Elon Musk, the ever-controversial billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and X Corp (formerly Twitter), has found himself at the center of two major legal battles this October—each with far-reaching consequences for his public image, his companies, and the broader tech industry. The first concerns a hard-fought court victory for The New York Times, which has won access to a document detailing Musk’s government security clearances. The second is a high-stakes settlement with former Twitter executives over a severance pay dispute that has cast a spotlight on the fallout from Musk’s tumultuous 2022 takeover of the social media giant.
On October 8, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote ruled in favor of The New York Times in its lawsuit against the U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), granting the paper’s request for a two-page document listing any security clearances granted to Musk. According to Politico, the DCSA had argued that releasing the document would constitute an invasion of Musk’s privacy. Yet Judge Cote found those arguments unpersuasive, particularly in light of Musk’s own public comments about his security status.
"Elon Musk -- whose security clearances, if any, are the subject of the plaintiffs’ FOIA request -- is the founder of several companies, including SpaceX and Starlink," the court stated, underscoring the significance of Musk’s government ties. SpaceX, for one, has become one of the largest federal contractors over the past decade, regularly handling sensitive government information. Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, also holds government contracts and provides satellite-based internet services that the U.S. military relies on for critical operations.
The court further noted that Musk had served as a special government employee during the early months of President Donald Trump’s administration. His unique status—straddling the worlds of private enterprise and public service—has only fueled public curiosity about the extent of his access to classified information.
Judge Cote’s decision rested, in part, on Musk’s own penchant for publicity. "During his time as a major government contractor and as a special government employee, Musk has publicly discussed his security clearance." The court cited Musk’s posts on X (formerly Twitter) and statements made at public town halls as evidence that he himself had diminished his expectation of privacy. In her ruling, Judge Cote wrote, "DCSA has not met its burden to prove that Musk’s privacy interest outweighs the significant public interests in disclosure." She added, "Even applying Exemption 7(C)’s more privacy-protective standard, DCSA has failed to establish that disclosure of the requested document 'reasonably can be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of [Musk’s] personal privacy,' 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), given Musk’s own public statements, the narrow scope of plaintiffs’ FOIA request, and the substantial public interests at stake."
The judge did allow for the possibility that certain details could be redacted if they went beyond the issues discussed in court, but the ruling was a clear win for transparency. For Musk, it’s another reminder that his high-profile status—bolstered by his habit of sharing thoughts unfiltered on social media—can sometimes work against him in the legal arena.
Meanwhile, just two days later, Musk reached a preliminary settlement in a separate but equally high-profile legal dispute. On October 10, 2025, Musk and X Corp agreed to terms with four former senior Twitter executives—Parag Agrawal (former CEO), Ned Segal (CFO), Vijaya Gadde (Chief Legal Officer), and Sean Edgett (General Counsel)—to resolve a ₹1,062 crore ($128 million) severance pay lawsuit. The drama dates back to Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter in 2022, a deal that upended the social media landscape and led to the mass firing of roughly 80% of Twitter’s workforce, or over 6,000 employees.
The four executives had filed suit in 2024 in the US Northern District Court of California, alleging that Musk had intentionally accelerated the acquisition to prevent their stock options from vesting. According to Business Insider, Agrawal was set to receive ₹3,210 crore ($38.7 million), Segal ₹2,108 crore ($25.4 million), and Gadde ₹1,038 crore ($12.5 million) in stock options—eye-watering sums that underscore just how much was at stake.
Reuters reported that Agrawal and Segal were escorted from Twitter’s offices by security immediately following their termination. The abruptness of the firings and the scale of the layoffs sparked a flurry of lawsuits from former employees, many of whom claimed they were denied promised severance packages. Musk and X Corp have already settled thousands of these cases, including a separate ₹41,500 crore ($500 million) settlement in August 2025 for other ex-Twitter staffers. Still, several lawsuits remain active in both Delaware and California courts.
The terms of the new executive settlement have not been made public, but they reportedly require Musk to fulfill certain conditions in the near term. If he fails to do so, the lawsuit will resume on October 31, 2025—a looming deadline that keeps the pressure firmly on Musk and his legal team.
These legal entanglements come at a time when Musk’s personal wealth is reaching unprecedented heights. According to Forbes, Musk is now the world’s richest individual, with a net worth of ₹40,072 billion ($484 billion). Earlier this month, a surge in Tesla stock pushed his fortune to ₹41,500 billion ($500 billion), making him the first person in history to reach that milestone. This staggering wealth provides Musk with the resources to wage lengthy legal battles, but it also brings heightened scrutiny from the public, the press, and the courts.
Industry experts say that the settlements and court rulings highlight Musk’s strategic—but often contentious—approach to corporate management. His willingness to make rapid, sweeping changes has won him both admirers and critics. On the one hand, his boldness is credited with driving innovation and shaking up stagnant industries. On the other, his methods have raised serious questions about employee rights, corporate governance, and the responsibilities of those who wield enormous economic and political influence.
For investors and employees alike, the message is clear: when Musk is involved, expect the unexpected. The ongoing legal wrangling over severance pay and security clearances is more than just a series of courtroom dramas—it’s a window into the complex world of high-stakes tech leadership, where personal ambition, public interest, and the rule of law collide in unpredictable ways.
As the October 31 deadline for the Twitter executives’ settlement approaches, all eyes will remain on Musk, his companies, and the courts. The outcomes are likely to set important precedents for how powerful tech figures are held accountable, both in the boardroom and in the public sphere.
