Shortly following reports of an apparent second assassination attempt against former US president and 2024 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Elon Musk decided to speak up.
“And no one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala 🤔,” Musk, X’s owner, wrote in a now deleted post, in response to another person asking, “Why they want to kill Donald Trump?”
After deleting the post—which could be interpreted as a call to murder President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent in the US presidential election—Musk indicated that it was merely a joke that fell flat given the context. “Well, one lesson I’ve learned is that just because I say something to a group and they laugh doesn’t mean it’s going to be all that hilarious as a post on 𝕏,” he wrote, adding, “Turns out that jokes are WAY less funny if people don’t know the context and the delivery is plain text.”
The incident was the latest in a long line of increasingly incendiary political posts from Musk, whose substantial defense contracts with the US government may give him access to highly sensitive information even while he makes potential threats against the sitting commander in chief. And they point to the more pressing risk that Musk’s recent rhetoric has posed: the potential to inspire further political violence.
While the post from Sunday night has been removed, it seems probable that Elon Musk might capture the attention of federal law enforcement agencies if he hasn’t done so already.
The United States Secret Service did not respond to WIRED’s inquiry about Musk’s post. “We can say, however, that the Secret Service investigates all threats related to our protectees,” said USSS spokesperson Nate Herring to WIRED.
“In my experience, the Secret Service would take such a comment very seriously,” states Michael German, a former FBI special agent and a liberty and national security fellow at NYU School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Typically, agents would go out and interview the subject to ensure that there wasn’t an existing threat, and to make the subject aware that the agency takes such statements seriously.”
German points out that the FBI might also initiate an investigation. But, it is unlikely that Musk would be charged for his post. “On its face, the tweet does not meet the ‘true threat’ criteria, as it was not a direct threat to harm the vice president, so it wouldn’t likely lead to prosecution,” German explains. However, “it would result in a record of the investigations.”
The FBI did not respond to a request for comment from WIRED regarding Musk’s remarks. X also did not provide an immediate response to WIRED’s inquiry.
Both Biden and Harris have issued statements denouncing the alleged assassination attempt against Trump and broadly condemned political violence. The White House expressed its disapproval of Musk’s post in a communication with ABC News, stating “Violence should only be condemned, never encouraged or joked about,” adding that “This rhetoric is irresponsible.”
Complications for Musk arise from his significant involvement as a contractor for the US Department of Defense and NASA. According to Reuters, in 2021, SpaceX entered into a $1.8 billion agreement with the National Reconnaissance Office, which manages US spy satellites. Moreover, last year, the US Space Force contracted SpaceX for $70 million to develop military-grade satellite capabilities in low-earth-orbit. SpaceX’s commercial satellite branch, Starlink, is currently providing services to the US Navy.
NASA is increasingly delegating its spaceflight missions to SpaceX, including the award of multi-billion dollar contracts for several lunar missions and an $843 million contract to construct the vehicle intended to decommission the International Space Station.
The US government’s heavy reliance on corporations overseen by Musk has continually attracted criticism from national security experts. Alarm within the Pentagon surfaced last September when Musk declined Ukraine’s request to activate Starlink services in Crimea, a region contested by Russia, for a potential assault on Russian forces. In reply to earlier WIRED coverage, Musk clarified that ”Starlink was prohibited from activating satellite beams in Crimea then, due to it breaching US sanctions against Russia!”
Both the Defense Department and NASA have not made any comments regarding WIRED’s request for statements.
Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, currently X, has led some specialists to worry about potential national security threats for the US. This is due to his links with the Chinese government, rumored communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin (which Musk has denied), and ongoing Saudi investments in Twitter post-purchase. Additional concerns have been voiced regarding China’s possible leverage over Musk connected to his Tesla operations in Shanghai. Further complications arose after Musk—a citizen of South Africa, Canada, and the US—reinstated the accounts of conspiracy theorists and white nationalists, and started aggressively promoting his right-wing political views. Following the initial attempted assassination of Trump in mid-July, Musk endorsed Trump and allegedly promised $45 million monthly to a Trump-supporting PAC, a claim he later refuted.
A deleted post by Musk on Sunday evening adds more complexity. The CEO reportedly holds a security clearance linked to his companies’ involvement in classified US government projects. Although there are various criteria for granting security clearances, like abstaining from cannabis, such designations are generally reviewed on a risk-vs-reward basis by the US. Given Musk’s status as perhaps the world’s richest man and most recognized CEO, revoking his security clearance over imprudent political comments may pose a significant challenge.
“This is where Musk’s status might have a greater effect,” says the Brennan Center’s German. “It would be hard for managers to revoke the security clearance of someone in a position of power, whereas they could be expected to take quick action against a regular employee who engaged in similar conduct.”
The most concerning aspect of Musk’s post is its potential to further inflame extremist threats in the US, says Jon Lewis, a research fellow at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, who calls the post “merely the latest example of right-wing incitement that has become concerningly mainstream in recent years.”
“That the owner of a major social media platform—and US government contractor—is opining on the assassination of political opponents should be alarming for Americans across the political spectrum,” Lewis says. He warns that “culture war narratives and thinly veiled racism” have already had effects on the real world, which could be exacerbated by the far-right’s willingness to answer calls to arms.
“These extremists are waiting for the justification to engage in violence,” he says, “and rhetoric like this provides the perfect excuse.”
Additional reporting by David Gilbert.
