Elon Musk’s legal team has issued a warning of potential legal action in response to a new documentary that they claim misrepresents the billionaire’s involvement in the 2024 presidential election. The film, directed by renowned filmmaker Alex Gibney, was unveiled at the Venice Film Festival on September 8 and is set to be released in U.S. cinemas on October 16.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Elon-Musk-US-Saudi-Investment-Forum-2025-020926-03291c65415e486d9b12d2c5f2970282.jpg)
Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, has formally contacted Gibney, asserting that the documentary inaccurately suggests that Musk used his satellite internet communications system, Starlink, to sway the election. The allegations raised in Spiro’s letter indicate that the filmmakers ignored requests from Musk’s legal representatives for an opportunity to engage with the film’s content prior to its release.
In Spiro’s letter, he accuses Gibney and his team of approaching the project with preconceived notions regarding Musk, asserting that the documentary did not initiate as an effort to investigate but rather began with an intention to reach a predetermined conclusion. In an excerpt from the letter, Spiro stated, “This project did not begin as an inquiry; it began with a conclusion.”
The controversy surrounding the documentary emerges against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny of Musk’s public and business activities. The film involves insights from various individuals in Musk’s life, including his former partner Ashley St. Clair, who has transitioned from a conservative influencer to a vocal critic of the tech magnate. St. Clair, who shares a son with Musk and has faced challenges regarding custody arrangements, openly discusses Musk’s behaviour in the lead-up to the 2024 election, noting a peculiar certainty he exhibited about Donald Trump’s potential victory.
St. Clair recounts an incident where Musk purportedly mentioned “unleashing the anomaly in the matrix,” later followed by a cryptic text stating, “I have ten thousand lasers in space.” When asked if she believed he was referencing Starlink, she replied, “I mean, I don’t know where else he has space lasers.” This segment, as highlighted by Spiro, is cited as evidence of the film’s implied assertion that Musk leveraged Starlink for electoral influence.
Spiro maintains that this assertion is unfounded, emphasising that Starlink’s operations are not integrated with voting processes. He argued that the documentary’s narrative could potentially convey a defamatory impression, despite not directly claiming Musk manipulated the election. Instead, Spiro noted that defamation could arise from the manner in which facts are presented, including the sequencing of information or omission of exculpatory evidence.
Elon Musk, who described the documentary as a “hit piece” shortly after its announcement, refrained from participating in the film’s production, although it features interviews with several individuals close to him, including his first wife, Justine Musk; his father, Errol Musk; and Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard. Justine Musk, who was married to Elon from 2000 until their separation in 2008, shares insights from their relationship, including experiences of psychological manipulation, or “gaslighting,” she claims to have endured.
In addition to the concerns regarding the election narrative, Spiro’s letter indicates that there may be other inaccuracies in the documentary concerning Musk that were not thoroughly investigated. The letter serves as a formal notice to all parties associated with the film’s release, which includes Gibney, Jigsaw, HBO, Bleecker Street, and Universal.
Spiro has also called for the preservation of all materials connected to the documentary, encompassing footage, interview recordings, research documents, and correspondence with sources. He concluded the letter with an invitation for filmmakers to verify their facts with those who possess relevant knowledge, stating, “Our door is open if you decide to check your facts with the people who know them. If not, we will proceed accordingly.”
As the premiere date approaches, the unfolding situation highlights the contentious relationship between Musk and the media, as well as the implications of the documentary for public perception of both the entrepreneur and the political landscape. Both sides remain at a standstill, with the tension surrounding the film likely to persist as it enters the public domain.