Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney reported on Wednesday that The New York Times has won its lawsuit, which requested a list of Elon Musk's security clearances.
Musk's companies have several government contracts, and Musk himself worked for President Donald Trump's administration in the first few months of the administration as a special government employee.
The Times requested "a single, two-page document listing any security clearances granted to Elon Musk." The judge wrote that the U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) had claimed that such a document would "invade Musk's privacy." Ultimately, both sides requested a quick judgment from U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, and it was granted.
"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," said the court in the statement of facts. "The federal government has awarded numerous contracts to SpaceX over the past decade, which make it one of the largest federal contractors. It is not disputed that SpaceX handles sensitive government information. It is also not disputed that Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX, also contracts with the federal government and provides satellite-based internet services relied upon by the military."
The judge also noted that "during his time as a major government contractor and as a special government employee, Musk has publicly discussed his security clearance."
Musk's own posts on X and statements in town hall meetings were part of his undoing, the court's ruling explains.
"DCSA has not met its burden to prove that Musk’s privacy interest outweighs the significant public interests in disclosure," Judge Cote wrote. "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. Moreover, to the extent any detail in the document invades Musk’s personal privacy beyond the issues discussed here, the defendant may propose redactions for the Court’s ex parte, in camera review."