How has the US government used Elon Musk's Starlink for foreign policy?

The Background: A Private Company's Global Reach

For years, the United States government has enlisted Elon Musk's SpaceX to implement aspects of its foreign policy, leveraging the company's Starlink satellite internet service to achieve strategic objectives. This reliance has extended to both the Trump and Biden administrations, which have on multiple occasions requested SpaceX to activate or deactivate Starlink in various countries. These requests have aimed at supporting allies, hindering adversaries, and even bolstering internet access for citizens during periods of unrest. The recent controversy surrounding Ukraine's military access to Starlink has brought this unusual, and some argue concerning, relationship into sharper focus.

This dynamic highlights a growing trend where private technology companies, particularly those with critical infrastructure like satellite networks, are becoming de facto instruments of statecraft. The ability of a single individual, Musk, to influence or control access to vital communication tools has raised questions about national security, the role of private enterprise in international affairs, and the potential for unilateral decisions to impact geopolitical events. European officials, in particular, have voiced concerns, prompting discussions about the need for independent European satellite communication capabilities.

The Mechanism: Turning Satellites On and Off

The core of the US government's engagement with SpaceX revolves around the activation and deactivation of Starlink terminals and services. When a foreign policy objective requires enhanced internet connectivity in a specific region, such as during protests in Iran or to support Ukraine's defense, the US administration can request SpaceX to enable Starlink service. This involves ensuring the necessary satellite coverage is available and that the terminals, once physically present in the country, can connect to the network. Conversely, if a group designated as an adversary, such as Iranian proxy militias in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon, is found to be using diverted Starlink terminals, the US government can ask SpaceX to identify and deactivate those specific units.

These requests are typically made through high-level discussions involving officials from the Pentagon, the White House, and relevant intelligence agencies. SpaceX, in turn, has stated in submissions to the US Commerce Department that it works closely with US government agencies to secure export authorizations and safeguard technology in support of national security and foreign policy goals. The company's Starshield service, a military version of Starlink, is explicitly stated by Musk to be owned and controlled by the US government, with any speed or usage limits decided by the US military or the President. This suggests a framework exists for direct government control over certain aspects of SpaceX's satellite operations, particularly when they align with national security interests.

Who is Affected and How, Concretely

Ordinary citizens in countries experiencing political instability or conflict are directly affected by these decisions. For instance, during protests in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022, the Biden administration reportedly asked SpaceX to enable Starlink to bolster internet access for citizens. Similarly, the Trump administration discussed activating Starlink in Iran following US-Israeli strikes in June 2025 and February 2026, with the stated aim of supporting anti-government protesters. In these scenarios, Starlink can provide a crucial lifeline for communication, information dissemination, and organizing dissent when traditional internet infrastructure is disrupted or censored.

For military forces, like Ukraine's, the impact is immediate and potentially life-threatening. Starlink, and its military variant Starshield, has become indispensable for frontline communication, drone operations, and even defense against missile attacks. When access is throttled or intentionally limited, as was recently reported regarding Ukraine's military drone capabilities, it directly impedes their ability to conduct operations, coordinate defenses, and ultimately protect their forces. Ukrainian officials have stressed that their priority is to have the service restored to normal speeds, as the lives of their people depend on it. The lack of viable short-term alternatives for such advanced satellite communication capabilities leaves allies in a precarious position.

What Happens Next, and What Would Have to Be True

Several potential outcomes lie ahead regarding the US government's reliance on SpaceX for foreign policy implementation. One possibility is increased legislative oversight and regulation. If lawmakers like Representative Jason Crow continue to voice concerns about the risks of dependence on unelected billionaires and private corporations for national security, Congress could introduce measures to formalize or limit such arrangements. This would require a consensus that the current ad hoc system is unsustainable and poses unacceptable risks.

Another outcome is the development of alternative, government-owned or allied-nation-controlled satellite communication systems. European officials have already begun advocating for such capabilities. For this to materialize, significant investment in research, development, and deployment of independent satellite networks would be necessary, along with strong political will from multiple nations to collaborate and fund such an endeavor. This would reduce the reliance on any single private entity and provide greater strategic autonomy.

Conversely, the current dynamic could persist or even deepen. This would likely occur if the perceived strategic benefits of leveraging SpaceX's existing infrastructure outweigh the concerns about reliance. For this to continue, there would need to be a continued willingness from both US administrations and SpaceX to engage in these arrangements, and a lack of significant, disruptive failures or geopolitical crises directly attributable to this private-public partnership. The recent throttling of Ukraine's access, however, suggests that such failures are a tangible risk.