known as Duverger’s Law, which holds that electoral systems like the United States’, particularly those based on single-member districts and plurality (winner-takes-all) voting, naturally favor a two-party system.[25]

Over time, this dynamic discourages support for third-party candidates, as voters fear “wasting” their vote. Likewise, the American political system is strongly rooted in a two-party structure. As a result, smaller parties are often overshadowed or eventually absorbed by one of the dominant parties. When third-party candidates gain traction, usually by mobilizing public support around a specific issue, their platforms or momentum are frequently co-opted by traditional parties seeking to capture those voters. Even well-funded challengers must overcome not just political opposition but also the structural inertia deeply embedded in the U.S. electoral system.

Legislative Wins: Third-Party Achievements

While the structural challenges third-party candidates face, which continue to undermine their chances of holding office, will remain, their efforts in bringing underprioritized issues into the national spotlight have resulted in several legislative wins over the years.

Women’s Suffrage

The Women’s Suffrage Movement, which culminated in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920, granting women the right to vote, was not an effort undertaken in a vacuum. It was the result of decades of activism and social reform that built political momentum across the United States. From the early 1800s to the 1920s, parallel movements, including abolition, women’s rights, prohibition, and the labor movement, collectively laid the groundwork for women’s suffrage by challenging established power structures and advocating for broader social justice.[26]

Among these forces, the socialist movement played a pivotal role in advancing the cause of suffrage. While socialism itself was an ideology rather than a formal third party, it helped shape the platforms of several third-party efforts, most notably the Socialist Party of America. This party was one of the earliest to explicitly endorse women’s suffrage in its national platform and offered female organizers a political space to demand voting rights alongside labor and economic reforms.

Suffrage supporters within the Socialist Party played a significant role in advancing the suffrage movement, particularly by pushing the cause to include immigrants and advocating for full political equality for all women. However, as the movement gained momentum, the party struggled to reconcile women’s emancipation with its class-centered theory of social change. Historian Mari Jo Buhle explains that the party ultimately adopted strategies shaped more by practical considerations and the need to adapt to local and regional conditions than by any sweeping ideological transformation.[27]

Labor Issues

In 1908, during his first administration, President Roosevelt addressed Congress to advocate for stricter child labor laws. While favoring nationwide legislation, he urged lawmakers to begin by implementing such measures in Washington, D.C., to set a precedent for the rest of the nation, an initiative Congress enacted later that year.[28]  It wasn’t until the 1912 presidential election that labor laws entered the national spotlight when Roosevelt ran again as the nominee of the Progressive Party, a third-party movement. This era marked a turning point in American politics, as the country was undergoing rapid transformation driven by the Industrial Revolution. Roosevelt, who rose to political prominence during the final years of the Gilded Age (1877-1900), witnessed firsthand America’s shift from a nation of farmers and craftsmen to a global industrial powerhouse. With this economic growth came deep social inequality, as corporate power expanded and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.[29]

In response, Roosevelt prioritized a new kind of adversary, not a foreign threat or a corrupt government, but unchecked private power and industrial monopolies.[30] His 1912 campaign as a third-party candidate broke new ground by advocating for modern social welfare policies and workers’ rights, including women’s suffrage, unemployment insurance, national health insurance, and the prohibition of sweatshops and child labor.[31] Amid the rapid pace of industrialization, the Progressive Party advocated for minimum wage standards for women, a guaranteed living wage for all American workers, and a mandatory one-day rest period each week.[32] [33]

Although Roosevelt ultimately lost the election, his campaign reshaped the national conversation. By placing labor reform and other social issues at the center of a high-profile campaign, the Progressive Party pressured the major political parties to adopt policies that had once been considered too radical. Despite third-party candidates rarely becoming victorious, their campaign platforms can have a lasting influence on public policy and political debate in the United States.

Ross Perot – Political Pop Icon & Reformer

In 1992, billionaire and former businessman Ross Perot launched an independent bid for the U.S. presidency, asking supporters to file petitions to secure his place on the ballot in all 50 states.[34] Perot ran on a populist platform, opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), supported by both President George H.W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton, claiming such free-trade deals were unsatisfactory for both American workers and the economy, while advocating for the elimination of the national debt and federal budget deficit.[35]  Spending approximately $65 million of his personal fortune on his campaign, Perot pioneered a novel approach to political communication by purchasing 30-minute infomercials to campaign on his policy ideas. These broadcasts attracted more viewers than some prime-time network programs, a groundbreaking tactic in the early 1990s.[36]

Perot ultimately earned 19% of the popular vote, nearly 20 million ballots, compared to Clinton’s 43% and Bush’s 38%. While Clinton won the presidency, some analysts argue that Perot’s campaign siphoned off enough support from Bush to influence the outcome.[37] Perot ran again in 1996, this time under the banner of the newly formed Reform Party, which he hoped would become a lasting alternative to the two dominant political parties. The Reform Party’s platform included campaign finance reform, congressional term limits, a balanced federal budget, healthcare and tax reform, and restrictions on lobbying. However, Perot only garnered 8% of the vote in that election.

