On Feb. 3, while Elon Musk was “feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” the names of six of his DOGE helpers were posted on X. Musk, a self-described free speech crusader, asserted on X, “You have committed a crime,” and the user’s account was suspended. 

To be clear, posting the names of public employees on social media is protected by the First Amendment. But the next day, President Trump’s newly appointed federal prosecutor in Washington said in a letter to Musk that his office would investigate anyone who “impedes your work or threatens your people.”

Musk’s efforts to silence those whose speech he dislikes are not limited to posting to his 200 million followers on the social media platform he owns. Increasingly, Musk is using the courts to punish his critics. 

On two recent occasions, X sued journalists and researchers for asserting that extremist content had been appearing on the platform with much greater frequency since Musk bought it. X also sued advertisers for cutting ties with the company because of the proliferation of extremist content.

As Musk’s power and influence grow—he now heads Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, which is feverishly dismantling core federal programs and agencies—there is a risk he will make even greater use of the courts to stifle dissent and undermine democratic discourse. The courts need to ensure that these kinds of cases are tossed out quickly.

Most striking is Musk’s legal war against Media Matters, a progressive watchdog group. In 2023, Media Matters published a report stating that ads on X (formerly known as Twitter) were appearing alongside pro-Nazi content and that Musk had used his X account to endorse an antisemitic conspiracy theory. 

Musk lashed out by calling Media Matters an “evil propaganda machine” that he hopes will “go to hell.” He didn’t stop there—he threatened a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against Media Matters and its donors.

It was not an idle threat. Two days later, X sued Media Matters in federal court in Texas, alleging that its reporting misrepresented the typical experience on X “with the intention of harming X and its business.” 

In a disturbing twist, Musk is using the lawsuit to find out the names and street addresses of the organization’s donors. That data is highly sensitive and has little if any relevance to the lawsuit. It is also particularly ironic, in light of Musk’s threats over the release of the names of his DOGE helpers, who are public employees, not private citizens. 

Even so, the judge overseeing the case ordered Media Matters to turn over the information; Media Matters is appealing the order.

This case goes beyond typical corporate hardball tactics. The stakes are enormous because it is critically important for the public to understand how social media platforms control what users post. Musk’s tactics, particularly if adopted by other tech giants, may effectively silence the watchdog organizations that do this essential work.