In the last 24 hours, reports from my colleagues indicate that Elon Musk was supposed to be briefed on the military’s classified strategies should conflict arise with China, stirring significant concern in Washington. President Trump appeared to be caught off guard by this news.
Following the publication of an article by The Times regarding his visit, Musk’s scheduled briefing in a secured area of the Pentagon was abruptly canceled, as reported by a knowledgeable source.
This morning, Trump refuted claims of any planned briefing. Nevertheless, he expressed that Musk should not be privy to such sensitive military plans.
“Certainly, you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much,” Trump remarked. He added, “Elon has businesses in China, and he could be influenced perhaps by that.”
I reached out to Eric Schmitt, a national security reporter for The Times, who graciously found a rare spot in the Pentagon where he could get cell service to update us on the situation.
JB: Let’s start from the top. What did you find out yesterday regarding the initial plans?
ES: The Pentagon was set to provide Musk with a briefing this morning on the classified strategy regarding China. We learned that it was scheduled to take place in a secure conference room known as the Tank, typically reserved for high-level military briefings with the Joint Chiefs or senior commanders. The fact that a civilian, such as Elon Musk, who isn’t part of the command structure, would receive any briefing there — particularly on sensitive military plans for China — was quite unusual, causing alarm among some officials.
The administration has contested your reporting. However, your team remains firm on the accuracy of the story.
We are absolutely confident this was the arrangement. Several factors reinforce our confidence beyond strong sourcing. If Musk were genuinely visiting for a more casual conversation, why would it be held in the Tank? Additionally, the primary presenter for the originally planned meeting was Samuel Paparo, a four-star admiral responsible for the Indo-Pacific region, who would serve as the wartime commander in the event of hostilities with China.
What transpired this morning?
Musk arrived as scheduled around 9 AM. He proceeded to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office for what was supposed to be about a 30-minute discussion. There were tentative plans to hold the Tank meeting at 9:30. This later shifted to 9:45 and then 10. We observed top military personnel moving between Hegseth’s office, located on the third floor, and the Tank one floor below. Shortly after 10, all aides outside the Tank departed, and we were informed that the meeting with Musk was definitely off.
We saw Musk exit — he did not respond to our inquiries — and later, President Trump appeared in his office alongside Hegseth, reiterating that our report was incorrect. However, we discovered that in the wake of our report’s publication, the White House effectively canceled the planned briefing, opting for a less sensitive alternative.
Today, in his office, Trump did something unusual: He recognized Musk’s potential conflicts of interest regarding China. What did you take from that?
It was quite telling about how Trump perceives Musk’s role, as he praised Musk for his advisorial value. However, he also specified where Musk’s influence should not extend, drawing clear lines around what he can or cannot do, which is something he hasn’t clearly articulated until now.
Trump’s comments suggested some lack of awareness about the initial briefing proposal to Musk. He mentioned that he had to call his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and Hegseth to inquire about the news when he heard it — indicating he was not informed beforehand.
What does this incident reveal about the dynamics between the White House, the Pentagon, and Elon Musk?
It has sparked concerns regarding the relationship between Musk’s enterprises and the Pentagon. Secretary Hegseth has actively sought to publicly welcome the DOGE staff. For instance, he shared a video yesterday showcasing how DOGE, in collaboration with Defense staff, identified $580 million in potential contract cuts. It’s evident he is attempting to align with Musk’s vision, though the underlying motives remain unclear. Is it to genuinely assist him in fulfilling his commitment to reducing costs? Or to safeguard programs that he wishes to maintain?
Moreover, this situation raises concerns regarding the level of communication between a less experienced defense secretary, the White House, and Musk. Is there harmony in their collaboration?
Our conversation was shortened for brevity and coherence.
IN OTHER NEWS on X
Not every CEO can do this
After leaving the Pentagon, Musk took to X to threaten those who vandalize Tesla vehicles in protest. My colleague Kate Conger, who monitors his account’s megaphone use, provides insight.
Musk’s posts — similar to much of his current activity — prompted questions about his governmental role and its intersection with his leadership of several major corporations. While many business executives might call for investigations into property damage at their firms, Musk holds the unique power to potentially sway law enforcement to pursue legal action against Tesla protesters.
This level of influence is unavailable to most other executives. However, Musk, due to his close ties with the president, has the extraordinary capability to issue federal mandates, such as instructing federal employees to submit weekly reports of their accomplishments or mandating their return to federal offices instead of working remotely.
Musk also re-shared a post from Trump stating that “terrorists” had targeted Tesla. “I look forward to seeing these sick terrorist thugs sentenced to 20 years for their actions against Elon Musk and Tesla,” Trump had advised.
Additionally, Musk shared a video expressing, “If you follow the news, it feels apocalyptic. I can’t pass a TV without witnessing a Tesla engulfed in flames,” and he amplified other messages calling for inquiries into the funding sources of protests against Tesla.
Musk further demanded investigations into whistle-blowers who disclosed details about his Pentagon visit, stating, “They will be found.”
— Kate Conger
BY THE NUMBERS
$100
That is the amount Musk’s super PAC, America PAC, is offering to Wisconsin voters who sign a petition “against activist judges” or refer others to do so, according to a report by my colleague Theodore Schleifer.
This marks a revival of an unusual strategy Musk employed during the presidential election, when he offered voters $47 for pledging support for the First and Second Amendments.
Such tactics could enhance awareness among conservative voters regarding Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election on April 1, while also gathering data on potentially active voters.
DON’T MISS
The Musk ally managing DOGE: ‘Steve is like chemo’
Regarding that $47-per-voter incentive: The individual behind this initiative, Steve Davis, is featured in an important profile created by Theodore, Kate, and another colleague, Ryan Mac.
Davis was the 14th employee at SpaceX and later led Musk’s Boring Company. (His past ventures include running a frozen yogurt shop and serving on the board of a nonprofit focused on the teachings of Ayn Rand.) Currently, he oversees the everyday operations of DOGE.
He and his partner, currently engaged in cost-saving at the General Services Administration, have established a base of operations on the agency’s sixth floor, secured by a full security team, according to three agency employees.
“Steve is like chemo,” Musk remarked before Trump took office. “A little chemotherapy can save your life; too much can be deadly.”
