Musk Unlikely to Pay Price at Democratic FCC for Trump Support

Elon Musk has emerged as among the most enthusiastic supporters of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, giving nearly $75 million in three months to his pro-Trump America PAC. Musk has danced at a Trump rally wearing a “dark MAGA” hat and announced Wednesday he would support Trump in a series of appearances throughout Pennsylvania.

But so far, Musk has faced no repercussions at the FCC or seemingly elsewhere from the Biden administration. Musk’s SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink have been active in numerous dockets at the FCC. Indeed, industry officials predicted Musk may not pay much of a price, even if Vice President Kamala Harris wins in November.

Musk will likely have huge influence over telecom policy if Trump wins, New Street’s Blair Levin said in a recent report to investors. “While both Musk and the ISPs have strong ties to the Republicans, Musk’s ties to and influence on Trump creates a potential threat to other broadband service providers and a disruptive input to the current policy framework, as the Starlink business model is fundamentally different than the business models of the companies that have shaped the FCC policies at least since the 1996 Act,” Levin wrote.

In a Trump administration, Levin predicted, Musk would influence "the debates over the future of USF to shift from a current ‘mend it, don’t end it’ discussion to a more existential one with a material risk of significant cutbacks in the program.” Levin noted that despite ties to Trump, SpaceX, with the support of DirecTV and others, blocked EchoStar and others from opening the lower 12 GHz band to terrestrial mobile services: “The FCC did open the door to potentially allowing terrestrial fixed wireless services. If Trump were elected, the odds favor the FCC ending even that inquiry.”

Some broadband and wireless interests “are expressing increasing surprise at how the Rosenworcel FCC seems to be going out of its way to favor Musk this year despite his open and aggressive politicking for Trump and Republicans,” said a Wi-Fi advocate: “Inexplicably,” the FCC “is sitting on a long overdue decision” on sharing spectrum in the lower 12 GHz band.

The FCC under Jessica Rosenworcel is unlikely to be “openly punitive” against any company just because Musk controls it, said Jonathan Cannon, R Street Institute policy counsel-technology and innovation. “It would be unwise for an administration to go after a business purely because of the politics of the CEO,” he said. “That seems like a destructive precedent that would not serve them well” and “I haven’t seen evidence that they would do that.”

Musk “runs the largest commercial space program and has redefined what space travel is,” Cannon said. SpaceX will be an important part of future space programs, he predicted, and noted that the FCC excluded Starlink from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program, finding that its speeds were inadequate (see 2312140048). House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., recently said he is investigating that decision (see 2410080062).

Retaliation

Democrats generally don’t use the FCC for “political retaliation,” argued Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld. “If anything, Democrats usually go out of their way to avoid any such appearance,” he said: Some say “the current FCC's refusal to move forward is from fear of Republican retaliation.”

The FCC’s leadership can be sensitive to political pressure, Feld added. It’s “one thing to worry about political cover for protection, or even to do a favor for political friends, and another thing entirely to abuse power against political rivals.”

Former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly, in an email, wrote that he “fought to ensure satellite was eligible for RDOF, and after I left, it was thrown out.” Satellite broadband is “likely” to be part of the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, he said. “The FCC is going to have to set aside any political inclination or personal views to solve problems, and do what’s best for American families.”

The FCC shouldn’t be targeting companies “unless they run afoul of the rules and regulations,” said former FCC Commissioner Mike Copps, though he conceded that he “always looks askance at any company that amasses too much economic and political power.”

As a commissioner, “I never took the political leanings of the parties before me into consideration,” said former FCC commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth. FCC commissioners are there “to follow the law and call balls and strikes,” he said. He said commissioners should be “independent of the political fray” and the agency shouldn’t be another arm of the executive branch: “If commissioners aren’t politically independent, there’s no point in the FCC being an independent agency.”

Musk Partisanship

Musk’s over-the-top advocacy could help or hurt him with regulatory agencies, said William Kovacic, former FTC chairman and George Washington University law professor. On the upside, Musk’s rhetoric results in greater scrutiny of regulatory authorities, which pushes them to be more careful, Kovacic said. “You strive with greater urgency to make sure you’re right.”

Conversely, when faced with an accusation of having an unprofessional vendetta, “many human beings react by digging in and working harder to show you're wrong,” Kovacic said. Agencies and employees know getting bumped around politically is par for the course, but a claim of unprofessionalism tinged with corruption or moral dereliction “sticks in your throat,” he said. “You’re used to being called a bozo.”

For Musk and his companies, the risk is that either reaction could slow regulatory approvals, either as a result of an agency doing additional quality control on a decision or putting a thumb in his eye, Kovacic said. “Grudge-keeping is a great Washington sport.”

“Musk is leading with his chin with his increasingly political rhetoric, so will he be met with the same animosity by a Democratic FCC as George Soros has been by the Republican commissioners?” asked a former FCC official: “We live in an increasingly polarized world … and one has to wonder if raw politics and tribalism will steamroll over objective and dispassionate policymaking?”

The FCC “is no stranger to big personalities who evoke strong emotions … but outside of an obvious few issues, divisions between (or within) industries have been more significant in shaping the battle lines than partisanship has," emailed Joe Kane, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy. Spectrum and satellite policy are good examples, he said: “There's plenty of contentious bickering in those dockets that doesn't adhere to party lines. And for the 12 GHz proceeding, technical evaluation, not partisanship, was the deciding factor.”