Musk’s Expanding Businesses Face Challenges Beyond the CEO Role
24 March 2025 · Uncategorized ·
Source: · https://technews.tw/2025/03/17/elon-musk-world-business-crisis/
Elon Musk has sparked widespread controversy due to his increasing involvement in U.S. government affairs—from attracting anonymous Chinese investors for private ventures to facing mixed reviews of satellite communication cooperation projects from European leaders and experiencing conflicts over policies and personnel with former President Donald Trump's administration. This shift, transforming him from a tech industry leader into an influential figure on the global political stage, has impacted his companies while simultaneously generating numerous controversies.
Musk appears unable to avoid controversy; for instance, his public stances in Europe have made conducting business there more challenging. He previously negotiated with multiple European countries at government levels regarding encrypted communication cooperation but recent involvement in geopolitical issues has led some leaders to question the reliability of his products.
The Financial Times reported that Italy’s government initially planned a five-year contract worth $1.5 billion for Starlink services, intended for secure communications among diplomatic and military personnel abroad; however, this plan is now precarious due to tensions between America and Europe as well as domestic political disputes. President Trump previously halted military aid to Ukraine, destabilizing NATO’s position, and Musk has repeatedly called for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO—actions that have intensified Italy's concerns about the Starlink deal.
President Mattarella once reprimanded Musk for interfering in Italian internal affairs but is now accused by some pro-Musk right-wing figures of obstructing agreements without a formal response. While Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni believes Starlink can meet security needs and emphasizes there being 'no better public solution,' domestic opposition from both the left and parts of the right strongly opposes it, fearing reliance on American technology could compromise information autonomy.
Meanwhile, despite acknowledging the necessity to engage with Musk earlier, the government has begun negotiating alternative solutions with European satellite operators like Eutelsat in response to growing criticism. The far-right League party argues that 'the U.S. system is more aligned with Italy's national interests’ and believes it would be ideologically wrong not to accept American systems amid sensitive international situations.
Poland also questions Musk’s reliability as a supplier of satellite networks. Politico reported Poland invests approximately $50 million annually in Starlink terminals for Ukraine but fears SpaceX might 'shut down or withdraw support,' unsettling the Polish foreign minister Zbigniew Rau, who suggested redirecting funds to other providers if this occurs.
India has also seen Musk’s ambitions face hurdles due to local regulations and tariffs. Despite his existing global business empire, he struggles significantly in India with Tesla's production and Starlink services encountering high regulatory barriers and import duties.
However, after cultivating closer ties with the Trump administration, circumstances shifted: During a visit by Prime Minister Modi to America, both discussed potential collaborations across aerospace, AI, and sustainable development. Trump himself stated that Musk wants 'to do business’ in India.
The Guardian cited Deloitte estimates suggesting India's satellite network market could reach $19 billion by 2030; if Starlink can enter first it would gain a significant advantage. However, given the Indian government’s use of internet censorship and surveillance as control measures, this may pose challenges for Musk entering the country.
If Musk leverages his connections within U.S. high-level politics to expedite approvals in India, he could achieve smoother progress than previously possible; however, concerns over national security due to ties with China and certain hardline stances from Trump’s administration might also arise.
Prior to assuming official government roles—as reported by The New York Times—Musk was highly critical of regulatory oversight by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Tesla's autonomous driving features. However, after entering governmental positions in 2025, he attempted to use more direct means to halt these investigations.
Musk often attempts to convince people that many regulations are politically motivated and targeted against Tesla due to specific political parties or vested interests not wanting reforms; this possibility may seem less likely now given his newfound power within the U.S. government.
However, Musk’s path is far from smooth: While gaining greater influence in politics allows him more decision-making powers over American policies, it also brings increased scrutiny and oversight by Congress and administrative departments.
The New York Times noted conflicts between Musk and Trump's cabinet members; one particularly intense argument occurred during a White House 'cabinet meeting,' where Musk criticized Secretary of State Marco Rubio for failing to reduce the size of his department—demonstrating that despite appearances, he faces significant challenges within Washington’s political system.
