Elon Musk’s baby drama escalates: Ashley St. Clair sells Tesla, claims Musk slashed child support
On Valentine's Day this year, 26-year-old conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair posted on X that she had given birth to Elon Musk’s 13th child five months prior. A whirlwind of drama immediately followed with Elon allegedly ignoring St. Clair and refusing to acknowledge the child. A few days later, St. Clair submitted two petitions to the New York Supreme Court: a paternity petition to legally establish Musk as the father of her son and a custody petition seeking sole legal and physical custody.
Neither petition has been granted.
Fast-forward a couple of months, and now the drama is even messier. Yesterday, St. Clair was spotted outside her Manhattan apartment handing over the keys to her black Tesla Model S to a representative from Carvana, an online auto sales company. She told a Daily Mail reporter that she was selling the $100,000 vehicle because Elon Musk had cut her child support by 60%.
"I need to make up for the 60% cut that Elon made to our son's child support," she said.
Musk, responding to an X post by Laura Loomer, in which she called St. Clair a “gold digger,” said, “I don’t know if the child is mine or not, but am not against finding out. No court order is needed. Despite not knowing for sure, I have given Ashley $2.5M and am sending her $500k/year."
Which narrative is closer to the truth? Is Musk an absent, penny-pinching father? Or is Ashley St. Clair really just a gold digger?
Pat Gray wades into the public scandal.
“He’s given her $2.5 million and $500K a year. I’m sorry, if you can’t get by on that, I can’t help you. I mean, that’s more than enough child support,” he says.
“Unleashed” producer Kris Kruz points out that the Tesla St. Clair sold, as well as the Manhattan apartment she’s living in, were both paid for by Musk.
What Elon needs to do, says Pat, is just take the paternity test to find out if all this headache is even necessary.
To hear more of the panel’s commentary and see some of the back and forth between St. Clair and Musk, watch the clip above.
Want more from Pat Gray?
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Not Even Elon Musk’s Money Can Buy A Kid The Benefits Of Married Parents
[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-01-at-8.47.09 AM-e1743515308701-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-01-at-8.47.09%5Cu202fAM-e1743515308701-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The biggest loser in Elon Musk’s baby mama drama is the kid whose parents think money can buy the benefits of having kids within marriage.
Elon Musk thinks he knows who's REALLY behind the X cyberattack
In the past month, Elon Musk has faced some serious drama.
First, the very public conflict with his reported baby mama Ashley St. Clair, then arsonists and protesters setting their sights on Tesla dealerships, and now the social media platform X is under attack.
“There was (still is) a massive cyberattack against X. We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources. Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved. Tracing …” Musk wrote in a post on X.
“There is a group that’s already taken responsibility for it. Now, whether or not that is the case, it remains to be seen,” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” says, noting that the claim could just be a cheap media stunt.
“Like, ‘Yes, it was us, we did it, we did it,’” Gonzales mocks.
The group is a pro-Palestinian hacker group who call themselves Dark Storm Team. In a public Telegram post, they claimed responsibility for a DDOS attack on the platform. They’re previously known for targeting countries and entities that support Israel's attack on Gaza.
However, Musk isn’t buying it, telling Larry Kudlow in an interview on Fox News that the hackers had “IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area.”
Gonzales doesn’t buy it either.
“If you dig into some of their history and what they’ve been about with their hacking expertise, I guess you would say, which like, guys, get a real job,” she explains, “you find a bunch of political motives and also pro-Hamas history.”
“But then it’s like, would a group that nobody has heard of really be capable without the help of insiders or another country’s government? I personally have a hard time believing that,” she adds.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Elon Musk channels Nick Cannon in baby-mama drama
Conservatives all over have rushed to congratulate Ashley St. Clair for her announcement that she is having Elon Musk’s 13th child and has been keeping it a secret — but they’re now all being called out on their hypocrisy.
