Months after a battle to keep emails between Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s office and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s company private, state officials have released about 1,400 pages to Texas Newsroom.
But the records reveal little about their relationship or Musk’s influence over state government. In fact, all but about 200 pages are completely blacked out.
Of those that were readable, many were already published or provided minimal information. They included old founding records for Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, several agenda items from the governor’s committee on aerospace and aviation, emails about state grants awarded to SpaceX, and applications from Musk’s employees at the time to serve on the state commission.
One is an invitation to happy hour. The other is a reminder of SpaceX’s upcoming launch.
The documents were provided in response to a public records request by Texas Newsroom, which asked Abbott’s office for communications with Musk and the businessman’s employees since last fall. Lawyers for Mr. Abbott and Mr. Musk opposed their release, saying it would expose trade secrets, potentially “intimate and embarrassing” interactions, or confidential discussions about legal and policy decisions.
Andrew Mahalelis, a spokesman for Mr. Abbott, said the governor’s office “strictly complies with the Texas Public Information Act and releases any information that is determined to be unconfidential or excluded from disclosure.”
Open government experts say the limited disclosure is emblematic of Texas’ larger transparency problem. They pointed to a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to object to the release of records because they contained “competitively sensitive” information. Experts say the ruling makes it difficult to obtain records documenting interactions between the government and private companies.
Tom Leatherberry, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law, said companies took advantage of the ruling. One of the most notable examples of the ruling’s impact on transparency was the city of McAllen, where the state of Texas refused to reveal how much money was spent to bring pop star Enrique Iglesias to the city for a concert. The city argued that such disclosure would negatively impact its ability to negotiate with artists for future performances. In the end, it was revealed that Iglesias had been paid nearly $500,000.
Leatherberry added that the problem is made worse because the attorney general’s office, which hears public records disputes, does not have the authority to investigate whether the records companies want to suppress actually contain trade secrets.
“Companies are aggressively claiming that the information is confidential and commercial, and many government agencies are less likely to take their claims at face value,” Leatherberry said. (Mr. Leatherberry provides pro bono legal services for Texas newsrooms.)
Representatives for Mr. Musk and his company did not respond to questions on the record.
Musk, one of the world’s richest men, has significant investments in Texas. He moved much of his company’s headquarters to the state, hired lobbyists, and successfully pushed for several new laws that benefited his company.
As part of an effort to track Mr. Musk’s influence in the state Capitol, Texas Newsroom on April 20 asked Mr. Abbott’s office to contact employees of four companies: SpaceX, automaker Tesla, social media site X, and Neuralink, which specializes in brain nanotechnology.
The governor’s office announced it would cost $244.64 to review the documents, which was paid by Texas Newsrooms. After the checks were cashed, Abbott’s office and an attorney representing SpaceX each requested that the records be kept confidential.
SpaceX lawyers sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on June 26 saying that releasing the emails would harm the company’s competitive advantage.
Abbott’s communications coordinator, Matthew Taylor, also asked Paxton’s office for permission to withhold the documents, arguing they contain private communications with attorneys, details about policy decisions and information revealing how the state solicits companies to invest here. Taylor said some of the records are protected by an exception to public records law known as “common law privacy” because they consist of “information that is intimate, embarrassing, and not of legitimate concern to the public.”
He said releasing Musk’s emails would have a “chilling effect on the frank and open discussion necessary for the decision-making process.”
In the end, Mr. Paxton’s office largely sided with Mr. Abbott and Mr. Musk. Assistant Attorney General Erin Groff wrote in an Aug. 11 opinion that many of the documents could be withheld. But Groff ordered the release of some records that were determined to be “less intimate or embarrassing” or of “legitimate public interest.”
A month later, the governor’s office released 1,374 pages of records, most of which were completely redacted.
Some records contained notes that appeared to explain why. For example, the note on page 401 refers to the redacted 974-page competitive bidding record exemption. The names and email addresses of Musk’s employees were also removed.
“The fact that a government agency can redact over 1,000 pages of documents that directly relate to the activities of major corporations in Texas is certainly problematic,” said Reed Pillifant, an attorney specializing in public records and media law.
He and other experts said such hurdles are becoming more common as laws and court decisions weaken state public records laws.
Four years after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling, lawmakers passed a new law aimed at ensuring the public disclosure of basic information about the government’s dealings with private companies. But open government experts say the law does not go far enough to restore transparency, adding that some local governments still oppose releasing contract information.
Additionally, lawmakers continue to add carve-outs to what is considered public information each session. Just this year, for example, lawmakers added the following exception to public records and meeting disclosure laws: It is information about how government agencies detect and prevent fraud, and about discussions during government councils on specific military and aerospace issues.
Despite the increasingly difficult access to public records, Leatherberry and Pillifant were perplexed by the governor’s decision to release thousands of pages just to black them out. Leatherberry said the governor’s office may have wanted to indicate the amount of records requested.
“They wanted people to see what they could get out of the context of the entire document, even if it didn’t make sense,” he says.
Texas Newsroom asked the Attorney General’s Office to reconsider its decision and order the release of Musk’s emails. There are few other avenues to challenge this result.
If the public believes a government agency is violating the law, they can sue. But experts said a recent Texas Supreme Court decision has made it more difficult to enforce public records laws against the governor and other top officials. Leatherberry said it’s unclear how effective such difficult recording decisions will be.
“All Texas citizens should be cautious about accessing these types of records because they reveal how public officials make important decisions that affect the land people live on and how taxpayer dollars are spent,” Pillifant said.
