Elon Musk faces intensifying scrutiny. A large portion of Democratic lawmakers are signaling investigations or even prison time for him if they regain majorities in Congress during the upcoming midterms. They can’t specify the exact wrongdoing, but they’ll conjure something nonetheless.
Even more troubling, some critics of Musk want to seize control of his businesses, including Starlink, which Ukraine relies on for essential connectivity. Robert Reich, a veteran Democrat with left-leaning populist views, argues that Starlink is too vital to be left under Musk’s control and that the federal government would manage it more effectively. Here’s how he expressed that idea:
NEW: Reich urges Democrats to push for defunding Elon Musk and to pursue his companies.
“Democrats ought to [start] laying the groundwork for nationalizing Starlink & SpaceX… It should operate as a public corporation.”
Does he want Musk to shell out another $50M for the… pic.twitter.com/0jiljf0CtG
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 25, 2026
From Reich’s own words: he argues for a pathway to public ownership of Starlink and SpaceX. The notion strikes many as reckless and hazardous. Here is the reasoning often offered against it.
To understand the situation, a bit of context is necessary. Starlink is a service Ukraine relies on to deliver civilian internet access. Musk has repeatedly stated that while he is eager to support Ukraine amid the ongoing invasion, Starlink must not be used for offensive military purposes, as doing so would make his satellites legitimate targets in Russia’s war effort. He emphasizes that this is about avoiding escalation, not denying aid. Separately, Starshield—another system—falls under Pentagon supervision, and Musk maintains he has no control over it.
Last week saw a slowdown in Starshield that diminished Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian moves. That development was problematic. Earlier this summer, I joined a delegation organized by a pro-Ukraine nonprofit and visited Ukraine to witness firsthand how indispensable Starshield can be to defending a free Ukraine. There is also a persistent drumbeat of criticism from portions of right-wing media about Ukraine. It’s easy to forget that Russia is the aggressor, not Ukraine. Russia has refused to accept a peace scheme. When President Donald Trump urged an immediate ceasefire, Ukraine paused attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, yet Russia continued to strike. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has signaled a willingness to halt fighting and freeze the front lines at the current position, echoing Trump’s stance. Vladimir Putin, however, has shown no sign of negotiating.
We cannot be certain who ordered the Starshield slowdown. The U.S. government has denied involvement. Musk, for his part, has claimed that Ukraine violated Starlink’s terms of service by using the network for offensive purposes, and therefore that the slowdown was justified. While that explanation may be frustrating for Kyiv, the overarching fact remains: Starlink is Musk’s company, and he sets the rules. It remains under his ownership.
And ideally, it should stay that way. Nationalizing the company would be an irrational response to a tech owner’s control over how his product is used. Do we genuinely trust a government to run these firms as efficiently as the people who built them? The answer is unlikely. Moreover, in this particular case, such action could edge us toward a direct clash with Russia—and while undermining Moscow’s conquest of Ukraine is a laudable goal, risking a broader war, potentially a global one, would be a grave misstep.
There are broader philosophical costs as well. We are witnessing an extraordinary surge of innovation in technology—artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, robotics, and beyond. When the government nationalizes a successful tech company, it sends a chilling message to the rest: if you excel at what you do, you may be seized. That would dampen investment and stifle invention at a moment when progress is most needed.
Taking Musk’s companies into public hands would not help Ukraine. It would, however, undermine American interests as well. We should encourage competition among leaders like Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and others to keep producing better tools that improve lives while earning profits. Government interference would derail that dynamic. Unfortunately, many far-left thinkers, including Reich, Senators Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), along with numerous newcomers entering Congress, appear intent on slowing the pace of technological advancement. Their stance reveals how deeply they oppose Musk.