“I agree with everyone that are coming down on conservatives, because they did not keep that same energy with, let’s say, Nick Cannon,” Shemeka Michelle tells Jason Whitlock on “Fearless.”
“It’s the same thing. If Elon is not going to be in the home with this child, as he’s not with his other children, it’s the same scenario,” Michelle continues. “If he’s not there to actually be a father, then conservatives have been lying this entire time about their thoughts on the traditional nuclear family.”
-
Whitlock is in agreement, telling Michelle that St. Clair’s announcement “didn’t sit right” with him.
“I read that, and knowing what I know, like, well, hold on, man. This ain’t been no secret; this has been bun in the oven,” Whitlock says. “My suspicion was that the rest of the story would be far more complicated than ‘Oh, I’m just out here trying to protect the privacy of my baby by announcing something about my 5-month-old baby who doesn’t have a Twitter account.’”
“It’s not about what I feel,” he continues. “It’s about what God feels. I think all the same stupid stuff as everybody else, but God has a ruling on premarital sex. God has a ruling on marriage and children, and all that violates all that.”
As for the conservatives who revealed their hypocrisy by congratulating St. Clair on her announcement, Michelle believes they were just “trying to look virtuous.”
“Which is why I’m okay with people ridiculing conservatives, because like you said, they could have remained quiet. Instead, they tossed their values out of the window to try and kiss Elon’s butt. And it’s like, if you call yourself a Christian, God is still watching,” she adds.
Want more from Jason Whitlock?
To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Elon’s baby-mama drama exposes the right’s pro-family hypocrisy
It’s only a matter of time before Elon Musk goes from the face of tech support to the poster boy for child support. The billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter) is currently embroiled in some serious baby-mama drama with Ashley St. Clair, the conservative influencer who claims to be the mother of his 13th child.
St. Clair caused quite a stir late last week when she used the social media platform owned by Musk to announce she had his baby five months ago. She claimed she went public because a reporter was planning to do so — against her wishes — and ended her statement by asking the media to honor her privacy. The New York Post published an exclusive interview the next day about her “whirlwind romance” with the billionaire.
The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.
The relationship between St. Clair and Musk is a private matter, but the response to her announcement from conservatives says a lot about the state of pro-family discourse on the right.
Several congratulated St. Clair, 26, on her new baby. It’s easy to see why pro-life activists and influencers on the right would celebrate the birth of a new baby. Children are a blessing from God, regardless of the circumstances of their conception.
Acknowledging that reality is important in a society that determines the worth of babies by how wanted they are by their mothers. If the mom-to-be is excited to be pregnant, the baby is a “bundle of joy.” But if she doesn’t want the child, then the same life at the same stage of development is called a “clump of cells” that can be destroyed at the nearest abortion clinic.
No one disputes the inherent worth of every child. But when conservatives congratulate adults who intentionally create broken homes, they undermine their pro-family bona fides.
It is difficult for an influential figure to publicly celebrate a child in this circumstance without appearing to endorse the parents’ decisions. Consider this: If a Republican politician known for his strong pro-life stance announced that he was expecting a baby with his mistress and planned to divorce his wife of 25 years, how would his conservative allies react? It’s unlikely they would take to social media to offer their blessings.
The response to St. Clair highlights a stark contrast between what many conservatives claim to support — intact, two-parent families raising children — and the culture they reinforce through their public affirmations.
Musk has had more than a dozen children with four women. He’s previously stated that “a collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.” He is a pro-natalist with the mindset of Malcolm X. He wants more babies to be born — by any means necessary.
His views align closely with pro-life Christians, the most socially conservative faction of the Republican Party. But a pro-baby movement that ignores the benefits of a married mother and father is hardly “conservative.”
Stripping marriage from the family formation equation paves the way for commercial surrogacy, unregulated IVF, and same-sex adoption. This shift has consequences.
Today, 40% of American children are born to unmarried parents, and one in four grows up in a single-mother household. For years, conservatives have lamented the breakdown of the black family, where 70% of children are born out of wedlock. They have correctly linked this crisis to the cycle of multigenerational poverty that plagues many inner cities.
