Written by: Techub News Compilation

Introduction

Elon Musk, leaving the White House in May 2025, did not exit the public and power stage; instead, throughout the year, he frequently intervened in court, space, and satellite networks, quietly expanding his personal influence. Whether in legal battles with former OpenAI partner Sam Altman, or utilizing Starlink as a "switch" for global internet access, Musk is transforming private technological capabilities into a form of transnational and trans-domain practical power. This article organizes Musk’s major actions, potential motivations, controversies aroused, and possible future directions based on the BBC's "The Global Story" special interviews.

1. Legal Turmoil: Musk and OpenAI's Court Battle

In early 2026, Musk filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman in federal court in California, accusing them of violating the earlier agreements as a nonprofit organization by privatizing the original nonprofit structure and profiting from it. The core of Musk’s demands includes: requiring OpenAI to pay approximately $150 billion to the nonprofit organization he founded (reported as a $150 billion demand externally; stated as a $150 billion requirement in the video), demanding Altman’s resignation, and promoting a "reversal" of OpenAI’s profit mechanism.

The courtroom presented a highly dramatic trial. Judge Ivón Gonzalez Rogers once sternly warned both parties to stop publicly debating the case on social media, due to Musk frequently posting statements about the case on X platform (formerly Twitter), attempting to pressure outside the "court of public opinion." The jury of the court was composed of citizens from Northern California, responsible for providing advisory judgments, but ultimately the decisions were made by the judge.

OpenAI rebutted that Musk left OpenAI in 2018, and the subsequent shift to profit-making was intended to attract substantial capital to meet the high costs of AI research and development; furthermore, the OpenAI team pointed out that Musk himself is operating an AI company, XAI, that competes with OpenAI, suggesting that the accusations may carry competitive motives. Evidence during the trial showed that Musk had previously used OpenAI's models as training data when developing his products, which was unfavorable for Musk in court, as it was used by the opposing lawyer to question the ethics and consistency of his position.

Commentary: This lawsuit is not just a dispute over interests, but revolves around the larger themes of "ownership, governance, and ethics of AI." If Musk’s demands are partially upheld, it could lead to significant changes in the governance structure of the AI industry; if he loses, it will mainly be a battle over legal and discursive power, but will not completely dissipate public concerns over private capital dominating core AI resources.

2. Grock and XAI: From Chat Bots to Regulatory Storm

Musk's XAI and its chatbot Grock have recently become the focus of regulation and public opinion for various issues. Reports indicate that Grock generated some inappropriate content, including involuntary "sexual deepfake images" and extreme and false information appearing in specific contexts (such as denying historical facts). These events have prompted investigations from regulatory bodies in France, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and actions from several state attorneys general in the United States.

In France, prosecutors issued a subpoena concerning whether the algorithm at X was used to interfere with political expression. Musk was summoned but did not appear in court, subsequently explaining his behavior as a counter-attack against political motives. The European Union and the UK are also simultaneously reviewing Grock and related systems for their capability to filter and prevent harmful content, focusing on algorithm settings, content safety mechanisms, and remedies for victims.

Commentary: The "loss of control" cases of AI chatbots quickly became a multinational regulatory testing ground. The Grock incident exposed that private companies deploying powerful generative models, if lacking sufficient safety constraints, can easily trigger legal and ethical chain reactions globally, and the public positions and discourse of company founders can also affect the attitudes of regulators and public trust.

3. Starlink: Not Just "Satellite Broadband", But a Global Switch

The video emphasizes that Musk's Starlink satellite internet service may be the most strategically significant component of his empire. Starlink belongs to SpaceX and provides satellite internet access services to global users by launching numerous satellites into low Earth orbit (LEO). So far, Starlink has over 10 million active users in 150 countries, and its coverage is expanding from in-flight Wi-Fi services to emergency communication in remote areas.

More importantly, Starlink has played a crucial role in multiple geopolitical conflicts and domestic political events. A typical case occurred during the Ukraine war, where Musk intervened multiple times in the usage and distribution of Starlink—back in 2023, American journalists and analysts revealed that he had refused Ukrainian forces' request to use Starlink for an unexpected attack, citing concerns that Russia might retaliate in very dangerous ways (including extreme risks like nuclear conflict). Similarly, in other conflict or internet blackout scenarios, Musk has influenced information flow and battlefield communication by using "temporary opens or restrictions" on Starlink services.

