Having expressed dismay about Elon Musk’s attitude toward and relationship with China in previous posts, we recur to this theme now because of a piece in The Hill contending that the ultra-entrepreneur is a security risk (March 16, 2025).
John Mac Ghlionn suggests that Musk is “an insider so deeply enmeshed in America’s technological and defense systems that his personal interests could compromise the entire structure.”
What makes Mac Ghlionn worry:
● Musk’s lucrative relationship with China is attended by what is most charitably described as naiveté. He has “parroted Beijing’s talking points on Taiwan, likening it to Hawaii. Unlike other Western CEOs who take a more cautious stance, Musk’s demeanor is clearly deferential, even sycophantic.”
● “Why? Because China holds significant leverage over him.” China offers Tesla “rare privileges not afforded to other foreign automakers…. If the Chinese Communist Party were to pull the plug, Tesla’s valuation would plummet. That alone is concerning.”
● Also, “Through special-purpose vehicles, legal structures designed to shield their identities from scrutiny,” wealthy Chinese investors are anonymously investing in Musk companies the products of which have direct military applications: xAI, Neuralink, SpaceX. Who are these anonymous Chinese investors, and are they seeking only profit or also leverage? As a result of “even indirect influence over Starlink,” might China “pressure Musk to restrict or deny access to U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific during a conflict over Taiwan?”
● The author even tosses Musk’s alleged recreational use of ketamine into the compilation of risk factors.
“Chronic ketamine consumption has been linked to extreme paranoia and even psychosis.” From wondering whether Musk’s usage is more than occasional and therapeutic, Mac Ghlionn catapults to the conclusion that the entrepreneur’s mind “appears to be chemically altered by a substance known to cause delusions.” Musk not only has “financial vulnerabilities tied to a hostile foreign power”; he is “mentally compromised” and “should not be dictating the future of America’s most sensitive technologies.” The verdict is apparently that Elon Musk should not be allowed to run his companies.
But you don’t need drugs to explain shortsightedness or moral obtuseness.
Elon Musk is not alone
China is exerting pressure all over the world on all kinds of persons and institutions, including many giant U.S. firms whose CEOs applaud when Xi Jinping is in the room. Some of these companies have helped develop the software that China uses to surveil and persecute.
China does have leverage over Musk, leverage that is especially clear in the case of Tesla. The Chinese government can pressure him; about that we don’t need to wonder. He should not have put himself in this position. The question is whether Elon Musk would succumb to China pressure when push comes to shove.
Suppose we don’t give Musk the benefit of the doubt. Now what? Eject him from DOGE? From SpaceX and Starlink? What about all the other American firms and CEOs compromised by doing business with China?
Musk should be as smart about world affairs and moral assessment of totalitarian states as he is about developing super-duper tech companies. He should extricate himself and Tesla from China, disencumber his companies from anonymous Chinese investments, and stop saying dumb things about China, the Uyghurs, Taiwan. It would be nice if his boss in the government, President Trump, gave him the same counsel.
But if we’re ever in a military conflict with China, I don’t think that Musk would turn traitor by choosing to serve China’s military goals at the expense of U.S. military goals merely because China threatens Tesla’s position in China or investors in his other companies raise a hue and cry.
I’m weighing in the balance all of Musk’s considerable virtues, as manifested by the accomplishments of his companies, his rescue of open discourse at Twitter-X, his work for Department of Government Efficiency, and many other good deeds. If he were to deal openly with his firms’ vulnerability to Chinese Communist Party influence and begin to fix the problem, the United States would be better off.
