President-elect Donald Trump joined dignitaries from around the world in Paris for the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral. It surprised no one that he was accompanied by Tesla billionaire Elon Musk — the two have been inseparable for months. 

To be sure, a wealthy individual orbiting a president is nothing new in American politics. But Musk’s unprecedented wealth — he recently became the first person in history to amass a fortune of more than $400 billion — and his penchant for altering the course of history raises the stakes of the partnership. The enigmatic tech mogul, who possesses his own satellite internet system (Starlink) and spacecraft company (SpaceX), in addition to owning the world’s premier communication platform (X, formerly known as Twitter), operates less as a private citizen than as something approximating an independent nation.  

And according to reports, Musk donated $277 million to Trump’s reelection efforts, raising concerns over the influence he wields over the incoming government. 

For David Barrett, presidential historian and professor of politics at Villanova University, there is no historical precedent for the Musk-Trump partnership. While powerful citizens have helped presidents in the past — banker J.P. Morgan helped Grover Cleveland to stabilize the U.S. money supply, for example — none possessed Musk’s wealth or influence over society.

“No one else comes to mind,” he told the Register. “But who knows how long the relationship will last? Or how influential Musk will be across four years? Many famed members of past administrations got ‘too big for their britches’ and did not survive across a whole presidency.”

What are Catholics to make of the powerful tech mogul and his alliance with Trump? To what extent are his values and priorities aligned with the teachings of the Church? 

For Catholics to understand the implications of his outsized role in American life, it’s necessary to scrutinize his beliefs and character, as well as his commitment to free speech and his involvement in the upcoming administration’s efforts to reduce the size of government.  

Government Efficiency

Trump’s decision to tap Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the newly minted Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will test Musk’s influence in the early stages of the next administration. Despite not being a proper federal department but merely an advisory board — Musk and Ramaswamy have described themselves as “outside volunteers” in the endeavor — it will seek to identify the expenditures, regulations and employees that make government inefficient. 

Musk has said that DOGE will find $2 trillion in government savings, oversee mass layoffs and even shut down entire agencies.

Joseph Kaboski, professor of Catholic teaching and economics at the University of Notre Dame, believes that Catholic social teaching is supportive of these efforts, so long as they are done with preferential treatment for the poor in mind.

“Catholic social teaching would be supportive of these things in principle because they contribute to the common good,” he told the Register. “But the bishops have emphasized that budgets are moral documents, reflecting our priorities. The ethics of things ‘in principle’ versus ‘in practice’ can sometimes differ. With any budget cuts, the U.S. bishops have and will consistently come down on the side of the poor and marginalized, and so they want to make sure that programs for the needy are protected.”

Musk has said he will offer two years severance pay for federal workers cut by the agency.

Another aspect of DOGE’s mission with moral implications is how it corresponds with the principle of subsidiarity, which demands that decisions and responsibilities should be handled at the lowest possible level. Slashing federal workers and agencies that interfere with local authority would align with Catholic social teaching in this regard. 

Should DOGE advise the Trump administration to eliminate the federal Department of Education, for instance, which is an idea to which both Musk and Ramaswamy have signaled openness, it would be seen as a win for the principle of subsidiarity. 

To Trump, the DOGE project is of great consequence.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhattan Project’ of our time,” he wrote of DOGE on X. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

Free Speech

Musk’s commitment to freedom of speech, which he claims propelled his 2022 takeover of Twitter, and later renamed “X,” is another area of consequence to American Catholics. Musk, who frequently describes himself as a “free-speech absolutist,” has implemented policies aimed at reducing content moderation on X and promoting free expression.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Musk posted on the social-media platform following his takeover. 

This is significant for Catholics because under X’s previous ownership, pro-life content was subject to seemingly random censorship and pro-life accounts were frequently banned without reason. 

In January 2021, Twitter removed thousands of followers from pro-life accounts without explanation. The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America account lost 12% of its followers in the purge. Meanwhile, pro-abortion accounts continued to grow by the thousands. 

The previous regime at Twitter also punished Catholics who respectfully articulated biblical views on the nature of sex and gender. Also in early 2021, Twitter suspended the account of Catholic World Report for describing Adm. Rachel Levine, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, as “a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman.”

Following Musk’s takeover, more conservatives believe that the platform is “mostly good” for democracy and the ideological makeup of users has evened out following years of liberal predominance. 

And while a 2023 study by the Media Research Group (MRC) found that censorship remained a problem at X following Musk’s takeover, MRC attributed this to an internal revolt against Musk by progressive employees.  

