WASHINGTON — Nearly seven months after a published report said billionaire Elon Musk had repeatedly held phone conversations with Vladimir Putin and other high-level Russians, there is no sign the Defense Department is reassessing Musk’s role as a major defense contractor with a top-secret security clearance.

Senior Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee called last November for the Biden administration to review Musk’s clearance and consider whether he should continue to be involved in SpaceX contracts. They reiterated those calls in interviews this week.

If any other U.S. defense contractor with a top-secret clearance — or any Defense Department employee — had repeatedly spoken by phone with leaders of arguably America’s principal foreign adversary, it would raise serious questions, at a minimum, several senators said.

“Typically our defense contractors, and that’s what Musk wants to be, do not deal with Russia in any way, shape or form — and the same rule should apply to him,” said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, in a May 14 interview. “The primary responsibility of the president is to protect the people of the United States. A large part of that is ensuring that adversaries don’t get information they should not have. So if you’re willing to ignore that to take care of a major donor, that’s absolutely wrong and unethical.”

‘Serious questions’

After The Wall Street Journal reported last October that Musk had spoken repeatedly with Putin and senior Russians between 2021 and last year, Reed and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the second-most senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called in November for the Biden administration to investigate Musk’s reported contacts and to review his clearance and whether suspension or debarment were warranted.

Reed and Shaheen requested the probe in a publicly released letter addressed to both then-Attorney General Merrick Garland and Pentagon Inspector General Robert Storch, who was fired by President Donald Trump on Jan. 24 as part of a larger purge of inspectors general at multiple departments.

“These relationships between a well-known U.S. adversary and Mr. Musk, a beneficiary of billions of dollars in U.S. government funding, pose serious questions regarding Mr. Musk’s reliability as a government contractor and a clearance holder,” Reed and Shaheen wrote at the time.

Reed and Shaheen also wrote then Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall last November about the reported calls between Musk and Putin.

Kendall, in a previously unreported December response to the senators obtained by CQ Roll Call, said: “The Department of the Air Force takes security matters very seriously, and I share your concerns.”

No signs of probe

It is unclear, however, whether any investigation has ensued.

Storch, in a previously unreported January letter to Reed and Shaheen obtained by CQ Roll Call, said his Office of the Inspector General investigators would not be looking into Musk’s contacts with Putin.

Instead, Storch wrote, it would be up to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency to assess the relevance of the reports to Musk’s security clearance.

And Storch said the military services and Defense Logistics Agency are in charge of weighing suspension or debarment of contractors.

“After carefully reviewing the concerns in your letter and how they relate to the oversight responsibilities of the DoD OIG, we determined that other organizations in the DoD are better suited to address your concerns,” Storch wrote.

The Space Force, part of the Air Force, is SpaceX’s main U.S. government customer for billions of dollars worth of launch services, satellites and more.

The Air Force said this week it is not reviewing SpaceX for suspension or debarment.

“The Department of the Air Force has received no evidence that would warrant a debarment action against SpaceX,” an Air Force spokesperson said via email.

A spokesman for the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency said it would not comment on whether or not it is conducting a review of Musk’s clearance.

“Consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974, we do not comment on any individual’s security clearance, review or status, or about personnel security policy matters in the context of reports about any individual’s actions,” the official said in a statement.

Current and former Defense officials, requesting anonymity, suggested that a probe of a presidential confidante who owns a leading defense firm — even if it might be warranted — may be too touchy for any executive branch investigative body to pursue.

Musk’s tilt toward Moscow

The Wall Street Journal reported in October of last year that Musk had repeatedly talked with Putin, with the first known call happening in 2021, a conversation that Musk publicly acknowledged.

But there were others with Putin and senior Russians, the paper said.

Musk has also spoken with Sergei Kiriyenko, Putin’s first deputy chief of staff, the story said.

Kiriyenko has been an architect of Russia’s global disinformation campaign, creating some 30 internet domains to promote Kremlin views, including on Musk’s social media platform, X, the Justice Department said in an affidavit last fall.

On one occasion, the newspaper reported, Putin asked Musk if he would consider not activating Starlink over Taiwan, a request that Putin characterized as a favor to his allies in Beijing, The Wall Street Journal article indicated. Starlink does not currently operate in Taiwan.

During the years of his reported contacts with Putin, Musk increasingly took actions that were widely seen as favoring Moscow.

After making supportive statements about Kyiv in the early months of the war, Musk increasingly has echoed Russian talking points about Ukraine on X.

