Musk Says He Sent $2.5 Million To Influencer Who Claims She Had His 13th Child—Here’s What To Know

Forbes - Apr 1st, 2025

Elon Musk has offered more than $2 million in support to conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair and her child amid claims that he is the father. St. Clair accused Musk of cutting child support by 60%, prompting Musk to express willingness to undergo a paternity test. He stated that he has already provided $2.5 million and is contributing $500,000 annually, despite uncertainty over his paternity. St. Clair, who gained attention after alleging Musk fathered her son, has publicly criticized Musk for allegedly seeking to control the narrative and limiting her ability to speak about the situation.

The situation highlights the ongoing legal and personal complexities surrounding high-profile individuals and their private lives. St. Clair, an influential conservative figure, has faced legal battles over custody and financial support, with claims of retaliation from Musk. The public feud underscores the broader implications of personal disputes becoming public, especially involving prominent figures like Musk. This case also brings attention to Musk's views on family and population, as he has raised concerns about declining birth rates, juxtaposed with his own expanding family.

Elon Musk Legal Battle Ashley St. Clair Paternity Dispute Child Support Conservative Influencer

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a detailed account of the ongoing dispute between Elon Musk and Ashley St. Clair, with a focus on the claims and counterclaims made by both parties. It scores well in clarity and timeliness, as it presents the information in a straightforward manner and addresses a current issue involving a high-profile individual. However, the story could benefit from a more balanced presentation of perspectives and greater source quality, as it relies heavily on statements from the involved parties without sufficient independent verification. The story engages readers with its focus on a public figure and the personal nature of the allegations, though its broader impact is limited. Overall, the article is informative and engaging, but it would be strengthened by more comprehensive sourcing and a wider range of perspectives.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that are largely accurate but require verification. For example, Elon Musk's claim of providing $2.5 million to Ashley St. Clair and sending $500,000 annually is supported by the story but needs independent confirmation. The claim about Musk's openness to a paternity test aligns with his public statements, though St. Clair's counterclaim that he previously refused a test introduces some uncertainty. The story accurately reports St. Clair's claim of a 60% reduction in child support, but verifying financial transactions would bolster this claim's accuracy. The mention of a gag order and the child's name being chosen by Musk are consistent with the narrative but require further evidence from legal documents or statements from involved parties.

Balance

The article attempts to present both sides of the dispute between Musk and St. Clair, including direct quotes from both parties. However, it leans slightly towards St. Clair's perspective by detailing her accusations and responses more extensively. The balance could be improved by providing more context or responses from Musk's representatives, especially regarding the legal and financial claims. The article does not significantly favor one side but could benefit from a more equitable distribution of perspectives to enhance its balance.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. The language is straightforward, and the use of subheadings helps organize the information logically. The tone remains neutral, focusing on presenting the facts without sensationalism. However, the story could benefit from a clearer explanation of the legal and financial aspects, which are somewhat complex and may confuse readers unfamiliar with the context.

Source quality

The story relies on statements from the involved parties, particularly through social media posts and public claims. While these sources are directly related to the events, they may not be entirely reliable due to potential biases and the lack of independent verification. The article references a report by the Daily Mail and mentions People Magazine, but it does not provide in-depth attribution or links to these sources. Including more authoritative or independent sources, such as court documents or financial records, would enhance the credibility of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a reasonable amount of transparency regarding the basis of its claims, primarily through direct quotes and references to public statements. However, it lacks detailed information on the methodology for verifying these claims or any potential conflicts of interest. The story does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the information or the potential biases of the sources, which would be helpful for readers in assessing the impartiality of the reporting.