On another note, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy complained about SpaceX plans to lay off air traffic controllers which could severely impact flight safety; however, these internal disputes have gradually changed how U.S. administrative systems operate.
The Financial Times recently revealed some wealthy Chinese investors are anonymously investing in several of Musk’s private companies through special purpose vehicles (SPVs), such as xAI and Neuralink—allowing investor identities to remain hidden while avoiding additional scrutiny from the American government over 'Chinese infiltration.'
For example, asset management firms like Homaer Financial claim their clients gained a 530% return on investment in SpaceX within six years after investing in 2018; this has made more Chinese billionaires eager for Musk’s assets. However, critics question whether his influence could lead to conflicts of interest between U.S. policies and these investments.
For instance, SpaceX's involvement with the American military raises concerns over national security when foreign investment is scrutinized closely—especially from China. Yet under complex financial maneuvers, despite being seen as relatively friendly towards Beijing, Musk can still secure large sums through SPVs indirectly.
The Financial Times reported that in early 2019, Chinese authorities considered using Musk to mediate the sale of TikTok's U.S. business by leveraging his relationship with Trump—highlighting Musk’s unique role and influence internationally.
Bloomberg revealed China appreciates Musk’s interactions with its market through Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory among other ventures which could position him as a mediator in complex international transactions.
Previously, I wrote about how Musk showed interest in Chinese super-apps like WeChat that integrate payments, communications, news searches—He once openly expressed his desire to transform X (formerly Twitter) into such an ecosystem but this has been criticized for potentially aligning with China’s surveillance methods.
Musk's business approach and product strategies raise concerns over potential conflicts of interest when he holds significant positions within the U.S. government; countries like Europe or India might question deep ties between him and China.
SpaceX, founded in 2002, has raised more than $10 billion from global investors including substantial orders and contracts with American governments which involve military alliances deeply.
However, Musk’s repeated pro-China stances coupled with opposing continuous U.S. aid to Ukraine or advocating for the U.S.'s withdrawal from NATO have alarmed some in both domestic politics and European nations.
These concerns highlight fears over potential consequences if countries overly rely on his enterprises for critical services amid changing strategies based purely on commercial interests.
Musk’s various corporate governance decisions demonstrate he indeed changes strategy unilaterally once an advantage is gained, making these worries valid. While praised for shaking up bureaucratic cultures, questions remain about whether personal business gains could influence national policies and public safety.
When a
Musk appears unable to avoid controversy; for instance, his public stances in Europe have made conducting business there more challenging. He previously negotiated with multiple European countries at government levels regarding encrypted communication cooperation but recent involvement in geopolitical issues has led some leaders to question the reliability of his products.
The Financial Times reported that Italy’s government initially planned a five-year contract worth $1.5 billion for Starlink services, intended for secure communications among diplomatic and military personnel abroad; however, this plan is now precarious due to tensions between America and Europe as well as domestic political disputes. President Trump previously halted military aid to Ukraine, destabilizing NATO’s position, and Musk has repeatedly called for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO—actions that have intensified Italy's concerns about the Starlink deal.
President Mattarella once reprimanded Musk for interfering in Italian internal affairs but is now accused by some pro-Musk right-wing figures of obstructing agreements without a formal response. While Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni believes Starlink can meet security needs and emphasizes there being 'no better public solution,' domestic opposition from both the left and parts of the right strongly opposes it, fearing reliance on American technology could compromise information autonomy.
Meanwhile, despite acknowledging the necessity to engage with Musk earlier, the government has begun negotiating alternative solutions with European satellite operators like Eutelsat in response to growing criticism. The far-right League party argues that 'the U.S. system is more aligned with Italy's national interests’ and believes it would be ideologically wrong not to accept American systems amid sensitive international situations.
Poland also questions Musk’s reliability as a supplier of satellite networks. Politico reported Poland invests approximately $50 million annually in Starlink terminals for Ukraine but fears SpaceX might 'shut down or withdraw support,' unsettling the Polish foreign minister Zbigniew Rau, who suggested redirecting funds to other providers if this occurs.
