Elon Musk accused of reducing child support after Ashley St. Clair filed custody lawsuit over alleged 13th child
Elon Musk is facing explosive accusations from conservative commentator Ashley St. Clair, who claims the billionaire Tesla CEO and X owner has retaliated against her financially and is attempting to silence her after she filed for custody of their newborn son.
St. Clair, 26, filed a custody lawsuit in February 2025, seeking sole custody and requesting Musk, 53, take a paternity test. In a statement to DailyMail.com, her legal team claimed: 'Ashley is vigorously opposing this application in order to preserve her right to speak-out.' They added, 'All while Mr. Musk fashions himself a First Amendment warrior and freely communicates via his owned social media platform.'
The legal team alleges Musk reduced financial support for the child, saying: 'Elon Musk has financially retaliated against his own child and reduced his financial support substantially and unilaterally.' They further claimed this occurred only after private efforts to resolve the matter failed: 'He did this after Ashley was forced to bring this matter to court, when he refused to respond to her many private attempts to resolve this matter without publicity.'
St. Clair made headlines on Valentine's Day when she revealed: 'Five months ago, I welcomed a new baby into the world. Elon Musk is the father.' She added, 'I have not previously disclosed this to protect our child's privacy and safety, but in recent days it has become clear that tabloid media intends to do so, regardless of the harm it will cause.' 'I intend to allow our child to grow in a normal and safe environment. For that reason, I ask that the media honor our child's privacy, and refrain from invasive reporting.'
Court documents reveal the child, referred to as R.S.C., was born in September 2024, and St. Clair asserts she and Musk began their relationship in May 2023. She claims Musk has only met their son three times and has shown little interest in custody, writing in the suit that 'it is in the best interests of the child that she have sole legal and physical custody.'
As part of her petition, St. Clair submitted alleged text messages from Musk. One message, sent after the child's birth, reads: 'I look forward to seeing you and him this weekend.'
In another, Musk reacted to a selfie of St. Clair with a friend with: 'Hi cutie.' St. Clair replied: 'Hi, see u soon.' Musk then followed up with: 'I want to knock you up again.'
Additional messages reveal Musk referencing threats to his safety: 'Wake up. This is not the time for sentiment at the expense of safety. If I make a mistake on security [REDACTED] will never know his father.' St. Clair responded: 'That's why the father spot on his birth certificate is blank right, E. And he has my last name.' To which Musk replied: 'Necessary for now. Only the paranoid survive.'
In yet another exchange, Musk wrote: 'The threat level will reach insane levels until the election is decided. Loose lips sink ships.'
The lawsuit also references St. Clair's belief that the relationship broke down due to interference from Musk's associate, Jared Birchall: 'He said a lot of pretty horrible things to me that he attributed to you… If you are in New York or if you'd like me to come to DC I really would appreciate being able to speak to you in person.'
Musk's response: 'Hmm ok.'
St. Clair responded with a GIF of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura saying: 'Alllrighty then.' Musk replied: 'Well, we do have a legion of kids to make.'
With this child, Musk is believed to now have 13 children. St. Clair claims their relationship began after Musk contacted her in May 2023, and their first meeting took place during an interview in San Francisco. She later received an invitation from Musk to travel to Rhode Island the same day.
