The documents don’t lie. When the Justice Department released what it described as millions of pages from its Jeffrey Epstein investigation on January 30, 2026, Elon Musk was not a peripheral name. He was a frequent correspondent. So was his brother Kimbal Musk, who sits on Tesla’s board. What those emails show directly contradicts the public posture both men have adopted since the files dropped.

The Fact: DOJ files released in January 2026 show Elon Musk exchanged at least 16 emails with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein between 2012 and 2014, including a November 2012 message asking about Epstein’s “wildest party” and a message asking “When should we head to your island on the 2nd,” according to The New York Times.
The Delta: In a 2019 interview with Vanity Fair, Musk said Epstein “tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island” and that he declined. More recently, on X, Musk has drawn a contrast between himself and others who did visit. The emails show Musk actively sought to go.
The Board Impact: Tesla shareholders now have two board members — CEO Elon Musk and director Kimbal Musk — whose names appear extensively in federal Epstein files, adding to an already serious governance problem at the company.
The Source: Reporting by The New York Times details the email correspondence and Musk’s subsequent public messaging on X.

What the Emails Actually Show

Elon Musk’s email record with Epstein spans at least two years and includes at least 16 messages, covering everything from party invitations to a direct request to visit Epstein’s private island — a request that contradicts what Musk has said publicly about the nature of their relationship.

In November 2012, Musk wrote to Epstein asking: “What day/night will be the wildest party on =our [sic] island?” According to The New York Times, a separate Christmas Day 2012 message shows Musk writing that he had been “working to the edge of sanity” and wanted to “let loose.” Later, he asked Epstein: “When should we head to your island on the 2nd.” That is not the language of someone who declined to engage. It is the language of someone who sought access.

The files also show that in 2013, Epstein visited SpaceX. According to the Times, his assistants coordinated with Musk’s team, and three female assistants traveling with Epstein had their passports vetted by SpaceX for security clearance. A lunch between Musk and Epstein was scheduled. The emails confirm the visit took place as planned, though it is not entirely clear from the documents whether the two men sat down for that lunch.

In his 2019 Vanity Fair interview, Musk said Epstein “tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island. I declined.” On X, he has more recently drawn a public contrast between himself and others who did visit. That framing omits several years of documented correspondence — including a direct request to visit — that preceded any claimed break.

Musk’s Post-File Messaging Has Targeted Others

Since the DOJ released the files in January 2026, Musk has used his platform on X to call for arrests and prosecutions of people linked to Epstein, including Reid Hoffman, Stephen Bannon, and Les Wexner, while casting himself publicly as a defender of Epstein’s victims and demanding accountability from others named in the documents.

Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder, acknowledged visiting Epstein’s island in connection with MIT fundraising and said he regretted it. Wexner told Congress he had been duped. Musk’s posts have repeatedly positioned him as standing apart from those figures.

The contrast with his own email record is hard to ignore. According to reporting from multiple outlets, Musk posted in mid-2025 that Donald Trump was in the Epstein files, then deleted those posts and reconciled with Trump. That episode, which we covered at the time as part of the broader Trump-Musk feud that threatened Tesla’s market position, now looks like it was always more about political leverage than genuine accountability. When the nuclear option stopped serving Musk’s interests, he withdrew it. When the files implicated others, it came back.

Scott Berkowitz, president of RAINN, a nonprofit focused on ending sexual violence, offered a specific challenge. “Partner with us to make Grok the model for AI safety and ensure it never creates another nonconsensual image, whether child or adult,” Berkowitz said, referencing Musk’s Grok AI system, which recently came under criticism for generating nonconsensual sexualized images of real people. That is a concrete, measurable test of whether Musk’s stated concern for victims is genuine. His response to it will matter more than any X post.

Kimbal Musk’s Position Remains the Core Tesla Board Problem

Kimbal Musk has served on Tesla’s board since 2004, and his current term runs until 2027. Of the two brothers, his footprint in the Epstein files is more specific, documented through email correspondence that goes beyond casual professional contact and into personal introductions facilitated by Epstein himself.

Boris Nikolic, a biotech venture capitalist, warned Kimbal not to mistreat a woman because “Jeffrey goes crazy when someone mistreats his girls/friends.” Kimbal responded that the message was “received wide and clear.” Years later, Epstein wrote in an email: “I gave another girl to kimball and he is thrilled.”

Kimbal has stated on X that the woman he dated in 2012 was 30 years old, that he met her through a friend rather than through Epstein, and that his only meeting with Epstein was in a New York office during the day. He attributed the volume of his appearances in the files to a newsletter Epstein subscribed to. As we reported in our original coverage of the Kimbal Musk-Epstein DOJ emails, the actual correspondence is more involved than a newsletter subscription explains. Kimbal wrote to Epstein after a meeting saying “many thanks for connecting me with Jennifer.”

He has already resigned from the Burning Man Project’s board. The organization confirmed his departure, attributing it to “other commitments and priorities” decided before the files dropped. That is a familiar framing when someone wants to exit before a story fully develops.

Tesla’s Governance Context Makes This Worse

The Epstein file revelations don’t exist in isolation. Tesla was already managing a serious governance credibility problem before these documents surfaced, one that institutional investors have flagged repeatedly and that the company’s board structure has done little to address despite sustained shareholder pressure.

The company’s reincorporation to Texas set a 3% ownership floor for derivative lawsuits, effectively blocking most shareholders from challenging board decisions. Robyn Denholm, the board chair, sold approximately $180 million in Tesla stock over six months during the company’s worst brand crisis on record. BYD outsold Tesla by 620,000 units in 2025. Tesla lost its biggest market share in California in 2025, its most important domestic market. Shareholders approved a nearly $1 trillion CEO compensation package over the objections of CalPERS, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, and every major proxy advisory firm.

Into that picture, add two board members whose names appear throughout federal sex trafficking investigation files. At most publicly traded companies, independent directors would be calling emergency meetings. At Tesla, the board is the Musk family orbit.

EVXL’s Take

The through-line here is consistency. Musk’s Epstein posts on X follow the same pattern as his Trump feud posts from mid-2025: deploy the accusation when it’s useful, walk it back when it’s not, and hope the timeline gets muddled. When the Trump feud turned costly, Musk deleted the Epstein posts about Trump and made peace. Now that others are in the crosshairs, the accountability campaign is back. That’s not advocacy. That’s positioning.

Fred Lambert, founder and editor of Electrek, put it plainly on X: “Given Elon Musk’s involvement with Epstein and his lies about it, it feels dirty to use this platform.” Lambert went further, describing X as a “propaganda machine.” That’s a pointed observation from someone in the EV media space who isn’t prone to hyperbole. When the founder of one of the most prominent EV publications publicly calls X a propaganda machine, it reflects where sentiment has landed.

The RAINN challenge is worth watching closely. Grok generating nonconsensual images is not a minor PR problem. It’s a direct contradiction of every post Musk has made calling for accountability on sexual exploitation. Fixing it would cost Musk nothing except the decision to do it. If he doesn’t, the stated concern for victims collapses under its own weight.

For Tesla specifically: Kimbal Musk will not be on Tesla’s board by the end of 2026. The Burning Man exit was the dry run. Tesla will be next, framed as a personal decision, probably around Q3. Whether that changes anything at the governance level is a different question. The board has shown, repeatedly, that its function is to protect Musk’s interests, not shareholders’. One fewer Musk on the board doesn’t fix that structure. It just changes which Musk is in the room.

Source: The New York Times

Editorial Note: AI tools were used to assist with research and archive retrieval for this article. All reporting, analysis, and editorial perspectives are by Haye Kesteloo.