“Thanks to Elon Musk, Catholics can once again proclaim on social media the basic truth that men are men and women are women,” MRC President Brent Bozell told the Register. “Big Tech companies are as woke as they come, but Elon’s efforts have made X a platform where we can state the facts without being censored.”

Musk has kept in place a policy at X that allows users to post sexually explicit “adult content” if it is “consensually produced” and properly labeled. 

“Sexual expression, whether visual or written, can be a legitimate form of artistic expression,” the company’s website reads. 

Mixed Bag on Social Issues

According to Musk, his political activity has been driven at least in part by his “vow to destroy the woke mind virus,” for which he blames his son’s “gender-reassignment surgery.” Musk is now estranged from his child. Previously known as Xavier Alexander Musk, the 20-year-old now goes under the name Vivian Jenna Wilson and desires to not “be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form.”

“I lost my son, essentially,” Musk told the Daily Wire in June. “They call it ‘deadnaming’ for a reason. The reason they call it ‘deadnaming’ is because your son is dead.”

Musk repeatedly stated in the proceeding months that doctors who perform sex-change operations or sterilization procedures on children should go to prison for life. 

Musk’s position on the abortion issue, however, reveals that he is far less concerned with harming children in the womb. 

This month, it was reported that Musk was the sole funder of the super PAC called RBG PAC, which ran ads in October touting Trump’s support for “reasonable exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother” and his promise to not sign a national abortion ban. The entity, to which Musk donated $20.5 million, was named in homage to the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the purpose of which was to convince voters that Trump’s abortion position was similar to hers.

On the campaign stump this fall, Musk struck the stance that abortion was permissible before the point of “fetal viability.” 

“There is no answer to this question that will not offend some number of people,” he said at one stop. “My opinion is that, if a baby can survive outside the womb, it cannot be aborted. It cannot. If a baby can survive outside the womb, if it is far enough in gestation to survive outside the womb, at that point, it is not abortion, it is murder.”

Musk, who reportedly does not practice any particular religion but has claimed to believe in the teachings of Christ, has 12 children with three different women, and he was married to two of those women. He has frequently joked that he is doing his part to solve the underpopulation crisis.

For Charles Camosy, professor of medical humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine, the situation is an important reminder to pro-life Catholics to stand their ground on life despite agreeing with the incoming administration in other areas. 

“We must be fully on guard to not make achieving our goals through secular politics into a kind of idol which pushes us to capitulate or look the other way on fundamental matters of faith and morals,” he told the Register. “We need to be as firm as we can be in standing for the truth and resisting political idolatry, but we should do this in a way which creates a reasonable chance for dialogue and engagement with those we hope to change their minds and hearts and become a defender of the most vulnerable.”

Another controversial moral issue involving Musk has been his role in ushering in the era of transhumanism, the belief that humans can evolve beyond their current physical and mental state through science and technology, through his company Neuralink. In early 2024, Neuralink became the first company to implant a brain chip in a human patient, enabling him to move a computer cursor using only his thoughts. 

While the development is grounds for excitement in regard to the health benefits of this new technology, there are concerns over its moral implications. This blurring of the natural and the artificial carries numerous unknowns, and it has the potential to exacerbate human inequality by creating new elite “advanced” humans and an “unadvanced” underclass.

Less Than Charitable

While Musk has made several substantial charitable contributions over the years, The New York Times reported on Thursday that his foundation did not give away the minimum amount for the third straight year. 

Tax filings showed that the Musk Foundation, which oversees the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s charitable giving, fell $421 million short of the minimum giving in 2023. Should it fail to give away that amount by year’s end, the foundation will have to pay an IRS penalty. According to law, private foundations must donate 5% of their assets each year. This is done to ensure that charitable foundations help the public and not just receive the tax benefits they are afforded.

The Catholic Church emphasizes the responsibility of the rich to give away their excess to the poor.

“God’s word teaches that our brothers and sisters are the prolongation of the incarnation for each of us,” Pope Francis wrote in his apostolic exhortation The Joy of the Gospel. “‘As you did it to one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it to me’ (Matthew 25:40). The way we treat others has a transcendent dimension: ‘The measure you give will be the measure you get’ (Matthew 7:2).”

While Musk’s commitment to charitable giving is questionable, he has shown no hesitancy in offering his talents for the public good. 

Last week, Musk shared his preferred title in the new government.

“My preferred title in the new administration is Volunteer IT Consultant,” he posted on X. “Need to fix the IT infrastructure in order to make government work. This is a grind & hardly glorious, but we can’t make government efficient & fix the deficit if the computers don’t work.”