After a historic election night that handed Democrats majorities in both chambers of Congress, the mood in Washington has shifted from celebration to planning. And sitting squarely in the crosshairs of that planning is the world’s richest man, Elon Musk. It’s a strange twist of fate, really. Just a few months ago, Musk was the undisputed king of the private sector, celebrated for his reusable rockets and internet-beaming satellites. Now, he’s the year’s biggest political donor and a key ally of President-elect Donald Trump, which makes him a very tempting target for a newly emboldened Democratic Party. Democratic legislators have already signaled that they intend to launch a blizzard of investigations into Musk and his sprawling business empire. They want to examine whether SpaceX contracts were awarded improperly in the last few years, and whether Musk, while running the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), improperly accessed confidential information as a federal contractor. Even before the election, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut had opened an inquiry into why Ukraine’s battlefield access to Starshield and Starlink was recently restricted—services that provide Ukrainian troops with vital, life-saving communications through SpaceX’s satellite network. To put it bluntly, the Democrats are sharpening their knives, but they’re about to discover that carving into Musk is a far more delicate operation than they might think.
The fundamental problem is that Democrats are stuck between their desire to clip Musk’s wings and the cold, hard reality of national security. In the defense world, SpaceX essentially operates as a monopoly in certain critical segments. And everyone, regardless of party, hates being dependent on a single supplier for something that crucial. As Armand Musey, president of the satellite-focused consultancy Summit Ridge Group, explains, the concern is that Musk wields too much power because he possesses technology that nobody else has—and that technology is becoming increasingly vital on the modern battlefield. Musey uses a stark comparison to drive the point home: “It’s like you’re in World War II, and there’s only one person who understands how the atomic bomb works.” That’s a sobering thought. Roughly one-fifth of SpaceX’s $18.7 billion in revenue last year came from federal agencies, with a hefty chunk flowing in from the Pentagon for programs like Starshield services and Falcon 9 missions that carry highly sensitive national security payloads into orbit. So, when Forbes reached out to a group of analysts about SpaceX’s future under a Democratic Congress, nearly all of them voiced deep concerns about Musk’s outsized power, but they also conceded that challenging it without risking U.S. security would be nearly impossible. On top of that, Congress doesn’t even have the legal authority to award or cancel contracts—that power rests solely with the executive branch. So the legislative branch’s ability to simply yank the leash is surprisingly limited. All of this suggests that any action from the new Congress will be gradual, cautious, and perhaps even reluctant. A strongly Democratic Congress might want to teach Musk a lesson, but they probably don’t want to teach it at the expense of America’s strategic edge.
To understand why, you have to look at the sheer scale of SpaceX’s technological dominance. Its Falcon 9 rocket is launching into space with a frequency that leaves competitors in the dust, accounting for more than half of all orbital launches worldwide last year. It pioneered reusability, driving down costs, and is now the cheapest medium-to-heavy-lift rocket in history. The U.S. military depends on Falcon 9 for all sorts of critical missions: deploying satellites that enable GPS navigation, reconnaissance, and encrypted military communications, as well as testing experimental new technologies that the Pentagon is desperate to get off the ground. Victoria Samson, chief director of space security and stability at the Secure World Foundation, puts it in no uncertain terms: “The fact of the matter is, the U.S. depends upon SpaceX for access to space. In terms of saying, ‘Oh, we’re just going to take away all the SpaceX contracts’—we can’t.” And it’s not just rockets. The company’s Starlink satellite constellation is also unrivaled, boasting a scale, capacity, and ultra-low latency that no other network can match. Starlink has become a massive part of the communications backbone for the military, not only for the United States but for allies and partners across the globe. That, in turn, creates a whole host of thorny issues, especially when one man holds the keys. Reports surfaced last month that Musk personally restricted Ukraine’s access to Starlink and Starshield, which are critical for battlefield coordination. Musk later admitted to throttling Starlink, claiming Ukraine had violated its terms of service, but insisted that only the U.S. military has the ability to curb the more advanced Starshield network. The image of a single private citizen being able to flick a switch on a nation’s wartime communications is an uncomfortable one, to say the least.