And after providing his Starlink satellite internet service to Ukraine from the early days of the conflict, Musk switched his approach to Ukraine’s military use of Starlink in late 2022. He prohibited the use of Starlink by Ukrainian forces in or near Crimea, a former territory of Ukraine that Russia annexed in 2014.

Then, in 2024, reports emerged that Russia was using Starlink terminals in its invasion of Ukraine, though Musk and other SpaceX officials said the company did not enable this.

Partisan perspectives

Several senators in both parties, asked about Musk’s ties to Putin, were not familiar with or did not recall The Wall Street Journal report.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R- Okla., a member of the Armed Services Committee, suggested that if Musk had done anything wrong, he would have already lost his security clearance.

“He had the highest clearance within the DOD and within the U.S. than any defense contractor we have,” Mullin said. “I can assure you we were paying attention to what he was talking about. It’s obviously not a concern, because he didn’t lose this clearance.”

But Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D- Mass., also a member of the Armed Services Committee, said there is “a serious question about whether or not Elon Musk could even get a security clearance” if he were to apply afresh today.

“And here he is playing the role of co-president, advancing his own personal interests and whatever conspiracy theory he has latched onto this week,” Warren said. “That’s corruption, and it presents a danger to the American people.”

Shaheen said that “Americans with security clearances ought to understand the importance of classified information, and there shouldn’t be a conflict of interest to get those clearances.”

Reporting foreign contacts

Kendall, in his response to Reed and Shaheen, also noted that the Space Force has given Musk a “Top Secret Facility Clearance.”

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Kendall said, works closely with the counterintelligence agency and other federal agencies “to conduct appropriate reviews of vendors that work with the Air Force and Space Force to properly protect national security information and maintain the DoD’s high security standard for the Defense Industrial Base.”

Kendall added that the counterintelligence agency “requires cleared persons, including contractors, to report unofficial foreign travel and foreign contacts.”

But Kendall did not say whether or not Musk had cleared his calls with high-level Russians with authorities.

Reed, meanwhile, suggested this week that Musk was probably talking to Putin in an effort to serve the billionaire’s corporate interests. Reed said any Russian access to protected SpaceX information could have serious security implications.

“If the Russians have access to his satellite Starklink [system], they’re pretty clever and they might be able to exploit the connection to get information and monitor communications,” Reed said. “All that has to be considered.”

___

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com.^[1] Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The Defense Department said Thursday it will lean on commanders and existing medical screenings to find any service members whom it wants to discharge over the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving in the military.

After the Supreme Court lifted its hold last week over the military's plan to separate transgender troops, the department said that about 1,000 service members had already voluntarily come forward to be separated in the first phase of the policy. Meanwhile, a legal fight over the ban is still winding its way through the lower courts^[1].

Despite the unresolved legal challenge, defense officials now say that they plan to utilize the military's regular health screenings and order commanders to identify potential trans people in their units to begin the removal process for anyone who does not volunteer.

Read Next: Navy Officer Charged with Murdering Wife Last Year in Japan Hotel^[2]

"The primary means of identification for the involuntary process will be through medical readiness programs," a senior defense official told reporters Thursday, specifically referring to the Periodic Health Assessment, or PHA.

The PHA is essentially an annual health screening that all service members have to undergo to assess their readiness for deployment^[3] and service.

The official said that, going forward, part of the self-assessment questionnaire for the PHA "will require the attestation whether or not a service member has a current diagnosis or history of or exhibits symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria."

The official spoke to reporters anonymously as a condition of the interview.

Gender dysphoria is a specific medical diagnosis of a psychological condition in which a person feels that their birth sex doesn't line up with their gender. The Pentagon has been using the diagnosis as a way to identify someone as being transgender even though officials acknowledge that not all transgender people receive the diagnosis.

This distinction, however, has not stopped leaders like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from making statements like "No More Trans [at] DoD" on social media^[4].

A new memo released Thursday^[5] also said that "commanders who are aware of service members in their units with gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will direct individualized medical record reviews of such service members."

Defense officials have not been able to offer many other details on how the policy will work or whether they are placing any safeguards to prevent it from being abused either by commanders or troops.

Since even involuntary separations over the policy currently come with a payout, it is not clear what would prevent troops from using it simply as a way to leave service early. According to officials, an E-5 with 10 years of service would receive more than $100,000 of separation pay if they volunteer. Yet that same person would get around $50,000 if they were involuntarily kicked out.

Online, service members have argued and cited anecdotal evidence that many troops used the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in that manner. As of April, just over 100 of more than 8,000 service members discharged over the pandemic-era policy have returned to service, despite having the option since 2023.

When asked what safeguards were in place to prevent commanders from abusing the power to direct medical screenings of troops for gender dysphoria, the senior defense official simply said that they trusted commanders to do the right thing.

