Did Elon Musk decide by personal fiat to cut off Ukraine’s access to vital communications? Although Musk claims that the decision was made by Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, some U.S. officials state that Musk did indeed take it upon himself to pull the plug on Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is quoted as saying that the administration was blind-sided: “There was no foreknowledge.”
Now, perhaps Donald Trump told him to do it, sotto voce, Mafia-style: (“This Zelenskyy guy is a problem. Someone should do something about it.”) And Trump could demand, but hasn’t, that Musk restore Ukraine’s access.
However, given that there is now finger-pointing going on and there are credible statements that Musk himself was the instigator, we now need to seriously consider the implications. No private individual should, or indeed even have the capability to, make national security policy. Slowing down Starlink was, in effect, a U.S. intervention in a foreign conflict. It helped Russia, our long-time adversary, and hobbled Ukraine, during a very critical time in this war. It also helped Russia at a time when Putin is increasingly emboldened to menace Europe through acts of sabotage, intimidation and support of the extreme right such as the AfD in Germany. (Recall that Musk has openly supported the AfD.)
While Trump and Musk are now openly supporting Vladimir Putin, their actions are unpopular with the American public. Very few Americans agree that the U.S. should be supporting, not opposing, a brutal dictator’s attempt to conquer a democracy:
Let’s be clear about the current state of the war between Russia and Ukraine. On the military battlefield, Ukraine has been gaining the upper hand. Hence Putin has turned to attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, electricity in particular. If Musk doesn’t restore that access quickly, the result will be the deaths of thousands of innocent Ukrainians. Moreover, he will embolden Putin to further menace and attack our Nato allies, as well as supporting neo-Nazis like the AfD.
Some may object as follows: Musk owns Starlink. Doesn’t he have the right to do what he wants with a business he owns?
No.
Yes, America has a market economy. And to make this economy work, we need to respect property rights. But we are, first and foremost, a democracy. And in a democracy, the rights of private property don’t and never have included the right to act against the nation’s interest — where democratically elected representatives of the people, not business owners, should decide what is in the nation’s interest. Capitalism is not an excuse for treason.
Let’s look at a hypothetical case. Taiwan’s air force flies F16s made by Lockheed Martin. Imagine that for some reason — perhaps as part of a business deal with China — Lockheed Martin suddenly moved to degrade Taiwan’s military capability by cutting off access to spare parts, upgrades, munitions, computer networks and more. Would anyone consider such action acceptable, a legitimate exercise of property rights? Surely not. There would be immediate demands that Lockheed Martin reverse its actions — and if it refused, the federal government would step in to temporarily take control of the company.
This has actually happened in the past.
U.S. mobilization during World War II relied overwhelmingly on private contractors. But these contractors weren’t free to do as they pleased. Among other things, the federal government was anxious to avoid labor conflict that might impede the war effort. So the National War Labor Board negotiated mandatory settlements between management and workers.
Some businessmen didn’t want to go along. In particular, Sewell Avery, the chairman of Montgomery Ward, simply refused to comply with the terms of collective bargaining agreements that had been hammered out with the United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union.
At the time, Montgomery Ward was both a major retailer and a major manufacturer, whose production of tractors, auto parts and more were important parts of the war effort. But Avery placed a higher priority on resisting unionization than on defeating the Nazis.
So in April 1944 FDR ordered the Army National Guard to seize Montgomery Ward’s main plant in Chicago. National Guard troops literally had to carry Avery out of his office:
Later that year the federal government also seized a number of other Montgomery Ward facilities.
It’s important to realize that none of these actions were attempts to impose long-term government control of the economy. There was never an intent to permanently nationalize Montgomery Ward. But the principle was clear: private individuals do not have the right to undermine national security. And if temporary nationalization is the only way to stop them from doing so, so be it.
So, back to Elon Musk: In modern warfare, where communication and real-time information are as important as rockets and artillery, Starlink is as central to national security as Lockheed Martin. Decisions about which countries have full access to Starlink’s capacity are as much a matter of foreign policy and national security as decisions about which countries will be allowed to buy and operate U.S. high-tech weapons.
Such decisions cannot, must not, be left up to private individuals. This would be true even if these individuals were patriots who supported democracy and American values. They definitely shouldn’t be left in the hands of this guy.
Musk will surely, and rightly, be the focus of many investigations if Democrats win the midterms. But don’t expect this to chasten him: His response to the prospect has been to make menacing threats:
Which reinforces the point that control of Starlink must, one way or another, be taken away from Elon Musk. It’s a matter of national security: we cannot let private individuals make foreign and defense policy, and it would be totally irresponsible to leave a crucial military asset in the hands of a racist, authoritarian conspiracy theorist.
