Scott Galloway, a New York University professor and podcaster, has called Elon Musk a «traitor» and compared him to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the American couple executed in 1953 after being convicted of Soviet espionage involving U.S. atomic secrets. The remarks, made on his Prof G Podcast on Election Day, center on SpaceX's decision to restrict Starlink internet speeds in Ukraine, a move that reportedly disrupted Ukrainian military operations last month.
Galloway framed Musk's actions as a betrayal of the United States and its allies. The Rosenbergs comparison was the most direct element of his argument. To make his point further, Galloway offered a hypothetical scenario set during World War II involving aviator Charles Lindbergh, whose pre-war views drew heavy criticism in the United States. He repeated the "traitor" claim later on the Pivot podcast with Kara Swisher, keeping the accusation in the public conversation beyond a single broadcast.
The dispute centers on Starlink, the satellite internet service operated by SpaceX that has become an important communications tool for Ukraine as it fights Russia. Reports say the speed restriction affected drone operations, and that the disruption came during a period of active fighting. Musk has defended the decision, stating that Ukraine used Starlink in violation of service rules and that using the service for offensive drone strikes was never permitted. His position places the responsibility on the terms under which the service was provided rather than on any intent to aid a foreign adversary.
Theo Wold, a former aide in the Trump White House, rejected Galloway's comparison, calling it "ludicrous." Wold accused Galloway of pushing a partisan witch hunt against Musk. The exchange shows how the debate over Musk's role in the war in Ukraine has moved into the broader political arena, with commentators on both sides weighing in on whether a private company's service policies should be judged in the language of espionage and disloyalty. Critics of Galloway's framing argue that the charge of treason requires far more than a disagreement over a service rule, while supporters of the criticism argue that a company whose technology shapes battlefield outcomes carries a heavier obligation to the public interest.
Fox News Digital reached out to Musk for comment, and no immediate response was reported. The remarks and rebuttals leave open a larger question about how much responsibility private technology providers bear when their tools become central to a conflict involving a close U.S. ally, and whether the terms they set for those tools should be subject to public scrutiny.