Elon Musk Is Said To Be Getting The War Plan Against China
Update: After the NY Times reported this story last night, Donald Trump denied that Musk would be getting the China war plan, and now the NY Times is reporting that, while that was the original plan, it was scrapped because of the public outcry The Wall Street Journal is similarly reporting that the nature of the meeting changed because of the public revelation. We’re still running this article from Mike Brock that he wrote yesterday, because of the seriousness of this situation. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, continuing to show his anti-free speech instincts, has threatened whoever leaked the original story.
The New York Times reports that Elon Musk is about to receive access to one of America’s most sensitive military secrets: the Pentagon’s war plan for a potential conflict with China. Let that sink in for a moment.
The same Elon Musk who is currently CEO of Tesla, which operates a flagship factory in Shanghai that produces more than half of the company’s global deliveries. The same Elon Musk whose company has a $2.8 billion loan agreement with Chinese lenders. The same Elon Musk who has publicly stated that Taiwan should be a “special administrative zone” of China. The same Elon Musk who wrote a flattering column for China’s censorship agency and has consistently praised Chinese leadership on social media.
This isn’t just a routine conflict of interest—it’s a national security nightmare unfolding in plain sight.
According to the New York Times, Musk will be briefed Friday on the top-secret operational plan that includes “what Chinese targets to hit, over what time period” in the event of war. This information is so sensitive that it’s typically only shared with those directly in the military chain of command. Even presidents usually receive only the broad contours, not the specific operational details.
Defenders of this unprecedented access might argue that Musk’s role in the Department of Government Efficiency necessitates his understanding of defense capabilities to make informed budget decisions. But this justification collapses under scrutiny. Budget oversight has never required access to operational war plans—Congress has managed defense appropriations for centuries without such detailed briefings. Moreover, if budget efficiency were truly the goal, why not provide similar briefings to the Office of Management and Budget or congressional committees with actual constitutional authority over spending?
What this justification reveals is alarming: DOGE isn’t just about eliminating waste; it’s about fundamentally reshaping America’s defense posture with minimal oversight. We are witnessing the privatization of national security decision-making, where unelected billionaires with business conflicts receive information traditionally reserved for the military chain of command.
The historical precedents for such arrangements are uniformly disastrous. During the 1930s, German industrialists with international business ties were given increasing influence over military planning, ultimately subordinating national security to corporate interests. More recently, the revolving door between defense contractors and the Pentagon has raised serious ethical concerns—but never before has a sitting CEO of multiple companies simultaneously directed government “efficiency” efforts while receiving classified operational briefings.
This meeting represents an unprecedented blurring of lines between private business interests and national security. Musk simultaneously heads SpaceX, a major defense contractor receiving billions in Pentagon funds, while directing government efficiency efforts that could determine which competitors receive future contracts. In the Times piece, defense expert Todd Harrison noted, “Giving the CEO of one defense company unique access seems like this could be grounds for a contract protest and is a real conflict of interest.”
Most concerning is China’s explicit identification of Musk’s Starlink satellite network as an extension of the U.S. military—a view that puts his profound business interests in China in direct conflict with his privileged access to U.S. war planning. This is precisely the kind of conflict that led the Air Force to previously deny Musk an even higher security clearance, citing potential security risks.
The mechanisms through which this conflict could compromise national security are not theoretical. Knowledge of U.S. targeting priorities creates leverage that can be exploited in multiple ways. Chinese authorities, well aware of Tesla’s vulnerability in their market, could apply subtle pressure through regulatory actions against his Shanghai factory. Even without explicit coercion, Musk’s awareness of which Chinese facilities would be primary targets in a conflict could unconsciously influence his business decisions—perhaps steering Tesla investments away from areas identified as strategic targets, inadvertently telegraphing U.S. military priorities. The Chinese government, which maintains sophisticated intelligence operations, would analyze any such patterns for insights into U.S. planning.
What we are witnessing is, in fact, an oligarchical coup—a term I’ve repeatedly used here at Notes From The Circus, and one that becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss as hyperbole with each passing week. The transfer of core governmental functions to private interests with minimal oversight represents precisely the kind of capture that transforms democracies into oligarchies. When billionaires simultaneously direct government operations, receive classified briefings, and maintain private business empires—all with minimal accountability—we have moved beyond normal governance into something fundamentally different: rule by the wealthy few rather than democratically elected representatives.