Their analysis has never been limited to economic security. Every time a multimillionaire entertainer like Nick Cannon or an athlete like Cam Newton announces a new baby, social commentators predictably criticize their lack of commitment, the consequences of broken homes, and the argument that children need presence over presents.
Yet, when the father in question is a billionaire with ties to the most beloved Republican president since Ronald Reagan, some right-wing commentators suddenly apply a different set of rules.
One conservative commentator made his standard crystal clear:
Pretending that what happens far too often in the black community — getting knocked up by brokeys and bringing into the world children that have to be raised on the taxpayer dime — is similar to procreating with a billionaire is intellectually dishonest.
I responded online, pointing out that his argument only makes sense if a father’s primary role in the home is financial. This assumption has driven left-wing thinking for decades.
Progressives often respond to discussions about family structure by calling for more social spending. To many liberals, a father in the home is nice to have but not necessary, as long as government programs support low-income single mothers.
Apparently, some on the right share the left’s low view of men. Only partisan tribalism could justify the belief that a child is better off with a wealthy, conservative-friendly father who won’t acknowledge them, sees them sporadically, and refuses to commit to their mother.
Children need more than financial support. They thrive with a father’s affection, protection, direction, and correction — things a man juggling a dozen children across multiple states cannot possibly provide consistently.
The belief that a man’s bank account can replace his presence in the home ignores a fundamental truth: Fatherhood is about more than money.
Marriage establishes the duties and obligations husbands and wives have toward each other — not just their financial responsibilities to a child. Men need women, women need men, and children need both parents. The best way to meet those needs is within a loving, low-conflict household where a married mother and father are committed to each other and their children.
Despite what some conservatives may believe, a child raised in that environment is far more privileged than one with a wealthy but absent dad.
'Purposely created to be fatherless'? Elon Musk and Ashley St. Clair's 'love' child
Conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair dropped a serious bombshell on Valentine's Day, announcing on X that five months ago, she gave birth to Elon Musk’s baby.
In her post, St. Clair wrote, "Five months ago, I welcomed a new baby into the world. Elon Musk is the father. I have not previously disclosed this to protect our child's privacy and security, 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 up in a normal and safe environment. For that reason, I ask the media to honor our child's privacy, and refrain from invasive reporting," she continued.
St. Clair, who already had a child with another man, added the Latin phrase, "Alea iacta est," which means "The die is cast" to the top of the post.
There has been speculation regarding whether or not the child was born via natural childbirth or IVF, though no one — outside of Musk and St. Clair — is quite sure yet.
“Her influence, her following on X, has grown so much over the past few years, and maybe that’s all organic, maybe that has nothing to do with Elon Musk,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” comments.
The situation has become even more interesting as Musk has refused to acknowledge the child publicly or apparently even communicate with St. Clair. Though, that hasn’t stopped conservatives on X from gushing in their congratulations to the new single mother of two.
Stuckey has her own thoughts on the matter.
“The true measure of a man is Christ, and it’s not conquering women. It’s not being a one-man show trying to repopulate the Earth. That’s not it. You are not God,” Stuckey says. “Of course, I really want the protection of this baby, and that’s really where my heart is.”
“I think about this helpless child in the midst of all of this, that I truly believe was purposely created to be fatherless,” Stuckey continues. “Knowing what I know about Elon Musk, what he’s said publicly and what I have heard privately, on really good authority, is that he is out to create as many children as possible.”
“He has offered to give his sperm to quite a few women so that they can use it via IVF to have children, simply because there should be more babies. And so, I don’t believe this was a mistake. I don’t believe that the richest, most powerful man in the world got caught up in the heat of the moment with a conservative commentator and said, ‘Whoops, I forgot a condom,’” she says.
“The intentional creation of a motherless or fatherless child is cruel, it is wrong, the baby is the victim of that,” she adds.
Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Gen Z journalist explains why so many leftist activists are young people
Ever wonder why so many radical leftist activists fall within Gen Z?
According to NY-based journalist Ashley St. Clair, who’s 25 years old and thus a Zoomer herself, it’s because “so much of Gen Z feels out of control” and “like they don't have anything to control.”
“So it seems like they cling to these movements, like Free Palestine and BLM, because they feel like it's something they can control and do because there's so little impact they can have on so many different things,” Ashley tells Dave Rubin.
“They’re not empowered. … They're told the only way they can be useful is through these social justice causes, and so I think that's why they gravitate towards [activism] more.”
This may also explain why so many young people are opting not to have children.
“I did street interviews with EveryLife, the diaper company,” she continues, and “one [girl] outright told me she didn't want to have kids … because of climate change.”
Others told her that they were choosing not to have children “because of economics.”
“They think the worst thing that could happen to a kid is being poor in America,” Ashley says, adding that “it's just such an antinatalist lie that's been sold to them.”
“They are so dreadful about the future” and believe “humanity is so doomed that they don’t think there should be more of it.”
“Do you think it's worse in a way for girls than for guys right now?” asks Dave.
“It depends on what your metric for success is,” says Ashley, “but I think both young men and women are particularly disturbed nowadays,” especially when it comes to “identity.”
“So many people have no sense of identity; they don’t know who they are because [the left] has destroyed that” via gender ideology.
“We're fundamentally destroying what it means to be both a man and a woman.”
On top of that, Gen Z'ers are the most chronically depressed and anxious generation. While there are likely many factors that feed this issue, one reason is because their highly digital world is forcing them to take in “inputs all the time” and “perform all of the time for everybody,” Ashley says.
To hear more, watch the clip below.
Want more from Dave Rubin?
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Journalist explains what actually happens once illegal immigrants make it across the border
NYC-based journalist Ashley St. Clair has been blowing the lid off of not only what goes on at our borders but also the deep-rooted corruption endangering basically all major airports.
She explains how when immigrants arrive at the U.S. border, “border patrol will take [them] to be processed,” usually after they’ve assisted in cutting the barbed wire.
After being processed, immigrants are sent away with “a clear bag that has paperwork, [their] court dates,” and “any identification.”
However, most of the time, all identification, including IDs and passports, are long gone at this point because they’ve been disposed of.
“They will bury and burn their IDs at the border because one: either they've claimed asylum somewhere else and they're not supposed to be claiming it here, or two: they don't want you knowing who they are,” Ashley tells Dave Rubin, adding that she’s personally been down to the border several times and witnessed this.
“So, when you go to the southern border, you will see buried and burned IDs, passports, [and] previous asylum claims,” she explains.
Once these migrants make it to the airport, they’re given special treatment and put on flights free of charge despite having zero identification.
Most of them “don't have to have any ID.” Some even use “arrest warrants” or their “court dates” as identification, Ashley explains, adding that many of their boarding passes say “no name given.”
To make matters worse, Ashley says almost all “major airline carriers are complicit in this.”
“None of these pilots know who's boarding their planes, and they're all receiving vast amounts of money from these NGOs, these charities who are flying these migrants all across the country,” she says.
To learn more, watch the clip below.
Want more from Dave Rubin?
To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Customers want to give Ben & Jerry's the 'Bud Light' treatment for scorning America on Independence Day and telling it to return 'stolen indigenous land'
The woke ice cream company Ben & Jerry's accosted Americans celebrating the nation's 247th birthday online, telling them their country "exists on stolen Indigenous land" and to return it.
Patriots and other critics rejected the Vermont-headquartered company's recommended action plan and came up with a plan of their own: Give the confectioners the "Bud Light" treatment.
More sourness from the sweets company
In a July 4 social media post, Ben & Jerry's wrote, "This 4th of July, it's high time we recognize that the US exists on stolen Indigenous land and commit to returning it."
