The US Can’t Just Leave It to Elon
Musk's excellent adventures around the world are not foreign policy, and the Biden Administration needs to step up.
The internet can’t get enough of Elon Musk, but the policy community is reeling. “Geopolitical chaos agent” doesn’t begin to describe his effect. In domestic news, Musk said he’d liberate Twitter from content moderation right before the midterm election, then promised his advertisers that Twitter ‘cannot become a free-for-all hellscape’ followed by tweeting (and then deleting) a patently false story about the violent attacker who intended to kneecap the third in line to the presidency of this nation, Nancy Pelosi. Or in foreign policy, he proposed a plan to end the Ukraine conflict by ceding territory to Russia. Then (after Ukrainian leaders mocked him) Musk said he couldn’t continue to subsidize the Starlink internet access that keeps Ukraine able to fight—only to reverse course again.
It’s hard to disentangle Elon Musk’s impulse to do good from his reflex to grab the limelight. His provision of Starlink internet access to Iran seems a well-intentioned response to the protest movement. But, getting equipment for Starlink into Iran without endangering recipients and potential users is problematic. Likewise, Elon’s efforts to aid rescuers of the children trapped in a cave in Thailand were ultimately unsuccessful and marred by his tendency to mouth off. That combination of technological might, good intentions and foot-in-mouth disease makes for riveting theatre, as Musk’s 113.3M Twitter following shows, but his acquisition of a global bullhorn has also sparked concern about the national security aspects of the deal.
Musk’s interventions are worrying Washington, finally causing some reflection on how wise it is to leave critical national security infrastructure in the hands of powerful enterprises and mercurial magnates. While the White House has denied reports of national security reviews of Elon’s purchase of Twitter interests and the Starlink network, President Biden, responding to the question of whether Musk posed a national security threat, noted the billionaire’s relations with other countries were “worthy of being looked at.” Meanwhile, the Treasury Department is reviewing its authority to look into the Twitter acquisition because its foreign investors, including a Saudi prince and a subsidiary of the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, could potentially have access to information about the company’s finances and users.
Moscow and Beijing are worried about Starlink as well. Prior to Musk’s ‘peace plan’ remarks, Russia issued a veiled threat at the UN, saying that networks like Starlink could constitute involvement in a conflict and “quasi-civilian infrastructure” could become a military target. Chinese researchers associated with China’s military and defense industry recently published a plan to shoot down Starlink satellites. China is developing both its own version of an internet satellite network and anti-satellite capabilities. Musk has said that Chinese officials want him to withhold Starlink access to China, and offered his own thoughts on giving China some authority over Taiwan, which were roundly condemned by officials there, while Taiwan’s government began seeking proposals on building its own backup satellite internet network.
Against the backdrop of global roiling, Musk opined that “being attacked by both right & left simultaneously is a good sign.” Then again, it could be a bad sign if there’s no one who’s got your back.
Musk needs US government support. He does a lot of business with the US Defense Department. So far, the government seems to have imposed more consequences over Musk smoking weed with Joe Rogan than his geofencing Starlink that left Ukraine without battlefield communication as it advanced into Russian-held territory. But that may change.
There’s little doubt the US has a great deal of influence and regulatory power over business, and especially over businesses in the national security zone. Matters of foreign policy and national defense (including defense of our democratic system) are a governmental responsibility, just like public health. The media’s obsession with Musk points to the relative absence of government—in developing and providing emergency internet access and other types of technical backups for crisis, and in setting standards for disinformation around elections and public health emergencies. These are matters where lives are at stake, and the government’s power to regulate is strong.
There are signs that the administration is getting nervous about its Elon-dependency. The government decided to send satellite communications antennas for the first time to Ukraine — ones that can work without Starlink, just in case Musk changes his mind again. The military is also working on developing its own low-earth satellite communications networks.
Imagine if the US could help the UN to provide open internet access to countries that have radical censorship regimes, or use emergency satellite connectivity to counter the frequent internet shutdowns governments deploy to squelch protests. Musk has little incentive to anger major powers and markets, but what if the international community could create cracks in the Great Firewall of China, or give Russians a close and truthful look at what their government is doing to their neighbors, or enable North Koreans to encounter the rest of the world?
Our government does not have to own or control all potent technology; that is both infeasible and the road to abuse of power. But it does needs to stop relying on billionaire beneficence. Businesses seek markets; they cater to their regulators and customers. The Biden administration and Congress need to establish some guardrails for these mega-enterprises to ensure critical technology is not used against the freedom of the United States, its people, or its allies. Nothing in the US Constitution prevents our government from requiring platforms to be transparent and accountable to the public—a way Europe has incentivized tackling disinformation without trampling free expression.
Taking charge of this area of national security and foreign policy might mean tightening export controls and limiting technology transfers, or incentivizing self-regulation that aligns with core US interests. Those interests extend to the ‘public square’ Musk just acquired, and include electoral integrity, public health, and non-discrimination.
Musk is larger than life, and the part of me that tries to believe impossible things before breakfast hopes he rescues Ukraine, Iranian protesters, Twitter, and other good causes. But both the foreign policy realist and human rights idealist in me knows he can’t do it alone. He needs to partner with the world’s democracy activists and democratic governments to get it right. And that means they need to harness his interest and influence before other global investors and interlocutors do.
