What is it then? And at what point does it justify governmental retaliation in awarding contracts?

Market manipulation? Stupidity? In any case, it doesn't have to be political to want to avoid possible problems from a CEO that keeps running afoul of regulatory requirements, whether accidentally or purposefully.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-219

That Musk tweets stupid things that triggered SEC intervention in his running of Tesla seems irrelevant to whether Starlink is the best fit for rural connectivity.

Am I to take your stance as "whether CEO shows poor decision making with regard to regulatory authorities in his role as CEO is irrelevant to whether his role as a CEO at a company should affect how people assess long-term suitability of products they offer which happen to be highly regulated.", or is it something else?

It's frankly irrelevant to the neutral, technical criteria the government should be using to evaluate rural broadband or other contracts. My bet is that if Musk had not made recent controversial statements, this would not even be a topic of discussion - and it is being discussed due to more recent unpopularity.

Honestly, I was more referring to the general market portion, not the specific governmental decision making, but that does appear to be the context of this thread, even though I missed it originally.

I agree that for governmental decision making his behavior hasn't reached a level I think it can or should affect the process. That said, I'm not sure the process should be completely devoid of past regulatory or legal compliance issues, but I don't know how those could be applied evenly, and in the absence of a good framework for that I agree they shouldn't be considered.

I thought the point where he said his conversations with the Russians informed his decision to not allow the Ukrainians to attack Crimea probably got the Pentagon's attention.

Musk does not have control over “allowing the Ukrainians to attack Crimea” but is also under no obligation to provide services from his civilian company to foreign militaries.

I would be personally pissed as a rural broadband user if machinations about a conflict in Eastern Europe was the reason I was getting subpar telecom service in Tennessee.

No matter your thoughts on the matter Musk is an American citizen and is allowed to be pro-Russia, pro-China or any other opinion he perceives is correct. The government also can’t punish him for having these opinions nor can it force a private company to work with a foreign power.

Here's the definition of treason in the US:

> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...

Blocking or unexpectedly rug-pulling a US-funded military strike against someone that the US is sanctioning certainly counts as "aid" to an "enemy".

So, he should be looking at 5 years + a $10,000 fine or get the death penalty.

Either way, I'm hoping we won't have to deal with a presidential run from him in the future ("... obama, kenya, ... something, something...")

He's not born in America so he certainly cannot run for president.

Your criteria for accusing someone of treason is ridiculous and I am thankful you are not in charge of our government.