So what can Congress actually do? Well, they can’t cancel contracts, but they can defund programs wholesale. Democrats are already eyeing the Golden Dome initiative, a missile-defense shield program in which SpaceX has won far more publicly disclosed contracting dollars than any other company—around $8 billion in related awards. Slashing that program would send a loud message. Conversely, they could increase funding for programs designed to challenge SpaceX’s competitive advantages. Nick Reese, former head of emerging tech policy at the Homeland Security Department, points to the Traffic Coordination System for Space as a fascinating possibility. This system was meant to combine military data with voluntary sharing from satellite operators like Starlink to give the public access to space situational awareness data. But it has struggled to get off the ground after being cut during Musk’s DOGE-driven government purge. Congress could theoretically make this data sharing mandatory, which would have a delicious irony: taking the orbital data that Starlink owns and controls and making it public would immediately disadvantage SpaceX. Reese explains, “Not only is low Earth orbit populated predominantly by the satellites of one company, but that company also owns all of that orbital data. So if you were to pull that away and make it public, that immediately would disadvantage Starlink.” On the far more extreme end of the spectrum, there’s the idea of nationalizing SpaceX, or at least a piece of it like Starlink. Calls for that have mounted from influential voices like economist Paul Krugman and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. It sounds drastic, but it’s not totally unprecedented in the U.S., though it usually happens during wartime or to rescue insolvent companies. Congress could pass a law forcing a compulsory buyout, but experts think that’s far beyond what even the most liberal lawmakers would actually support. A more realistic approach might be new statutes specifically targeting SpaceX’s operations, like stricter risk assessments for space launches (since SpaceX does the vast majority of U.S. launches), or new procurement rules that attack the company’s vertical integration—a core source of its efficiency and cost edge. For instance, future contracts could require that satellite service providers can’t manufacture and own the satellites launched on their own rockets. There’s even talk of mandating that U.S. satellite communications contractors can’t intentionally limit service in war zones without explicit government permission—a direct jab at Musk’s behavior in Ukraine.
Of course, every one of these ideas runs smack into the reality of a Trump presidency. Trump would likely veto any bill specifically designed to hurt his ally, and Congress would need a two-thirds majority to overturn that veto—far more than the Democrats are poised to hold, even with their historic landslide. That’s why savvy observers expect Democrats to try a more clever, sneaky approach. They could attach their anti-Musk measures to must-pass legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual military spending bill that everyone feels obliged to support. Nick Reese says, “I imagine that if they were going to do something like this, they would do it as a part of the NDAA, because you’ve got to pass the NDAA. Democrats could put the White House in a difficult position by passing something that is common sense, in the middle, and pushing the White House: Are you prepared to step on that landmine and veto it?” Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project On Government Oversight, agrees, noting that “bills that need to pass are where you see that kind of gamesmanship.” And these methods can be beautifully discreet. As Amey says, “You kind of have to read all 1,500 pages to see where there are hidden gems people slip in.” Meanwhile, there’s an alternative, slightly more optimistic path: instead of trying to tear down SpaceX, Congress could work to strengthen its distant competitors like Blue Origin, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, United Launch Alliance, or Rocket Lab. But Armand Musey warns that the gap seems to be widening, not shrinking. SpaceX’s vertical integration is unmatched, and its new generation of satellites, which are just now being deployed, have ten times the data-carrying capacity of the old ones. In theory, fostering competition would reduce America’s dependency on Musk without provoking a showdown. But that would be slow, painstaking work, and it would come with its own set of headaches—assuming the political will is even there.
And so we arrive at the great paradox of this entire saga. The arena in which Democrats most want to lessen Musk’s influence—the defense sector—is also the arena in which it is hardest to do so. The U.S., and its allies, are deeply and irreversibly intertwined with SpaceX’s technology. If Democrats hope to curb Musk’s power without compromising national security, they will have to be extremely deliberate, patient, and clever. At the moment, their plans appear to be in the early, rather muddled stages. Musk will absolutely be a target, but it’s not exactly clear how the attack will unfold. The safest prediction is that we’ll see a wave of investigations, a few dramatic hearings, and a lot of angry speeches. But any real structural change will probably be slow, cautious, and hidden within the fine print of spending bills. As Gregory Allen, CEO of Decision Tree Research, wryly put it, “It sounds to me like ready, fire, aim… instead of ready, aim, fire.” It captures the situation perfectly: a new and ambitious Congress, eager to take on a formidable opponent, but not yet sure which button to push. In the months ahead, they will have to learn fast—because Elon Musk isn’t the kind of man who waits around to be shot at. He’ll spend his time building new rockets, launching more satellites, and expanding the very dependencies that make him so hard to touch. For Democrats, the challenge is not just about taking a swing at Musk; it’s about landing a blow that won’t accidentally break the entire system they’re trying to protect. The story is only just beginning.