The corresponding action plan on the company's website claimed that "a good parade, some tasty barbecue, and a stirring fireworks display" in celebration of American independence from Great Britain were altogether problematic.
Instead of lauding the nation that gave so much to co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield and the company's current C-suite, Ben & Jerry's urged that the U.S. surrender Mount Rushmore to the Lakota Sioux.
The company reduced the personages carved into the rock — U.S. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt — to "colonizers, four white men—two of whom enslaved people and all of whom were hostile to Indigenous people and values. ... The faces on Mount Rushmore are the faces of men who actively worked to destroy Indigenous cultures and ways of life, to deny Indigenous people their basic rights."
According to Ben & Jerry's, to surrender vast swaths of American territory now would serve to help dismantle "white supremacy and systems of oppression."
This sour note from the sweets company is hardly the first put out in recent days and years.
The company recently bemoaned the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision — which restored state rights and the power of the people as it pertains to their ability to make regional decisions about whether or not to permit the legal slaughter of the unborn — calling on activists to fight abortion bans, even those imposed at 24 weeks.
The company, which a New York Times exposé revealed used child migrant labor to process milk, often in violation of labor laws, has also taken hard anti-Israel stances, forbidding the sale of its sugary sludge in territories belonging to the Jewish state.
Besides its anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Palestinian activism and resistance to a "post-racial era," Ben & Jerry's has previously been called out for peddling lies, in particular about Kyle Rittenhouse. The ice cream brand suggested online in 2021 that the then-17-year-old who killed a violent pedophile and another radical in self-defense during a riot was a racist, incorrectly intimating his victims were black.
While Ben & Jerry's leftist activism has heretofore served to agitate, its attack on America on its birthday appeared to be the last straw for many.
Time for a 'Bud Light' treatment
Billboard Chris, the gender ideology critic whose real name is Chris Elston, tweeted in response to the company's anti-American post, "The only right thing to do is donate all of your assets and retained earnings. Shareholders will understand."
Musician Brad Skistimas of Five Times August suggested something similar, writing, "Sounds like it’s time for Ben and Jerry to donate 100% of their profits to indigenous people."
Angela McArdle, the current chair of the Libertarian National Committee, wrote, "I thought you sold ice cream. You want to evict all of your customers?"
"U stole the milk from cows to make ur ice cream checkmate," quipped Ashley St. Clair of the Babylon Bee.
Retired infantry colonel and Town Hall columnist Kurt Schlichter wrote, "My land acknowledgment is this: 'We won. Too bad.'"
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah tweeted, "@BenandJerry’s are awfully smug and lippy for a sub-brand of the massive Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever. I’m not sure they fully understand the legacy of the respective Dutch and British colonial powers."
— (@)
Lee went on to say, "Your once-good ice cream now sucks. ... You just guaranteed that I (a once-loyal customer) will never consume a single pint of it. ... When you suggest 'returning' the land on which our country has been built for centuries, what exactly do you imagine? Expungement of property rights? Repatriation of most Americans to Europe?"
After leaving the company with some penetrating questions to mull over, Lee noted, "There is such thing as a real ice cream made by true American patriots. I highly recommend it," linking to Brooker's Founding Flavors Ice Cream.
Some recognized that the company might understand a market correction better than pointed language online and reminders that the Ben & Jerry's factory is located on allegedly "stolen" land.
Country music singer John Rich suggested, "Make @Benndjerrys Bud Light again."
— (@)
Rich was referencing the overwhelming successful boycott of the Anheuser-Busch brand over its partnership with transvestic activist Dylan Mulvaney. Bud Light lost nearly a quarter of its business as a result, and according to former Anheuser-Busch executive Anson Frericks, the relationship with Mulvaney cost the company $20 billion in lost marketing, reported Al.com.
Dr. Jordan Peterson similarly observed, "Looks like someone is looking hard for a @budweiser moment."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Get the Conservative Review delivered right to your inbox.
We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.
Today's top stories