Ashley St. Clair says she walked away from the kind of money most people will never see in a lifetime because the price was her silence.

Speaking at the Venice Film Festival ahead of the premiere of Alex Gibney’s nearly four-hour documentary Musk, the former conservative influencer claimed she rejected a financial package worth about $40 million that would have required her to sign a sweeping non-disclosure agreement involving Elon Musk. St. Clair, who shares son Romulus with the billionaire, said the offer forced her to consider what her ability to speak freely was actually worth.  

Musk disputes her account. After her comments spread online, he said St. Clair was “never offered that” and accused her of having a history of making false claims.   But the dispute over the alleged $40 million offer has opened a much bigger conversation about St. Clair herself.

For years, she built a career inside the conservative media ecosystem, promoted MAGA politics and became particularly associated with anti-trans rhetoric. In 2021, she published Elephants Are Not Birds, a children’s book marketed as a rejection of transgender acceptance. More recently, however, St. Clair has publicly expressed regret over some of that rhetoric and has begun describing the right-wing influencer world she once inhabited as performative and financially motivated.  

That leaves audiences with an uncomfortable question. When someone helps build a political machine, benefits from it and only begins speaking against it after experiencing its consequences personally, how much credit should they receive for eventually walking away?

Are People Ready to Forget Ashley St. Clair’s Past?

The reaction to St. Clair’s latest comments has been revealing because people are not simply debating whether she should have taken the alleged money. They are debating whether she deserves to be treated as a credible convert at all.

One of the strongest criticisms is also the simplest: Musk’s behaviour did not suddenly become controversial after St. Clair became personally involved with him. By the time the pair reportedly began communicating in 2023, Musk had already bought Twitter, increasingly embraced right-wing politics and become one of the most polarising figures in public life. St. Clair herself was already deeply embedded in that same political ecosystem.

That makes the argument that she simply discovered a completely different man behind the public persona difficult to accept without qualification.

At the same time, relationships are rarely as rational from the inside as they appear from the outside. People ignore warning signs. They believe partners when they want to believe them. They convince themselves that their experience will be different. St. Clair has reportedly acknowledged some of that herself, rather than pretending she entered the relationship without agency.

The more difficult issue is her political history.

Embed from Getty Images

St. Clair was not simply someone who quietly voted conservative and later changed her mind. She made conservative politics part of her public career. She appeared in right-wing media, worked within the Turning Point USA ecosystem and published a children’s book built around opposition to transgender acceptance. There is a considerable difference between leaving views you inherited and making money and gaining influence by promoting them publicly.  

Her later remorse should not erase that record. But neither does that necessarily mean it should be ignored. St. Clair has publicly acknowledged regret over her anti-trans rhetoric and has specifically discussed the effect that learning more about Musk’s transgender daughter Vivian Wilson had on her thinking. In a later interview, she said she felt “immense guilt” over contributing to rhetoric that could have caused harm.  

That puts her in an uncomfortable middle ground where two things can be true at once: she can genuinely regret what she promoted, and the people affected by that rhetoric can remain deeply sceptical of her.

Trust is not automatically restored because somebody announces that they have changed.

It has to be demonstrated over time.

Rejecting the Money Does Matter

Still, dismissing the alleged NDA decision as meaningless goes too far in the other direction. If St. Clair’s account is accurate, turning down approximately $40 million is consequential. According to her previous description of the proposed arrangement, the package included a large upfront payment followed by monthly payments over many years, while restricting what she could publicly say about Musk and his associates. Musk denies ever making such an offer.  

The fact that St. Clair has a complicated history does not make the public interest in hearing from somebody who had a personal relationship with one of the world’s most powerful businessmen disappear.

That may be the most useful way to approach her. You do not have to trust St. Clair completely to recognise that her testimony may still contain information worth examining.

Those are separate questions. Alex Gibney clearly believed her perspective was worth including alongside interviews with Musk’s first wife Justine Wilson, Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard, journalist Kara Swisher and others. The documentary examines not merely Musk’s relationships but his political influence, control of X and broader concentration of technological power.  

And that is why some of the instinctive reaction to attack St. Clair before examining what she is saying feels misplaced.

Her history deserves scrutiny. So do her claims. But Musk’s conduct and the enormous power imbalance involved deserve at least as much scrutiny.

Discover more from Feminegra

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.