"This policy, like many others, will rely on their qualifications, discernment and judgment in how to interpret and apply the guidance," the official said, adding that Pentagon leaders were "confident and comfortable with commanders implementing the policy."

The hope among officials at the Pentagon is that most troops who are affected by the policy will simply volunteer to separate, driven largely by the promise of a much larger payout. That would spare the Pentagon from having to consider some of the broader and longer-reaching implications of the policy.

"They will be afforded a very significant, voluntary separation pay," the senior defense official said. "They receive a covered permanent change of station^[6] move to their home of record, and they'll be given an honorable characterization of discharge, provided that there's no other misconduct in the file that's prompting the separation, so that they will be treated well through the process."

Yet, ultimately, since PHAs are conducted annually, the senior defense official acknowledged that it could take time to screen every single service member.

"It's not practical to move everyone in a unit through at one time," they said.

The official stressed several times that "this policy will treat anyone impacted by it with dignity and respect," but other officials at the Pentagon weren't able to square that promise with how trangender troops were discussed by their commander in chief.

President Donald Trump's executive order announcing the ban^[7] declared that "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life" and "a man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member."

"For the sake of our nation and the patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve it, military service must be reserved for those mentally and physically fit for duty," the order added.

Related: Pentagon Moves Out on Transgender Ban After Supreme Court Ruling^[8]

Social media accounts have been spreading a claim that a former top official in the Air Force^[1] who was fired by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this year was charged with treason and sentenced to be hung by the military.

It isn't true.

Real Raw News -- a website that has been called out for spreading misinformation^[2] -- wrote on May 8 that former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff^[3] James "Jim" Slife was "convicted of treason and sentenced to hang to death" by the Navy^[4] Judge Advocate General's Corp and the Office of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay^[5], Cuba. Snippets of the article were then spread on multiple social media accounts, Snopes reported^[6]. The fictitious report added that Slife's capital punishment was set for May 12.

Read Next: 'They Don't Care About My Kids': Marine Families Take Military to Court After Child Abuse at Yuma Day Care^[7]

A spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions told Military.com that the claim was inaccurate, and an expert on misinformation said the article is a sad example of how bogus stories can spread on the internet.

Ronald Flesvig, a spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions-Convening Authority, told Miltiary.com in an emailed statement that the commission was established at Guantanamo Bay to "try alien, unlawful, enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States" and that it would never be used against an American citizen.

"The Military Commissions has never tried a case against U.S. Air Force Gen. James Slife or any U.S. citizen," Flesvig said. "Under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and USC 948 Section 10, the commission cannot try cases against U.S. civilians."

The Department of the Air Force also told Military.com that the claim being spread online was inaccurate. A number listed for Slife in public records did not return a phone call or text messages seeking comment.

Military.com reported Feb. 21 that Slife had been fired from his position alongside the Navy's top officer, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several top judge advocates general for the service branches.

No reason has been given by the Pentagon for the public firings. Slife was criticized by Republicans for past concerns he raised as the head of Air Force Special Operations Command about racism in the ranks following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, which caused protests, riots and outcry across the country.

Shortly after the firing, Real Raw News published an article^[8] titled "Army^[9] CID Arrests former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff James C. 'Jim' Slife After Trump Fires Him." The author claimed that led to Slife's fictitious sentencing this month.

Notably, the Joint Chiefs chairman was fired by Trump, while Slife and other service leaders were fired by Hegseth.

Kris Goldsmith, an Iraq combat veteran as well as the CEO and founder of Task Force Butler, a nonprofit that trains veterans to research and counter extremism, told Military.com in an interview that the author of the Real Raw News story, "Michael Baxter," had his real identity revealed in a 2021 Poynter story^[10].

Goldsmith called the author of the piece "a predator" who finds enjoyment in "getting people upset." He added that it's important to call out that behavior.

"Americans need to start talking about sources of disinformation this way," Goldsmith said. "This guy is not doing this simply to spread false narratives. He's doing it because it's clickbait, and he earns ad revenue from it."

Snopes^[11] reported that sections of the Real Raw News article were picked up on Truth Social^[12], X and, mostly, on Facebook^[13].

In Real Raw News' "About Us" section^[14], it notes the content is "for informational and educational and entertainment purposes," adding that "this website contains humor, parody and satire. We have included this disclaimer for our protection, on the advice on [sic] legal counsel."

Related: Fired: Joint Chiefs Chairman, Top Navy Leader, Air Force Vice Chief, Service Judge Advocates General^[15]