Why This News Was Flagged for Fact-Checking
When billionaires make billion-dollar moves within their own companies, questions about transparency and investor impact are inevitable. Elon Musk’s xAI’s acquisition of social media platform X (formerly Twitter) for $33 billion raised some eyebrows—not because of external market dynamics, but due to the internal reshuffling of assets he’s already affiliated with. Users want to know: Was this a legitimate business move, or is it financial sleight of hand benefiting Musk above all?
Understanding the Background: Musk’s Corporate Ecosystem
Musk acquired Twitter in 2022 for $44 billion and rebranded it as X, positioning it as part of his broader vision for a super app that blends social media, payments, and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he launched xAI to develop AI technology, including its chatbot Grok. Over the past two years, Musk has ramped up efforts to integrate AI with the X platform. Merging xAI and X centralizes data, resources, and infrastructure—under his leadership.
Claim #1: Elon Musk’s xAI legitimately acquired X for $33 billion in an all-stock deal
The Guardian article reports that xAI acquired X in an “all-stock deal” valued at $33 billion, following Musk’s previous purchase of Twitter for $44 billion in 2022. The article quotes Musk’s post on X: “…values xAI at $80bn and X at $33bn ($45B less $12B debt).” The $33 billion valuation for X appears to account for $12 billion in outstanding debt.
According to Bloomberg and financial disclosures from 2024, Twitter (now X) had indeed been carrying approximately $13 billion in leveraged debt stemming from Musk’s original acquisition. That debt remained on the books with major banks for two years and was only recently resold off to investors amid rising AI optimism. While the valuation method is somewhat opaque and lacks third-party audit confirmation within the article, outside reports including Reuters (2025) confirm the ballpark figures.
Final verdict: Mostly accurate—though the valuation math is debatable and would benefit from greater transparency.
Claim #2: Investors were not consulted before the deal was finalized
The article reports that “Musk did not ask investors for approval but told them that the two companies had been collaborating closely.” This raises red flags about governance.
According to a March 2025 report by CNBC, xAI raised $10 billion in private capital at a $75 billion valuation just two months prior to the merger. While Musk holds substantial control, technically xAI now has minority shareholders whose interests might be impacted. Experts like Charles Elson, former director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, note that while private firms have flexibility, significant changes—like acquisitions of large, debt-laden entities—often trigger fiduciary compliance standards, particularly if co-investors could be diluted or harmed.
Final verdict: Accurate in its reporting of investor exclusion. Raises valid governance concerns.
Claim #3: Elon Musk’s government position gives him regulatory influence that may benefit his businesses
The article states: “Musk…has consolidated his power in Washington DC by overseeing the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or Doge… potentially influencing agencies that oversee his business dealings.”
This is a significant claim and deserves scrutiny. While Musk has publicly endorsed Donald Trump in previous posts and reportedly met with administration officials, there is no confirmed Department of Government Efficiency formally established by congressional statute as of March 2025. No White House press release or federal register listing documents Musk holding such an official position.
However, according to political watchdog group CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), there have been efforts to create informal advisory panels focused on streamlining agency operations, and Musk’s name has surfaced as an “informal consultant.” The term “overseeing” is misleading without formal authority.
Final verdict: Misleading. Musk may have political influence, but there’s no confirmed leadership of a federal department.
Claim #4: The merger will benefit investors who purchased X’s debt
The article claims: “After the merger, investors who bought the debt from the banks will profit.” Financial expert Espen Robak is quoted as saying the debt “is worth more now, if not fully paid off.”
This claim has merit. According to recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and Morningstar (March 2025), the recent sale of X’s debt—now tied to a high-growth AI company—has attracted strong investor demand. The rise in xAI’s valuation, along with X’s improved performance and surging interest in AI driving up tech multiples, supports the possibility that post-merger debt value has increased, offering investors capital gains.
Final verdict: Accurate and supported by financial market reports.
Final Assessment of the Article
The Guardian’s article mostly reports factual information, but some portions lack clarity or contain misleading framing. It accurately outlines the structure and scale of the xAI-X merger while noting the opacity surrounding investor consultation. However, the claim about Musk holding a government post is misleading and lacks corroborating evidence.
Overall, the article is moderately accurate but would benefit from clearly distinguishing between Musk’s real influence versus assumed or informal roles. Numerous claims, especially those about investor benefit and financial restructuring, are supported by external financial analysis—but regulatory and governance implications remain underexplored in depth.
Help Keep the Public Informed
Found this helpful? Stay one step ahead in the fight against misinformation. Download the DBUNK app today or follow us on social media to submit fact-check requests and access unbiased, verified news.