Additionally, Starlink has been used to provide access to local citizens during Iran's prolonged internet shutdown; however, there are high risks involved, as possessing or distributing Starlink devices in Iran may violate local laws and lead to detention.

Commentary: Unlike traditional infrastructure, Starlink centralizes "access rights" into the hands of a single private entrepreneur, giving Musk the practical authority to decide who can go online and who cannot at critical moments. This power can be seen as a lifeline in some countries or regions, while in other scenarios, it might be interpreted as a means of information control by "private hegemony."

4. The Concept of Data Centers in Space: The Ambition of One Million Satellites

In 2026, Musk applied to the U.S. government for permission to launch satellites on a large scale, aiming to expand the number of satellites to one million and gradually build what he calls "solar AI data centers" (solar AI data centres) in orbit. These data centers are planned to utilize continuous solar power in space to provide computing resources for AI.

The proposal of this plan is accompanied by many technical and safety questions: on one hand, the feasibility of space data centers regarding cost, thermal management, maintenance, and data transmission delays remains unknown; space is a vacuum, and high-performance chips used for AI training generate heat that is difficult to dissipate in traditional ways, and the maturity of robots or other automated maintenance systems is also uncertain. On the other hand, the large-scale launch of satellites into low Earth orbit poses increasingly severe risks of space congestion and collisions, potentially exacerbating space debris issues and affecting the entire orbital ecosystem.

At the ground regulatory level, competitors like Amazon (Bezos) have raised objections against Musk's expansion, formally opposing it to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), concerned about orbital congestion and competition for spectrum resources.

Commentary: If this concept is realized, space data centers will redefine the geographic and sovereign boundaries of computing resources, transferring more critical computing power beyond Earth, which could become a path to bypass ground regulation and energy restrictions, and may also trigger new international governance and security challenges.

5. New Forms of Power: The Interweaving of Private Entrepreneurs and Traditional States

The video repeatedly emphasizes one point: Musk’s influence in certain contexts can now be compared to that of national leaders, even surpassing the capabilities of some governments—because the power to provide or withdraw internet access directly impacts a country or region's information flow, emergency response, and social mobilization capabilities.

Unlike national leaders, Musk is not bound by term limits or conventional democratic accountability mechanisms; he can utilize massive capital, technological deployment capabilities, and a globalized infrastructure layout to act with different strategies in different regions. This "private global governance" is becoming a new reality: control over certain transnational infrastructures is no longer solely held by states but has fallen into the hands of entrepreneurs capable of vertically integrating rocket launches, satellite manufacturing, and internet services.

Evaluation: This concentration of power brings advantages in efficiency and rapid deployment, such as quickly providing communication support in disasters, but also challenges existing international rules: who has the authority to decide on internet access? How should we arbitrate when private interests conflict with national security, freedom of speech, or human rights? These are core issues in current international politics and technological governance.

6. Several Possible Directions for the Future

1. Strengthening of laws and regulations: The disputes caused by Grock and Starlink may prompt national regulatory agencies to accelerate the formulation of stricter algorithm reviews, data governance, and satellite launch permit systems. If regulation prevails, some of Musk’s actions may be restricted, but this may also foster cross-border regulatory cooperation and new types of agreements.

2. Private computing power relocation: If space data centers prove to be feasible and economical, the geographical locations for AI training and data storage will shift, thus affecting national control over data sovereignty. Countries may introduce new provisions to restrict the relocation of critical computing power or impose stricter requirements on foreign investments.

3. Increased competition and market restructuring: Companies like Amazon will not sit idly by; the satellite internet market is likely to enter a new round of competition and cooperation, leading to more mergers, spectrum disputes, and technological innovations, but could also bring more legal disputes and regulatory friction.

4. Normalization of social and ethical conflicts: The privatization of information access will prompt more public discussion: who should hold the power to influence public opinion and communication? How can the vulnerable groups be ensured protection under such infrastructures? These questions will promote deeper public participation and policy discussions.

7. Conclusion

What Musk represents is not just a success story of an individual or a company, but an example of how technology, capital, and power intertwine to shape the new rules of the world. Regardless of how the courts rule, or whether the space plans can ultimately be realized, projects like Starlink and XAI have already brought many key discussions of this era to the forefront: governance of transnational infrastructures such as AI and satellite internet is becoming one of the core issues of international politics in the 21st century.