The urgency of this situation cannot be overstated. This briefing is scheduled for today. By the time many of you read these words, one of America’s most closely guarded military secrets will have been shared with a businessman whose company depends on the goodwill of the very country those plans are designed to counter. Once this line is crossed, it cannot be uncrossed. The precedent it sets—that private citizens with business conflicts can access war plans—will be cited to justify even more egregious breaches in the future. With each successive norm violation, our capacity to be shocked diminishes, and the machinery of constitutional governance rusts further.
This unprecedented arrangement threatens not just domestic governance but international stability. America’s allies, already questioning U.S. reliability under Trump, will further distance themselves when they see sensitive security matters handled with such cavalier disregard for conflicts of interest. The Five Eyes intelligence alliance (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), built on decades of mutual trust, faces particular strain as partner nations grow increasingly reluctant to share sensitive information that might find its way to private citizens with complex international business interests. Japan and South Korea, frontline states in any potential conflict with China, must now factor in the possibility that U.S. war planning is being influenced by private business considerations. Meanwhile, adversaries will be emboldened, seeing in this arrangement confirmation that U.S. national security has been subordinated to private financial concerns.
Congress, in light of its constitutional prerogatives, should immediately demand a full accounting of who authorized this briefing and under what authority. It should establish clear statutory limits on what information can be shared with DOGE personnel, require security clearance reviews for all private citizens given access to classified information, and mandate recusal from any matter involving countries where officials have substantial business interests. While it’s highly unlikely that the complicit Mike Johnson and the current GOP majority in Congress will undertake any of these actions, I make these suggestions for the sake of posterity and to make the ethical, legal, and constitutional point.
Public engagement remains our most viable path forward when institutions fail. History shows that citizen action has successfully preserved democratic guardrails even during periods of institutional capture. The Pentagon Papers revelations, which exposed government deception about Vietnam, demonstrated how courageous individuals can create accountability when formal channels fail. More recently, the post-9/11 surveillance revelations prompted significant reforms only after public pressure made inaction politically untenable. In both cases, the combination of whistleblowers, independent journalists, and sustained public attention created counterweights to unchecked executive power.
Similar citizen vigilance is required today, and it must be immediate and sustained. Support for independent journalism investigating these conflicts, advocacy for stronger ethics laws, attention to congressional oversight hearings (or lack thereof), and consistent pressure on representatives across party lines can create political costs for normalizing such conflicts. Professional associations like the American Foreign Service Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the Intelligence and National Security Alliance should leverage their credibility to formally condemn this breach of security protocol. Retired intelligence officials, military officers, and national security experts—many of whom have spent careers protecting classified information—must speak out collectively, making clear that this is not a partisan issue but a national security emergency. Most importantly, voters must demand answers from candidates about where they stand on private influence over national security decisions.
Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a businessman with billions in financial exposure to China should not have access to classified war plans against that same country. This is madness. Anyone who defends this is deranged. This isn’t a partisan observation—it’s a fundamental principle of national security that appears to have been casually discarded.
At stake here is more than just operational security—it’s the principle that national defense decisions should be made by democratically accountable officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, not by private citizens with competing financial interests. When we allow the line between public service and private gain to blur this dramatically, we undermine the foundation of democratic governance itself: that power flows from the people through their elected representatives, not from wealth and proximity to those representatives.
The question isn’t whether this represents a conflict of interest—it plainly does. The question is whether we still possess the collective will to defend democratic principles when they’re most threatened. The vigilance required to preserve constitutional governance doesn’t rest with officials alone—it falls to each of us to recognize, name, and resist the normalization of conflicts that strike at the heart of democratic accountability. If we cannot draw the line at giving war plans to businessmen with financial ties to potential adversaries, it’s difficult to imagine where we would draw it at all.
Our democracy’s survival requires not just awareness but action—not just concern but commitment. The Constitution’s promise of government by the people, for the people depends not on parchment guarantees but on citizens willing to stand for its principles when they are most threatened. This moment demands nothing less than our full engagement in the defense of democratic governance against its capture by private interests. That is both our inheritance and our obligation to those who will follow.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 47
Mike Brock is a former tech exec who was on the leadership team at Block. Originally published at his Notes From the Circus.