India has also seen Musk’s ambitions face hurdles due to local regulations and tariffs. Despite his existing global business empire, he struggles significantly in India with Tesla's production and Starlink services encountering high regulatory barriers and import duties.
However, after cultivating closer ties with the Trump administration, circumstances shifted: During a visit by Prime Minister Modi to America, both discussed potential collaborations across aerospace, AI, and sustainable development. Trump himself stated that Musk wants 'to do business’ in India.
The Guardian cited Deloitte estimates suggesting India's satellite network market could reach $19 billion by 2030; if Starlink can enter first it would gain a significant advantage. However, given the Indian government’s use of internet censorship and surveillance as control measures, this may pose challenges for Musk entering the country.
If Musk leverages his connections within U.S. high-level politics to expedite approvals in India, he could achieve smoother progress than previously possible; however, concerns over national security due to ties with China and certain hardline stances from Trump’s administration might also arise.
Prior to assuming official government roles—as reported by The New York Times—Musk was highly critical of regulatory oversight by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding Tesla's autonomous driving features. However, after entering governmental positions in 2025, he attempted to use more direct means to halt these investigations.
Musk often attempts to convince people that many regulations are politically motivated and targeted against Tesla due to specific political parties or vested interests not wanting reforms; this possibility may seem less likely now given his newfound power within the U.S. government.
However, Musk’s path is far from smooth: While gaining greater influence in politics allows him more decision-making powers over American policies, it also brings increased scrutiny and oversight by Congress and administrative departments.
The New York Times noted conflicts between Musk and Trump's cabinet members; one particularly intense argument occurred during a White House 'cabinet meeting,' where Musk criticized Secretary of State Marco Rubio for failing to reduce the size of his department—demonstrating that despite appearances, he faces significant challenges within Washington’s political system.
On another note, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy complained about SpaceX plans to lay off air traffic controllers which could severely impact flight safety; however, these internal disputes have gradually changed how U.S. administrative systems operate.
The Financial Times recently revealed some wealthy Chinese investors are anonymously investing in several of Musk’s private companies through special purpose vehicles (SPVs), such as xAI and Neuralink—allowing investor identities to remain hidden while avoiding additional scrutiny from the American government over 'Chinese infiltration.'
For example, asset management firms like Homaer Financial claim their clients gained a 530% return on investment in SpaceX within six years after investing in 2018; this has made more Chinese billionaires eager for Musk’s assets. However, critics question whether his influence could lead to conflicts of interest between U.S. policies and these investments.
For instance, SpaceX's involvement with the American military raises concerns over national security when foreign investment is scrutinized closely—especially from China. Yet under complex financial maneuvers, despite being seen as relatively friendly towards Beijing, Musk can still secure large sums through SPVs indirectly.
The Financial Times reported that in early 2019, Chinese authorities considered using Musk to mediate the sale of TikTok's U.S. business by leveraging his relationship with Trump—highlighting Musk’s unique role and influence internationally.
Bloomberg revealed China appreciates Musk’s interactions with its market through Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory among other ventures which could position him as a mediator in complex international transactions.
Previously, I wrote about how Musk showed interest in Chinese super-apps like WeChat that integrate payments, communications, news searches—He once openly expressed his desire to transform X (formerly Twitter) into such an ecosystem but this has been criticized for potentially aligning with China’s surveillance methods.
Musk's business approach and product strategies raise concerns over potential conflicts of interest when he holds significant positions within the U.S. government; countries like Europe or India might question deep ties between him and China.
SpaceX, founded in 2002, has raised more than $10 billion from global investors including substantial orders and contracts with American governments which involve military alliances deeply.
However, Musk’s repeated pro-China stances coupled with opposing continuous U.S. aid to Ukraine or advocating for the U.S.'s withdrawal from NATO have alarmed some in both domestic politics and European nations.
These concerns highlight fears over potential consequences if countries overly rely on his enterprises for critical services amid changing strategies based purely on commercial interests.
Musk’s various corporate governance decisions demonstrate he indeed changes strategy unilaterally once an advantage is gained, making these worries valid. While praised for shaking up bureaucratic cultures, questions remain about whether personal business gains could influence national policies and public safety.
When a