PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
[snip]
April 26, 2025
Washington D.C. – The story swirling around Elon Musk and a proposed briefing on classified U.S. attack plans targeting China continues to generate buzz, and for good reason. Initial reports suggested a potential conflict of interest – a serious one – that ultimately led to a halt, sparking debate about the Pentagon’s approach to engaging with the tech world.
As our previous report detailed, Acting Pentagon General Counsel Charles Young intervened when plans surfaced to brief Musk, primarily due to his significant economic investments in China via Tesla and SpaceX. The Espionage Act – a surprisingly relevant piece of legislation – loomed large, raising concerns about the potential for classified information to inadvertently flow to parties with vested interests in a rival nation. Former President Trump and then-Defense Minister Pete Hegseth initially denied the briefing ever occurred, adding another layer of intrigue to the situation, although The Wall Street Journal maintained plans were indeed underway to share details of “Special Access Programs”—mostly cutting-edge weaponry – with Musk.
But let’s step back. The initial report represented the beginning of this story, not the whole thing. Recent developments show that the Pentagon is now undertaking a far more comprehensive review of its engagement with Musk’s companies, extending beyond just the attempted briefing. Sources within the Department of Defense – speaking on condition of anonymity – confirm that a formal audit is underway, examining the scope of Musk’s security clearance, the nature of his consultations (even informal ones), and the safeguards in place to prevent information leaks.
“We’ve always operated under the principle of ‘trust but verify,’ but this incident highlighted the necessity of incrementally strengthening those verification measures,” a senior DoD official told Archyde News. "The initial concern wasn’t just the briefing itself, but the precedent it set. The conversation simply became too complicated to ignore; we now have to evaluate how these interactions would show up within our oversight plans."
Meanwhile, sources close to Musk’s team insist that the initial proposal for a briefing was far less substantive than initially portrayed. They describe it as an exploratory conversation about potential collaborative opportunities, not a deep dive into classified attack strategies. “Elon has a genuine interest in defense innovation, and he’s always open to discussing ways SpaceX and Tesla could contribute to national security,” one source stated. “But he’s also incredibly aware of the sensitivities involved – he wouldn’t jeopardize his company or himself.”
However, skepticism persists. Critics point to SpaceX’s increasing role in satellite-based surveillance and missile defense, and Tesla’s potential for rapid-prototyping and battery technology, as indicators of a growing reliance on Musk’s expertise. “We’re essentially handing over pieces of our national security strategy to a guy who runs a company with a massive conflict of interest,” argued former intelligence analyst, Marcus Bellweather, during a recent panel discussion. “It’s like inviting a friendly competitor to watch your blueprint.”
Adding another layer to this complex situation is the recent revelation that Musk has been quietly advising the White House on several key technological initiatives, including AI and space policy. While his security clearance remains valid, this expanded role raises further questions about transparency and oversight. It’s worth noting that NASA recently awarded SpaceX a $3.1 billion contract to develop a lunar lander, further highlighting the intertwined relationship between the private sector and national defense.
Full article:
www.memesita.com
April 26, 2025
Washington D.C. – The story swirling around Elon Musk and a proposed briefing on classified U.S. attack plans targeting China continues to generate buzz, and for good reason. Initial reports suggested a potential conflict of interest – a serious one – that ultimately led to a halt, sparking debate about the Pentagon’s approach to engaging with the tech world.
As our previous report detailed, Acting Pentagon General Counsel Charles Young intervened when plans surfaced to brief Musk, primarily due to his significant economic investments in China via Tesla and SpaceX. The Espionage Act – a surprisingly relevant piece of legislation – loomed large, raising concerns about the potential for classified information to inadvertently flow to parties with vested interests in a rival nation. Former President Trump and then-Defense Minister Pete Hegseth initially denied the briefing ever occurred, adding another layer of intrigue to the situation, although The Wall Street Journal maintained plans were indeed underway to share details of “Special Access Programs”—mostly cutting-edge weaponry – with Musk.
But let’s step back. The initial report represented the beginning of this story, not the whole thing. Recent developments show that the Pentagon is now undertaking a far more comprehensive review of its engagement with Musk’s companies, extending beyond just the attempted briefing. Sources within the Department of Defense – speaking on condition of anonymity – confirm that a formal audit is underway, examining the scope of Musk’s security clearance, the nature of his consultations (even informal ones), and the safeguards in place to prevent information leaks.
“We’ve always operated under the principle of ‘trust but verify,’ but this incident highlighted the necessity of incrementally strengthening those verification measures,” a senior DoD official told Archyde News. "The initial concern wasn’t just the briefing itself, but the precedent it set. The conversation simply became too complicated to ignore; we now have to evaluate how these interactions would show up within our oversight plans."
Meanwhile, sources close to Musk’s team insist that the initial proposal for a briefing was far less substantive than initially portrayed. They describe it as an exploratory conversation about potential collaborative opportunities, not a deep dive into classified attack strategies. “Elon has a genuine interest in defense innovation, and he’s always open to discussing ways SpaceX and Tesla could contribute to national security,” one source stated. “But he’s also incredibly aware of the sensitivities involved – he wouldn’t jeopardize his company or himself.”
However, skepticism persists. Critics point to SpaceX’s increasing role in satellite-based surveillance and missile defense, and Tesla’s potential for rapid-prototyping and battery technology, as indicators of a growing reliance on Musk’s expertise. “We’re essentially handing over pieces of our national security strategy to a guy who runs a company with a massive conflict of interest,” argued former intelligence analyst, Marcus Bellweather, during a recent panel discussion. “It’s like inviting a friendly competitor to watch your blueprint.”
Adding another layer to this complex situation is the recent revelation that Musk has been quietly advising the White House on several key technological initiatives, including AI and space policy. While his security clearance remains valid, this expanded role raises further questions about transparency and oversight. It’s worth noting that NASA recently awarded SpaceX a $3.1 billion contract to develop a lunar lander, further highlighting the intertwined relationship between the private sector and national defense.
Full article:
Elon Musk Briefed on U.S. Attack Plans: Pentagon Lawyer Halts Meeting Due to Conflict of Interest
Musk, China, and the Pentagon: A Security Nightmare or Strategic Missed Opportunity? Washington D.C. – The story swirling around Elon Musk and a proposed briefing on classified U.S. attack plans targeting China continues to generate buzz, and for good reason. Initial reports suggested a...
www.memesita.com