Despite the loss, Ross Perot remains one of the most successful third-party candidates in U.S. history since Theodore Roosevelt, capturing the frustration of disenfranchised middle-class voters at a time of widespread dissatisfaction, particularly over fiscal policy.

His eccentric charm and outsider status turned him into a pop culture icon, and his self-financed campaign appealed to voters seeking an alternative to establishment politics. While the Reform Party eventually faded, Perot’s ideology, emphasizing small government, skepticism of trade deals, and anti-globalism, foreshadowed the rise of Donald Trump, another billionaire outsider who similarly disrupted the political establishment in Washington.[38] Echoes of Perot’s 1992 promise to “take out the trash” in Washington[39] are distinctly familiar in Trump’s later pledge to “drain the swamp,” reflecting a shared appeal to voters disillusioned with the federal government and entrenched political elites.

Today’s Progressive Party

While remnants of socialist and pre-war progressive ideology continue to resonate today, most are witnessed more prominently within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. While not a formal third party, the progressive bloc often operates on the fringe of the party’s mainstream ideology, which has increasingly shifted toward the center. Figures like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have emerged as key voices within this wing, consistently advocating for economic justice, universal healthcare, student debt relief, environmental reform, and stronger corporate accountability.

Despite their ideological differences with party leadership, progressives remain tethered to the Democratic Party due to structural advantages: party affiliation ensures access to campaign funding, influential committee assignments, and legislative relevance. Most importantly, as occasional swing votes on critical issues, they hold strategic power that allows them to negotiate and shape legislation from within, a compromise that keeps their movement viable, even if not fully autonomous.

Conclusion

Despite the dysfunction in Washington, which is hardly new but increasingly feels like the status quo, American voters remain loyal to their political parties, regardless of the turmoil brewing at any given moment. A party’s platform—its identity—is deeply ingrained in most voters’ personal belief systems, and that’s not easily shaken.

While the idea of a third party is often seen as a welcome relief during turbulent times, like an off-ramp when it feels as though the wheels are coming off, it tends to remain just that: a brief moment of clarity. The structural foundation of American politics, at least for now, is built to support only two pillars. That’s the reality.

Still, third-party platforms serve as important reminders that we can do better. They show that there are alternative ways to approach our challenges, that politicians can think outside the box, and that stepping beyond the norm is necessary for growth and reflection, for the good of the nation.

But, unless voters decide en masse that they are truly ready to welcome a third option into Congress, efforts like Musk’s “America Party” will likely serve only as disruptors, undermining votes and slowing down legislation, all for the sake of Musk’s bottom line.

The U.S. Constitution is a living document, and it should be treated as such. There is room to evolve the political landscape to ensure all voices and issues are represented.  But without that shift—and one that reflects the needs of the people—dysfunction risks becoming not just tolerated but normalized within the fabric of American governance.

[1] Jennifer Clarke, “What is Doge and why has Musk left?,” BBC News, May 31, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c23vkd57471o.

[2] Elon Musk, [@elonmusk]. (July 4, 2025). [Status update]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941119099532378580.

[3] SSRS, CNN poll conducted by SSRS, July 17, 2025, Retrieved from https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26000904/cnn-poll-conducted-by-ssrs.pdf.

[4] Elon Musk, [@elonmusk]. (June 28, 2025). The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future [Status update]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1939051424995786839.

[5] William G. Gale and Kylie Pomerleau, “Don’t expect much growth from the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Brookings Institution, June 10, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/dont-expect-much-growth-from-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/

[6] Elon Musk, [@elonmusk]. (July 5, 2025). Increasing the deficit from an already insane $2T under Biden to $2.5T. This will bankrupt the country. [Status update]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941616763264745637

[7] James Oliphant and Daniel Trotta, “Trump calls Musk’s formation of new party “ridiculous” and criticizes his own NASA pick,” Reuters, July 7, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/investment-firm-azoria-postpones-tesla-etf-after-musk-plans-political-party-2025-07-06/.

[8] Rachel Scott, Fritz Farrow, Lalee Ibssa, and Ivan Pereira, “Trump says he’ll ‘look’ at deporting Musk as feud reignites,” ABC News, July 1, 2025, https://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-hell-deporting-musk-feud-reignites/story?id=123372908.

[9] Thadani, T., Ence Morse, C., and Reston, M., “Elon Musk donated $288 million in 2024 election, final tally shows,” The Washington Post, January 31, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/31/elon-musk-trump-donor-2024-election/

[10] Elon Musk, [@elonmusk]. (July 2025). One way to execute on this would be to laser‑focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts. [Status update]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941125459628179641

[11] Juli Ingram and Dan Ruetenik, “DOGE continues to say it’s cutting costs but savings are fraction of what’s claimed, CBS News analysis finds,” CBS News, May 13, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-claims-slashing-costs-cbs-news-analysis/.

