Elon Musk is facing mounting pressure from US lawmakers to explain disruptions to satellite communications used by Ukrainian forces, as concerns grow over the power a private technology company can wield over a country’s ability to defend itself against Russia.

In a letter dated October 23, Democratic lawmakers led by Representative Gregory Meeks and Senator Peter Welch demanded that Musk answer five questions about restrictions affecting Starshield, the military version of SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet system. The lawmakers set an October 31 deadline for his response, raising questions about corporate accountability, national security and the risks of concentrating critical military infrastructure in private hands.

The intervention comes as Ukrainian forces continue to report serious problems with the service. Since mid-October, Starshield has operated under capacity and speed restrictions, according to the account provided, hampering Kyiv’s ability to coordinate operations and counter Russian jet-powered drones.

The dispute has drawn attention to the role of Musk, whose satellite network has become an important communications link for Ukraine’s military. It has also exposed the difficulty governments face when access to strategically important infrastructure depends on decisions made by a private company whose services extend across national borders and active conflict zones.

Who commands America’s battlefield communications, the Pentagon, Trump or Musk?

Congressman savages Musk over Ukraine’s Starlink, warning its ‘likely a violation of the law’

Labour MP urges Burnham to ‘get the whole of society behind it’ to follow Finland’s conscription model

‘Reservists first, then conscription’ as ex-army chief outlines potential UK draft for war

“As a publicly traded company, SpaceX has a legal obligation to disclose to shareholders and the public material events that could affect your business model,” the lawmakers wrote.

They warned that the revelation Musk personally exercised control over a foreign country’s military communications would raise questions about corporate governance, geopolitical exposure and the possibility of adverse action by foreign governments.

The letter did not establish who ordered the restrictions or why they were imposed. But the lawmakers’ demand for answers signals growing concern in Washington about the relationship between commercial technology providers and military operations that rely on their systems.

The immediate consequences are being felt in Ukraine, where communications links are integral to the use of drones, the transmission of targeting information and coordination between units. The lawmakers said Ukrainian defensive systems frequently depend on Starshield to transmit data accurately, making disruptions more than a question of internet speed.

“Just last month, more than 300 Ukrainian civilians were killed and 2,000 injured by Russian drone and missile strikes,” they wrote. “Ukraine has built an innovative network of drone systems to defend against the thousands of strikes launched each month by Russia.”

They added that those systems often rely on Starshield for “accurate communication and transmission of targeting data”.

The figures and the lawmakers’ account underline the stakes of the dispute: a service initially developed as commercial satellite infrastructure has become part of the operational architecture of a war in which the ability to locate, communicate and respond quickly can have direct consequences for soldiers and civilians.

Yet the chain of responsibility for the restrictions remains unclear in public. Ukrainian and US officials have reportedly been discussing how to resolve the problems, but no one has publicly taken responsibility for making or implementing the decision, according to the supplied report.

The Trump administration has nevertheless continued to direct attention towards Musk and SpaceX.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 23 that President Donald Trump had ordered Musk on October 21 to lift the restrictions. The report said Trump was frustrated that the system’s speeds remained capped at about 160 kilometres an hour, or 100 miles an hour.

Trump publicly offered a more qualified account, saying he had not spoken to Musk about the issue but might intervene if the problem persisted.

“I have not spoken to him,” Trump said. “I might have to, but I have not… I’ve heard it’s fixed. If it’s not, I will speak to him…. If there’s a problem, I will get it straightened out.”

The comments left open the question of whether the restrictions had been fully lifted. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on October 23 that they remained in force.

“The speed restrictions for Starlink and Starshield are still in effect,” Zelensky said. “The speed has not been restored.”

He also said supplies of interceptor missiles needed to defend against Russian ballistic missiles were still delayed, highlighting the wider pressure on Ukraine’s air defences as it continues to face Russian attacks.

The congressional letter is part of a broader effort to establish who is responsible for the disruption and what safeguards exist when military operations depend on a commercial provider. Senator Richard Blumenthal, also a Democrat, announced on October 23 that he was opening a separate probe into the restrictions, asking the Pentagon to clarify who ordered them and provide information about the US military’s own reliance on Starlink.

The inquiries point to a dilemma that extends beyond Ukraine. Satellite communications have become increasingly important to modern warfare, supporting forces that operate across vast areas and need to share information quickly. But when a private company provides a critical service, questions arise over who has authority to determine how it is used, what limits can be imposed and how decisions affecting a conflict should be disclosed or scrutinised.

SpaceX’s position is especially consequential because Starlink and its military counterpart are not simply interchangeable with ordinary consumer internet services. Starshield supports defence-related applications, and the lawmakers’ letter argues that restrictions on its operation could have material implications for SpaceX’s business and governance. Their concern is that decisions with significant geopolitical consequences may also create risks for investors and expose the company to pressure from foreign governments.

The questions are complicated by the lack of a public explanation for the restrictions. Without a clear account of who authorised them, the rationale behind the decision and the conditions under which service can be restored, lawmakers and military officials face difficulty assessing both the operational impact and the adequacy of existing safeguards.

For Ukraine, the immediate priority is restoring reliable communications. For Washington, the issue is whether a private supplier can be allowed to exercise influence over a foreign military’s communications without clearer oversight or accountability.

Musk’s response, due by October 31, could help clarify how SpaceX approaches decisions affecting military users and whether the company believes such restrictions constitute material events requiring disclosure. It may also shed light on the relationship between the company, US officials and Ukrainian authorities as they seek to resolve the disruption.

The episode has brought a central feature of contemporary warfare into sharp focus: military capability increasingly depends on commercial systems whose owners are not elected officials and whose decisions may have consequences far beyond their corporate operations.

As Kyiv continues to face Russian drone and missile attacks, the dispute is no longer only about the performance of a satellite network. It is also about the governance of infrastructure that has become strategically indispensable — and the extent to which governments can guarantee access when the systems on which they rely remain under private control.