Elon Musk’s China ties pose a risk to US national security

The House Homeland Security Committee on March 5 held a hearing on threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party. The timing was fitting, as China responded to President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on the very same day by declaring it could fight the United States in any war.

As Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) stated before the hearing, “From infiltrating American higher education and operating clandestine police stations on U.S. soil to conducting cyber espionage and undermining our supply chains — Beijing casts an authoritarian shadow upon the United States.”

Concerns about Elon Musk’s ties to China are not just partisan noise. They are authentic, bipartisan, and rooted in national security risks.

Green is correct, and that’s the least of it. The CCP has also abetted illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border, attempted to buy up strategic assets like the Panama Canal, and played a key role in concealing — and likely creating — the COVID-19 virus, which killed over one million Americans.

Countering CCP influence requires a multipronged approach: banning Chinese nationals from purchasing American land, reasserting U.S. control over the Panama Canal, using diplomacy to disrupt China’s increasingly close relationship with Russia, canceling visas for Chinese students at American universities, reshoring supply chains, and strengthening the U.S. Navy in preparation for a potential conflict over Taiwan.

Yet, the congressional hearing failed to address one primary vector of CCP influence: the need to impose more rules on government leaders and contractors, most notably, Elon Musk — the indispensable leader of the Department of Government Efficiency and national security contractor for the federal government — to better protect the United States from China.

Musk’s ties to Beijing

Before you roll your eyes and close this tab, rest assured: This is not another Democratic National Committee-workshopped, anti-DOGE hit piece. I’m a fan of Musk. Democrats’ “Musk derangement syndrome” — often bordering on outright xenophobia by attacking his legal immigrant status — is nothing more than a political messaging strategy aimed at rallying their base and chipping away at Trump’s approval ratings.

That said, concerns about Musk’s ties to China — however unintentional their potential effects on the U.S. may be — are not just partisan noise. They are authentic, bipartisan, and rooted in national security risks.

In February, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Select Committee on the CCP, stated that “the CCP will try and leverage any opportunity” to exploit Musk’s business ties to its advantage. Former Trump campaign manager Steve Bannon and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy have both similarly warned of China’s potential ability to undermine U.S. interests through their proximity to Musk and his business interests.

A billion-dollar dilemma

Tesla relies heavily on China. It is the company’s second-largest market, and Musk has suggested it could become the top market soon. Musk secured over $1.4 billion in loans from a state-controlled Chinese bank to build Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai. In return, he has navigated the Chinese political landscape with a businessman’s pragmatism — sometimes praising China’s governance model and pledging to uphold “core socialist values” in the country.

None of this may seem like a big deal, but it is concerning that Chinese laws require private companies operating in the country to give the Chinese government any information it demands.

Doing business in China is not a crime. Neither is saying favorable things about a country that might help sell more electric vehicles. What is a crime, however, is that Congress does not better investigate and police defense contractors who do business in China — ensuring their companies don’t have any potential vulnerabilities to the country’s military-civil fusion laws or risks of falling prey to one of the CCP’s many espionage efforts.

Taking steps to separate certain aspects of one’s business life from one’s government role is not unprecedented. David Sacks, the president’s crypto czar, already did the right thing by liquidating his digital currency holdings before entering the White House. No one should expect or mandate that Musk walk away from the companies he founded, but having him agree to some basic oversight or business requirements is a reasonable safeguard.

The solution is not to sideline Musk. It is to implement policies that ensure his business dealings do not conflict with U.S. national security interests. Congress must establish clear safeguards that protect both Musk and the United States from the CCP’s far-reaching influence. The future of American security depends on it.