[12] Sullivan, E., “More than 150,000 federal workers accepted Trump’s resignation incentives,” The New York Times, July 31, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/us/politics/firings-federal-workers-trump-administration.html.

[13] “Voters’ ratings on economy and Trump dip: Trade and Russia‑Ukraine war weigh on Trump’s numbers; majority disapprove of Trump’s handling of Zelensky meeting,” [Press release], Quinnipiac University Poll, March 13, 2025, Retrieved August 5, 2025, from https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3921

[14] Chris Isidore, “Tesla sales plunge: Biggest decline in history,” CNN, April 2, 2025, https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/02/business/tesla-sales

[15] “Tesla’s July China‑made EV sales fall 8.4%,” Reuters August 4, 2025,  https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas-july-china-made-ev-sales-fall-84-2025-08-04/.

[16] Chris Isidore, “Tesla sales plunge: Biggest decline in history.”

[17] “Tesla Takedown,” Action Network (n.d.) https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/teslatakedown.

[18] Curtis Bunn, “Teslas were a symbol of progressive values. Now some progressives are ditching the cars,” NBC News, March 17, 2025, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/progressives-selling-getting-rid-teslas-elon-musk-rcna196058.

[19] Juhi Doshi, “Republicans take over Washington amid a worldwide anti-incumbent wave: From the Politics Desk,” NBC News, January 7, 2025, Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/republicans-washington-worldwide-anti-incumbent-wave-politics-desk-rcna186449

[20] “Political parties,” George Washington’s Mount Vernon. (n.d.), Retrieved July 29, 2025, from Mount Vernon, https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-first-president/political-parties.

[21] “Timeline of important U.S. political parties,” Liberal Party of New York, July 2018, Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://www.liberalparty.org/LPofNY/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TimelineofImportantUSPoliticalParties.pdf.

[22] Federal Election Commission (n.d.), “In the matter of Level the Playing Field, et al. vs. Commission on Presidential Debates,” (MUR 118165) [PDF], Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/current/118165.pdf.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Federal Election Commission (n.d.), “Level the Playing Field, et al. v. FEC,” In Legal resources: Court cases, Retrieved from https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/level-the-playing-field-et-al-v-fec/.

[25] Dylan Difford, “Duverger’s law – more guidelines than actual rules?,” March 9, 2022, Electoral Reform Society, Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://electoral-reform.org.uk/duvagers-law-more-guidelines-than-actual-rules/.

[26] Robyn Muncy, “The necessity of other social movements to the struggle for woman suffrage,” National Park Service (n.d.), Retrieved July 29, 2025, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-necessity-of-other-social-movements-to-the-struggle-for-woman-suffrage.htm.

[27] Peg Strobel, “Women’s Vote: 100 Years of Promise,” Democratic Socialists of America, August 26, 2020, https://www.dsausa.org/blog/womens-vote-100-years-of-promise/.

[28] Theodore Roosevelt, “March 25, 1908: Message regarding labor legislation,” Miller Center, University of Virginia, March 25, 1908, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-25-1908-message-regarding-labor-legislation.

[29] Hochman, A. L. & Spolar, M. (Producers), Lessons from the 1912 Republican Convention: Birth of the Modern Primary [Video], Retro Report, July 25, 2016, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aio5‑WNPbJE.

[30] “TR’s legacy,” PBS (n.d.)  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/tr-legacy/.

[31] Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party, 1912 (n.d.), Third‑Party Reformers, DPLA, https://dp.la/exhibitions/outsiders-president-elections/third-party-reform/roosevelt-progressive-party.

[32] “Progressive Party platform of 1912,” The American Presidency Project, November 5, 1912, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/progressive-party-platform-1912.

[33] William Hansard, “Theodore Roosevelt and Labor Reform, Theodore Roosevelt Center, September 5, 2022, https://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Blog/Item/Labor%20Reform.

[34] “The 1992 campaign: Perot supporters open petition drive for offices,” The New York Times, March 21, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/21/us/the-1992-campaign-perot-supporters-open-petition-drive-offices.html.

[35] John F. Harris, “Ross Perot: The Father of Trump,” Politico, December 29, 2019, Retrieved July 30, 2025, from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/29/ross-perot-the-father-of-trump-089601.

[36] Robert D. McFadden, “Ross Perot, brash Texas billionaire who ran for president, dies at 89,” The New York Times, July 9, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/ross-perot-death.html.

[37] Ibid.

[38] “Ross Perot: The self‑made billionaire who upended US politics,” BBC News, July 9, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48927476.

[39] “The 1992 campaign: Perot supporters open petition drive for offices.”