Musk's legal team has filed a request to seal court documents, which was denied on an emergency basis but remains pending. A hearing originally scheduled for May is expected to proceed in private. Meanwhile, both sides continue to exchange legal blows in what's quickly becoming one of Musk's most high-profile personal lawsuits to date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Trump-Musk feud exposes new realities of US politics
On the political stage of Donald Trump's ever-expanding theatre, the Elon Musk affair began like a swaggering bromance destined for longevity — two outsider moguls, both mythmakers in their own right, momentarily aligned in ambition and spectacle. But as with so many Trumpian plots, it ended not with grace or even drama, but with the pettiness of a playground spat. What began in mutual admiration curdled into a bitter, adolescent feud — one whose theatrics have told us far more about the state of American power than either man intended. But not too long ago, when Musk stepped into the national limelight alongside Donald Trump — a MAGA cap perched atop his famously unruly hair — it felt like the opening scene of a grand political union. Then Musk's high‑profile appointment as co‑head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) positioned him, at least symbolically, as the next chapter in the disruption of Washington. His presence on the cabinet stage, dressed in casual gear and flanked by pizza‑fuelled staff, sent a clear message — here was the billionaire outsider, ready to 'cut a trillion dollars' from the federal budget. But the very theatricality that made the pairing so arresting proved to be its undoing. At its height, the alliance was a spectacle of spectacle-makers – Trump, the reality-TV president with a flair for soundbites and theatrics, and Musk, the tech-pop star whose every move was pre-scripted for social media audiences. Together, they promised a new era of anti-establishment governance. The combination was irresistible to journalists, political strategists, and television cameras alike — yet it was always designed for the spotlight, not for sober policy implementation. The unravelling began with Trump's signature legislative project — the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Conceived as a sweeping, populist package, it was a Republican policy masterpiece — only it came with a sting in its tail. The bill slashed clean‑energy subsidies and EV incentives, cut taxes, and expanded deficit spending — a move that triggered Musk's ire. Speaking on CBS, he called it 'a disgusting abomination' and a betrayal of the efficiency agenda he had been installed to advance. But his public rebuke was more than a policy critique — it was episode four of the Trump‑Musk reality show. The tension had been building; now it burst into public view. Trump responded in kind. On Truth Social, he accused Musk of 'ingratitude' and threatened to yank federal contracts and subsidies tied to Tesla and SpaceX — threats with real economic force behind them. Suddenly, this was no orchestrated photo op — it was a headline‑grabbing feud deserving of its own prime‑time billing. Overnight, Tesla stock plunged 15 per cent — one of its worst-days ever — and Musk's fortune took a $90 billion hit. SpaceX's vital NASA and Pentagon contracts fell under immediate review — not by sleepy bureaucrats, but by White House fingers ready to pull strings. For anyone paying attention, it was raw theatre, complete with streaming platforms (X vs. Truth Social), soundbites, dramatic reversals, and fiscal consequences. But for all the entertainment, serious governance, if any, was taking a hit. Analysts warned that politically motivated interference in critical space and defence infrastructure carried national-security risks. The spectacle masked its stakes behind the shimmer, but the scoreboard was bloodied. What fuelled this sudden collapse was not just policy difference — it was a power grab between two large egos. Trump, the master negotiator, thrives on loyalty and control. Musk, by contrast, is a self-styled disruptor, menacing timelines and bureaucracies with layoffs and dismissals, as he had done at Twitter. Their clash, experts argue, was not merely about policy, but symbolic – part of a broader trend in the 'mafia‑state' dynamics of loyalty and authoritarian imprinting within Trump's inner circle. As the drama played out, media and public alike were gripped. Cable channels looped clips — pundits called it 'popcorn politics' (MSNBC's Nicole Wallace advised, 'Buckle up and pop some popcorn'). This was not analysis – it was entertainment — by design and by outcome. Washington became Wembley Arena, and global coverage spun imagery faster than facts. Musk, for his part, added to the plotline. After his critique, he reportedly floated a new 'America Party,' polling X followers on whether he should launch one. It was a plot twist worthy of any reality-franchise season — his move away from MAGA signalling yet another potential storyline — billionaire insurgent becomes ideological kingmaker. Trump seized on this. On Truth Social, he explicitly warned Musk: support Democrats, and he'd face 'very serious consequences'. It was a resurfacing of the personal stakes of their public feud. When the dust began to settle, Musk issued a mea culpa — 'I regret some of my posts' — though signs were clear that the bromance had left the building. Sources close to Trump described interactions as 'pure avoidance' and warned 'Trump doesn't forget'. The alliance had evaporated, leaving behind a collapsed set piece, disrupted constituencies, rattled markets — and a cratering of public trust. To frame this as merely a feud is to mischaracterise what took place. This was politics as entertainment, parody as praxis. The ingredients were familiar – billionaire ego meets political celebrity, stitched together by social media platforms that thrive on outrage. But the consequences were real — agencies destroyed overnight, market valuations shifted by billions, and vital contracts placed in jeopardy — all for the sake of headlines and media attention. But this spectacle reflects a decade-long evolution in American political culture. Trump's first term was built on theatre, from flashy announcements that never materialised to summit photo‑ops with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. As analysis from Foreign Affairs noted, his style has been a perpetual cliffhanger — teasers without resolutions. Musk, with his half-truths, meme‑stoned publicity, and controversial layoffs, fit naturally into this mould. They are both public performers on global stages. In this, the Trump‑Musk debacle captures not just a broken friendship but also a political turning point. It lay bare how deeply entertainment-driven impulses have invaded the halls of power. Gone are the days when legislation was debated – now amendments are broadcast as monologues. Governance in America is reduced to co-starring roles. The deeper risk, as one expert cautioned, is not that Trump and Musk lost interest in one another — but that their ideology remains embedded in the system despite the spectacle's end. Under the veneer, despoliation continues — budget cuts, contract swaps, regulatory rollbacks. Watching two titans fight may feel like watching gladiators — but the bloodshed is institutional, not just personal. All that said, we're left asking – what now? Musk, bruised, may retreat or launch his America Party — but he remains too tethered to the infrastructure of American life. He still holds significant sway – Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, X. Government contracts, investor confidence, public goodwill — these are his fragile assets. Trump, meanwhile, proved that loyalty is conditional, and criticism of him invites retaliation. Lots of CEOs got that memo — a chilling one for anyone tempted to cross him. What's at stake is bigger than their feud. It is the normalisation of spectacle in every corner of governance. It is a democracy saturated with drama, where policy outcomes are overshadowed by sound and fury. Real governance demands debate, deliberation, accountability — but this was all bargain-basement theatre designed to go viral, even at the expense of substance. And yet, public appetite remains insatiable. Newsrooms and channels peddle reactions – social feeds fawn over every twist — Republican and Democratic operatives spin furiously. The attention economy thrives on this. But the currency of democracy doesn't – it depends on informed citizenship. In the end, the Trump‑Musk showdown will pass. Contracts will be restored — or not. Tesla may rebound. DOGE may vanish from the collective memory. But the season finale won't stop the next appropriation of spectacle. Someone else will before long step into the lead role — seeking screens, scores, and public influence. A new billionaire, a new platform, a new headline. So what remains? A cautionary tale – when governance is capitalised as content, citizens become the audience. Democracy is not served by ratings. Facts, institutions, ideas — they become afterthoughts to spectacle. For now, the Trump-Musk show is over. Critics will analyse, journalists will fact-check, markets will stabilise. And somewhere behind the lights, the next episode is already in production. The question we face is not how stage-ready leaders can be, but whether we — viewers — can reclaim the authorial seat.
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Tesla upgrades its Model S and X cars in US, raises prices by $5,000
Tesla said on Thursday it upgraded its Model S and Model X cars in the US and raised their prices by $5,000, according to the electric vehicle maker's post on X and its website. Prices were hiked for all configurations of the two models by $5,000, Tesla's website showed. Tesla to build battery plant in Shanghai The all-wheel drive version of Model X costs $89,990, while its plaid variant is priced at $104,990. The model S all-wheel drive now costs $84,990 and its plaid variant is $99,990.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Donald Trump blocked from deploying troops for LA protests: What does the court's ruling mean for President and his relation with Gavin Newsom?
A US federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to manage protests in Los Angeles was unlawful, ordering the return of control over the California National Guard to the state. The ruling, set to take effect on Friday, represents a significant victory for California officials who had challenged the federal intervention. US District Judge Charles Breyer, in his decision, stated that the deployment violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded the statutory authority granted to the president. Newsom vs. Trump: Judge has ordered President Trump to revert control of the National Guard back to Governor Newsom and California. — Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 13, 2025 Breyer highlighted the negative impact the militarisation of Los Angeles was having on local protests, stating it inflamed tensions, threatened public safety, and deprived the state of essential National Guard resources for addressing ongoing emergencies such as fires and the fentanyl crisis. 'Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarisation of their city,' Breyer wrote in his opinion. 'This not only risks escalating hostilities but deprives the state of vital resources for fighting fires, combating the fentanyl trade, and performing other critical functions.' The ruling also noted that the deployment interfered with protesters' First Amendment rights to peaceful assembly and expression, as the presence of armed National Guard troops could potentially intimidate demonstrators. In response, the Trump administration announced it would appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who filed the lawsuit against the federal government, voiced strong opposition to the move, calling the deployment a "serious breach of state sovereignty." On Tuesday, Newsom warned that the federalisation of the National Guard represented a threat to democracy itself, suggesting that other states could face similar interventions. A child's life and home, taken away overnight by Trump's cruel and inhumane mass deportation policy. This is not who we are as a country. — Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 13, 2025 'When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation,' Newsom said in an address. 'This is about all of us. Democracy is under assault before our eyes.' The conflict between the state and the federal government over the use of the National Guard is far from over, as the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court continues to unfold. For now, however, the decision requires the administration to relinquish control over the California National Guard, effective Friday.
